What are the 'real numbers', really? - <AUTHOR> http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/courses/thereals/ <comment><USER3> I do have an issue with this line "Ultimately, infinitesimals were discredited and discarded by mathematicians (though they continued to be mentioned in some physics books many decades later)"

Infinitesimals have been made rigorous with modern mathematics.

<comment><USER4> I agree. It would be truer to say that infinitesimals are studiously ignored by modern mainstream mathematicians because they feel that Dedekind and co. have put the calculus on a firm footing way back when.

Anybody with a small bit of curiosity or a dashing of non-conformity will be suspicious of this narrative.

If anything, infinitesimals in their various guises carry a certain explanatory heft, and are quite beguiling little creatures if you take the time to get to know them. I'd be happy to elaborate or leave a few links here if anybody is interested.

<comment><USER5> I loathed limit-based calculus in High School and College. Later I read Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach [http://www.math.wisc.edu/~keisler/calc.html](http://www.math.wisc.edu/~keisler/calc.html) and it all came clear in a fraction of the pages. It's infuriating that most math curricula won't drop those old, bloated, overly formal calculus tomes to improve the clarity and effectiveness of the instruction method.

<comment><USER6> _Added in edit to emphasise a point:_

        If all you want to do is differentiate and integrate,
        then non-standard analysis is probably, for most people,
        a faster way to be able to do just that.

_Now read on ..._

Non-standard analysis has been put on a firm, formal footing. Theorems have been proven showing that (largely) it's equivalent to the regular form of analysis. Some things are easier to prove in standard analysis, some things are easier to prove in non-standard analysis, _etc, etc._

However, this is only really of use if all you want to do is calculus. If you want to go beyond calculus, almost everything (in this and related areas) is about sequences, limits, limiting processes, functions, and transformations. There, non-standard analysis tends not to help, and unless you've done calculus the standard way, you have to learn all this stuff in an unfamiliar and difficult-to-visualize, abstract area.

One of the main reasons for continuing to learn calculus in the epsilon-delta limiting process manner is exactly because it's not only formally sound, it's also giving you tools for moving beyond the rather limited world of differential calculus.

Speculating wildly from limited experience, it might also be the case that starting people with the non-standard approach in calculus is actually just as confusing. You may find that you really only got the insights you did because you had already struggled with the standard approach, and then were given something that made it all fall into place. Perhaps some people they _think_ the non-standard approach is easier, but in fact it's only because they've actually got the foundations from the other. Just a thought.

<comment><USER5> I disagree. The vast majority of students take math classes for the practical applications - science and engineering - not to continue theoretical pure math study. Therefore the focus should be on effective teaching of applied math. I am sure that if a student wishes to explore their studies in pure mathematics they will be clever enough to learn whatever they need in specialized classes.

<comment><USER6> Actually, you are agreeing with me. You are saying that doing calculus was, for you, much easier using the infinitesimal approach. I'm not disagreeing with you. In fact, you'll find that advanced mathematicians think in that way, although they can drop back to epsilon-delta work if they need to (which they often do).

So we are in agreement. My point is that if you teach calculus that way you have immediately ham-strung anyone who might go on and do anything other than engineering or physics. In fact, there are deep theoretical arguments in physics where you need to use the standard approach, and the non-standard approaches are much more difficult.

My point is that if all you want is calculus then it's very likely that the non-standard approach is fine. I'm also arguing that this is limited thinking. Clearly you were never going to go further in these sorts of subjects - <USER2> that mean that everyone else should also be taught in a similarly limited way?

I also observe that limiting arguments are essential in anything other than the most direct and practical versions of engineering, so again, the point isn't in the calculus, the point is learning about limits.

Many people don't need any math at all beyond arithmetic, and I know a lot of people who proudly announce that they can't even do that. And to some extent it's true - most people don't need any math at all. Why were you bothering to take calculus? I'm sure you've never needed it.

But let me add that if all you want to do is arithmetic, why bother? Just use a calculator. If all you want to be able to do is differentiate, why bother? Feed it to Wolfram Alpha. If all you want to do is program, why bother? Hire someone to do it.

But yes, if all you want to do is high-school calculus, there are easier ways to learn the processes to jump through the hoops, pass the exam, and get the piece of paper. For most people that's all they care about. We probably agree on that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The problem with "points on a number line" as a definition for real numbers is that it's not clear how you can tell if you have all of them. You can populate a number line as densely as you care to using just rational numbers, but that's not all of them, you're missing out on numbers like the square root of two. You can toss in the non-intergral powers of rational numbers, but you still won't have all of them, you're missing out on col numbers like pi (or tau, if you prefer). Even after you toss in every solution to every differential equation you can name, and every number you can generate using well defined finite or infinite serieses, there's probably some horrible diagonaliztion proof that says you still don't have all of them.

<comment><USER6> If you assume that there is no number bigger than zero but smaller than every positive number (basically the Archimedean property) then you can prove that "you've got them all." You use Dedekind cuts.

Suppose there's a location on the line that's somehow missing - call it x. Let A be all the numbers less than x, let B be all the numbers greater than x, and that gives you your Dedekind cut. That Dedekind cut is, in a very real sense, x, and that means x is a real. QED.

That needs tidying up and formalising, but it does work.

<comment><USER8> If you're using the Dedekind cut definition why use the line at all? Just say a real is any set of rationals bounded above, with arithmetic defined the obvious way; defining equality is slightly fiddly but it's fiddly with a number line too. What does the line visualization gain you?

<comment><USER6> Because it was asked how we knew we "got them all", referring to points on the line. The reals are a way of modelling the line, the line is a way of visualising the reals. Each is complementary to the other.

And besides, the rationals are totally ordered, and their completion is totally ordered, so it makes sense to think of them as arranged in a line. The problem is that the reals are very, very strange in some ways, and people do get seduced into thinking they understand them, whereas usually it's just a case that they've got used to them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have an issue with this (albeit parenthesised) line: "It turns out that, in some sense, the real numbers would still look like a line under infinite magnification, but the rational numbers would be dots separated by spaces."

In-between any two rational numbers there's an infinite number of other rational numbers. So, in any reasonable sense and at any level of "magnification", if you can "see" two dots representing two rational numbers then they are connected by a line of other little dots (just like the reals). Perhaps you could argue though that at "infinite magnification" there are no rational numbers to be seen, it's just empty space, whereas the reals of course still make a nice line.

<comment><USER10> Well, consider the ruler function[1], which is continuous on the irrationals and discontinuous on the rationals. The real numbers really are denser than the rationals; that's why something like the ruler function is possible (notably, a conceptual reverse, continuous on the rationals and discontinuous on the irrationals, cannot exist -- the rationals are too far apart). I'm pretty sure this is precisely the phenomenon the quote you extract is referring to: if you were standing, infinitely magnified, at a point on the ruler function, then the function would be continuous ("look like a line") if your point was irrational, but if your point was rational, there would be a measurable gulf separating you from the rest of the function.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomae%27s_function](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomae%27s_function)

<comment><USER9> Infinity is a pretty strange concept. :) I'm not sure arguing over it in this format is meaningful, but for the fun of it:

Consider that the integral of the ruler function from 0 to 1 is 0 (as is stated in your reference 1). In layman's terms you could express this as "there are infinitely more irrational than rational numbers between 0 and 1". At the same time, "for every two rational numbers there are infinitely many rational numbers in-between them". What sort of "picture" is this compatible with?

I still think that the only picture that really makes any sense is a solid line at any finite magnification, yet empty space at infinite magnification.

<comment><USER10> I don't understand the point you're trying to make?

The Cantor set shares the property that "for every two [points in the set] there are infinitely many [points in the set] in between", but no one would describe it as looking like a line. It's rather sparse.

<comment><USER9> What I take issue with is an "image" of _two_ rational numbers as two separate dots, with empty space in-between. That's a very deceiving image IMHO, since I cannot think of a sane way to produce it.

The Cantor set is very different. It's even easy to give an example of two points in the set that can (sanely) be depicted with empty space in-between: 1/3 and 2/3\. If I'm not mistaken that example also disproves your stated conjecture... ;)

<comment><USER10> First of all, let me point out that 1/3 and 2/3 are both rational numbers, so if you can imagine them with empty space between, you've imagined two rational numbers with empty space between.

> It's even easy to give an example of two points in the [Cantor] set that can > (sanely) be depicted with empty space in-between: 1/3 and 2/3\. If I'm not > mistaken that example also disproves your stated conjecture... [that between > any two points in the set, there is a third one] ;)

Fair enough. Consider, then, the intersection of the Cantor set with the irrational numbers (you can think of this as the "open Cantor set"). It is, obviously, a subset of the Cantor set, and really does have the property described.

Since I'm feeling embarrassed about that last time, a proof follows:

\-----

The Cantor set consists of all real numbers in the interval [0,1] which have a "decimal" expansion in trinary which does not contain the digit 1. That is to say, they can be expressed in terms of powers of (1/3) such that the coefficient of each power of 1/3 is either 0 or 2. (1/3 would usually be represented in trinary as 0.1, but is in the Cantor set because of its representation as 0.02222222...)

Let _a,b_ be two irrational numbers in the Cantor set, _a_ less than _b_. There is some decimal place at which they diverge, and since _a_ is smaller, it has a 0 at that point, while _b_ has a 2. Since _a_ is irrational, it also has a 0 at some _later_ point in its expansion (if every digit after that were 2, then _a_ 's expansion would be repeating and _a_ would be rational). The number constructed by substituting a 2 for a 0 at that index is greater than _a_ , less than _b_ , and in the Cantor set.

Graphical representation of the proof:

        a = 0.......0......
        b = 0.......2......

then

        a = 0.......0....0.....
        c = 0.......0....2.....
        b = 0.......2..........

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Since (a,0)+(c,0)=(a+c,0) and (a,0)×(c,0)=(ac,0), the points along the horizontal axis have an arithmetic just like "ordinary" numbers"

Holy hell that is clear, concise and compelling. If only my professors would have explained it like this more often in my freshman calc class which was so much more abstract and proof based than anything I had encountered before. The only thing I remember form that time is hellishly long study groups late into the night with my classmates.

</comment><comment><USER12> What are "real numbers"? A horribly misnamed fiction. Nearly all of them cannot be represented with a finite amount of information. I strenuously object to naming an uncountable set "real" when only a countable subset (measure 0 of the full set) can be worked with in any way at all.

We need to stop venerating the "real" numbers and start focusing on sets that are actually usable.

<comment><USER13> This is a similar argument to sqrt(2) being "not a number", back in the BC's, because it was not rational. And yet, you can construct it in a straightforward manner by making a right angled triangle with catheti of length 1, giving a hypotenuse of length sqrt(2). I suppose this would have made you equally uncomfortable back then.

One can definitely "work with" numbers that aren't easy to write. a + (-a) = 0, and this is valid for every real number a, not just "the ones which I can describe with a finite amount of information", or the ones I've written down at some point in my life.

<comment><USER14> The 'problem' with the reals is that there are numbers that cannot be constructed.

Every number that we can construct can be constructed in a finite amount of symbols. For example sqrt(2) is an unambiguous description of itself. Without use of the sqrt function, we can also call it the number x such that x*x=2. However, every description is a finite string constructed from a finite alphabet. We can easily show that the set of all such descriptions is countably infinite. However, we can also show that the set of all real numbers is uncountably infinite. Therefore, there is an uncountable infinity of real numbers that cannot be constructed.

<comment><USER6> Indeed, and the constructable numbers are studied as a subset of the reals, as are the algebraics, and the computables. You can make a choice as to the domain of discourse. If you like, feel free to restrict it to the computables (or the constructables).

Then apply the diagonal argument. Take the computable numbers between 0 and 1, including 0, not including 1. These are countable, so we can write them in a list, taking a mapping _k_ from the natural numbers: { 1, 2, 3, 4, ... } to the set of computable numbers in [0,1).

Now let's construct a new number. In the first decimal place we put 1 if the first decimal place of k(1) is 0, and 0 otherwise. In the second place we put 1 if the second decimal place of k(2) is 0, and 0 otherwise. And so on.

This results in a number that's not on the list, and is between 0 and 1. So it must, by our assumption, not be computable.

 _Things become tricky._

So there's a choice to be made, and most mainstream mathematicians have decided to talk about, use, study, and otherwise accept the existence of the real numbers because it's convenient.

Feel free to choose otherwise.

<comment><USER14> I can't find a flaw in your arguement, but it seems like it leads to a contradiction.

Let a constructable number be one which can be unambiguously described in a finite string. Because we are working from a finite alphabet, we can trivially see that their is a bijection between the constructables and the integers (if we have n symbols, then each string can be read as an integer in base n, so the amount of constructables is no larger than the integers. We can also show that all integers are constructable, so the amount of constructables is no smaller than the integers). Now, take the set of all constructables, and use the diagonal arguement to construct a new number. We can see that this number is not constructable, however, it would appear that I have just unambigously described it, meaning that it must be constructable.

The only potential hole I see is that the ordering of the constructables when I apply the diagonal arguement is ambigous, but we can unambiguously order them by the lexical ordering of their 'canocial' description, and we can unambiguous define the canonical description as the smallest one when translated into a base n integer.

I suspect that doing the above will run into problems with computable numbers (as it likely involves the halting problem), however it appears to be an unambiguous description of a real number that is not constructable. Obviously there is some flaw in this reasoning.

<comment><USER15> You're using too many imprecise terms. First, what does it mean for something to be able to be "unambiguously" described? As opposed to ambiguously described? You have to define it.

Second, what does it mean for something to be described (unambiguously or otherwise) with a "finite string?" What is a "string" here?

You're playing too loose with these ideas and it's biting you. You have to start by defining them precisely. For example, I don't see at all how the new number not on your list is "described unambiguously." It's presumably not enough to say "there is some number not on my list, we will call it x" since we know there is more than _just_ one such number. How is that unambiguous?

In any case, that's why you have to define these things precisely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Points on the line" is fine for the first, second, ..., tenth cut at a definition. Sure, _completeness_ is the biggie for the reals compared with the rationals, algebraics, etc.

Still, as in the OP, mentioning Dedekind cuts is okay since it is one way to establish completeness, but there is much more, e.g., as in

John C. Oxtoby, _Measure and Category_.

and even that doesn't fathom all that is special about the reals. E.g., for just a little more, there is the continuum hypothesis, that little thing!

The OP wants to say that by mentioning Dedekind and completeness he is getting at what the reals _really are_ ; no, instead he is just cutting one layer deeper of something that has likely some infinitely many layers available.

Yes, yes, yes, I know; I know; the reals are the only _complete, Archimedean ordered field_ , okay, after we have defined _completeness_ , _Archimedean ordered_ , and _field_ and explained why these are important.

So, back to "points on the line" \-- it's actually pretty good for a first cut.

</comment><comment><USER17> I have a Master's in Applied Math.

The comments about how "few students take [Real Analysis]" doesn't square with my experience and survey of an undergraduate mathematics education. Such a course is often called "Advanced Calculus", and is a required course for a Bachelors-level education in Math. I also understand in the European-style approach to teaching Math, students start off with a foundational approach to Calculus through Real Analysis, and not the hand-wavy & computation-driven Calculus course.

The equivalence class approach attributed to Cantor is more generalizable in discussing sets. The theoretical foundation of Fourier Transforms lies in a similar completion of functions.

<comment><USER18> "I also understand in the European-style approach to teaching Math, students start off with a foundational approach to Calculus through Real Analysis, and not the hand-wavy & computation-driven Calculus course."

Yes. Where I graduated, all engineering majors learn the axiomatic definition of the real numbers including the "supremum (least upper bound) axiom" at the beginning of the first calculus class.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Along a similar vein you may also enjoy [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.6576](http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.6576)

The foundations of analysis by Larry Clifton. I always enjoy checking out the references in his papers as they are often hundreds of years old or more.

<comment><USER20> What other papers did he author?

This is a curious paper. It's a rigorous derivation of (positive) real numbers without the use of 0 or negative numbers anywhere. It isn't very useful, although the fact that this can easily be done is by itself interesting.

I have sometimes thought about the possibility of us encountering an advanced alien civilization and trying to match our math to theirs. Someone told me recently that if aliens were able to get into space, we can take it for granted that they knew negative numbers (in addition to more advanced concepts). I disagreed. Negative numbers are very convenient, but all the math that's needed for modern physics can, I think, be built up without them in a way that's more bulky and awkward, but not an order of magnitude bulky. This paper is weak evidence of my position.

<comment><USER19> The only other ones I know of are on his website [http://cliftonlabs.net/TechnicalArticles.html](http://cliftonlabs.net/TechnicalArticles.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is a great article but unfortunately has one thing horribly wrong: Democracy far preceded the Age of Enlightenment. A form of democracy was already in place in ancient Greece at around 500 BC. Newton and the Age of Enlightenment were much later, at 1600+ AD. See Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#History](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#History), [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_enlightenment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_enlightenment), [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton).

Other than that, a great article!

<comment><USER22> Hehe. I balked at that too...

It also states that you cannot order the field of complex numbers. Whereas I seem to recollect that there are ways to do so. For instance, z1 < z2 if x1 < x2 or x1 = x2 and y1 < y2.

<comment><USER23> By your definition of <, 0 < i and i^2 < 0, however, the OP requires that 0 < p AND 0 < q => 0 < p * q, which is not fulfilled by your < for p = i = q.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Wow, vector multiplication suddenly makes sense. I had never seen it described with polar coordinates.

It's wonderful to have this little insight now. It's unfortunate that my math knowledge is so filled with holes.

</comment><comment><USER25> " It seems that any proper theory of real numbers presupposes some kind of prior theory of algorithms; what they are, how to specify them, how to tell when two of them are the same.

Unfortunately there is no such theory."

[http://njwildberger.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/difficulties- wi...](http://njwildberger.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/difficulties-with-real- numbers/)

<comment><USER26> Guys like that in general have never seemed all that convincing to me.

<comment><USER25> I admit, some of his ideas are a bit.. well, I don't like when people talk about God seriously, and he sometimes mentions it, very rarely. But aside that, everything I can understand from what he says is true. It's a philosophical debate and if you are on the "real numbers" bandwagon (where most people are), you would lose integrity and your reputation might suffer even if you would speak to Wildberger about real numbers. It's a shame really how people don't see why it's bad to use abstractions which are so general that they can be fit for any kind circumstances. Even if you real this article about the real numbers, there is wishful thinking (where he says that the real numbers would look like a line even at infinity but the rationals wouldn't. well, I don't see why the rationals would stop especially given what he says later...), cherry picking / the whole axiom selection stuff for proving it... and yeah, the axiom idea is generally bad anyway. etc.

<comment><USER26> So I have a phd in math and I do tend to think less of other mathematicians who argue against infinite sets or uncountable sets and such, the argument's been over for a hundred years, you lost, deal with it. It's mathematical geocentrism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> a real number is "a point on the number line"

These posts are always stimulating.

My understanding of a line is that it is delimited by two points, but does not contain any points. To elaborate, no point could be "on" a line because a point has no extension, whereas a line does. This is the crux of the matter. Therefore a line is not "made up of" points. (By analogy a plane could not be made up of lines.) This begs the question, what are lines made up of? Are they made up of anything? Is a point really where two (or more) lines would intersect if they could intersect. Is this what is meant by a Dedekind cut?

<comment><USER27> _" My understanding of a line is that it is delimited by two points"_

That is not how Euclid defined it and how it is still seen in geometry today. What you describe is called a (line) segment ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_segment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_segment))

 _" but does not contain any points"_

Lines extend indefinitely in two directions (if you go past Euclidean geometry, that 'indefinitely' changes meaning a bit)

One talks of a point being _on_ a line in geometry. 'contains' is something from set theory: "the set of all points on line l contains point P" is a perfectly valid expression (but "P is on l" is way shorter)

<comment><USER4> Excuse me. Of course. I was using line and line segment interchangeably there. Which I should have not been doing if I am aiming for clarity but I think my point (ahem) applies to line segments and lines that extend indefinitely in one or two directions. Presumably people will contend that even a line segment "contains" an infinite number of points. But if points have zero extension then even an infinity of them cannot sum to anything greater than zero. So I ask you again, does it make sense to think of lines (or line segments) as composed of points, I reckon it does not.

<comment><USER27> _" But if points have zero extension then even an infinity of them cannot sum to anything greater than zero."_

Infinities are weird; anybody who wants to learn math has to accept that. 0.99999… does equal 1, there are as many even numbers as integers, etc. these things are 'true' not because they make sense initially, but because they make the most sense of all the other things we have thought of so far. Similarly, a set of Aleph-0 points can completely cover a line.

<comment><USER28> " _a set of Aleph-0 points can completely cover a line_ "

Aleph_0 is the cardinality of the integers. I don't think that'll cover a line. For that, you need the cardinality of the reals, C, which may or may not be Aleph_1.

<comment><USER27> OOPS. Thanks

<comment><USER28> Infinities are weird.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The contents of the linked page were the first lecture I had in my undergraduate calculus course. At the end of the lecture, we all looked around at each other wondering what we had just signed up for.

</comment><comment><USER30> Can someone explain the setup of the 0=1 exercise? It's poorly worded. Is it saying find: (Y,1,+,1,×) or is it saying find what "1" has to be to make it a valid field?

<comment><USER22> Given the field (Y, 0, +, 1, *), you need to show that either 0 != 1, or 0 = 1 is the only element in the set.

I don't remember the precise proof, but if memory serves it derives from the existance of opposites and inverses, and 0 and 1 being unique in the set, due the commutative properties of abelean groups.</comment></comment>


Soviet-style mathematics - <AUTHOR> http://geomblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/soviet-style-mathematics.html <comment><USER2> Based on my experience, the US mathematical model is based the dynamic of people getting into good cliques that then give you the support you need to establish a publishing record and tenure. This dynamic definitely does not reward mathematicians for going off an spending a lot of energy on a long-term project. Nor does it reward mathematicians who are inclined to generalize.

For a longer description of my experience, see <http://bentilly.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-i-left-math.html>.

<comment><USER3> The US model for _everything_ involves getting into good cliques...

<comment><USER4> The problem is that there isn't a viable alternative vetting system. A college degree no longer vets its holder as competent, so to determine ability, you have to either go to your trusted network or take a risk. Risks are by nature dangerous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The referenced Wall Street Journal article is here: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870374000457451...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703740004574513870490836470.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> I remember buying those excellent Mir of Moscow math books at the USSR exhibit at the CNE in Toronto every year.

I really miss them - anyone know if they still exist?</comment>


The cult of memory: when history does more harm than good - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/mar/02/cult-of-memory-when-history-does-more-harm-than-good <comment><USER2> It is important to remember as much history as possible, since it gives us an understanding of the range of human activity, and the outcomes of pursuing particular policies. The mistake is to take it personally.

<comment><USER3> And to hold grudges for what happened to your supposed ancestors 800 years ago.

<comment><USER4> Easy to say now. If you were a Catholic in Northern Ireland in the recent past, subject to arbitrary harassment and systematic discrimination, you might feel differently.

In a sense, every day you wake up is one more day tacked on the those 800 years -- dozens of generations of abuse.

<comment><USER5> You're describing a situation where it is still personal. Whereas for the people in the RoI, the English menace is no longer in living memory.

<comment><USER4> Absolutely.

My grandparents were born in Ireland and were children during the 1920s. They were more live and let live, but my older uncles who were of military age and more aware of what was going on had a distinct distaste for most things British.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's not the memory that is the problem, but the collectivist mentality. I "remember" a lot of history but I know better than to associate myself with dead people of the past or to hold my contemporaries responsible for anything that happened before they were born. Sounds easy enough, right? Apparently not when you have pack animal genes and a bunch of politicians eager to exploit it to their benefit.

</comment><comment><USER7> It is not enough to remember; you must also understand and learn from history.

The memory of World War Two does not make Germany and Japan my enemies. On the contrary, it shows why we MUST be friends.

<comment><USER8> > On the contrary, it shows why we MUST be friends.

If possible. WWII also showed that trying to be friends at any price can work out quite badly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I take the stance of my Jewish friends, when they say never again. That's what history is suppose to teach us, NEVER AGAIN! Yet we still have not worked out how to make that happen for all these government based power plays. All power needs to be distributed far and wide so that no one has power. That's a very good way to ensure people can't bring harm to others at every level of society/.

</comment><comment><USER10> This topic is the subject of Kazuo Ishiguro's book "The Buried Giant" where a long-married couple explore medieval England to understand why everyone has forgotten their history, and discover that it was probably for the best.

Never thought that would be on-topic at HN.

<comment><USER11> Have you read it? Is it worth reading?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This shameful piece could have only been written by someone who has forsaken their own human condition, reducing their sense of purpose in life to the biological imperative to "survive". In the interest of "surviving", people can do all sorts of dishonorable things, like adopting a servile attitude with those who covet (or, even worse, have already stolen!) what is rightfully yours, while turning a blind eye to the plight of your own kind. Fortunately, throughout history, there have always been people with a sense of duty to the collective to which they belong, and will prioritize that duty over opportunities for self-advancement. So not all hope is lost.

<comment><USER13> _turning a blind eye to the plight of your own kind._

Isn't the whole notion of "your kind" simply another biological imperative rooted in kin altruism?

<comment><USER12> Nope. Identification with those who share your language, culture and history... this is very much acquired during the socialization process, not something imprinted in our genes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _He who controls the past controls the future_

What this guy is getting at, in a necessarily stupefying way to confuse and tire the reader, is that we should remember certain events and not others. No doubt the lists of things to be forgotten and propagated will be determined by people as enlightened as himself. But on that count he's calling for the _status quo_ making the article that much more dull.

</comment><comment><USER15> History would be less fun without interpretations which is confused with remembrance in this article.

</comment><comment><USER16> The gist of this article is misleading. Instead of forgetting, one should be ruthlessly open, but also meta about memory. There is a relatively new historical research area, that shows how important historical events are remembered, not what really happened. It is phenomenological, interested about how people really feel. In modern geography, you have the same strain of imagined spaces. How is Kosovo as a place? The power of that place over the real administrative boundaries. Combined with the other major boundary of reality time, we can be very meta about this and establish a better understanding of our discourse. I think it is better to fight ignorance than openly practice it.

</comment><comment><USER17> It would be very convenient for the British if their historical (and, like in Northern Ireland, contemporary) crimes were forgotten, wouldn't it?

</comment><comment><USER18> The book "Delete - The virtue of forgetting" comes here to my mind. It deals about the inability of content on the internet to "rot"

[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jun/30/remember-d...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jun/30/remember- delete-forget-digital-age)

</comment><comment><USER19> There's a lot of flexibility as to what you can focus on. If some group attacked your ancestors you can build up a grudge against the group and want to fight back or you can resent war and try to stop that in general. Both positions tend to get campaigned for by political groups.

</comment><comment><USER11> The problems in the article are not problems of history, rather they are problems of people who refuse to learn from history. People who refuse to learn are doomed, whether they have history or not.</comment>


The Navy Says It's Not Recruiting on Twitch. This Handbook Shows It Is - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xg847j/the-navy-says-its-not-recruiting-on-twitch-this-handbook-shows-it-is <comment><USER2> As far as I can tell this is a non-story about semantics. The Navy doesn't recruit on Twitch, it advertises on Twitch.

<comment><USER3> That's my take as well. It's just marketing speak. They are raising "awareness" not "recruiting". Similar to a CPG company saying we're raising "awareness" of our product on Twitch, not "selling" our product.

For your average person, that may seem like meaningless splitting of hairs, but that's how it's discussed in the marketing world.

Amazing a whole article was written about this.

<comment><USER4> OK, "raising awareness" of what, and for what reason?

It's clearly for recruiting purposes.

<comment><USER3> When you see an ad for shampoo on Youtube, do would you say the company is "selling" the product on Youtube?

Like I said, it's splitting hairs with words, but it's not some grand conspiracy as per the Vox article.

<comment><USER4> It's not splitting hairs, you are the only one splitting hairs here.

The vox article clearly shows that they were trying to recruit, even though they say they aren't. It's not a grand conspiracy but it's the same as the military using Hollywood for recruiting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I just want to thank Vice for actually bothering to include and embed the full document they've sourced for this story, when so many outlets publish articles about stories adjacent (memos, court opinions, rulings, etc.) and blockquote snippets and excerpts surrounded by the authors own interpretation and speculation, it's easy to suspect contextomy[0] absent the original source.

I wish more outlets would include the originating artifact of what's being reported on, where allowable, as was done here.

[0] [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/016344370505397...](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0163443705053974)

</comment><comment><USER6> Related recent thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23880855](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23880855)

</comment><comment><USER7> Is the issue that the Navy denies using Twitch as a recruitment avenue or using Twitch as a recruitment avenue? They advertise on Twitch esports and they advertised on TV during sports.

<comment><USER8> There is no issue, it's just more "the government is lying to you" outrage bait from Vice. There's a big difference between actively trying to recruit people, and just having a sailor stream on twitch and answer questions about life in the Navy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The day is soon coming when your skill level at videogames will get you fast tracked for command in a real military. If there were a sufficiently open ended and realistic war game simulation (I can't think of one), DoD could give free scholarships for the top 0.1% to Westpoint.

<comment><USER5> Check this out: [https://www.army.mil/standto/archive_2014-05-19/](https://www.army.mil/standto/archive_2014-05-19/)

Allegedly it's made by the same developers as the ARMA series, which if you want to talk about open-ended military simulators... _whistles mightily_

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> How do we allow government entities in a democracy to flat out lie to the citizens like this? Aren't democracies supposed to be " _for_ the people, by the people, of the people"?

<comment><USER11> The real question is how do we stop it?

<comment><USER12> You vote.

<comment><USER13> I've voted in every election I've been eligible for, and that strategy hasn't exactly worked, so far. ("Voting" as a generic answer for "how do we effect change in government" is trite, oversimplistic, and doesn't actually answer the question.)

I don't think I've ever seen a referendum on military spending, much less specific policy, on any ballot.

<comment><USER14> You live in a country of 330 million, you didn't expect that you will be setting policy for all those people with your singular vote...did you?

<comment><USER15> It's pretty clear to me that they don't think that. They are illustrating that "go out and vote if you want to make things better" is useless advice because the majority of voters believe that radical change is unnecessary or impossible.

<comment><USER14> >They are illustrating that "go out and vote if you want to make things better" is useless advice

That strikes me as naive and juvenile. It's not useless advice, it just need to be properly contextualized. You're a sharing a nation with hundreds of millions of people, so you cannot expect that your fellow citizens all want the same thing you want. Yes voting is a method of change, but the effect of a singular vote is very small, especially for influencing federal policies.

At the local community or neighborhood level, a single dedicated person can actually make a big difference, but that also requires work, because changing minds takes time and effort.

This is also why federalism should be embraced by everyone. Limit the federal government as much as you can and leave the consequential decisions to states and communities. But local issues aren't sexy enough for many.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Rep. Mike Rogers' Wife Stands To Benefit From CISPA Passing - <AUTHOR> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130417/16253022748/oh-look-rep-mike-rogers-wife-stands-to-benefit-greatly-cispa-passing.shtml

<comment><USER2> Does this surprise anyone? It seems like regular practice to me.

<comment><USER3> Regardless of whether it is surprising, I think it is unwise to label it "regular practice," because this gives it a sense of being condoned. People in many spheres of public life recuse themselves of dealings in which their actions and decisions have a direct effect on themselves or their associates. Why should it be any different here?</comment></comment>


Elasticsearch: 10,000ft view - <AUTHOR> http://www.autodeist.com/2016/elasticsearch/ <comment><AUTHOR> I've made some changes/clarifications thanks to heads up from two of the Elasticsearch guys.

Thanks guys! :)

</comment><comment><USER2> "Your lucene index must be in memory"… holy crap!

<comment><USER3> This isn't true, just fyi. Lucene actually relies on the OS' filesystem cache heavily. A Lucene index (e.g. an Elasticsearch shard) is composed of many small "segments". Each segment is an immutable file, which allows the OS to aggressively cache them.

But if your index is larger than available memory (very common), the OS will naturally start paging the segments on/off disk as required.

That's the root of the "give no more than 50% of your memory to ES" advice, since the other 50% is needed by the OS FS cache for Lucene segments

Source: I'm an Elasticsearch dev :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the heads up, not sure where I've picked up that idea - will update accordingly :)</comment></comment></comment>


GNU datamash - <AUTHOR> http://www.gnu.org/software/datamash/ <comment><USER2> This is great work, and runs fast. The documentation is well done and has plenty of examples.

Here's an example of datamash and R with timing.

        time datamash sstdev 1 < data.txt
        288891.28552648
        0.76s user 0.01s system 99% cpu 0.775 total

        time R --vanilla --slave -e \
        "x <- read.table('data.txt', header=F); sd(x\$V1);"
        288891.3
        2.68s user 0.06s system 99% cpu 2.761 total

(The data.txt file is 1 million lines, each line a random number 1 to 1 million. The timing is on a MacBook Pro Retina 13" 2014)

<comment><USER3> That is not fair; you count R's start-up time and all the guesswork which read.table does and datamash doesn't have to do.

<comment><USER4> Well, it is fair if all you want to do is mash some data together. Why shouldn't startup times be taken into consideration?

<comment><USER3> Because with R you can and usually do multiple things with multiple data sources within one session, which effectively dissolves the start-up and load time. Even if reading one file and calculating mean or something with a single script is the only thing you do, you can use Rscript which runs R without loading heavy stuff like the methods package.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Welp, I'm outta business... [https://github.com/bagrow/datatools](https://github.com/bagrow/datatools)

<comment><USER6> You provide multivariate statistics, and this doesn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Apologies for the tangential question, but how does one find the public key for (something like) datamash?

Downloaded: datamash-1.0.6.tar.gz and datamash-1.0.6.tar.gz.sig

Then did:

      gpg --verify datamash-1.0.6.tar.gz.sig datamash-1.0.6.tar.gz

Which results:

      gpg: Signature made Tue 29 Jul 2014 03:30:23 PM PDT using   RSA key ID 3657B901
      gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found

Where can one import that public key, and is it the public key for datamash or gnu?

<comment><AUTHOR> -> % gpg --search-keys 3657B901

(1) Assaf Gordon <firstname.lastname@example.com> 4096 bit RSA key 2272BC86, created: 2014-07-09, expires: 2015-07-09

Initial announcement ... [http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info- gnu/2014-07/msg00007....](http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info- gnu/2014-07/msg00007.html)

<comment><USER7> thank you! (moral of story: don't start the search by visiting keyserver sites like [https://pgp.mit.edu/](https://pgp.mit.edu/))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Don't forget the FreeBSD 'ministat' tool, which supports fewer operations but will draw ASCII-art histograms:

[https://github.com/thorduri/ministat](https://github.com/thorduri/ministat)

</comment><comment><USER9> Sweet.

I've had a little awk routine that I wrote some years back that does much of this -- it computes (or tabulates) n, sum, min, max, mean, median, standard deviation, and percentiles of the input data series. For generating quick stats, it's quite useful.

I'm looking forward to datamash turning up in my Debian repos.

</comment><comment><USER10> The page mentions Windows, but there aren't any binaries available for it. Am I missing something?

</comment><comment><USER11> I LOVE the interface and a variety of operations, especially the grouping functionality! Thank you for making my life much easier.. I would love to see more of R operations such as "sample" or "rnorm" added in the later version.

</comment><comment><USER12> I used to choose awk/gawk, python, R for different file, numeric, textual and statistical operations. This is great, I would definitely use it.

</comment><comment><USER13> I love it. No more loading tables into R just for transposing it.. just doing

cat table.txt | datamash transpose

</comment><comment><USER14> [http://www.gnu.org/software/datamash/manual/datamash.html](http://www.gnu.org/software/datamash/manual/datamash.html)

This looks pretty cool. Anyone used it in "real life"?</comment>


I Did What I Loved and Nearly Destroyed Myself - <AUTHOR> http://www.codebelay.com/blog/2011/07/10/i-did-what-i-loved-and-nearly-destroyed-myself/ <comment><USER2> _I would honestly love to spend my days having sex, drinking coffee, reading, writing and more sex – with travel and several residences on the Mediterranean coast of Spain and Costa Rica (Pacific side), thrown in.

I lived in such a way for nearly two years without the residences but with travel to London and Rome. The sad, sad truth of it is that there is no money at the end of it, and I ended up very much in debt and almost bankrupt._

Um, when people say 'do what you love', they typically mean 'do WORK that you love', not _do any old freaking thing you please, without regard for how to pay the bills_.

Maybe I missed something in the article?

<comment><USER3> I used to wonder about this. There are skills that require hard work and brains. Some people seem to find themselves "in their element" when they are mastering or using these skills (Roger Federer, for example). Some of those skills pay, and some don't. It seems to me like what you love in your life is largely driven by chance, and if your passion happens to be something that will not pay your bills, you are just unlucky, and will be left to do stuff you do not love as much.

It sounds like this is obvious, but I've heard "be whatever you want to be but be the best" a lot, and it used to sound like an obviously good idea.

Maybe those who _are_ lucky enough find that doing what they love brings happiness and money, and think they have found the answer to umm.. everything?

<comment><USER4> The way you present it, everyone has one thing they enjoy and it's a crap shoot whether it's marketable.

I do not agree with this viewpoint. I have so many things that I enjoy doing... I find it very difficult to believe people are born with the capacity to enjoy only one thing.

Those who find themselves out of work because they chose to pursue a tenuous line of work are in that position because they chose, for whatever reason, to pursue that particular work- not because it's the only thing in the world they can enjoy.

Lastly, on the subject of luck, I subscribe to an old adage; "Luck favors the prepared".

<comment><USER5> I have incidental stuff I also enjoy now and then, but only one calling, and I consider myself lucky that it's writing code (and that the market value of my work has increased so much in twenty years) rather than something like [http://www.geek.com/articles/geek- cetera/100000-toothpicks-u...](http://www.geek.com/articles/geek- cetera/100000-toothpicks-used-to-depict-san-francisco-20110427/). Some people have a deep-seated need to do things society hardly values at all, and terrible advice like "follow your bliss and money will take care of itself" would only compound their tragedy. I think the key is to find the smallest gap between what you need to do and what our civilization wants from you, because that gap will be the measure of your dissatisfaction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The ability to pursue your dreams is a luxury of the modern age. Generations of people have lived and died working as poor farmers, doing what they needed to to support their families. (Many hundreds of millions of poor people still live their lives doing so.) "Do what you love" is overrated advice: "find a way to love what you do" is better.

<comment><USER7> > The ability to pursue your dreams is a luxury of the modern age.

Yes it is, to a degree, like many things that are important to us today. But I fail to see how that supposedly devalues the concept. How is the agrarian age now considered the blueprint for what a good life supposedly looks like? I for one very much prefer the here and now.

<comment><USER8> And more to the point, "do what you love" can save you from squandering that very luxury.

I think many of us were handed down an old ethic of sacrificing your dreams to pay the bills that may or may not apply to our own lives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There's plenty of people throughout history who can do exactly what they want and make money doing so. They have talent or are extremely lucky. Likely both, though.

Sometimes you are just genetically gifted, like Jon "Bones" Jones who just started fighting in mixed martial arts professionally two years ago and is now the light heavyweight champion at 23. Or, singers like Adele or Amy Winehouse: exceedingly young singers with booming, soulful voices that surpass Gospel soloists who have practiced for their entire lives. Or, writers like Michael Chabon who can win Pulitzer prizes by their third novel and can write decidedly literary works that go on to become worldwide bestsellers.

If you don't have any latent talent, you can't do whatever you want effortlessly.

So, the first thing is, "be talented". Since most of us aren't, we have to dig a little deeper and suffer a little more. So, we can't go and have sex with strangers all day and then boozily toss off a flawless chapter of the Great American Novel or whip up that Instagr.am killer overnight.

Most of us aren't Michael Jordan; we're Horace Grant, or John Paxson. We can't _be_ the team, but we can be part of the greatness. Only you can realize your strengths and limitations. But don't be fooled: If you don't have the talent, it takes alot of hustle to do _exactly_ what you love.

<comment><USER10> The thing is though we don't what many of those people actually wanted, we assume. We assume since they are so good at that, they got to be loving it, but maybe Amy Winehouse would love to be a science fiction author yet she has no talent and picked the easy way out, we just don't know.

I don't want to pick on your particular example but Michael Jordan is known to be insanely practising. He didn't even made to high school ball team the first time around, he practiced that year and got in the next one. Granted he's talented but there's massive amount hard-work behind it. He clearly loved it otherwise presumably he wouldn't spend years on practising.

So following your dreams is not about having talent about something, that talent might not be related with what you love. It's about what your dream is (world domination?) and having background + talent + possibility + luck + determination and so many other stuff like that.

You can't always have what you want but you can get closer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think he's missing the point. "Do what you love" does not mean "do whatever the fuck pleases you, not caring about consequences and reality."

Rather, it means: Find a career and lifestyle that is intellectually and emotionally fulfilling and make the best of it.

<comment><USER12> It is just not the case that there is a sustainable career out there for every kind of passion. Non-academic philosophy doesn't pay, coding pays.

<comment><USER13> Academic philosophy barely pays as well.

<comment><USER14> Being an academic can pay, though not necessarily well. Being a philosopher however, is widely considered an affliction that prevents one from achieving much in the way of success in academia. Questions regarding eternal verities and what you are really saying when you say 'this' are distractions from the true business of the modern academic; ensuring that the most prestigious publishing is yours and that any perishing happening near your department is happening to someone else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have a degree in philosophy. I spent my undergraduate learning complex rules of logic, heuristics, semiotics, and language. It fit directly into being a better programmer and a better entrepreneur.

The ability to read dry treatises on moral or political theory is a good indicator that one is capable of dealing with the more complex aspects of development. (though I tended to ignore iterative structures initially thinking through the code far too much)

In reading the op's account, I think he did not really love philosophy. He is a sophist. He loves exactly the idea of his idea of being a philosopher.

Some great people in business are philosophers (training in philosophy). One example is Soros. So clearly, it is not philosophy that is keeping him down.

But true philosophers have a love of ideas, not particularly a better life. The idea of a screwed up life but a vivid intellectual one is clearly the norm. Though, true philosophers and poets do tend to be rich (showing that once needs are met, one has time to turn to richer thoughts).

<comment><USER16> _Though, true philosophers and poets do tend to be rich (showing that once needs are met, one has time to turn to richer thoughts)._

That sounds a lot like there are no true Scotsman. Or perhaps it is better interpreted to mean only the truly wealthy can be true philosophers and poets. That may be the case...

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> When I was a young kid, I remember that we used to ask each other "what's your favourite color?" a lot. At the time, this question used to panic me. I mean, red's pretty neat, but then so's blue. Yellow's nice, and so on. It's only with the benefit of hindsight that one sees that it's an artificially narrow question. A child would make that mistake, but not an adult, right?

Well, that's how I see the "do what you love," argument manifesting here. The things that define your true passions aren't going to be the dreams that you dreamed as a child, or as a teenager. You are always developing as an individual, and the things that you love are capable of redefining themselves. One thing that I hear time and time again is that "X" is fun until you have to do it for a living; that's not doing what you love, that's clinging to a bad mistake. You can do what you love by finding something you enjoy and by applying love, there's no mystical "true love" of careers that is imposed from on high.

Hmm, what I just wrote was properly glib, wasn't it?

<comment><USER18> I agree with your points, but ironically they're not the case for me.

I do have a favourite colour, bright magenta (I do worry that it's stereotypical of me, being gay, but I certainly never made a concious choice, and I'm not someone who makes my sexuality obvious to people, so... hopeflly a coincidence).

As to the thing you love.. well actually there's quite a few, right now I really love my job. but the thing I always wanted to do was music, from a young age. From 9-13 I actually was a professional singer in a very good choir (professional meaning being paid well, a couple of recordings a year, many international concerts), and despite having been there and done that, it's still what I would really love to do for the rest of my life. Love doesn't always have an expiry date.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> "How many coders do you know _love_ philosophy?"

I'm sure there's _tons_ of us. The author and myself, for two. pg's original degree was in philosophy. I don't know how much coding Neal Stephenson does, but being the author of both _Cryptonomicon_ and _Anathem_ suggests he has at least a deep interest in both. William Gibson seems to have similar interests.

There has to be more. I view philosophy and programming as such closely-linked fields, both resting upon the construction of mental schemas that are logically consistent. Back me up, here.

<comment><USER12> Agreed. I am a coder and philosophy was my first love.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I view "do what you love" / "find your bliss" from the other side. Given programmers A and B, of equal ability, where A _loves_ programming and B is just in it for the paycheck, I expect A to be more successful. Not for magical karmic reasons, but because they'll put more in more study, more effort, and more hours toward the magic 10k.

Love isn't all though; it's possible to really enjoy coding but be a terrible programmer. Love won't fix that.

<comment><USER21> Why would someone enjoy coding if he/she were terrible at it? Do you have a specific example in mind?

<comment><USER20> Yes, I'm thinking of some mad-scientist types I've met who spin out WTF-worthy code on a daily basis. They love computers and programming, and can get workable output eventually, but it's terrible code.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Destroyed yourself? It sounds like you got in debt, that's hardly a life threatening condition.

<comment><USER23> Good point. And my guess is he's a hell of a lot wiser for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Do what you love, but be responsible" might be more reasonable for this guy.

I'm sure that hanging out on the beach and devoting your days to sex, reading and other entertaining things is appealing to many, but unless you're a trust fund baby, it's unlikely to work out. And even then, you'll get sick of it.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is a pretty terrible argument for a guy whose main passion in life is philosophy.

<comment><USER26> Indeed. If you're into philosophy I figure you'd first define better what "do what you love" is supposed to mean before writing anything else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Also, I think that implicit in this kind of reasoning is the sense that "what I love" is a static thing that isn't going to change a lot over time. It may be the case that, like the author, I love philosophy at the moment, but maybe in two or three years, my interests will have moved on to something else. Feelings can be fleeting things. By the time you are in a position to do what you love, you might love something else.

But, at the same time, I tend to think we are in a little bit more in control of what we love than is sometimes supposed. Even if I don't love what I am doing right now, I think it is possible to think about it differently, to recontextualize it, to find ways to convince myself that it is important / significant/ etc. Feeling can be like a game that you play with yourself, but you can influence yourself with thoughts like "I don't have to feel this way about X".

My point is, I think it is better to find a viable work/lifestyle and learn to love it than to let your feelings determine how you live. My opinion, anyway. This probably won't work for everyone.

</comment><comment><USER28> "How many coders do you know _love_ philosophy?"

several... I don't think that's as uncommon as the author thinks

</comment><comment><USER29> IMHO, both sides of the argument are valid. Both Money and Passion are important.

Hugh MacLeod has a great perspective on this:

 _THE SEX & CASH THEORY: "The creative person basically has two kinds of jobs: One is the sexy, creative kind. Second is the kind that pays the bills. Sometimes the task in hand covers both bases, but not often. This tense duality will always play center stage. It will never be transcended."

A good example is Phil, a NY photographer friend of mine. He does really wild stuff for the indie magazines- it pays nothing, but it allows him to build his portfolio. Then he'll go off and shoot some catalogues for a while. Nothing too exciting, but it pays the bills._

Source: <http://gapingvoid.com/ie>

</comment><comment><USER30> I get confused when I come across things like "Do what you love."

I believe that there is always a degree of serependity when it comes to discovering what you love doing. You enjoy doing something, you do it more - eventually you "love" it.

I was not a fan of my job (I am a developer) at first. But it paid the bills and it presented an intellectual challenge. I worked at it, became familiar with tools and patterns of the profession, and now I "love" it.

So did doing something that I did not love destroy me (when I was first staring out). No. Does doing something that I love (my job now) destroy me? No. Clearly if you do something that is not sustainable given your means, you will be in trouble. I do not see how "loving" the thing in question comes into play.

EDIT: spelling

</comment><comment><USER31> _Destroyed_ yourself? Sounds like you recovered. Plus:

"Once you have traveled, the voyage never ends, but is played out over and over again in the quiestest chambers. The mind can never break off from the journey." – Pat Conroy

</comment><comment><USER32> My degree is in Computer Science. I fell in love with philosophy - political, spiritual and economics - when I was in my final year. My grades took a hit because I was convinced that I was in the wrong major. It took the quiet words of my thesis advisor to point out that I loved philosophy because my CS major had trained and opened my mind to become fertile ground.

At the end, he told me to focus on the road, not the destination and focus on taking steps rather than running ahead blindly. It was the best advice I have ever received.

</comment><comment><USER33> Well. I think the author got it wrong. He made me suspicious, so I checked the article he pointed to

 _A mission. I wanted to work on something I loved so much that I would do it even if I wasn't getting paid. I had already spent countless hours in my spare time doing front-end development with Ruby on Rails for free, so opportunities to do that with people I liked and a product I loved would fit this requirement._

What the Author means, is that if you can do X for $200/hour, but you prefer doing Y for $40/hour, then do Y.

<comment><USER34> That is what I took away from the article as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I spent my last few years in Common Lisp, and although I learned a lot, it strayed me a bit from the more boring coding, boring as in real world one. Unfortunately I'm not that smart to apply that learned knowledge with the language anywhere I want (nor do I have the character to persuade people to use it).

I'm trying to become more and more agnostic when comes to languages, platforms, anything - it's probably not healthy either (losing focus), but my daily job keeps my focus (tools game development).

</comment><comment><USER36> I am a pragmatist; people ought to take jobs that pay their bills, take majors that will let them pay their bills.

If what you love doesn't pay the bills: sorry bub, pay yer bills.

</comment><comment><USER37> People misunderstand the whole 'do what you love' philosophy. They think that you just go about doing whatever seems interesting. The truth is that you have to 'do'. If you like philosophy, then write a book, talk about it, give a theory. 'Do something about it'.

</comment><comment><USER38> So from the post "doing what you love" was sex and getting in debt. No wonder you nearly "destroyed" yourself.

Follow your bliss as a human being. If you have a calling in being a great scientist, fine, otherwise you can still follow your bliss in the most boring (apparently) job in the world.

Joseph Campbell kicks ass. You need to center your shit together and mature.

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm a coder, entrepreneur, and huge philosophy fan. I think many people similar to me (IE people here) also love philosophy as well all enjoy thinking, logic, and problem solving, the epitome of philosophy.

<comment><USER40> There're quite a few of us. One of my coworkers was a philosophy major in college, I flirted with doing a philosophy major but couldn't quite make the course schedule work out, and I think PG was a philosophy major.</comment></comment>


In The Era Of The Connected Camera, Point & Shoots Commit Seppuku - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/21/the-connected-camera/ <comment><USER2> I am expecting big things from the Micro Four Thirds cameras. They essentially replace lower end DSLRs with a much smaller form factor, and they have the intelligence and ease of use beginner DSLRs lack (such as detecting faces and focusing on them).

<comment><USER3> Do you own one? I do. The big problem with u4/3 right now, from a user's point of view, is that the glass is about _double_ the price of an equivalent full- size DSLR lens: $400-500 for a fixed-focus pancake, $700-1000 for a telephoto. Sure you can fit an adapter and use regular 4/3 or other mount-type lenses, but then you lose a bunch of the intelligence. (Also, there are issues with autofocus speed on some of the cameras.)

u4/3 is like Z-gauge model railways, compared to OO or HO gauge -- looks cute, but you pay through the nose for the miniaturization, and have less flexibility and a limited range of accessories to boot.

(I'm really hoping that Olympus, Panasonic, et al get their show in order over the next year or so and really begin to push u4/3, because _in principle_ I agree with you -- but right now, it's not looking good.)

What I'd like to see in the meantime would be a decent telephoto-equipped compact camera with an iPhone dock built into its back in place of the display -- in effect a camera that acts as a sleeve for the iPhone, much like battery extenders such as the Mophie Juicepack. Use the iPhone's screen and user interface to control the camera, and the iPhone's storage to store the shots, but use the camera body to provide proper optics, a larger CCD, and the image processor.

Alas, developing such a gadget would not be cheap, and the vendor -- presumably a big camera manufacturer -- would be working to keep up with Apple's changing form factor.

<comment><USER2> I own one as well. Yes, lenses are expensive. But keep in mind this is a super new platform. I expect prices to go down in time, as there are new players in the market.

Ergo, right now it's just promising :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is it just my Motorola Droid that has a camera I'm not satisfied with? The pictures just don't look nearly as good as my (six year old) point and shoot camera, and the LED flash is for shit. Maybe I need a new smart phone.

Or is my problem that everyone else is looking at photos on some site that's showing smaller photos (i.e. lower resolution) which makes camera phone photos passable? I don't use any of the common sites to share photos.

<comment><USER5> Any phone camera would be worse than any decent point and shoot, even an older model. They say the iphone 4 cameras are the best but I doubt even those would be better than a decent point and shoot.

Phones just do not have enough space or money for a good optical system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think putting a cellphone chipset on a camera may be a bit too much, as most people would not want to pay monthly for a data plan for a point and shoot camera. But a cemera could have bluetooth and connect to your phone this way. Thus, after you are done taking pictures you put the camera in your pocket by your phone and the pictures get transferred to the phone and uploaded by the phone to your online photo service while you are doing something else.

</comment><comment><USER6> I find it really interesting to see the steady gradual rise on the second graph (of flikr usage) of the Nikon and the Canon 5D. Honestly, while the graph definitely shows the dominance of the iPhone's camera for the majority of shots, it almost seems like it's simultaneously showing the Rebels being replaced by D90's and 5D's.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think it's wrong to assume flickr represents the camera market. Not everyone care about putting their pictures online, those who care get an iphone/android/whatever. So of course iphone is trending on flickr. But the mass market of consumers still buy un-connected point&shoot cameras and small non-smart phones.

<comment><USER8> I think it will naturally shift soon, given the megapixel race is pretty much over they will soon need more to differentiate their products from competitors.

<comment><USER9> And let us all hope that "connection" will be considered a differentiating feature _after_ more useful stuff such as sensor size, low light performance, cycle speed and electronic viewfinders have been exhausted.

<comment><USER8> When selling to your average person who just wants to take a few pictures from time to time I think connection is a better selling point that improved picture quality.

<comment><USER10> Not if "improved picture quality" means being able to take unblurred pictures in less-than-perfect lighting conditions (i.e. indoors) _at all_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nikon camera sales have gone from 60 million cameras in 2005 to 100 million in 2009, down from peak of 120 million cameras in 2008 due to global recession. <http://s831.us/cIIYSi>

</comment><comment><USER12> It would be nice to see the next generation of cameras with 3G/4G built in, but only if there were data plans that let you share among multiple devices (e.g. $60 for 5GB/mo to split between a camera, MiFi, Kindle, etc).

<comment><USER13> I'd like to see the point & shoot camera companies start integrating complete Android phones into their point & shoot cameras.

<comment><USER14> Why not just a [wireless] link phone <\--> cameras?

It might be better to keep cameras as a separate package.

I'm far from an expert on photography but afaik -- physics imply that there are constraints on getting good images because of sensor size (especially in low light conditions; number of photons per cell/second).

<comment><USER15> The combination of a Eye-Fi wireless memory card and a cell phone that acts as a wireless router might do just that already. Anyone have any experience on this?

<comment><USER12> I have an Eye-Fi Pro (1st Gen) and an HTC Evo with hotspot. The problem with this combo is that the Eye-Fi has to be connected for a while before it starts uploading. By the time it starts, my battery is already dead. It works better with the MiFi for some reason. Note that either of these methods kill the geolocation feature. Since my camera is just a point and shoot (Samsung TL205 with front LCD), the quality isn't much better than just using the 8MP Evo camera.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I so wish my DSLR ran Android. Just imagine being able to install apps or filters on the camera. Maybe even replace things like the autofocus software. Someone should build that camera.

</comment><comment><USER17> WiFi Direct will allow you to connect phones to cameras and other gadgets.</comment>


Working With People Who Make You Uncomfortable (by Mike Speiser) - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2009/07/26/getting-comfortable-with-people-who-make-you-uncomfortable/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is a six-month old article but I still enjoy it. What I have learned in my last two startups is that diversity is really important for success. Ultimately, your co-founders are the ones who would protect your proverbial back and the more that they bring to the table (that are not already on the table), the better. In fact, the less that you have in common initially with each other, the less baggage that you each would bring to the partnership. Over the years, I have learned painfully that in addition to learning to work with people who are different from you and would initially make you uncomfortable, we need to refrain from starting our company with family and friends. Starting a company together is the quickest way to destroy friendship. Starting a company with family (or hiring family into your company) is the surest way to alienate your business partners.

Sex and startups, two things in life that are best to pursue outside your gene pool.</comment>


How Egypt did (and how your government could) shut down the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/01/how-egypt-or-how-your-government-could-shut-down-the-internet.ars <comment><USER2> It's still strange to me that the press and discussion sites all over the web are directing a lot of attention towards the idea that the US (or European democracies) would do this to itself (for reasons continually left unstated) while the evidently[1] more[2] credible[3] threat[4] of a foreign state actor doing this kind of thing _to_ the US is readily dismissed. As if it really makes a difference to the router who turns it off.

[1]:<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_Rain> [2]:<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_cyberattacks_on_Estonia> [3]:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberattacks_during_the_2008_So...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberattacks_during_the_2008_South_Ossetia_war) [4]:<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_cyberattacks_on_Myanmar>

<comment><USER3> It would be difficult enough for the _US government_ to shut off the internet in the US (although I don't doubt they could do it). You can't really take a few simple DDoS attacks as an indicator that such a thing could be possible in the US. Besides that, why would they want to shut off the internet when they could probably do any number of much more violent and heinous acts with much less effort and sophistication?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just switch off electricity for ISP buildings.

<comment><USER5> All of the tier one carrier hotels have battery backups, diesel back ups, and contracts for thousands of gallons of fuel. Some are even looking at more interesting solutions to that.

However if you really wanted to just cause some mayhem. With a good map and a chainsaw lots is possible.

<http://signalfire.org/?p=2039>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> That's a bit of a fallacy. They compare the US to single European countries. I'm guessing it would be as easy to turn off the internet in California as it would be to turn it off in Greece.

<comment><USER7> It would be very easy to turn it off to somewhere like Greece. There are probably only a few companies connecting to the outside world. And these are either government owned, or were until recently but are still so civil service minded and government linked that they will do as they're told. Any commercial outfits want to keep operating in that country, so unless they think they will get a better deal from the next ruler - are also going to obey order.

California is trickier, there will be lots of links to towns in other states just because the cable run was shorter or a telco in Oregon wanted more of the market. There will also be a more complex backbone links so someone in Seattle may connect through california to Texas, so blocking out those individual routes without killing the whole network is a lot more difficult.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Would investing more in satellite-based infrastructure be one possible solution?

<comment><USER9> I doubt it. All it'd take to shut down a satellite is to take over the control room on the ground and transmit a "power down" command or something.

Perhaps a better approach is to work to decentralize as much of our existing infrastructure as possible. Eliminate DNS. Fundamentally change how routing occurs to become more organic. Etc. Non-trivial, to be sure, but possible, IMO, and I think it needs to happen.

The goal should be that any internet-enabled device can mesh with the internet from any other internet-enabled device. Example (contrived) would be my cell phone talking to your cell phone with bluetooth, your phone talking to your laptop with a wifi connection, and your laptop talking to another device via ethernet, etc... and that ultimately, packets flow and end points can find each other all without central routing tables or artificial hierarchies, etc.

<comment><USER10> Maybe we should create a site/wiki/working group/mailing list to discuss these issues. Otherwise it won't get talked about and never done because the corps definitely don't have incentive to do this.

<comment><USER11> You're talking about defending against the hypothetical and implausible situation where for some reason the US Government decides to turn off the internet.

I don't have any good ideas about what could possibly cause that to happen, but I'm pretty sure that if it _does_ happen then things are sufficiently screwed up that a lack of internet access will be the least of your problems.

<comment><USER10> Though many see internet access as a luxury, it's not just a pornography delivery method. In Nazi Germany, I gather the one of the most difficult issues for underground groups was communications.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Does *your* website fit this description? - <AUTHOR> https://xkcd.com/773/ <comment><USER2> I've noticed that the front pages of many web sites are exclusively focused on selling the product, while useful information about the product or institution is much harder to find.

Having a usable search box on the front page can help people find what they're actually looking for.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> To the mods: I've chosen this title because this is why I've submitted this. So often I go to a company website looking for something, and all I can find quickly is what they think people might want to look for.

We know for product design that we need to measure what people actually want, and not develop what we think they want. To that end, how many people have a front page that satisfies the same criterion?

And the XKCD comic here nails it.</comment>


Chrome Data Saver Is Now Lite Mode - <AUTHOR> https://blog.chromium.org/2019/04/data-saver-is-now-lite-mode.html <comment><USER2> What's Chrome's strategy with HTTPS? The text is scarily blurry:

> And of course, Lite mode will continue to respect your privacy. When Chrome > optimizes an HTTPS page, only the URL is shared with Google and other > information such as cookies, login information, and personalized page > content is not shared with Google. We never break secure connections between > Chrome and a website.

In the past, HTTPS was always kept untouched. Since it's nowadays "HTTPS everywhere", I wonder how they decide which information is "sensitive" and which not. Don't even start with arguing that cookies are, but PNGs or JS is never sensitive.</comment>


Why won't Westerners condemn Sharia law? - <AUTHOR> https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/04/09/why-wont-westerners-condemn-sharia-law/#.XK5Nhl_wc-4.hackernews <comment> chupa-chups This is a serious question which i don't understand.

I know muslims, jews, buddhists, orthodox, christian, lutherian and atheist people, some are my friends, some i know from work. All of them (being in a educated sphere of influence) condemn exclusive traits, like sharia.

So why do we (try to) tolerate people trying to adhere to sharia law?

<comment><USER2> Oil maybe? Military ties to one such country?

Maybe we are just getting started asking why as people?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Because the condemnation of Sharia law was co-opted, and subsequently ruined for everybody, by the genocidal maniacs.

<comment> chupa-chups Sadly this appears to be true. But still i don't understand why we accept (in this extreme case) death penalty for homosexuals. Or women not having the right to decide for themselves. The list goes on.

<comment><USER4> >But still i don't understand why we accept (in this extreme case) death penalty for homosexuals. Or women not having the right to decide for themselves. The list goes on.

Many Westerners consider homosexuality to be morally wrong and a sin against God, and aren't going to be _that_ upset about gays being killed anywhere. Many Westerners also consider feminism to be a socially corrupting force, abortion to be murder, and a woman's place to be subservient to their husband, as per the Bible.

The elephant in the room here is that the West opposes Sharia law because it's Islamic, and because its extremism violates the laws of the land, but many tend to agree with it on general principle, and won't put up much protest to defend groups they already vilify.

<comment> chupa-chups Nobody i know agrees on homosexual people being of less value than others.

My wife is a developer from a eastern european country. She is very intelligent and i learn as much from her as she from me.

A colleague of mine is from france. His wife is from russia.

Another friend of mine earns (way!) less than his wife.

I could go on. _Nobody_ thinks females are of less value in my circle of friends and acquaintances. Same for homosexuals.

I don't get this attitude of "you're opposed to sharia -> you're opposed to islams -> you're basically a nazi -> you oppose female rights" etc. This is factually not right and it is hard to defend against.

I _don 't_ support people oppressing other people based on their religion, sexual orientation. Still i hate people being killed based on their sexual orientation. This does not sound as a contradiction to me.

<comment><USER4> I was more talking about conservative Christians, evangelicals and right- wingers. You and your circle of friends are not necessarily representative of the mainstream. I've seen more than enough of both play out in popular culture and the media that I refuse to believe such views are not normalized throughout the Western world.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The world can transition to 100% clean, renewable energy - <AUTHOR> http://thesolutionsproject.org/ <comment><USER2> Wind and solar make warm-and-fuzzy infographics, but the practical answer for alternative energy has been known for decades: nuclear.

Currently, there just isn't an economic need to switch off fossil fuels. The US has an _enormous_ supply of coal. Combine that with fracking oil, and it'll be a long time before we _really_ need other energy sources. (I'm of course sidelining environmental concerns. It's economics that drive energy.)

...But once fossil fuels do finally run out in years and years and we have to finally get serious, we'll choose the obvious solution: one that's compact, location/weather independent, and sufficiently plentiful.

<comment><USER3> > Currently, there just isn't an economic need to switch off fossil fuels

That's if you don't consider externalities - most importantly, CO2 levels and climate change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is the California page: [http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#ca](http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#ca) what is missing, there is _zero_ baseline energy generation. That's right, all wind and solar. The closest that comes to baseband is hydroelectric, which during drought years like now, would mean powering the state at the detriment of all sorts of ecosystems.

I get that we can improve our energy options, but you need that base load covered, and that is either nuclear or fossil fuels at the moment.

<comment><USER5> I don't know if there is enough raw material in the world to produce enough batteries, but that could theoretically be the answer to baseload. I just don't think it's feasible.

I've seen hybrid systems sold to homeowners where solar power is used to charge a battery, and surplus beyond that is used for heating hot water storage. They're more of less completly independent from the grid, both for power and heat.

<comment><USER6> There is another approximate solution to the baseload and storage problem:

A global power network.

Peak loads would balance themselves approximately with the lack of need of energy at the opposite side of the earth.

Also, wind and solar energy generation would vary much less on a global scale.

Of course, there are calculations as to why this currently ineffective (AFAIK mainly loss of energy through transmission) but who knows when the next superconductor appears that could make it feasible.

Economically, it shouldn't cost much more than an internet.

<comment><USER4> As long as we have superconductors, but we don't. It is currently impossible to move a megawatt[1] from Europe to the US over wires. Software has Amdahl's law, and electricity has Ohm's law. Even the smallest resistance adds up over distance and that translates into energy lost as heat. Early electrical engineers will say "But wait, we can raise the voltage, and that will reduce the current for the same amount of power!" which you can, but there is another constant, called the dielectric constant which is the point at which a voltage will "jump the gap" across an insulator to get to the other side. So you can't raise the voltage high enough in this cable to reduce current without it then jumping past any insulator you have into the ground.

There are examples of "fixed loss" systems where your loss is independent of distance, one of those is to use your excess power to make a long chain hydrocarbon and then transport the hydrocarbon by supertanker and then burn it to convert it back into electricity. You could also simply charge giant battery ships which would then head over to the destination and discharge (this is another electricity -> chemical ... chemical -> electricity transaction)

[1] I realize that is imprecise, the definition I'm using is put a megawatt of electrical power "in" (power cables) in Paris and pull a megawatt "out" of the other end in New York.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sooo, the title says that The _world_ can transition and then the web page presents a map of the US to click on. Nice.

This reminds me of being on a tour in an old salt mill in Italy and at one point the guide asking some people where they are from. The answers were: Spain, France and then "Boston". The guide asked again and then he said, because obviously that clarifies it: "Boston, Mass".

<comment><USER8> To be fair, the U.S. is a country on the scale of the E.U., 300 million and 500 million people respectively.

<comment><USER9> Not only population, but also area

US: 300 million people, 3.8 million sq miles

EU: 500 million people, 3.9 million sq miles

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Geez, I thought they'd be offering an engineering solution. Nope, just a "Kony 2012" website. "Give us money and /feel/ proud that you're helping!"

</comment><comment><USER11> Nice graphic, but not very accurate.

1\. Most of the mentioned energy sources are not provide stable baseline (e.g. solar, wind). We will need significant amount of storage which is omitted.

2\. Some sources doesn't exist yet at any significant scale (wave devices, tidal turbine). It may be just more economical to have more solar or wind thanks to scale effect.

<comment><USER12> One of the interesting things about wind and solar is that they can output less than the potential production at will.

So if you have a regular peak demand of 10GW, you provision for 12Gw of predicted continuous production, then simply turn off the portion of production that is not required.

This is not possible with steam or gas turbines because they have a huge lead and lag time to cope with while wind and solar are for all intents and purposes instantly switchable.

No storage required.

One use for storage storage is when 1kWh of storage becomes cheaper than an extra kW of production required to meet that 1hr peak. Since wind power is around 7¢/kWh at the moment, there is not much chance of this happening any time soon.

A more likely use for storage is to remove dependency on fragile interconnects. Remote towns can use batteries today to help insulate the residents from temorary loss of power due to ice, wind, fire, etc damaging transmission lines and equipment.

<comment><USER11> Gas turbines can start quickly and they are frequently used as peaking power plants: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If the US absolutely had to do this, it could. It would mean building a lot of pumped storage plants, wind farms, solar panel installations, and EHV transmission lines. But it could be done.

The biggest pumped storage plant in the world is in the US, and it can generate 3GW at peak. Peak demand for the California ISO is about 40GW. California would need maybe ten plants of that size. A pumped storage plant requires two reservoirs with a big height difference, and California has lots of unused mountains. It doesn't use much water once filled up; the same water is pumped up and down.

</comment><comment><USER14> > The world can transition to 100% clean, renewable energy

Yes, at 5-10% of its present population and with a sudden, overwhelming and universal attack of wisdom about the problems caused by uncontrolled population growth. Otherwise, this is more eco-fantasy that ignores the obstacle produced by ... too many people.

</comment><comment><USER15> How many windmills and solar panels can be built before we run out of their raw materials?</comment>


Keto as a treatment for Type 2 diabetes - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/15/virta-health-aims-to-reverse-type-2-diabetes-without-meds.html <comment><USER2> Yes. My mom uses Keto as a way to manage her Type 2 diabetes and my doctor says that she keeps herself...juuust under the threshold to be diagnosed as diabetic.

<comment><USER3> Same for me. I'm 6' tall and almost at my goal weight (175lbs, currently 180lbs) largely because of keto and its follow-on effects.</comment></comment>


Professor UR Rao, ex-Isro chief and renowned space scientist, passes away - happy-go-lucky http://m.timesofindia.com/india/professor-ur-rao-ex-isro-chief-and-renowned-space-scientist-passes-away/amp_articleshow/59730925.cms <comment> happy-go-lucky Desktop site: [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/professor-ur-rao- ex...](http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/professor-ur-rao-ex-isro- chief-and-renowned-space-scientist-passes-away/articleshow/59730925.cms)</comment>