Pixar offers free online lessons in storytelling via Khan Academy - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/15/pixar-offers-free-online-lessons-in-storytelling-via-khan-academy/?sr_share=facebook&utm_content=buffer4fe1a&utm_medium=buffer_social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=buffer_updates <comment><USER2> A respected book on this subject is McKee : Story: Style, Structure, Substance, and the Principles of Screenwriting.

The principle is simple, each atomic item (a moment / a beat etc.) in the story needs to represent a polar change in human values (e.g. Love->Hate, Hope->Despair etc.) - atomic items are grouped into higher levels (scenes), which again have an overarching change in values, and again these levels are grouped into even higher levels (acts etc.) which repeat the same pattern. Finally, at the top level - the story itself from the beginning to end also has the value change idea.

One of the things McKee taught me - if a scene, beat or moment doesn't have a change in values - then it's probably not interesting (filler) and you should think about cutting it.

Hope this helps anyone interested in story structure... I highly recommend reading McKee.

<comment><USER3> And then there's a movie like Clerks which has a lot of filler, but ends up being endearing. Most of the dialogue is just people saying funny random stuff.

<comment><USER4> Clerks actually has a lot of polar changes in that filler, though. As the topics of conversation change, your mind goes with it and your emotions shift. Similar to other "geek out" movies.

<comment><USER5> if everything is a polar change, nothing is a polar change.

having a boring conversation about nothing doesn't make it a series of polar changes.

<comment><USER6> On the contrary, and just pulling a number out of my butt because I haven't watched in in awhile, I'd say there's like 20 conflicts and resolutions throughout the course of the plot. Maybe this makes the movie more of an epistolary than the three-act structure that movies are normally compared against, so zooming out until some overarching consistency emerges is not always the most faithful mode of analysis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My question is: How do you make boring things interesting on the fly.

For example:

If you are asking me - how was your day ? I will tell you: Well, I switched on the computer, did some x and y, ate lunch, continued and switched it off again.

Some coworkers of mine can go you on and on about their day and it stays entertaining. There are some things that they do differently, eg focus on people and emotions. But still I have such a hard time drawing out the banalities of everyday into an exciting adventure.

This skill is super valuable - anyone having similar problems and ideas on how to improve it?

<comment><USER8> Mundane actions need _interruptions_ to become exciting and there have to be _references_ to stuff you've mentioned earlier have somewhat of a story.

Lame: I was going to school as usual. After I had arrived the bell rang and our biology teacher entered the classroom. He showed us a movie about wolfs.

Better: I was going to school when all of a sudden a wolf started hunting me. It almost got me the second I entered school but fortunately I managed to close the door behind me just in time. When the bell rang our biology teacher entered the classroom and showed us a movie about wolfs! Can you believe it? I grew incredibly nervous when the narrator began talking about wolfs attacking humans. While the movie was still running I turned my head away from the screen for a second and glanced through the door's window. At first I wasn't sure what I was looking at. I only sensed movement. But then it became clear that the wolf which had followed me earlier this morning was strolling down the hall. Somehow he must have managed to sneak in....

Of course, you don't need a wolf chasing you to have material for an exciting story but the general principles still apply I think.

<comment><USER9> Well, so what do you do if there was no wolf chasing you around?

Because the question of your parent is: How do I tell mundane things in an entertaining way _if nothing entertaining or exciting is happening in my life_?

One could argue: Then do something exciting, but I think what your parent poster wanted to say is: Some people still manage to tell stories about everyday things but make them interesting nevertheless. They don't experience something exciting in particular.

Your example is good, but it actually only works because of the wolf chase.

<comment><USER8> > They don't experience something exciting in particular.

yes, but that's (somewhat) besides the point. The trick is to look for value in what you've got.

A more mundane example:

Lame: It was so hot this morning that I didn't want to go to work but I knew that I had to. During lunch I heard from my colleague from the other team that their boss had bought ice cream for them this morning. Too bad I wasn't on their team.

Better: It was so hot this morning that I didn't want to go to work but I knew that I had to. The bus I was sitting on drove past an ice-cream vendor. "Man" I thought to myself, "it is so frustrating that I can't get off the bus right now to buy some ice-cream". During lunch I heard from my colleague from the other team that their boss had bought ice cream for them this morning. Too bad I wasn't on their team! When I then finally got out of office the ice-cream vendors were long gone but I still had an an ice-cream hunger to satisfy. So I went to McDonald's and ordered a McSundae. The guy behind the counter sighed and told me "Sorry, we're out of ice-cream since 10 am" I then gave up on my quest for ice cream and thought to myself: "For tommorrow, I need a plan..."

In the "lame example" you just complain about two things (the heat and you being in the "wrong" them). In the "better example" you turn your appetite for ice-cream into a story instead.

<comment><USER9> So like: _Getting the ice cream_ is the goal, _work_ is the conflict, _other team has ice cream_ makes the craving more intensive and hopefully, there's some resolution to this journey.

<comment><USER10> The other thing that makes the anecdotes better is avoiding thinking/emotional statements. Also using smiles and metaphors to give the listener something some color. Try to tie it back to an experience they've probably had.

\----

How can it be so hot in the morning that you sweat right after the shower? My first shirt? I immediately sweated through it. On the bus I sweated through the second one too. The only open seats were the ones in the sun. That plastic was on fire! I had to shift around in my seat until it cooled enough for me to sit still. At one of the stops I spotted an ice cream cart. The smoke from the freezer floated out as the dude was reaching in to grab one of those drumstick cone. I would have bailed on work, bought the cart, and took a nap inside if we didn't have that meeting scheduled.

A couple hours ago I saw John walking with an ice cream cone. I was like "Where'd you get that?". Turns out his manager has an ice cream social every week. I tried to crash it, but the break room had nothing but empty cartons in the trash. At this point, it's like God himself is telling me "Go forth my son, find some ice cream."

So I went to Dairy Queen to get some Blizzard action. You know what? They were out of ice cream! I'm like "How can you be out of Ice Cream? Dairy is in your name!", He's smirks and said, "We still have cheese.". CHEESE?!?!. So I ordered cheeseburger. It's was good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Direct link to _Pixar In A Box : The Art of Storytelling_

[https://www.khanacademy.org/partner- content/pixar/storytelli...](https://www.khanacademy.org/partner- content/pixar/storytelling)

</comment><comment><USER12> This is a departure from the usual blackboard videos of KhanAcademy right? I haven't watched enough of them to be sure.

I've also noticed that Coursera has a load of courses that are not free anymore. So it might explain why Pixar chose KhanAcademy. Is it the last resort for free education?

I'm really sad about Coursera as it was the platform that made me discover cryptography with Dan Boneh. And now I'm wondering if the platform's new spin on monetization is the reason Dan Boneh is not releasing Crypto II.

<comment><USER13> I've found that a lot of the time Coursera is just making it difficult to register for free for courses, but if you find the right page it's still an option. Go to the specific page for the course, not any collection that it may be in, and when you click 'enroll' look for the tiny 'audit' link.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Hey folks we'll be putting out new story lessons every ~6 weeks - there will be 6 in total

<comment><USER15> Awesome. I'll keep it bookmarked.

Is there a special reason as to why you're putting these out there? Trying to attract talent, or making the world a better place?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Its interesting how storytelling has really been important for people in all time periods. I imagine this being one of the most important skills for early cavemen wanting to gain respect among their peers.

<comment><USER17> Dan Harmon, the co-creator of community and Rick & Morty, and also something of a guru on storytelling uses the analogy of the stone-age hunter to illustrate the most basic structure that underlies pretty much every story can be mapped to a story about going out, finding food, killing it and bringing it back home.

[http://channel101.wikia.com/wiki/Story_Structure_101:_Super_...](http://channel101.wikia.com/wiki/Story_Structure_101:_Super_Basic_Shit)

<comment><USER18> Immediately Ctrl+F'd to see if anyone mentioned Dan Harmon.

[https://youtu.be/KkUz8KgKHhA?t=6m24s](https://youtu.be/KkUz8KgKHhA?t=6m24s)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Pixar stories always descend into violent and frightening scenes.

It's probably a Hollywood expectation - "it's not a movie without a flat out terrifying villain"!

Kids that I take to see Pixar movies quake in fear - that's not good kids entertainment.

I stopped worshiping Pixar storytelling when I realized this.

So don't go learn from khan academy how to emulate Pixar, learn to tell kids stories without fear and violence.

<comment><USER20> > _So don 't go learn from khan academy how to emulate Pixar, learn to tell > kids stories without fear and violence._

To prepare them for life in the magical unicorn fairy-land?

Besides, have you read the original Brothers Grimm stories and such?

<comment><USER19> I don't take my kids to movies to prepare them for life, I take them for fun, to be entertained.

Yes, in a magical unicorn fairyland.

Sounds like you either don't have kids or you're prepping them for doomsday.

<comment><USER20> > _I don 't take my kids to movies to prepare them for life, I take them for > fun, to be entertained._

Yeah, let's produce more fragile snowflake adults that can't handle life, and can't understand movies and art either, unless it is merely "entertainment". Because that has worked so well in this past few generations.

> _Sounds like you either don 't have kids or you're prepping them for > doomsday._

Or you know, am using millennia old best practices of preparing them for life, for which art, storytelling and (this last century) movies has been one of the best ways.

Instead of feeding them the art-equivalent of McDonalds, which is bad for their soul and for their upbringing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I hate to be negative (well, not really, but maybe a little, since this is free), but I've always found Pixar storytelling to be contrived, cliched and the worst kind of sappy with lame attempts at humor.

So this is more like "Max Martin offers lessons in songwriting" than e.g. John Lennon(or Tom Waits or Jack White or Chuck D. or James Murphy, or whatever unique voice you fancy).

<comment><USER21> _> , but I've always found Pixar storytelling to be contrived, cliched and the worst kind of sappy with lame attempts at humor._

Instead of an abstract complaint, it would be more instructive if you could provide concrete examples of children's films that are: not contrived, not cliched, not sappy with no lame humor.

<comment><USER20> > _Instead of an abstract complaint, it would be more instructive if you could > provide concrete examples of children 's films that are: not contrived, not > cliched, not sappy with no lame humor._

Where to start? The works of Miyazaki, as somebody already mentioned. Anything by Tex Avery. The Nightmare Before Christmas. The Triplets of Belleville. James and the Giant Peach. The Illusionist. And tons of others (haven't even delved into anime). And if we get to overall children's films, e.g. not just animation, there's a whole range too. Heck, old (2D) Disney films were much less contrived as well.

<comment><USER21> To me, all those well-regarded films feel like they are full of cliches. Tvtropes lists dozens and dozens of examples.[1][2]

But I'm not arguing with you. I had a different standard of "cliche" in my head so I misunderstood how you categorized originality before you listed your examples. That's fine. I tend to think that _everything_ is cliche and derivative[3][4] and therefore, those attributes don't bother as much. However, I realize that others weigh it differently.

[1] Miyazaki: [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Anime/SpiritedAway](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Anime/SpiritedAway)

[2] Tim Burton: [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/WesternAnimation/TheNi...](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/WesternAnimation/TheNightmareBeforeChristmas)

[3] 7 basic plots: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots#Receptio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots#Reception)

[4] Hero's Journey: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey)

<comment><USER20> > _To me, all those well-regarded films feel like they are full of cliches. > Tvtropes lists dozens and dozens of examples.[1][2]_

I find the TvTropes examples lacking (or worse, BS). I mean their list has stuff like: "Adaptation Expansion" (that the story was based on a poem Burton had once written), "Black Comedy", "The Blind Leading the Blind", "Bogeyman", ""Cassandra Truth", etc. Those are supposed to be cliches?

Those are more like listing all possible states of matter, and calling some part of the universe a cliche for containing them.

So, yeah, TNBChristmas is not some abstract surrealist image sequence -- it's a story and contains aesthetic concepts and narrative similarities with other stories, starting from the Iliad. Those are not cliches -- and I'm not convinced TvTrope author even knows what a cliche is.

Same, or worse, when discussing Miyazaki:

"Adults Are Useless: Well, Chihiro's parents are, hence the need to rescue them"

"Big Eater": Chihiro's parents when they transform into pigs. Boh eating chocolate.

They even mention "Bittersweet Ending" as a cliche (and I'm sure they have: Ambiguous Ending, Happy Ending, Sad Ending, etc thrown at other movies too).

Whatever...

What I objected to is also not about the "hero's quest" or "the 7 basic plots". Rather, a good movie (or literary work for that matter) is not about the plot at all, the plot is a merely a vehicle, and the movie transcends it. Pixar movies are all about the plot, and they are also all about the plot unfolding linearly and predictably, with big arrows pointing at any "critical moment".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Storytelling is a really valuable skill. However, it seems to me that it is one of those abilities that some people just seem to be born with and that it is inherently difficult to learn. Can anybody offer anecdotal insights into whether or not this is something that you can become good at through practice?

<comment><USER23> I'd take stand up comedians as an example. I remember watching interviews of now well recognized comedians recount how they started out doing terribly. but through persistence, learned the craft and became professional storytellers.

<comment><USER20> Well, the one asking about this is a "dead" account, but still:

> _That said, besides Rodney Dangerfield, I can 't think of to many comedians > whom got better with age._

Louis C.K. obviously.</comment></comment></comment>


Silent email filtering makes iCloud an unreliable option (2013) - <AUTHOR> https://www.macworld.com/article/2029570/silent-email-filtering-makes-icloud-an-unreliable-option.html <comment><AUTHOR> Still having the same problem today...icloud randomly filters emails from our mail server for no apparent reason, and they simply disappear (nothing in junk folder).</comment>


Beat Saber: Why Custom Maps Cannot Be Made with Legal Music - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@darkuni/beat-saber-why-custom-maps-cannot-be-made-with-legal-music-9e68a01cfd42 <comment><AUTHOR> This article actually inspired me to try and solve the problems outlined in the post. Because who knows if or when sites like BeatSaver will get shut down or specific songs removed due to copyright claims. Even Beat Games' CEO has said it is a problem[1].

[https://github.com/idolize/saber-song- patcher](https://github.com/idolize/saber-song-patcher)

You just provide your own purchased or ripped copy of the song (pretty much all audio formats are supported) and it should just work™. The tool will verify the song is correct regardless of format/bitrate/etc using fingerprinting technology, apply any patches the mapper configured, and convert it to the proper format for Beat Saber.

Obviously this approach is not strictly "better" than the current 1-click system gamers have today, but at least there would be a viable alternative.

[1] [https://uploadvr.com/gdc-beat-saber-ceo-mods/](https://uploadvr.com/gdc- beat-saber-ceo-mods/)</comment>


42" E-ink Whiteboard "Quilla" from Quick Logic - <AUTHOR> http://www.quirklogic.com/solutions/ <comment><USER2> An e-ink whiteboard sounds neat. The most important thing for me would be fast input response. The ability to just leave something up on the board and use minimal power to preserve the picture (as well as export it digitally!) is appealing.

The e-ink keyboards always poked at my interest but but I've gotten in the habit of not looking at my keyboard and I'm not sure I'd go back to doing so unless learning a new language. Maybe an e-ink function bar or something would be of more interest to me.

Off topic: I was wondering why this site took so long to load...(13.2MB PNG, 20MB of stuff in total).

<comment><USER3> Yeah I was looking for a video on their site and couldn't find one. I'd be very impressive if they got an e-ink screen to redraw that fast.

<comment><USER4> > I'd be very impressive if they got an e-ink screen to redraw that fast.

There are loads on youtube, some as old as 2007. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na3EkqhOa-A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na3EkqhOa-A), [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53X_XlqBdfM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53X_XlqBdfM) , [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v34WzX1rqs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v34WzX1rqs) , [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Kw9vxtY5pI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Kw9vxtY5pI)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I saw a progress bar and immediately navigated away.

<comment> amiga-workbench Yep, it hits 100% complete and sits like a lemon for another 5 seconds before displaying anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Price? However, being locked into a proprietary solution is a non-starter, but give me full control of the hardware and I'd buy some.

<comment><USER7> Can you suggest how this could be done with a non-proprietary solution at a reasonable cost?

What is proprietary here? The login? The sharing? Is that what you're complaining about?

<comment><USER8> Those seem like reasonable things to make open or extensible.

If either of those things stops working with future devices, you're stuck with just a regular $10k whiteboard. (Or I guess you can keep an ancient device around to act as a proxy.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is cool, and I wish someone would make a 10" or 13" version that didn't cost an arm and a leg.

</comment><comment><USER10> pointless. use a blackboard & take a photo of it on your phone</comment>


Ask HN: What tools are you using to manage your servers - <AUTHOR>

Well, the 'S' of the SNMP stands for simple, yet, I wonder what is out there that can be described as "SNMP Made Easy".
I am looking for a suite of software which not standing in my way, easy to work with (install, configure), and basically requires no maintenance once installed.
I am about to deploy my software on around around 180 remote Linux servers and wants to monitor the servers and configure my daemons all from a centralized point.
Open Source is mandatory.
Since most of YC startups are basically SAAS shaped companies I guess there is enough knowledge amongst us that can be shared and useful for others.
And last thing, I strongly believe providing such suite, end to end solutions, can be a great business for a startup (but that is another story...) <comment><USER2> Good call. I start with what I am using:

\- webmin for administration

\- stashboard as dashboard / status monitor

\- monit as watchdog / monitor

\- mrtg as network / CPU / connection monitor

only the last one is using SNMP</comment>


Why most shoppers still choose brick-and-mortar stores over e-commerce - <AUTHOR> http://www.retaildive.com/news/why-most-shoppers-still-choose-brick-and-mortar-stores-over-e-commerce/436068/ <comment><USER2> > The ability to see, touch and feel products as well as take items home > immediately

Pretty obvious stuff here.</comment>


Hacking DNA: CRISPR, Ken Thompson, and the Gene Drive - <AUTHOR> https://blog.ycombinator.com/hacking-dna-the-story-of-crispr-ken-thompson-and-the-gene-drive/ <comment><USER2> Here is our software you can use to start building your own tools that use Cas9 [1]. Build new Cas9s with new functions, peer into and mix and match functions that already exist, and build payloads to be delivered by Cas9. We help you program biological 'function' into DNA at an abstraction above the DNA sequence itself, and get you the DNA that encodes your functional designs delivered to your door.

[1] [https://serotiny.bio](https://serotiny.bio)

Some protein designs that undergird entire companies:

Cure hemophilia: [https://serotiny.bio/notes/proteins/hbb/](https://serotiny.bio/notes/proteins/hbb/)

Vaccinate against HIV: [https://serotiny.bio/notes/proteins/ecd4ig/](https://serotiny.bio/notes/proteins/ecd4ig/)

Cure the American Chestnut of its blight: [https://serotiny.bio/notes/proteins/oxo/](https://serotiny.bio/notes/proteins/oxo/)

Make spider silk clothing: [https://serotiny.bio/notes/proteins/adf3/](https://serotiny.bio/notes/proteins/adf3/)

<comment><USER3> Your website looks interesting enough to warrant its own post like a Show: HN.

<comment><USER2> I have tried a few times. But the community is small enough that it gets no upvotes :) We just released it. It's built with Ember & Go. I'd be happy to answer any questions about our technologies (biological or technical).

<comment><USER4> Passed this on to some biochem buddies and got the following response:

"There are plenty of constructs I'd love to have but don't have the time or expertise to make them. However, could this tool make them? There's so much expertise that goes into "if i hang this tag here, will the protein still traffic to where it needs to go/will it interfere with other domains/will it hang on the right side of the membrane/if I change literally one other amino acid the new tag will work but not if I leave it normal." The experts can already design proteins, but if this tool democratizes that, who's going to do QC?

AFAIK the real way people make substantive changes to proteins is to make 10 variants, test them all, and iterate the designs that worked best. Feels like we're miles away from being able to drag and drop functions."

And "In principle proteins are modular but I can give you ten examples where that principle ruined someone's life. The QC is hard and is case-by-case."

What is your editor aiming to help with? Is QC still the rate-limiting factor to innovating new protein designs with your tool? Does your tool help with QC in any way?

Thanks for sharing, I'm always interested to see new tech in this area.

<comment><USER2> That is _exactly_ what we aim to do:

\- We keep track of how domains have been used before (so as to mitigate if not entirely predict that QC). We are trying to encode that expertise in a way that is intuitive and frictionlessly sharable. The more people use it the more helpful it becomes. We help encode biological institutional knowledge.

\- We collaborate with DNA synthesizers so that you just do the designing, and we help get you the designed DNA to your bench at a reasonable cost. You get _exactly_ the sequence that you want, not what someone gave your neighboring lab's buddy sometime ago, or what some restriction enzyme/quick-change let you that's probably good enough. We alleviate the pain of cloning.

\- We help you build entire sets by dragging and dropping: "I want these three fluorophores upstream, these 4 linkers on these proteins of interest" \- Boom! Buy! Done! (in literally as much time). We make efficient high-throughput design.

\- It is true, there are many proteins that are note entirely modular. But there are many more than 10 examples of proteins designed _exactly_ that way (see Addgene's database). Biology is hard. We help you prevent failure buy being able to see how other successes have been achieved, prevent stupid mistakes, and get you your material to you as quickly and cheaply as possible. If your design does fail, it has failed faster and with less sunk cost than if you had to do all the construction yourself.

\- Finally, because combinatorial design and purchasing is reasonably priced (and you don't have to do the construction work), you can order an entire logical set of proteins to actually figure out which would work and which would not. When I cloned I made some tiny fraction of what I expected to work purely because cloning was so painful - and if that small fraction failed I didn't even bother to figure out why or what would have worked.

I'd appreciate any feedback you might have.

<comment><USER4> My friends didn't seem to be convinced by this response for their own areas of inquiry, but I'm not really qualified to hold a discussion here; happy to try to arrange a conversation if you're interested in going to the source. (PhDs and postdocs FWIW).

<comment><USER2> Hard to hold a conversation on HN. If you ever see this comment - I'd love to hear their skepticism :)

Email is my first name at my company's domain.

-justin

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Re. Gene drives, the article points out (and links to [1]) a major issue, but doesn't quite give the full story on that issue. Resistance to gene drives will arise, and isn't even that difficult to have happen.

Key point:

 _One source of this resistance is the CRISPR system itself, which uses an enzyme to cut a specific DNA sequence and insert whatever genetic code a researcher wants. Occasionally, however, cells sew the incision back together after adding or deleting random DNA letters. This can result in a sequence that the CRISPR gene-drive system no longer recognizes, halting the spread of the modified code._

CRISPR/Cas9 is a nuclease, it cuts DNA. It does not stitch it back together, the cell does that afterwards. Sometimes that goes smoothly, other times it doesn't, but one thing that happens frequently when you cut DNA is mutation. It's why radiation exposure is bad, DNA breaks cause mutations. If mutations yield immunity, then something that depends on mutations NOT happening to keep operating, but itself CAUSES mutation, is unlikely to function for very long.

[1] [http://www.nature.com/news/gene-drives-thwarted-by- emergence...](http://www.nature.com/news/gene-drives-thwarted-by-emergence-of- resistant-organisms-1.21397)

<comment><USER6> As someone who has done lots of molecular biology (and also is a reasonably good programmer) I took issue with the comparison of CRISPR to ken thompson's Unix hack for this very reason (among others).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> CRISPR is a biological weapon!

Yes, this is something that is mostly not talked about. CRISPR is a virus engineered to attack and penetrate human cells and modify its DNA. It can be used for good. But at the same time the technology is becoming so easy accessible that it can be used to create a virus capable of whipping out the people. Or put a dormant gene in there that gradually kills people.

Up to 80% of people have Oral Herpes by some estimates. Imagine a virus like that could be engineered and spread quietly that in 10-20 years cause a worldwide cancer.

My point is, CRISPR can be used for nefarious activities. It's inevitable! So we need to create an antidote for it to prevent unwanted viruses that might one day be created by CRISPR.

<comment><USER8> What would be the advantage of killing people in 10-20 years versus killing them right now?

I mean, smallpox has been synthesized, and it spreads _fast_ , has pretty high mortality rate, and hardly anyone is vaccinated against it any more.

I can't think of any military (or even terrorist) reason why you'd want that kind of delayed mortality, but maybe I'm overlooking something.

<comment><USER9> For genocide.

<comment><USER8> Okay, still not seeing why you would rather they be dead 20 years from now instead of right now.

<comment><USER10> What I learned from the video game "Pandemic 2" is that the longer your disease remains undetected, the more widely it can spread; if you're asymptomatic and apparently harmless, you may be able to infect every human before you activate the bad side effects. (Which is the goal of that game.)

<comment><USER11> In other words, any sign of symptoms would cause Madagascar to remain the last place inhibited by humans since they would close their ports/airports real quick

<comment><USER12> It's always Madagascar. Always.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There are a small number of known advantageous mutations already present in a small number of humans that could be introduced to larger numbers via CRISPR, brought to the clinic as a somatic gene therapy for adults. This is an enormous market in comparison to "merely" curing all genetic disease, as near every adult human would be able to benefit.

Not much movement in getting that into the clinic yet, however, for reasons that are entirely cultural. The first company to get one of these working via medical tourism will make a lot of money. CRISPR makes that goal pretty easy in comparison to the past.

These changes include things like extra follistatin or knocking out myostatin to gain greater muscle growth and less fat tissue, or removing or disabling ANGPTL4 to reduce heart attack risk by 50%. There are others along the same lines and more are being discovered as sequencing becomes ever cheaper.

The comparative lack of effort to make enhancement gene therapies a reality is nothing short of crazy, given the observed benefits in the few humans lucky enough to already have these variants or loss of function mutations.

</comment><comment><USER14> For anybody interested in performing CRISPR in their kitchen with $150 worth of pre-packaged materials, I would encourage them to take a look at The ODIN. It is a kit to get you started, and it comes with tutorials to take you all the way from knowing nothing to being able perform CRISPR and understand what you are doing.

(I have no affiliation with the product, I just like it): [http://www.the- odin.com/diy-crispr-kit/](http://www.the-odin.com/diy-crispr-kit/)

</comment><comment><USER15> Listening to the description of applying Gene Drive in the radiolab episode sounds worrying as a layman. First order manipulation with CRISPR sounds reasonable, but then contemplation of Gene Drive, the adding of the editing mechanism itself into the genetic material of a mosquito in the wild seems wildly irresponsible. Now you're running an experiment x millions (billions?) of variations where if or when a virus breaches a given mosquitos cell defenses, they could potentially pick up the crispr gene themselves and then one could be a cross-species jump away from re-introducing that same cross- editing gene into other species (including humans).

<comment><USER16> DARPA are doing a heck of a lot with CRISPR, and as you can imagine for both defense and offence angles.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military- prep...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military-preps-for- gene-drives-run-amok/)

This whole video is great btw, where Arati Prabhakar spins through CRISPR, Gene Drive and a heck of a lot more in a presentation at UW.

[https://youtu.be/ZHipS0-1ykE?t=2812](https://youtu.be/ZHipS0-1ykE?t=2812)

<comment><USER15> We can barely evaluate the effects of genetic changes within a single living organism - probably pretty well with focused pinpointed areas, but with the overall single living organism we can probably evaluate very little. It seems sheer folly to claim that any such system would be 'safe' exposed to a wide range of external parameters of virus, bacteria, immune systems, regular replication errors, irradiance or chemical mutagens, etc.. that we can barely enumerate thoroughly, let alone assess the interactions.

<comment><USER16> Quite.

This road seems a much bigger existential risk than any AI holocaust scenario I can imagine. It's very scary stuff and everyone in the field seems to be brimming with glee at how easy it all is.

Just consider that the very mundane HeLa cell line alone managed to jump continents and invade the most stringent safety precautions at dozens of labs. At least they are pretty benign.

Now imagine a nice mosquito delivery vehicle with payload strapped on that nobody has a real clue what it is capable of. I shudder to think.

A lot of people talking about how to re-establish the baseline and that it's not a big deal and nobody should worry.

I get that there are very many wonderful things that can come from this as well, but on the other hand the research is going very fast and this is one area we _should_ be exercising _extreme_ caution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> I think a better analogy is that CRISPR (Cas9) is the cursor package within the text editor. The (nearly completed) genomic text editor is the the entire suite of biological technologies we have at our disposal. Copy/Cut/Paste have been around a long time and made these discoveries possible. Rendering has been around for quite a while. Keyboards have permitted larger buffers to be written. But until recently a non-random, arbitrarily positionable cursor has been missing. Cas9 is importantly, and just, that piece of the suite.

<comment><USER6> this analogy breaks down: A non-random, arbitrarily positionable cursor is available in pretty much all lower organisms. CRISPR, for example, is totally useless for yeast (because the effort to get it to work far outweighs "just add addressed DNA" which is basically "how it works" for yeast). CRISPR is really only spectacularly useful for higher organisms and higher organism derived cell lines. There may be a limit to that for genes where there's high copy number (often a problem in plants).

Als; CRISPR can specifically induce a strand break (which is the FIRST step), but it is not quantitative, nor does it do selection. Generally as a part of a CRISPR protocol you have to counterselect for cells which have the DNA integration in them.

There is quite literally no computer science analogy to this. This would be like having editing a database that is sharded and replicated over multiple servers, randomly integrating the change you want on some (probably small) fraction of the servers, and then going through, scanning all database replicates for the existence of the change, and physically destroying with a hammer the servers that had shards that were unchanged, as the mechanism to insure eventual consistency across your database.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> One of the successes of Unix was because of free and open source software. One part of that in a biological setting is free/libre data. Efforts like the Harvard Personal Genome Project [1], Open Humans [2] and OpenSNP [3] are trying to provide researchers and the community as a whole with free/libre data so that research isn't done in silos or walled gardens.

CRISPR is pretty exciting but we also need to make sure there's a rich commons to build on. I encourage everyone to look into and support projects that make free/libre genomic data more available.

[1] [http://www.personalgenomes.org/harvard/about](http://www.personalgenomes.org/harvard/about)

[2] [https://www.openhumans.org/](https://www.openhumans.org/)

[3] [https://opensnp.org/](https://opensnp.org/)

</comment><comment><USER18> For those wondering, the article makes an analogy between Thompson's 'Trusting Trust' paper and gene editing.

It wouldn't have surprised me to hear that Thompson had moved into gene hacking (at the age of 74) but I think he still works for Google.

<comment><USER19> The analogy helped me understand things a bit, but I have a question coming from what I think is an oversimplification in the explanation of Thompson's Trusting Trust concept.

In the Trusting Trust attack, not only you change the compiler to miscompile the "login" program, but you change the compiler to miscompile the compiler itself so the "login" miscompilation persists even if you later revert all changes to the compiler source (as long as you use the new binary once, of course). Does this part of the attack have a gene drive analogy?

<comment><USER2> That part of the analogy does persist. It is the feature. The gene drive doesn't just insert the change you want - it inserts the change, and the code to make the change:

Wild type mosquito DNA: </comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>=====

Desired change to DNA: </comment><comment></comment><comment>=XX==

DNA encoding Cas9 and XX-Payload: =C9(XX)=

Gene Drivered Mosquito (before activation) (change to compiler): ====C9(XX)</comment><comment></comment><comment>=

Gene Drivered Mosquito (after activation) (change to login code): ====C9(XX)</comment><comment>==XX===

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>

A normal mosquito mating with a XX mutant mosquito:

Mother Gamete: </comment><comment></comment><comment>-----

Father Gamete: </comment><comment></comment><comment>-XX--

Mendelian fraction of children (and grandchildren) are either --, --/XX,, or XX/XX (if two chromosomal copies)

A normal mosquito mating with a Gene Drivered mosquito:

Mother Gamete: </comment><comment></comment><comment>-----

Father Gamete: ---C9(XX)----XX--

All children: ====C9(XX)</comment><comment>==XX=== (for all 'N' chromosomal copies)

</comment><comment><USER20> It's important to consider that genome editing tools existed prior to CRISPR and a novel technology is only as valuable as what preceded it. Tools such as zinc-finger nucleases, and TALENs were used and millions of dollars have been invested in developing those technologies to address the same problems for which CRISPR could be applied to. The author also posits that CRISPR could be used to edit any organism, which sounds impressive until you start to break down what that means. Take for instance that >99% of all micro-organisms haven't been cultured, which means that it's a really hard to make them genetically tractable. It's not like you just filter seawater, get some microbes and mix some CRISPR-encoded DNA with them. You would have to know their sequences a priori. And to sequence them, you would have to lyse the cells, generate large amounts of it, sequence it, thus leading to a classic chicken-egg problem.

I'd also like to mention that this technology can be imprecise/precise and due to the combinatorics of the systems you have to design in order to create edits, the ability to reliably edit different parts of the genome can be difficult to predict. It's not perfect. Furthermore, DNA self-replicates, mutates, and has external forces which dictate whether those changes actually should persist in the environment. What if a gene-drive mutates thus rendering it non-functional? The number of mutations that could render such a system to be non-functional vastly outnumbers the number of gene drives you would need to deal with said mutations. Although these types of mutations are unlikely, I'd just like to emphasize that DNA is constantly evolving, unlike say, a series of UNIX commands.

Also, spider-silk producing goats existed before CRISPR was used to create spider-silk producing goats. [https://phys.org/news/2010-05-scientists-goats- spider-silk.h...](https://phys.org/news/2010-05-scientists-goats-spider- silk.html). And so did glow-in-the-dark cats: [http://www.bbc.com/news/science- environment-14882008](http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14882008). The only difference is that they didn't have to pay millions of dollars in licensing fees to the Broad Institute.

I get that this sounds like I'm saying CRISPR sucks. It doesn't. It's a very valuable technology, which has much to offer. I just want to readily identify the ceiling of the hype.

</comment><comment><USER21> I recently went to see George Church and Siddhartha Mukherjee talk about genetic manipulation at Pioneer Works here in Brooklyn. Of course CRISPR/cas-9 came up for part of the discussion, but one question I wanted to ask and didn't get a chance to is: what is the error rate on the technique? I can't imagine that it is zero, and every article I read about CRISPR/cas-9 seems to leave that part out. Can anyone speak to that?

<comment><USER2> I don't think the 'technique' is settled enough to have an answer to your question yet. There are a lot of different 'errors' that can happen, each of which has entire sections of researchers working to ameliorate them.

The floor to error is that a wild-type Cas9 protein with a naively generated guide RNA, and a payload DNA along with it, just dropped into a petri-dish of cells correctly edits some single-digit percent of cells. That's the crudest of experiments a grad student might do on their first try. And that it is that robust (in a biological laboratory) is precisely why it is so powerful. Single-digit percent activity on an unoptimized first try is actually pretty amazing in the context of biology.

<comment><USER21> Thanks, that's helpful to know. I'm actually thinking about within the context of that edit of the cells. Is it a binary thing where either the cell is edited or it isn't, or can we have an edit with some error rate in regards to what actually was pasted in? The cutting seems highly specific, you need some sort of homology between your guide RNA and the target sequence, right? It's the pasting I'm mainly curious about.

All the pop science articles seem to make it out to be a flawless system, and the engineer in me is highly skeptical of that narrative.

<comment><USER2> The cutting is _mostly_ specific (given you have a reasonable target sequence - a pure 'GGGGGGGGGGGGGG' sequence is just chemically problematic anyway).

The cutting splits the DNA in half completely. It has to rejoin itself (by a not-well understood mechanism termed 'NHEJ'). This rejoining of the DNA is the kind of 'well it works (mostly, sometimes!)' part that is actively being better understood. Cas9 really has no relevance to this part of the process - unless it is used as a platform to attach DNA-repair machinery onto.

Like in all things biology, concentration and time matter. So if you leave Cas9 on 24/7 at very high concentrations with nothing to do, it will go ahead and cut all over the place. The goal is now to bring to bear everything else we know about biological expression to put the Cas9 homing system in its place, only when it should be in place. We already know pretty good mechanisms to make sure Cas9 only turns on under certain conditions, at certain times, is inhibited under other conditions, is otherwise made even more specific. Those are engineering 'details' at this point. And by 'details' I mean you have a huge academic and corporate effort underway currently figuring out how most efficiently and most accurately control Cas9's function.

Common results with a naive wild-type Cas9 (which we have moved on from in a lot of ways):

(no change): </comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> --> </comment><comment>

(unhealed breakage): </comment><comment> --> === & ===

(forwards insert): </comment><comment> --> ===(insert)===

(backwards insert): </comment><comment> --> ===(tresni)===

(tandem insert): </comment><comment> --> ===(insert)(insert)(...)===

(off-target insert): </comment><comment> --> =(insert)=====

(intermediate failure: </comment><comment> --> ===(insert) & === || ....

There are also very powerful uses for Cas9 that do not cleave DNA at all. Sticking a gigantic 'BREAK()' command onto Cas9 (that cannot cut DNA) can be very useful where the natural break command has been lost.

</comment><comment><USER22> Here's something I don't understand about this, maybe someone can help explain it. To implement a change in a person, you would have to modify the DNA in every cell in their body, would you not? I understand how the change is made to DNA with CRISPR, that's clear, but how can that change be propagated to affect an entire individual? Even an embryo is multicellular, is it not?

<comment><USER23> If you were to modify the genome of a sperm cell and fertilize an egg cell with it, then the resulting individual will have the modifications in all of its cells.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Relatedly, if you're an engineer looking to build the software that powers CRISPR[0], Benchling (YC S12) is hiring!

Most of the major research organizations working with CRISPR leverage Benchling -- the Broad Institute, various labs at Berkeley, companies like Editas, etc.

Shoot me an email: josh at benchling dot com

[0] [https://benchling.com/crispr](https://benchling.com/crispr)

</comment><comment><USER25> If anyone wants to play around with designing CRISPR guides, check out the Desktop Genetics website[1]

I work in the R&D side of the company, but our front end team has built a really nice website to design CRISPR gene knock-out/knock-in experiments from start to finish. Its all free to use until the final checkout where you order your CRISPR guides.

[1][https://www.deskgen.com/](https://www.deskgen.com/)

</comment><comment><USER26> Slightly off topic, but where does a layman start learning the fundamentals of DNA and proteins, etc?

It seems to be such a huge body of knowledge and the field seems to be moving so quickly.

</comment><comment><USER27> _sigh_ for the life of me I never remember the expanded acronym of CRISPR off the top of my head.

</comment><comment><USER28> Listening to CS people talk about biology is maddening.

"CRISPR... is to genomics what vi (Unix's visual text editor) is to software. "

This terrible comparison between DNA and code has been happening for years. In 2012, Thiel did the same thing in CS 183. We get to look back and see that he was wrong, but we'll have to wait a while before the 'DNA is code' group will admit this essay is bad. At least its not a TED talk and at least its better than Aubrey De Grey.

"Each VC on the panel made 2 predictions about technology in the next 5 years. The audience voted on whether they agreed with each prediction. One of my predictions was that biology would become an information science." -PT

<comment><USER2> So help educate. There is clearly an interest. If you know the bio then you know it gets a fraction of the funding and attention of standard tech stuff. Help smooth the analogies out, correct timelines, and otherwise inform outside industries about the powerful things biology _is_ doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> My microbiome is laughing its ass off. Stupid humans.

</comment><comment><USER30> This is how bio-bloat ware starts.</comment>


Obama/Clinton support visualizer that rocks - <AUTHOR> http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1064-obamaclinton-support-visualizer-that-rocks <comment><USER2> Allow me to put my hater pants on for a minute:

Is every post to SVN gonna end up on the front page of HN? I don't subscribe to SVN or TechCrunch because I rely on the HN community to expose me to only the best submissions to those blogs. Lately, my filter has been failing :(

Also, a direct link to nytimes where the actual visualizer resides (and not just a lame screen grab of it) would be more apropos imo.

Ok, hater pants off. This visualizer is neat =)</comment>


It's a Tough Job Market for the Young Without College Degrees - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/business/economy/its-a-tough-job-market-for-the-young-without-college-degrees.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news <comment><USER2> In interviews, the second most common question I get asked is, "Why don't you have a degree?" followed by "Are you planning on going back?". More than often, the questions have a strong No True Scotsman feeling to them. My experience is solid and my personal projects are fun and reflect passion. Yet, not having a degree is a detriment to me somehow still. Why? I can't think of a single good reason why so many employers would think that way.

Hell, friends and family still try to get me to go back to school, too. I've yet to find a good way to explain why school isn't useful and an enormous waste of time for me. It's always, always followed up with the argument that I have less job opportunities, which is fine. I wouldn't want to work at a company that would limit me like that, anyway.

If it happens to me with a good background and strong skills set, then it happens to others, but worse - especially if you're just starting out.

<comment><USER3> >Yet, not having a degree is a detriment to me somehow still. Why? I can't think of a single good reason why so many employers would think that way.

Since employers can't give IQ tests any more, they have come to rely on your college _alma mater_ as a proxy for an IQ test. If you don't go to college, they don't know how you fit in with other candidates.

Yes, college has become a $100k+ IQ test.

<comment><USER4> Employers will learn soon enough that the best and brightest in IT think actually think critically and know that university education is a negative, and probably will be for at least the next 5 years to a decade. Tech schools and accomplishments are where it's at.

<comment><USER5> I disagree. What makes you think that the best and brightest don't go to college and do a PhD? Not everybody wants to make as much money as possible as soon as possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What America needs are institutions similar to that of the apprenticeship programs of Western Europe. I came out of a one year job training program operating out of a non-profit with corporate partners (similar to the way it works in parts of the EU) that consists of college credit classes and industry experience. This lowers the barrier to entry for most young adults (like myself) to get into the job market and jump-start a career without going into debt.

After three years of graduating this program, I've now gone full circle working for a startup that supports the process of grant-making for foundations. That all being said, I recently put my income into fusion.net's millennial wage gap calculator to find that I come out into the top 6% of my generational cohort at a gross wage of 72k (at 23, I realize I'm an outlier). When I take into account that the majority of my friends around my are are still working service/retail jobs, I feel like something in our system needs to change before we experience a reckoning with a generation of kids with dead-end jobs.

<comment> punk-coder I went to University back in 89-90 in Munich Germany while my dad was in the military. When the first Iraq war broke out he went and I ended up heading home. I did some night schools, but never got a degree. In 96 there was a program in Columbus, Ga, called ICAPP. It was sponsored by Synovus, Aflac and Blue Cross Blue Shield. Thousands tried out for it, and after much testing, interviewing, etc it came down to about 60 of us making it in. We got paid to go through a program that taught us Assembler, COBOL, IMS, DB2, and other mainframe development skills for 6 months. After that we were guaranteed a job at one of those companies. If you worked in Georgia for 4 years your loan was forgiven. I took a job in Atlanta at Total Systems, a company owned by Synovus. 20 years later I'm an application architect making $155k at a different company in Atlanta. I have no degree. When I finished the program it counted as college credit and I was 11 credits shy of a Bachelors, but I don't see what that will do these days. I have 20 years real world experience, and in case you're wondering, the latest project I'm leading is a NERD stack app (Node, Express, React, Database). I quit the mainframe job back in 99. I wish there were more programs like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Curiously, the breakdown of degrees by demographic doesn't include employment. The article seems to make the case that people should seek institutional education. Broadly, that makes sense, there are pretty traditional(ancient) precedents for apprenticeships and there are newer alternatives in the education system. Vocational schools were mentioned, and are also a good way to learn a skill.

The weird thing about the article, or at least, with a title like _It 's a Tough Job Market for the Young Without Degrees_ is it seems to imply that the job market is tough for people without degrees, but is otherwise healthy. That doesn't seem correct, and there does not seem to be any information in the article indicating that Vynny Brown's (interviewed in the article) 20 year old peers are faring much better than he is. So, the article isn't incorrect in some points it makes like retraining the workforce is important, university education isn't the only type of education, ect, however it doesn't really explain the meta-problem.

The job market is tough because there is increased outsourcing in physical/human-centric work and simultaneously(even in manufacturing) improved technology, step-changes in process engineering and the electronic automation of simple tasks have removed a lot of jobs from the economy and for some that do exists, significantly limited the perceived value society has for them, limiting earning potetnial.

</comment><comment><USER8> > Among 17- to 24-year-olds, just over 10 percent have completed college or > achieved an advanced degree.

This seems like a weird statistic to highlight. Even if everyone were going to and completing college, wouldn't you expect that most of this group (eg those under about 22) to have not yet completed their degree?

<comment><USER9> > This seems like a weird statistic to highlight.

Not unless the job market is easier for 17-year-olds without college degrees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't understand the 17 to 24 age range for the college degree statistic. Isn't the percentage for anyone under 21 practically zero? Seems like that would be skewing the statistic pretty dramatically.

<comment><USER11> They didn't take a study specifically to find out how many people have a college degree, they likely did a study of studies tracking all the studies (of which there are many) that _somewhere_ ask people their age and education level.

Mapping all that together gives you this result.

Most studies that aren't about age-specific tasks or topics will gradiate on 17-20 / 20-24.

Remember all those studies that look at teenage pregnancy rates in the 17-20 age? Heh, studies of studies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> For another perspective, Mike Rowe (of "Dirty Jobs" fame) has a foundation to promote blue collar jobs. They even provide scholarships for training in a trade: [http://profoundlydisconnected.com/](http://profoundlydisconnected.com/)

It seems like a great idea to me.

</comment><comment><USER13> A college degree is the new high school degree. You pretty much top out in the upper teens per hour without a degree: and that's if you're lucky.

I've been on both sides. Since getting my undergrads in Comp Sci and MIS I make more money than I ever thought I would. Before this I got a job driving buses for the city making ~$10.50/hr and I thought that was all the money in the world.

<comment> some-guy Same boat here. High school dropout, semi-professional musician / food-service worker, then got my CS degree at age 27.

Being on both sides is interesting, and in some ways I'm thankful I lived off a low without even a high school degree just for the life experience. I still ride the same bicycle, drive the same car, etc. I try not to forget how much a dollar is worth but it can be hard sometimes.

My life back then was far harder and far more stressful. It's hard being in front of people (food service worker) and dealing with customers for a lot of us -- it takes an emotional toll. I have a fairly lax schedule now and make almost eight times as much money. I hope that someday anyone can make a living wage if they work hard, whether they flip burgers or write enterprise Java spaghetti code.

<comment><USER14> Surely flipping burgers is a step up from Java coding? Asking if they want fries with that is better than having to endure the shit-fest of eclipse, and the horrors of Java development

<comment><USER15> To be fair, if you get to use IntelliJ it's on par with working at Olive Garden, or working as a garbageman.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Among 17- to 24-year-olds, just over 10 percent have completed college or achieved an advanced degree."

Why would we expect 17 to 21 year olds to have completed college? The common trajectory is to complete your degree by 22, 4 years after high school.

</comment><comment><USER17> The higher the minimum wage gets, the harder it'll be for those with little or no skills to get a job.

<comment><USER18> What a goofy thing to think. Effective minimum wage(that is, min. wage adjusted for inflation) has been slowly declining for decades. Minimum wage isn't getting higher, it's getting slowly lower.

<comment><USER19> > Effective minimum wage(that is, min. wage adjusted for inflation) has been > slowly declining for decades. Minimum wage isn't getting higher, it's > getting slowly lower.

This is simply not true.

Minimum wage was introduced in 1938, and was for a whopping $0.25 per hour. This is about $4.22 per hour in 2016 dollars. Federal minimum wage is currently at $7.25. Some states have even higher minimum wages, with California coming in at $10.00 (soon to coast up to $15.00 per hour in the next few years).

So no, the purchasing power of minimum wage is not getting lower, quite the opposite.

<comment><USER20> In 1969 the minimum wage was 1.4$/hour which works out to $10.34 in 2012 dollars. You can go back to 1956 and see eq $8.29 or forward to 1972 @ eq $9.10 vs now at less than 7.25$ in 2012 dollars. More recently it peaked in 2009 and has fallen every year after that currently it's down 15%.

PS: In fact you need to go back to 1949 to find a worse year than 2006.

<comment><USER19> What you are tracking (and cherry picking) is the inflation rate, which naturally goes up and down over time. My point was, and remains, people are paid more today on a minimum, than they ever were intended to be when this program was created in 1938.

Minimum wage was intended as a baseline for unskilled entry-level jobs. Our issue today is we have a tremendous amount of folks, more than ever imagined, attempting to survive on minimum wage.

The solution is staunchly not to just give folks more money; we've been trying that for 78 years and we still have the same problem.

The solution is to enable people to support themselves off and above a minimum wage. We do this by empowering folks to get higher education and/or highly skilled job training.

We should not have 50+ year olds working the cash register at Walmart. That's a failure of society... and we're not working on solving that problem. Instead, we just want an easy out; toss cash at them so we don't have to think about this for another couple of years, never-mind that same 50 year old is still working the cash register at Walmart! That's a flat cop-out.

<comment><USER20> Inflation rate is just that a rate, not adjusting for it after 7 years because fuck people with limited mental capacity is sick.

As to trying things for 78 years we have very different problems now vs 78 years ago. To pretend otherwise is to simply act the fool.

There are many popular ideas that simply don't work. Pretending everyone is a healthy, intelligent, well educated, and they can just make everything better by working harder is one of them. People have been working harder, productivity keeps growing but for a huge chunk of the population things have been getting worse over time. And that my friend is a very dangerous trend.

<comment><USER19> > because fuck people with limited mental capacity is sick.

Handing people more money for nothing does not solve their problems in the long term. If anything, 78 years of minimum wage has definitively proven this.

When inflation goes up, as it does, they'll all be right where they are today. Why solve today what you can solve tomorrow? Now, that's truly sick.

> we have very different problems now vs 78 years ago

We don't have different problems. Minimum wage was implemented to help prevent folks from working all day only to not be capable of affording life... this is exactly what we're debating today. So, 78 years later, we still haven't solved this issue...

> People have been working harder

Have they? Working harder today is a different notion than working harder in 1938. Today, we require education and highly skilled workers. Yet, we have a major shortage of exactly that. Why is this? Well, many reasons, but among them is our societal indifference to encouraging or mandating folks get high skilled training or a higher education. There's a big push today exactly against folks getting education and/or high skilled training, and you seem to be arguing this as well.

More money is a short term solution. It doesn't solve anything long term. It hasn't worked for 78 years, and it won't work for another 78 years. To use your words... "To pretend otherwise is to simply act the fool".

<comment><USER20> Your confusing politicians letting inflation kill minimum wage with having minimum wage fail.

Second you completely ignored millions of people who can't be significantly educated or handle significant responsibility, but can hold down low skill repetitive jobs.

Put down your blinders and try looking at the real world.

<comment><USER19> > Second you completely ignored millions of people who can't be significantly > educated or handle significant responsibility, but can hold down low skill > repetitive jobs

You seem to, at the core of your argument, have little faith in people's capabilities.

> Put down your blinders and try looking at the real world

I've done just that. We have an evolving economy, and we need to put things in place to enable a successful transition. Handing people money for nothing is not part of a successful transition; it only postpones the proper solution. That's wrong.

<comment><USER20> > have little faith in people's capabilities.

      2.2% of the US population has an IQ below 70.
      8.9% of the US population has an IQ below 80.

Not all of these people are capable of being even minimally productive, but some are on the line where they are productive but only in a limited fashion. IQ is of course not the only limitation, intelligent people also often have issues.

<comment><USER19> > Not all of these people are capable of being even minimally productive

IQ is a horrible indicator, and while influenced by genes, it is also biased by a number of factors, including upbringing environment.

As the son of a teacher, I refuse to accept the notion that our "dumbest" folks aren't capable of learning great things. It's attitudes like the one you're presenting that keep these folks down in the dirt. "They just aren't capable of complicated things!"... what hogwash. Even a person with diagnosed learning disabilities can accomplish great tasks given the proper guidance and training. You would have us just give up on them!

The devil in me questions the point of life if you just sit around and exist... nothing more.

I think we need to agree to disagree here.

<comment><USER20> Even the Army has long held minimum standards for mental capabilities. This is backed up by a lot of research.

I am also a _son of a teacher,_ but that's very different than an actual teacher. I can't picture using that to try and argue from authority. Especially when the lowest end of the scale is segregated from everyone else.

Though, I guess wallowing in your ignorance is par for the course.

<comment><USER19> > I guess wallowing in your ignorance is par for the course

I don't know why you choose to be so hostile? It's a bit condescending, and your position is not any more correct than I.

> Even the Army has long held minimum standards for mental capabilities. This > is backed up by a lot of research

And the same was said about women serving in combat roles... until recently.

I also happen to come from a military family, and can attest to the bar being very, very low regarding mental capabilities. I grew up around these folks. It's actually who the military seeks for low rank positions - not independent thinkers, they want compliance without question. You don't get that with highly educated individuals. I know this is anecdotal, but it does have value.

Change your outlook, because it's awful. Having zero faith in people's abilities to rise to meet new challenges is odd, to say the least. You seem content to keep people poor, dumb, and useless. A new economy requires higher level of skills and thought. The time to start brewing that ecosystem is now, not later.

<comment><USER20> Someone who makes into the Army _is a high achiever._

A friend's child is sufficiently handicapped that at 20 he is incapable of speech more complex than grunting. He is still capable of relativly simple tasks. But to asume there is a binary choice where every person is either totally disabled or capable of becoming a fortune 500 CEO if they just worked harder is both idiotic and common.

There are many people with hopes and dreams who are worthy of respect, but simply can't function at a high level. Increasingly we simply throw them to the wolves as even if they can hold down a simple job that's not enough for rent, which starts a cycle of homelessness and often prison.

A living wage is about human decency even for those who have trouble with tasks more complex than mopping a floor.

<comment><USER19> > Someone who makes into the Army is a high achiever

This is a laughably absurd statement. Majority of enlistees are there exactly because they are not high achievers... A major benefit of the military is the opportunities it provides. They hammer into you responsibility, education, and highly skilled training. Even the lowest performers learn very complex tasks, making the military a fantastic example of what I'm advocating. Perhaps we need programs like this for the general public.

> A friend's child is sufficiently handicapped that at 20 he is incapable of > speech more complex than grunting

I feel for your friend, as this is truly an awful thing to have to deal with. However, this is a false dichotomous claim. This scenario does not apply to any majority of folks in this country (or the world), and you're transforming this into a black and white scenario. In addition, certain types of ailments will permanently necessitate assisted living, even in adulthood, which makes your anecdote even less relevant to this discussion.

> is a binary choice where every person is either totally disabled or capable > of becoming a fortune 500 CEO if they just worked harder is both idiotic and > common

Of course it's not a binary choice. I never asserted as such. What I have asserted is, the future of the economy will depend on highly skilled and/or highly educated workers. The idea of the "working class" must shift - otherwise there's no purpose for them... and an economy cannot function with 50-80% of it's workforce only consuming via funds not earned nor supported (via taxes, because taxing a BI is sort of a ridiculous idea) by them.

> A living wage is about human decency

No it's not. It's about making folks as yourself feel good temporarily. A living wage is never enough. Why not make minimum wage $30 per hour today? It surely would postpone other necessary measures for longer! Inevitably though, we'll have to re-address this issue in a few years time, as we have been doing for 78 years. We have got to figure out a better solution, because the one we have right now is simply not cutting it. Even you agree to this, surely.

So no, I won't accept your defeatist attitude. Give up on the poor and stupid because they'll never amount to anything. Don't bother increasing education and training, because they'll never be capable of anything more than mopping floors. Just give them money and don't think about their problems for a couple of years.

What absurdity.

With this said, we really should end this. You will never agree with me, and I the same with you.

<comment><USER20> > Of course it's not a binary choice. ...the future...

This is clearly cold comfort to people who went homeless despite multiple full time jobs.

Minimum wage can be tagged to inflation just like Social Security and like all laws it can be changed in a few weeks. Your projecting a future that does not currently exist and many never exist and ignoring millions that are at the border right now.

<comment><USER19> So what do you propose? Small business should front this enormous burden because society won't install a better solution?

Small business make up 99.7% of all companies in the US, and account for 65% of all jobs created since 1995. [1][2][3][4]. But that's not to say big businesses aren't impacted by this.

The more expensive you make human labor, the more of these unskilled and low education jobs disappear (McDonald's automated kiosks, for example). Small businesses just can't afford to employ as many people, and big businesses turn to increased automation... which is the exact problem you're describing.

This seems to pivot your point to suggesting a BI. If so, then you'll need to adopt the plan I've been advocating this entire time - increased (and/or mandatory) higher education and/or highly skilled training. Otherwise BI falls apart as it won't be a self sustaining economy. Federal revenue is paid for by the workforce in majority (payroll tax + income tax equal about 80% of federal revenue[5]). If the workforce shrinks (and it doesn't make logical sense to tax a BI), then we have a problem.

The plan I've advocated can be adopted and be successful with or without a BI economy. I don't see a better plan coming from you, however.

[1] [http://www.inc.com/jared-hecht/are-small-businesses- really-t...](http://www.inc.com/jared-hecht/are-small-businesses-really-the- backbone-of-the-economy.html)

[2] [http://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and- data/](http://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/)

[3] [https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf](https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf)

[4] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonnazar/2013/09/09/16-surpris...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonnazar/2013/09/09/16-surprising- statistics-about-small-businesses/#c9409a63078c)

[5] [http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do- federal-...](http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-federal-tax- revenues-come-from)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is because we have spent decades conditioning employers to view a college degree as the deciding factor of intelligence and capability. Which is completely and horribly backwards. Now that we have a lot of people with college degrees, employers are looking down on that and saying now you have to have a masters in order to be considered worthy of a job. It's all crap.

</comment><comment><USER22> It's a tough job market for the young with college degrees, too. So it's really just a tough job market for the young.

<comment><USER7> Strong case could be made for 1946.

<comment><USER23> I doubt the House will impose the budget and tax cuts the they did from 1946-48.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Was it ever a good job market for the young without college degrees?

<comment><USER25> When you could walk off the street(with no Highschool diploma) into a Manufacturing job with good pay, benefits, etc.

And if they mistreated you, you could leave and go to another Factory in-town that did treat you well. So they tried to retain employees by treating them well.

Versus today, where if you can manage to find a Manufacturing job you're under the thumb of the bosses. Because they know you have a mortgage, a family, and other expenses and that you _need_ the job. And they know you can't just walk down the street to another factory because it's not there anymore.

The thing thrown around is that a College Degree is the equivalent of an Highschool Degree 20-30 years ago when finding a job.

<comment><USER26> > When you could walk off the street(with no Highschool diploma) into a > Manufacturing job with good pay, benefits, etc.

This sounds more like a good-ole-days fantasy than reality. Can you quantify when and what good pay and benefits were for someone without a high school degree who walked off the street?

<comment><USER27> I can't speak specifically to walking in off the street with _no_ diploma/education at all, but I'll share this.

25-30 years ago some of my friends could fairly easily get line jobs at Ford/GM/etc with just a HS diploma. Of course, from what we were told, it wasn't as easy as _way_ back in the 50s, but it was still a possibility in the 80s, and some of my friends did. In addition to direct work, there was a moderately large ecosystem of auto suppliers to work for, and many of them would still hire with a HS diploma.

Friends of mine were starting in 1990/91 at $17/hr with some benefits and usually some overtime available. Min wage, at that time, was... IIRC, $3.35/hr. So.. 5x min wage with just a HS diploma was possible. That's not to say it's not possible _now_ , but I don't think there's many _employment_ situations like that (certainly much fewer than 50 years ago). You'd probably need to be self-employed to pull in $35-$50/hr with just a HS diploma these days, and you're then having to cover your own insurance and perks and whatnot.

Hope that helps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> No college? No problem. Google how to make websites and start making websites. There's an infinite number of small businesses, grandpas and grandmas needing a website for whatever reason. Learn html and css, which are probably the easiest languages to know, and you can already start making money. No computer? No problem, go to a public library.

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm wondering if the purpose of most non STEM degrees is to reduce the supply of labor for the duration of these four years. At an estimated 50 years of work that's a decrease by 8% slightly increasing competition and wages.

<comment><USER30> Since an increase in labor supply would reduce likely reduce the cost of wages due to oversupply, I can't imagine that would be the reason. Could be wrong, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Eventually employers are going to stop valuing college degrees and paying wages that justify the student debt. A new model of education/certification and hiring will arise. Especially if tech becomes the dominant sector (in terms of work).

</comment><comment><USER32> I've successfully obtained several positions at notable companies as a software engineer and I don't have a degree. Hasn't set me back a bit. Self taught is the way to go if you ask me.

</comment><comment><USER33> Measuring if someone is able to get a job based on if they have a degree is a meaningless, since generally speaking the fact the someone went to college means that they push harder on average to get stuff done than those that don't get a degree.

Only way to tell what the difference is if applicants and employers were not allowed to ask or require a degree, but instead were only able to test knowledge.

</comment><comment><USER14> Speaking of working conditions, food for thought when you need that next apple shiny product:

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3582640/](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3582640/)

<comment><USER34> While worthy of its own submission, I think it is somewhat irrelevant of the current topic.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Verdaccio – Open-Source Lightweight private NPM proxy registry - <AUTHOR> https://www.verdaccio.org/ <comment><USER2> The company I work on (quite small, 15ish people) uses this, mainly as a replacement for the outdated Sinopia. Works just great, with seamless proxying, and makes it quite faster since we run it on the internal network. Even NPM modules get cached. Which is very handy given we cannot use Yarn or PNPM.

<comment><USER3> Now I'm curious why...

<comment><USER2> Me too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> On the Polymer project we used a private Verdaccio server to test out automatically converting and publishing ~100 packages from Bower and HTML imports to npm and JS modules.

It was pretty indispensable to be able to try out such automation without spamming real npm with 100s of sometimes broken packages.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you're interested in deploying your own Verdaccio instance easily on DigitalOcean with auto-renewing Lets Encrypt certs, I have a cloud-config.yml generator:

[https://github.com/steve-taylor/artifact-server- config](https://github.com/steve-taylor/artifact-server-config)

It also deploys Artifactory OSS and a Docker registry, but you can quite easily rip all that out.

All you have to do is create a RancherOS instance with the generated cloud- config.yml pasted into the User Data field (and you'll need to provide an SSH key, of course).

</comment><comment><USER6> We at allaboutapps are using verdaccio since ~1year, primary for centrally publishing our internal packages (e.g. our whole base backend stack) and testing packages before actually releasing them to the wild. Typically yarn interacts with it, never encounted any problem.

The proxy has also been a handy feature for us to mitigate the risk of broken builds due to now unpublished packages from the official npm (though this shouldn't be a problem anymore). Can really recommend it.

</comment><comment><USER7> From the docs, it looks like this has support to proxy package downloads from NPM. But, it's not clear if this is cached or not.

Does anyone know if it's possible to use this as a cache for installing packages from [https://registry.npmjs.org/](https://registry.npmjs.org/)?

I have something exactly like this setup on my laptop to proxy PyPI and allow installing packages from cache when I'm offline or in the rare PyPI outage.

Edit: It has cache, but I mean does it use the cache if NPM is down or I'm offline.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, this is the default setting: [https://www.verdaccio.org/docs/en/uplinks.html](https://www.verdaccio.org/docs/en/uplinks.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> We have been using Verdaccio for a short time to host some private React components. It was a very easy and simple integration.

</comment><comment><USER9> Does this use couchdb the way NPM seems to?

<comment><USER10> If you're looking for that, try smart-private-npm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why not sonatype nexus?

<comment><USER5> I'm interested in trying it. As far as I know, it's the _only_ free and open source multi-format build artifact repository.</comment></comment>


No Top-Down Control for Sleep and Wakefulness - <AUTHOR> http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/546211/ <comment><USER2> Often when trying to sleep after a long period of deprivation, it feels different, in that I can actually feel individual systems switching off -- I might have music playing through my head but be incapable of conscious (subvocalized) thought, or vice versa, but if I'm aware of anything other than breathing, then I'm far from sleep. And, after a few hours of lying in bed trying to sleep (knowingly without success), I might suddenly feel wide awake to a greater extent than what would be expected from normal sleepiness/wakefulness cycles.

This finding jibes well with my experiences.

</comment><comment><USER3> maybe this explains why i always feel brain dead and jetlagged on work days until after 11am

<comment><USER4> I used to have the same problem.

Wake up at the same time every day, even weekends (important) and take power naps in the afternoons.

I think our bodies are biologically wired to require naps in order to stay alert/energized.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> interesting research.

it would be helpful if they found a way of developing a habit of making the entire brain wake up instantly in the morning rather than the 30 min to 1 hour delay for some parts.

i find that this is a constant battle every morning, which is why i hit the "snooze" button every 10 mins for half n hour before actually getting out of bed.

</comment><comment><USER6> So thats why I can't code today. I'm taking a nap.

</comment><comment><USER7> It could be much more interesting if they told how to fight constant dizinness...</comment>


Writing great Javascript - <AUTHOR> http://oli.me.uk/2012/03/14/writing-great-javascript

<comment><USER2> I've never seen the preceding semi-colon like that. It makes perfect sense, there are a lot of JavaScript coders these days coming from languages like Ruby and these people often don't use semi-colons, very smart advice to protect against that!

<comment><USER3> Adding a leading semicolon just in case seems like overly defensive programming to me. You ought to pick trustworthy tools. If your script concatenator doesn't work right, I think it's better to fail fast rather than let things quietly be half-broken all over the place.

<comment><USER4> _You ought to pick trustworthy tools._

Many JavaScript snippets are made to be integrated and added by other people on their websites.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You really only need one or the other depending on the style of the code you are using in the rest of your project.

If you write js using semi-colons everywhere:

        (function () { })(this);

        (function () { })(this);

        (function () { })(this);

If you dont want to use semi-colons unless you have to:

        ;(function () { })(this)

        ;(function () { })(this)

        ;(function () { })(this)

Basically, never start lines with `(` or `[` without semis and don't throw in line breaks liberally without understanding what semicolon insertion is going to happen.

[http://blog.izs.me/post/2353458699/an-open-letter-to- javascr...](http://blog.izs.me/post/2353458699/an-open-letter-to-javascript- leaders-regarding)

<comment><USER6> But what if you do this:

        <script src='3rdpartyA.js'></script>
        <script src='yourscript.js'></script>
        <script src='3rdpartyB.js'></script>

You need the semicolon at both ends to insulate your script from the unknown coding style or 3rd party scripts which may be appended or prepended to yours.

If 3rd party A omits a trailing semicolon, or 3rd party B doesn't uses your semicolon prefix style then by wrapping your script in semicolons you pre- emptively prevent problems.

I believe this is an example of the wider coding style called "defensive coding".

<comment><USER5> Or you could actually just read the source code of the libs you are using...

<comment><USER7> It's pretty easy to miss a terminating semicolon which will waste time, but the real use case is for people who are writing the libs that other people are using; they have absolutely no knowledge or control of what other javascript might be prependend or appended onto theirs.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What would've happened with OpenSocial should Google got a stake on Facebook? - <AUTHOR>

And what I mean is: Are open iniciatives being manipulated to hold a position against each other or google would eventualy got Facebook back from the dark side? <comment><USER2> David Winer mentions the same thing <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=75197>

I believe that Google would have done the same thing as now. OpenSocial would have been launch and Facebook in that case would have probably been one of the first ones to join it. As I mentioned before in other posts, I believe the shares were sold by Facebook in order to raise money, and was being acquired by Microsoft or Google, in order to get control over international advertising of Facebook for the years to come.</comment>