Colleges improve website accessibility as they are defendants in lawsuits - <AUTHOR> https://www.ithacajournal.com/story/news/local/2019/06/13/colleges-improve-websites-they-subjects-lawsuits/1302352001/ <comment><USER2> I work on a product for higher-ed clients, and this has deeply impacted my team over the last two years. The process has been really tedious and painful for everyone involved: developers, product folks, management, and the users.

University admins send us automated third party a11y reports constantly, demanding that we make all of the recommended fixes immediately. We learned really quickly that several of these reports are very opinionated about how to implement ARIA tags, sometimes in ways that contradict the documentation. It can be hard to explain this to a customer trying to protect themselves legally.

In addition, screenreader apps are implemented inconsistently, and reproducing/debugging the screenreader bug in your app can be really infuriating. I felt truly horrible for people who use them on a daily basis because it's an utterly prehistoric experience compared to using the web normally.

The last thing is that we've had issues with getting a11y right with our front end frameworks at times to address these screenreader bugs.

Ultimately, a11y is so painful and costly for us to get right that it takes up a major chunk of our development efforts these days, and we all hate working on them.

The state of developing and maintaining accessible web applications feels like a sad joke given the industry's mantra to make the world a better, more connected place.

<comment><USER3> I empathize. My last job was with a university that got tagged with a lawsuit threat around the time I started. Accessibility stories eventually dominated our backlog. I appreciated being able to improve accessibility. But the lack of consistent standards and the legal department's lazy and inflexible response to the issue were demoralizing.

One of the first things I did in my next position was to bring on a Site Accessibility Engineer (I think I made that term up) to get out in front of issues like this. She was a graduate of a developer bootcamp with past experience assisting people with real-world accessibility issues. She's been invaluable.

<comment><USER4> "She was a graduate of a developer bootcamp with past experience assisting people with real-world accessibility issues."

That's one of the best "boot camp" use cases I've ever heard. An accessibility engineer like that doesn't necessarily need to be able to actually code up a backend with a database, etc, but is going to be greatly handicapped if they literally know nothing about the web and can't even show off a prototyped-up page with the new markup they are proposing. They don't need a full "computer science" education, a boot camp is a perfect bootstrap. (I'd still say there's things yet to learn, but when isn't that true?)

<comment><USER5> Sure, but where do they get their second tech job? Site accessibility engineer is not a common job title/position that I know of. Without some of those skills you mention, if not the corresponding formal education, that seems like this person is set up to fail soon, unless companies really start taking accessibility seriously in the next few years.

<comment><USER6> I dunno; if they're like most developers I know, they'll end up picking up a hodgepodge of skills that they missed in the bootcamp, which will let them plump out their resume.

If they can't figure out how to write their resume after they've had the experience, I don't feel too bad for them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As a contractor I used to construct special websites for both universities and government agencies. I would bring up in meetings "this site is required by law to be accessible" and invariably I was told "accessibility's not in the list of requirements". So in my opinion, they've had this coming for a long time.

<comment><USER8> While it's easy to say the site must legally be 'accessible', the problem I've encountered is that there is apparently no legal standard for 'accessible'. Section 508, WCAG, etc. do not have US caselaw behind them that actually identifies them as such.

From a practitioner's viewpoint, it might make perfect sense to target WCAG, and possibly consider anything less 'unaccessible'. However, from a legal viewpoint - which typically doesn't acknowledge any obligation or liability without precedent - it's a very different situation.

I'm curious if these tort cases can set that precedent, and clarify things for the lawyers.

<comment><USER9> In general courts look at standards IF you point the judge to it. The judge will look at the standard, and if it looks reasonable will accept it, thus creating precedent. If your website obeys a standard the other side needs to prove the standard isn't enough to meet the law. That is if you meet WCAG the judge will probably default to considering it a bug in the screen reader - putting the burden the screen reader to show that the standard is not enough for ADA, not only is this a higher bar, but the judge will generally cut you some slack for trying.

The above assumes there is only one standard. Standards bodies (ANSI, ECMA, ISO) often accept multiple competing standards. This happens when they are not aware of the other standard, or when they believe the standards can compete (C++ doesn't prevent you from creating an ISO standard for a different programming language).

Companies will often try to get their internal process encoded into a standard for this reason: it documents something that can be brought to court with more weight than something they came up with: if you sue latter the judge will ask if you care so much why didn't you get involved with the standards process when the company created their standard. Since part of becoming a standard is you have to take input from others this is somewhat reasonable.

The above is a US perspective from not a lawyer. Other countries have different rules. Talk to a local lawyer if you need legal advice.

<comment><USER10> In general US civil court judges will cut you some slack if you can demonstrate that you acted in good faith and made reasonable efforts to comply with the law, even if you are technically violating some rules. This applies to most sections of civil law, not just web accessibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Accessible websites are higher quality websites. The article mentions SiteImprove, a commercial service that can be used to assess website accessibility. But that's not appropriate for everyone. Want to improve yours but don't know where to start? Here are a few options:

* WAVE add-on for Firefox (free): [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/wave-accessib...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/wave-accessibility-tool/)

* Google LightHouse (free, part of Chrome): Developer Tools -> Audits

* HTML Validator: [https://html5.validator.nu/](https://html5.validator.nu/)

The HTML validator isn't specifically aimed at accessibility issues but it does highlight some low-lying fruit. All 3 of these are free and easy to use. WAVE is the most helpful IMO.

<comment><USER12> Why are accessible websites higher quality? If someone spends a good portion of their time making their site more usable for non-blind users, wouldn't it be more likely that the less accessible site would be higher quality?

<comment><USER13> Because they can work better for users on small screens, low bandwidth connections, who just want to find some information they need, etc.

I was at a conference that had a theme of accessibility about a year ago and one of the repeated points was that accessibility (not just visual) tends to improve access for people under lots of circumstances. (Think closed captioning in a noisy environment or for viewers who aren't fully fluent or have trouble with strong accents.)

<comment><USER14> This is known as the "Curb cut effect".

<comment><USER13> Yes, that's a great example. It turns out having ramps widely available is really handy even if someone is just temporarily incapacitated--or is pushing a stroller or a shopping basket. Captions is another.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The expected steady-state outcome of this situation is that all website-owning educational companies will be targeted for lawsuits, many of which are valid, and many of which are not. The net effect of these lawsuits will primarily be a massive loss of productivity. It is very technically challenging and labor intensive to make websites accessible to the blind or otherly disabled, and doing so is to the benefit of a very small population, who will continue to primarily use other communication platforms anyway. Net effect: For every hour of time saved for the blind or otherly disabled, dozens of hours of time spent by others. A saner society would choose a different path.

I wish I could see actual statistics on this, I admit this is wild speculation on my part.

<comment><USER16> You're thinking short term. And you're probably right, short term. But we had the same set of concerns raised about many other ADA issues in the past, such as wheelchair-accessible ramps and doors. Over time, the standard practices (and what we'd think of as tooling and common design patterns) for new construction evolved. ADA lawsuits about websites create a similar incentive for long-term change.

and, hopefully, just as we've realized that ADA compliance benefits all of us, whether it's in the form of getting old or pushing strollers or nursing a sprained ankle, we'll get to the point where the improved information availability from ADA compliance becomes an intrinsic part of the power of the web.

<comment><USER12> Yet there are still scammy lawyers who file ADA lawsuits against small businesses. Here's a great example of what I consider a typical ADA lawyer: [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/prenda_law_attorney_w...](http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/prenda_law_attorney_who_switched_to_ada_suits_is_suspended_says_hell_contin)

<comment><USER16> There are bad actors in every domain, but cherrypicking one doesn't tell us much about the overall balance. (Heck, for every scummy lawyer who uses the ADA as their club of choice, there are probably 100 who specialize in extracting money using questionable torts claims. Prenda Law was infamous for being a pile of snakes, enough so that they justify their own wikipedia article [0]).

Countering anecdote with anecdote, here's an example of the importance of ADA lawsuits:

[https://www.peds.org/campaigns/sidewalk-maintenance/curb- ram...](https://www.peds.org/campaigns/sidewalk-maintenance/curb-rampsl/)

Atlanta has been awful about keeping their pedestrian infrastructure working. And this wasn't a profit-seeking lawsuit -- it was the DoJ.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> My suspicion is that a major aspect of this is the proliferation of SPAs built with tools that make accessibility seriously difficult. If you have an old- fashioned web application that spits out HTML only, congratulations, your site is already 90% of the way to compliance! Most of the a11y issues arise not from omitting some special step, but from _breaking behaviour the browser already provides by default_.

Tabstops: browsers have these but if you mix up forms with crazy CSS they don't work well. Focus states: there by default, frequently removed by CSS. Font sizes & contrast: high contrast & adequately large (and scalable!) by default.

Semantic HTML, alt tags, and a "skip to content" link are up to you, combine those with not breaking the browser's behaviour and you're 90% there, maybe 100%.

In the process of reinventing the web UI wheel, a lot of the a11y features of the browser were forgotten.

</comment><comment><USER18> Much of the discussion here is about commercially viable sites. Some budget and staffing exists to make progress, and some chunk of that will be redirected to a11y.

I deal also with science research and education outreach content. There's often no budget. No staff. Crufty pages put up by graduate students. Or zombie sites left up long after their funding is gone. It's severely bottlenecked on overworked people finding a bit of time to volunteer on something that helps the world and largely doesn't help them. Even having a working web server is a challenge. It's profoundly marginal, and every tweak of barrier energy directly throttles how much of it occurs.

High-stakes a11y could be a disaster for this area. The liability exposure, associated administrative hassle, and simple bare technical cost, might have severe impact.

When Berkeley took down years of youtube lectures in response to DoJ ADA concerns, they had already stopped making new ones pubic. So while dramatic negative impact on the scale of large projects is a thing, I'm more worried about the smaller-scale but systemic stuff.

For marginal efforts, an "if it's public, there are requirements and risks" has a straightforward impact - it won't be public, it won't exist. At least not there.*

And if a11y requirements aren't grandfathered, then as standards rise, the long tail of pages that persist long after their authors have moved on, retired, or died, that persist until a host name changes or a disk dies, will likely be intentionally cut off. Like corporate email retention minimization, but for human knowledge on the web.

Having watched copyright compliance dramatically slow open education content creation at a range of scales, and HIPAA kill off promising work on patient- created orientation content, and now hearing of "high-stakes" a11y... I worry that we don't fully appreciate just how large a price in retarded progress we're choosing to pay, since it's hard-to-see "that which might now exist... doesn't; those we might have helped... weren't".

*Or... maybe small-scale content will simply be shifted off university sites, onto personal ones? And google and archive.org can fill in the gaps? There's already a trend of research groups having two sites; an institutional one, and a second more extensive one under the personal control of the professor who might move elsewhere. And graduate students having their own, describing their own work. So perhaps "high-stakes" a11y will merely accelerate this?

<comment><USER19> Small scale educational and research sites tend to already be accessible.

The default behaviours of HTML and default CSS are accessible to a reasonable degree. PDFs that aren't scans are accessible.

It tends to be when one overrides behaviour that you start to become inaccessible.

JS is awful for breaking a site for a screen reader as the purpose and contents can change after or during it being read.

Scientists and researchers, in my experience, don't tend to futz with the markup, because it's just the delivery tool, not their purpose.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I work in government and this is a major issue right now. We've basically pulled any and all content that wasn't required to be online from our website until it has been "certified accessible" by a third party.

It's not the government I work for, but a nearby sheriff's office took their website completely offline and replaced it with a simple text based site[1]. The cost to make their old site accessible and the liability of leaving it up was too high.

That said and as others have mentioned in their comments, all of these institutions know that accessibility is mandated by law and they've just kind of ignored it.

[1] [https://www.alachuasheriff.org](https://www.alachuasheriff.org)

<comment><USER21> That's not a "simple text based site", it's simply a landing page. A "simple text based site" would probably be easier for everyone involved.

<comment><USER20> Is a landing page not a subset of simple text based site?

<comment><USER22> No. You don't make a building accessible by putting a sign on the front saying "wheelchairs not welcome", and you shouldn't make a web site "accessible" by gutting it of all content and functionality that isn't already accidentally accessible. This is at best a case of malicious compliance.

<comment><USER20> I never said it was accessible. I said it was a text based site, which it is. I feel like you're misunderstanding on purpose just to argue.

I also never said that it was okay for them to do that. But it meets the minimum requirements of the law and is legally compliant (or so their lawyer says).

In fact, my point was that they should _not_ do that. They did it to avoid getting sued. Now any functionality they could have offered, such as online crime reporting or crime stat lookups, are not even options.

<comment><USER22> It's rather uselessly pedantic to claim that a single page placeholder qualifies as a simple text-based web site for the purposes of a discussion like this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Web Developers need to start designing accessibility in from the start. Adding WCAG compliance after the fact is much more difficult.

I wonder if part of the problem is that we still don't have an official way to develop "blueprints" for websites the way building designers do. As the industry matures, having inaccessible websites could be as taboo as having inaccessible buildings is today.

<comment><USER24> In my experience, too many websites are created design-first, content later. When your first consideration is visual appeal, it's much harder to go back and add meaning to the content that was never really intended to stand by itself without its surrounding visual context.

<comment><USER25> Design drives sales online. Entirely. If brick and mortar stores had to design their entire storefront and display area around wheelchair accessibility first to the detriment of 5-10% or more of recurring revenue we'd instantly have a small city worth of lobbyists to reverse it.

<comment><USER26> But don't brick and mortar stores indeed comply with accessibility laws through building codes?

<comment><USER24> In the US, the ADA does indeed mandate many things (reserved parking spaces, door widths, ramps/elevators, etc.). Though to continue the analogy, I think we'd need to extend it to how the merchandise itself is displayed/marketed—for example, requiring all products to be accessible by someone in a wheelchair, braille on all packaging, etc.

<comment><USER27> Notice the usage of "Undue Burden" from the official ADA documentation: "The rules are also flexible for communicating effectively with customers who are blind or have low vision. A sales clerk can find items and read their labels..."

See joebubna's comment in this topic for more depth: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20226398](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20226398)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I've done WCAG / ADA work over the last two years and it's been a wake up call for government funded organizations and even small businesses, not to mention designers, developers and staff who manage content.

From my experience, most of these lawsuits are "predatory" in nature. Law firm finds a sympathetic case, sues as many orgs as they can, and collects massive fees along the way while the web developers get thrown under the bus, or also collect massive fees (yay?!?). The same can be said for "workshops" that teach people about compliance.

Passing automated WCAG tests, vs actually following the "spirit" of compliance are two completely different things. I've spent countless hours attempting to get my code to pass automated tests, just so when I pass back to the client they don't throw it back in my lap, despite my code being fully compliant and accessible.

We also do design work, and work with external designers with no concept of accessibility. Often (most) times, clients dictate the design and often make decisions that violate accessibility rules. Color contrast, "wiz bang" features are the two most common violators. Full accessibility limits design freedom considerably.

I met with a 100% government funded org just last week and told them their (hundred + page) site (no CMS) was not in any way compliant. You should have seen the look on their faces. They then proceeded to show me websites they like, to inspire a redesign project and NONE of them were even remotely compliant despite all the examples also being gov funded.

20-30% in the cost increase to make a new website project fully compliant. Retrofitting an old website? The cost could easily exceed the initial development.

To be clear, I'm not saying websites should not be compliant, just that ... it's messy and the guidelines aren't always clear. Aggressive law firms are only making things worse.

Final note: The accessibility capabilities of social networks are ... not good. Where do you post transcriptions of your Facebook video? Where do you specify alt tags, or "long descriptions"? The list is extensive.

Final final note: Once your web developer is "done". Your staff who blogs and the content creators that fuel this work can ruin everything. Staff training is often overlooked.

<comment><USER29> "Aggressive law firms are only making things worse."

Are they? Would you, or the one writing the cheque, care without them?

<comment><USER28> _I care_ about WCAG, PCI, GDPR and things like privacy policies, security and accessibility. However, I work for clients who simply want an inexpensive (as possible) website that they like the looks of. My competitors sell increasingly inexpensive solutions that lack these considerations, further driving down the expectations of price by the client (race to the bottom). Convincing them to care AND pay more is difficult. The lawsuits have made them afraid, and in some cases frantic. I don't believe FUD is the most effective way to improving accessibility. Maybe the ends justifies the means, but I cringe thinking we're lining the pockets of law firms for only marginal improvement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> If you want to make a website accessible without much effort then don't add shitty animations that hide content, don't use divs for buttons and links, don't use modals for everything, don't make text that's barely readable, etc, keep it simple and stick to semantic HTML. I made a checklist years ago [https://github.com/miguelmota/web- accessibility](https://github.com/miguelmota/web-accessibility)

</comment><comment><USER31> My university went through an accessibility remediation process recently, and it was a rather nightmarish undertaking. Many universities have multiple (thousands) of individual microsites that are largely untouched for years at a time, and I've always wondered if these would be targeted by people looking to bring a complaint.

Our HTML was more or less fine (though we found and fixed a few bugs), but the unbelievable number of PDFs and un-captioned videos nearly broke us. The culture shift has been difficult, particularly with people who want to post videos or PDFs but don't have the resources or training to make those pieces of content accessible.

<comment><USER32> > Many universities have multiple (thousands) of individual microsites that > are largely untouched for years at a time

Wholeheartedly agree with this. I once hosted a microsite on my personal server for a group at the university I was a web flunkey for as it needed to get up quickly, and well, corporate IT wasn't the fastest thing there, and it took them _years_ to ask for changes after I'd left.

It's usually pretty easy for universities to update their main public facing pages, but as you mention, it's the _thousands_ of other, quite often slightly bespoke (as this Professional or that Dr wants their own, custom slice) that's the breaker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Isn't this the ADA working as designed?

My understanding is that the ADA is enforced specifically by citizens filing complaints which turn into lawsuits.

It's great that these lawsuits actually carry enough weight to make the universities take action.

In other cases, companies repeatedly get fined for some violation (pollution comes to mind) and simply see it as a cost of doing business.

</comment><comment><USER34> One news story [1] has a copy of the suit within the article. Suit [2]

No word on exact amounts being sued for over and beyond compliance enforcement. I am all for compliance but there needs to be safeguards against excessive lawyer fees and actual damages at most could only be applicable to one defendant. It is clear from previous cases that they are claiming damages

The fact so many state colleges have not complied should be an embarrassment to the states which this is true and if wider spread should be an absolute requirement before federal funds are given to any state college to include providing backing to student loans.

 __ __Compensatory and damages in an amount to be determined by proof, including all applicable statutory and punitive damages and fines, to Plaintiff and the proposed class for violations of their civil rights under The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, New York State Human Rights Law and City Law; f.

Pre- and post-judgment interest; g.

An award of costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees; and

-31- h.

Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper ____

[1][https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Colleges- including-S...](https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Colleges-including- Saint-Rose-hit-with-mass-13442769.php)

[2] [https://www.scribd.com/document/394914375/Camacho-v-St- Rose#...](https://www.scribd.com/document/394914375/Camacho-v-St- Rose#from_embed)

</comment><comment><USER35> While I want the web to be maximally accessible to all individuals it seems like these lawsuit have had a chilling effect on things like opencourseware and open access to university courses.

</comment><comment><USER10> It's a shame that it takes lawsuits to force colleges to do something they should have done voluntarily years ago.

<comment><USER36> It's like how most companies treat information security:

1\. Assess the cost of implementing proper security vs cost of doing damage control in the event of a breach

2\. If former is less than latter, implement proper security. If not, ignore the problem until a breach happens

Just replace "security" with "accessibility" and "breach" with "lawsuit"

<comment><USER10> College IT department managers aren't financially sophisticated enough to calculate explicit trade offs between accessibility compliance versus lawsuit costs.

<comment><USER37> They probably are but a) lack the data they need and b) realize that breaking the law is not a 'and you get to keep your government job' career move.

<comment><USER38> Surely if they don't have the data then their set up is, by definition, not sophisticated enough to address the balance point for payoff in costs of non- mandated accessibility work?

<comment><USER37> Mostly, but sometimes 'financially sophisticated' is interpreted as 'does not know / cannot derive the formulas involved.'

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Ugh, implementing a11y correctly is onerous... I feel like screen readers need to get better, not the other way around

<comment><USER40> Do you have an example of an improvement?

I mean if you use ad iv or img instead of a button how will the reader know that is a button?

Do you use the reader mode in Firefox or similar extensions? Have you seen webpages where it does not work or instead of grabbing only the content it grabs a lot of the advertising and other garbage? Accessible webpage would help people that use reader mode too.

<comment><USER41> Even when using semantic markup as you describe, there are still accessibility gotchas waiting to pounce.

[https://www.rachelandrew.co.uk/archives/2019/06/04/grid- cont...](https://www.rachelandrew.co.uk/archives/2019/06/04/grid-content-re- ordering-and-accessibility/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I find some of these comments quite bizarre.

Section 508 has been around, for what, 20 years?

And using lynx to see how a document is rendered was used quite a bit, for both some accessibility assessment, and also SEO.

I can definitely see how difficult this can be as an after-thought, but higher-ed should know better.

This is not a new requirement.

<comment><USER43> I always understood that Section 508 applied only to US Federal agencies and any third-party products they make use of.

<comment><USER42> If they are receiving federal monies (student loans and grants), they must comply.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Mods, can you update this article to have (2018) in the title? The original article [1] was published on December 4, 2018, nearly 6 months ago. The lawsuit was filed on November 17, 2018 [2].

[1]: [https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Colleges- including-S...](https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Colleges-including- Saint-Rose-hit-with-mass-13442769.php)

[2]:[https://www.scribd.com/document/394914375/Camacho-v-St- Rose#...](https://www.scribd.com/document/394914375/Camacho-v-St- Rose#from_embed)

</comment><comment><USER45> Would the plaintiff still have a case if the defendants staffed a phone line with someone available to navigate the websites by verbal instruction and made the availability of that service obvious? (I believe phone companies already provide speech <-> text services for people who can't speak and/or hear.) Seems like a decent compromise.

<comment><USER46> I've seen some web sites recently that have small text at the bottom reading something like, "Need help reading this web site? Call 800-xxx-xxx for assistance."

I don't know if that stands up in a court of law, but it's an interesting way to handle the problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I used to do Help Desk while attending University and often times people would have trouble using JAWS (screen reader) on Blackboard/Canvas pages. Almost made finishing school work impossible and those companies didn't seem to be putting in any effort accessibility wise.

</comment><comment><USER48> Accessibility is hard. It's not just a technical problem. It informs every stage of conceptualizing, designing, and implementing a web site. Accessibility is end-to-end.

For instance WCAG 2.1 requires a minmum text color contrast ratio of 4.5:1. If a web designer and other stakeholders haven't taken this on board there's a risk they'll select an inaccessible color palette. And that's just one requirement.

Designs that appeal to management and other stakeholders are more often hostile to accessibility than not.

[https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#contrast- minimum](https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#contrast-minimum)

</comment><comment><USER49> Why aren't we designing the web to be "accessible first" instead of "mobile first". It's gotta be exponentially more difficult to retrofit accessibility on top of a site designed for sighted users instead of vice-versa.

Isn't that the same premise behind why the web started designing "mobile first"?

</comment><comment><USER50> This was a priority at Cornell until the Peoplesoft/Duffield Hall disaster happened and at that point anybody in IT had a target on their back.

The most used web page at Cornell has been the weather report for the longest time, but CIT didn't know and shut it off out of ignorance. Then all of a sudden they get hundreds of calls.

IT at Cornell was a center of excellence in the past, but since Lehman left, it as seem as a cost center that gets in the way of hiring more academics.

<comment><USER51> Your post assumes readers have a significant amount of knowledge about Cornell. Most of us have no idea what the "Peoplesoft/Duffield Hall disaster" was, what CIT stands for, or who Lehman is.

<comment><USER50> CIT == Cornell Information Technology, the central IT organization.

The Peoplesoft/Duffield Hall disaster was two connected scandals.

David Duffield (the Peoplesoft founder) donated money to build Duffield hall, which houses a national nanotechnology center. That nanotechnology also received startup funds from the NSF, which required that Cornell raise matching funds from some source that wasn't the NSF. When they demanded documentation, Cornell said that was impossible (paperwork is SNAFU), the NSF said "This is an eligibility requirement, not a reporting requirement". Cornell was informed it wouldn't be getting any more funding from the NSF if it didn't correct the situation.

Around the same time Cornell attempted a Peoplesoft implementation that went at least $50 million over budget while implementing only 20% of the original scope.

The first project manager they hired said there was no way they could do the project with the budget they wanted, they fired him and hired a Yes Man. The rest is history.

Jeff Lehman was president of Cornell for about a year. He announced his resignation at Alumni week, shocking people. The cause of his resignation was kept secret, but I can't help but believe that he took office when the above mentioned scandals hit. (These certainly were not his fault because the situations started before his watch)

What I do know is that there was a severe money pinch, which caused a series of cascading failures, and also that everything at Cornell that was unique and special had to fight for it's right to exist, while they kept chasing the same fads as all the other Ivys.

Was this why Lehman quit? I don't know. But I do know if he stayed he would have been cleaning up an awful mess instead of leading new initiatives.

<comment><USER52> Cornell has an endowment in excess of $7 billion dollars, why wouldn't some of that have been used to ensure the "unique & special" didn't die? Politics?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Plenty of water was flowing through Taughannock Falls on Tuesday

</comment><comment><USER54> > using the web normally

Perhaps one way to approach the issue is for people who build web frameworks to reconsider their anchor of "normal."

<comment><USER55> My question is why use the web at all? Surely there's an easier way for a blind person to access an information or send data to an API than through an HTML web page.

<comment><USER56> HTML _was_ that way! "Hey, look, it's a spec where any computer can send a request, and you get a nice, structured text document back that's machine- parseable. It even words for the blind, who can just plug their own preferred reader into the doc! Problem solved."

Oh wait, except most of the audience isn't blind, and starts using clients that can do ever-zanier things with the UI. Designers want to appeal to this market. The beautiful, parseable structure of HTML gets forgotten about, and it's no longer usable by the blind.

So you want content providers to support an api endpoint that works like HTML used to? Okay, but what stops that exact process from happening all over again?

Or, maybe you mean that every provider in existence will support two versions of every endpoint: the meth-addled zany design, and the standards-compliant, usable one. Okay, that could work, but it seems a lot harder than just having one version that makes a small effort to make itself more machine parseable.

<comment><USER55> So is it easier just to provide static web pages for accessibility?

<comment><USER57> I'd be ok with that, personally. I'd set my browser to use that version of a site by default.

<comment><USER56> That's what "reader mode" effectively is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> As an aside, I do not think Apple gets nearly enough credit for designing iOS, WatchOS and MacOS with the needs of the blind and disabled in mind. It's truly a beautiful thing.

</comment><comment><USER59> Like cars, soon all the websites will look nearly identical. Building your own, your choice will be the background color to use and one of a number of approved fonts you can select from.

Cars have regulations about the size, color, brightness of all the external lights, airbags, emissions, noise levels, etc., that when you put all these together, you get a Chevy Impala. Or a Toyota Camry.

Compare the SUVs, for example. I just bought one and I constantly turn my head when an SUV passes on the street thinking it's the same as mine. But turns out it's from a different maker altogether. Designed on a different continent by very different people.

<comment><USER60> I'm not sure if you've ever been in a building, but in case you haven't, I can assure you there's a lot that goes into their design and identity beyond the presence of a wheelchair ramp. Cars look identical because of consumer expectations, not because of the ozone resistance of their brake hoses.

<comment><USER25> Websites, however, can experience drastic swings in recurring revenue, brand loyalty, all from the addition or removal of a seemingly minor visual interface element. Design = Sales online. If compliance for brick and mortar stores moved out of the entryway and into the mandated height of display cases, counters, signage for colorblind patrons, and mandatory gluten free options there would be a deluge of lobbyists to stop it.

<comment><USER61> All of those (except for the gluten) are already covered by the ADA though?

<comment><USER25> To some degree, where its followed at all, where its enforced at all, and when its not convenient exceptions get made. That's kind of my point... If this becomes a crackdown there will be an equally large backlash.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Turns out, we geeks REQUIRE innovation. It's in the brain chemistry. - <AUTHOR> http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Innovate-or-Suffer-Slow-Brain-Asphyxiation/ba-p/499 <comment><USER2> It's a nice headline and a nice theory, but I don't think it can be blanket- applied to geeks. Remember, geeks are the ones tirelessly defending Emacs and UNIX and who were endlessly cynical about the iPod, iPhone, and iPad. There's some kind of brain that wants to keep moving outside its comfort zone, but geeks is too broad of a classification.</comment>


A different kind of personal website - <AUTHOR> https://n0thingness.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Author here. This website is an art project that I've put together the last few days.

This is part therapy, an exploration of my own mental health, and part artistic exploration.</comment>


Special Linear Systems and Cholesky Factorization for Programmers - <AUTHOR> http://dragan.rocks/articles/17/Clojure-Numerics-3-Special-Linear-Systems-and-Cholesky-Factorization <comment><USER2> Part 1: [http://dragan.rocks/articles/17/Clojure-Numerics-1-Use- Matri...](http://dragan.rocks/articles/17/Clojure-Numerics-1-Use-Matrices- Efficiently)

Part 2: [http://dragan.rocks/articles/17/Clojure- Numerics-2-General-L...](http://dragan.rocks/articles/17/Clojure- Numerics-2-General-Linear-Systems-and-LU-Factorization)

Linear Algebra Refresher:

[http://dragan.rocks/articles/17/Clojure-Linear-Algebra- Refre...](http://dragan.rocks/articles/17/Clojure-Linear-Algebra-Refresher- Vector-Spaces)

[http://dragan.rocks/articles/17/Clojure-Linear-Algebra- Refre...](http://dragan.rocks/articles/17/Clojure-Linear-Algebra-Refresher- Eigenvalues-and-Eigenvectors)

[http://dragan.rocks/articles/17/Clojure-Linear-Algebra- Refre...](http://dragan.rocks/articles/17/Clojure-Linear-Algebra- Refresher-3-Matrix-Transformations)

[http://dragan.rocks/articles/17/Clojure-Linear-Algebra- Refre...](http://dragan.rocks/articles/17/Clojure-Linear-Algebra-Refresher- Linear-Transformations)

<comment><USER3> For linear algebra basics, I also especially recommend 3Blue1Brown's youtube channel and his "Essence of" series:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjBOesZCoqc&list=PLZHQObOWTQ...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjBOesZCoqc&list=PLZHQObOWTQDPD3MizzM2xVFitgF8hE_ab)

I've never seen the material presented more clearly - it's completely visual and focused on building intuition first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is awesome. I can't wait until the future when we'll get more informal blog posts from programmers about even more abstract subjects which thus far are dominated in exposition by academics (who very rarely innovate in how they present the material). The day I see a good engineer-style post on HN about sheaf theory or algebraic geometry will be amazing.

<comment><USER2> Author here. I hope I won't spoil the future, since I work at a university, but I am also a programmer, and these libraries and tutorials have been made to be 100% practical with the working programmers as the target audience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Now the real tough question is how do you pronounce Cholesky? I had a Polish math prof who was mad at the American pronunciation, but Cholesky was actually French, so should we actually pronounce it in the francophone style?

<comment><USER6> The sophisticated linear algebra practitioners I learned from all said "ko- LESS-key". People who ask me naive questions about the decomposition ("wait, is it upper triangular or lower triangular?") say "choe-LESS-key", or "CHOLES- key", or mutter something even farther off the mark.

Thus, I'm sticking with ko-LESS-key.

Also seeking opinions on: Weiner (as in the process), and Jensen (as in the inequality), Fourier (as in the series).

<comment><USER7> _Fourier_

I've always heard this pronounced like "for-e-ay" (or "for-e-eh" where the last part is the Canadian "eh?").

<comment><USER6> I'm with you. You also hear "FOUR-e-err", and my favorite EE teacher said "FUR-ee-err", indistinguishable from the word for a fur coat-maker, which always produced a smile. (But, he's a fellow of the IEEE and I'm not, so who's laughing now?)

I say "WEE-ner" (since he was American, but, open to correction on that one) and "YEN-sen" (that's how I was taught).

<comment><USER5> > FOUR-e-err

My favorites are 'you-ler' for Euler and 'goose-e-in' for Gaussian.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Font size at 23px. Seriously?

Just skimmed and now my eyes are hurt.

Computation cost of calculating the Cholesky factorization of the original second derivative matrix is comparable to cost of calculating the inverse factorization.

</comment><comment><USER9> Since LAPACK is an excellent library for these matrix functions, why not use it, and translate it to Clojure instead of reinventing the wheel? (There's also a translator from Fortran to C).

<comment><USER2> Because JVM does not have access to the hardware features needed to execute this efficiently. Also, the power of lapack comes from existing highly tuned _implementations_ , not the interface itself. Reference BLAS and LAPACK are actually quite slow.

<comment><USER10> In fact, you can access the hardware through native calls via JNI (or JNA). Or course, then, you have to embedded multiplatform libraries and manage the associated issues. Also, the OpenBLAS implementation is very well optimized for several Intel and AMD processors (you can compile it so that it autodetects which one you're using). It can even reach the efficiency of the Intel's MKL implementation in mono-threaded mode.

<comment><USER2> We don't even have to guess, since that's exactly what Neanderthal does. Also, I micro-benchmarked lots of options and have yet to find one that fills similar use case that is faster than Neanderhtal+MKL on the CPU, regardless of the JNI overhead (minus the obvious direct use of MKL, but that is much more low-level code). Also, most higher level libraries have considerable overhead. Neanderthal's overhead is tiny.

OpenBLAS's huge drawback is that it only supports BLAS without LAPACK, sparse, tensors, FFT etc.

Anyway, regarding the OP's comment, I guess that they meant to suggest implementing all that in pure Java, not Java + FFI, since then the native code has to be written in non-Java.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bootstrap Wishlist - <AUTHOR> http://elmahdim.com/demo/bootstrap-wl/

<comment><USER2> "If you're using a bootstrap as your front-end framework, then why the <select> element isn't customized in my <form> just as the standard bootstrap dropdowns !?!"

You're not using a <select> element in your example so I'm not sure how this is a solution? If I went to a doctor complaining of sore fingers, I would not be impressed if his recommended solution was to say "ah, but you have perfectly working toes, just use them instead!"

</comment><comment><USER3> The dropdowns replacement is really useful all on its own. I wish Bootstrap had that built-in. You should request to have this added this to the Bootstrap Expo! [http://expo.getbootstrap.com/about/#suggestions](http://expo.getbootstrap.com/about/#suggestions)

</comment><comment><USER4> I have to admit I was expecting a little more than this. Why don't you rename the project into ``Bootstrap dropdown replacement'' or something, it would be more accurate.

<comment><AUTHOR> @yoanizer! first of all thanks. Bootstrap Wishlist isn't only about the dropdown! there's more things are coming. It would be kind of you, if You tell/share what you was expecting?

Once again thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Very underwhelming overall.

<comment><AUTHOR> @NathanCH underwhelming for you doesn't mean underwhelming for the rest.

Thanks</comment></comment>


Former astronaut doubts that NASA or SpaceX will make it to Mars - <AUTHOR> http://bgr.com/2018/06/19/mars-mission-chris-hadfield-astronaut-nasa-spacex/ <comment><USER2> The article's headline (and much of the text) is pretty vague. The astronaut apparently doesn't think we will get there "soon" \- whatever that means.

If we look at it in perspective of all 5,000 or so years or recorded human history, I'd say we WILL be there pretty darn soon. Just maybe not next year.

<comment><USER3> It'll either be soon, or never.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not the headline. It actually says: "Former astronaut doubts that NASA or SpaceX will make it to Mars with their shiny new rockets"

Which is, of course, no surprise to anyone, lease of all NASA and SpaceX.

<comment><AUTHOR> The title had to be truncated to fit HN (80 char max).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It would have been pretty easy to say the same thing in 1965 about the moon...

<comment><USER6> The environment in 1965 was completely different. It really would not have been easy to say we will not get to the moon in 1965, because there were strong suspicions that the Russians were already there. (And if they weren't, there were even stronger suspicions that they soon would be.) If you lived through the cold war, I'm probably triggering those memories for you right now. It was very much a time when the thinking was that it had to be done. (Right or wrong, that was the thinking, and those were the suspicions that existed.)

Besides, in 1965 Block 1 Apollo CSM was already built and being fitted for AS-201. (Apollo 1-A)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Who cares? Why are we supposed to be interested in why someone _thinks_ (with no analytical insight to back it up) one of our brightest will fail? Everyone thinks Musk will fail at everything he does, yet here we are. Can we stop submitting articles reinforcing the notion?</comment>


Zuckerberg's manifesto says: "it's really, really… really complicated" - <AUTHOR> http://meshedsociety.com/zuckerbergs-globalization-manifesto-says-its-really-really-really-complicated/ <comment><USER2> Low effort writing that says nothing of substance but attempts to get a rise out of the reader. Pass.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok I'll try better next time.

<comment><USER2> I take it you're the author, then? If so, let me ask you: what were you trying to accomplish with this writing, why, and why do you feel that your chosen rhetoric accomplishes that?

<comment><AUTHOR> It was mostly a follow-up to the blog post mentioned in the beginning of this one. Probably it didn't make sense to post it here.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Facebook C++ Conference Live Blogging - <AUTHOR> http://ramisayar.com/fb-cpp-conf/

<comment><USER2> There is something odd about seeing the world's greatest software engineers show off their new string_to_int function.

Why are so many conversions needed? " _they have many protocols that store ints as strings_ " why?

<comment><AUTHOR> They use facebook ids everywhere which are integers represented as strings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> more useful than live blogging <https://github.com/boostcon/cppnow_presentations_2012>

</comment><comment><USER4> The dynamic class is a cool idea, i'm glad it's faster for their use case, and it's nice to have canonical implementations of format and json_parse. Aside from that, seems pretty unnoteworthy - Does this fit into HipHop, or do Facebook have another large C++ project?

<comment><AUTHOR> This all fits into Folly: The Facebook Open Source Library. <https://github.com/facebook/folly></comment></comment>


AMA with YC Partner Aaron Harris on Applying to YC – S17 Deadline Is Tonight - <AUTHOR> YC applications for the Summer 2017 batch are due tonight. Here's the link to apply - http://www.ycombinator.com/apply/ <comment><USER2> This may not be something you can answer, but I'm curious as to the scoring methodology and how teams get invited to interviews (or not) behind the scenes.

Is there a rating system? A binary yes/no that needs to be seconded by enough reviewers?

<comment><USER3> There is a rating system. It works in two tiers. The first set of grades is given by a set of alum reviewers. That puts anywhere from 3-10 votes on an application.

The ones with enough passing votes then get reviewed by partners. We then vote on every application between 2-5 times, and stack rank the results. We invite the top ~450 to interviews.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hi! I still remember how nervous I was submitting my YC application 6 years ago. Now that I get to read them, happy to answer any last minute questions you have. AMA!

</comment><comment><USER4> For the question "What will your company make?" do you recommend that startups focus on explaining what they've already built, or on what they will build out in the future? Thanks!

<comment><USER3> Depends how far along you are. Feel free to describe both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> What's the best stage of startup for applying to YC - when you have a product in mind and still chalking out the plan, working on Product Market Fit (not building it yet)? when you have a working prototype? when you already have some traction? any of above?

<comment><USER3> This is a great question. We take companies at all different stages, from ideas through those who are already in market with customers.

The "right stage" is more a question of how long you've been working than an absolute state. The more you can get done in a given amount of time, the better.

<comment><USER6> > The more you can get done in a given amount of time, the better.

Time meaning calendar days or person hours? E.g. if you're comparing a two cofounder startup with a three cofounder startup, where they've each been working full time for a year, do you care more about absolute progress after a year or about progress normalized to the number of person hours?

Obviously after you invest the main metric that matters is progress per calendar day, since that's what affects your IRR. But if a startup hasn't taken external funding then there is a more interesting discussion to be had about the relative meaningfulness of each, how their importance might be shifting over time, etc.

<comment><USER3> We don't have an exact formula. When I look at an application, I try to figure out how much time is being spent on the co and work off of that.

Obviously it's different for full time vs. part time and many vs. few. However, if an idea has been sitting around in halfway space for years, I'm going to want to know why.

<comment><USER7> Is running another profitable business, plus college a good reason for not actively working on the idea?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> d--b Hi again Aaron, can you tell us the proportion of YC-funded company that had at least 1 referral from other founders / yc partners?

If you cannot state a number can you at least qualitatively tell us whether having a referral is a huge boost or a slight advantage?

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't think too much about it. While I look at referrals when they exist, they don't change my mind one way or the other. The rest of the application is way more important.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hey Aaron, If you've previous applied and got at least to a video interview. Can it work against you if you've slightly changed your answer to 'Describe your company...' and 'What will your company make'?

<comment><USER9> > If you've previous applied and got at least to a video interview.

Is a video interview a new thing? I thought it was just 1) Apply (with a pre- recorded video explaining your startup) 2) In-person at the YC office. Is there a step 1.5 now too?

<comment><USER10> [https://www.reddit.com/r/startups/comments/58y7py/anyone_get...](https://www.reddit.com/r/startups/comments/58y7py/anyone_get_a_yc_video_interview/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If there's a competing startup funded already by YC, will you make sure that they won't get details of the application?

<comment><USER12> Similar to talking VC, there is no guarantee. But unless you have a truley secret sauce going on, ideas by themselves rarely matter.

People have a tendency to overestimate ideas. They are remarkable easy to come up with. I have been in brainstorming session, where we would come up with at least 10-12 really good ideas within an hour. Usually it is execution that matters at the end, as you don't know what it works or what it doesn't.

Tested ideas that move the needle a lot on the other hand are valuable: Eg. We tried to get sign ups doing X, but we failed, but then when we did Y and Z and added these two features we saw a huge increase in signups and retention. -- That's direct learnings from the field, and it is both expensive and somewhat valuable.

<comment><USER11> I agree with the premise that ideas themselves are worthless.

But what's questionable is whether YC acts in favour of the new applicants that share their insights honestly, or whether they are more prone to protect their investment in the already funded startup (by providing them with details/intel).

<comment><USER13> I agree that execution is everything, but when people say "ideas are worthless" \-- I just have to assume they've never had a good idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Hi Aaron, as mentioned in the YC video tips about volume I wanted to share with everyone that today after a friend watched my video he complained about low volume even though it was fine on my machine. I wanted to let applicants know that there is an adjustment in the edit section of youtube as seen here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvxTWXVMikg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvxTWXVMikg)

Which I am doing now haha. although i think it does change the link to an unregistered video so you may have to edit your application.

</comment><comment><USER15> Hi Aaron, I'm about to submit our application for cosum, a mobile marketplace that lets people use coworking spaces worldwide on demand per hour instead of months. So basically we're changing the unit from a month to an hour (AWS > Server > Minute) so people pay their actual usage. We lower the price for consumers, increase their flexibility and increase the revenue of spaces by using their resources smarter.

I introduced this model at my own coworking space and it's a huge success. The idea to make this model available on a worldwide mobile marketplace is only 2 weeks old and I started working with 3 of my members on it. As they are all freelancers, they can't just start with something full-time without funding. So I created a prototype/milestone deal with them, paying a little out of my pocket now and more when I raise money + possibility to become co-founders. No shares etc. have been discussed yet. How would you put this in the application? And one more question: We don't have a demo yet, shall I include a possible link for it or is there a way of updating you guys. I'm confident we can show progress in the next days. Thanks!

<comment><USER3> Just describe what you're doing and how your team is split as you do here. I'd also want to know what the milestones are, and what that means in terms of pay and equity for the team members.

<comment><USER15> Thanks! Will do. I understand we're very early, but in one week we'll be a little bit less early and I think we can launch a closed beta before April 24. Proof of concept on the consumer side has happened, so I wanna focus on convincing spaces in the next days. How can I update you and the other partners on our process?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Aaron, I am curious if there has been any further development on bringing back the YC radio podcast?

I think that was a brilliant podcast and it offered a lot of valuable insight to others embarking down that path.

<comment><USER3> Aw thanks! I had a lot of fun doing it, but I think the podcast is done. We've started doing other cool things, though, like video office hours: [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ- uHSnFig5PdSeZT05If...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ- uHSnFig5PdSeZT05IflVmZED_ZRcbO)

<comment><USER16> Aaron, thanks for the link. Do you have the audio of these videos hosted anywhere as mp3?

<comment><USER17> In case it's not, you can use offliberty.com. Takes seconds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I am feeling a little worried of our changes while applying to YC. I remember reading that YC looks for companies with can grow up to 10BN.

While we think we can definitely grow upwards of 1 Billion which is what VC firms usually look up too. After 1 Billion is gonna depend a lot on being able to lower the cost of the product enough to increase volume

How hard is this rule? What if the company cannot reach that 10 Billions in Revenue in the future is that a weighted heavily on the application?

<comment><USER3> It's pretty much impossible to figure out if a company is a $1B or $10B company when reading an application. We use this as more of a thought experiment than anything else.

When I read an application, I force myself to imagine a world in which this idea + team could create a really big company. If that's true, than I'm interested. If not, I'm less likely to want to go further.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Having not went through YC (yet!) I'm curious as to how much the Startup School MOOC will mirror the core process?

I imagine YC is more like going from 0.5 to 1--focusing on one or two things such as product or marketing--rather than the 0 to 1 where everything is covered like was done in Sam's How to Start a Startup course at Stanford?

</comment><comment><USER20> If you apply early, and then decide to rewrite everything, does anyone see the edits or has the decision been made?

<comment><USER3> If someone on the admissions team happened to look at your earlier application, sure, but that doesn't get considered. We just look at finished applications when making decisions.

</comment></comment><comment> d--b Hi Aaron, I vaguely remember PG saying that while he was reviewing YC applications he would recognize applicants from their HN contributions. People he liked reading would get a boost.

Did I dream it? Is that still the case that if people like my HN posts, I may get special attention to my application?

<comment><USER21> If this is true, then I'm screwed; all I do here is troll.

<comment><USER17> Haha.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> We just pivoted to a new idea we always wanted to work on yesterday. In one day we did a lot. Is it a good idea to apply with a one day old idea? We have launched and have some traction on the previous idea, but it's not something we really want to work on.

</comment><comment><USER22> We just realized that the switching from "Public Beta" to "Mocks / Renderings" hid a bunch of questions that we previously filled in, but did not clear those answers. So we ended up submitting those answers in our application without our knowledge. We only realized this when we saw "Past submissions" but it's too late to change now. Will this be a big issue?

</comment><comment><USER23> Hey Aaron, we applied last batch and got an in person interview! Do you have any advice on how to get back there? (we have better numbers and a better product)

<comment><USER3> Great to hear that you've made more progress! Just describe it clearly and talk about anything new you've learned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> What's keeping YC from accepting more applicants? What's weighing more in your decision: is it the investment or the labor factor? Would your acceptance rate increase if applicants were to forgo the ~$120k? Rephrased: Are there applicants you could have otherwise accepted were they to decline the cash in exchange for taking part in the program and still giving you the ~7% equity?

Thanks

</comment><comment> d--b Hi Aaron, what differentiates you guys from other accelerators? Like angelpad and techstars?

Is it the core values? Is it the networks, what would you say makes YC unique?

</comment><comment><USER20> Does 2017 YC have technical reviewers? Like PB or PG?

</comment><comment><USER25> Hi Aaron, please tell what docs are needed at the YC office (we're optimistic!) if there is no legal entity yet? In other words, how should I prove the thing is really ours? Is it actually bad that we aren't incorporated? We didn't hurry with this, because we are outside of the US and we know about the need to convert a legal entity into a US one.

<comment><USER26> It's fine that you aren't incorporated yet, and I'm glad you waited! Many applicants have not formed a legal entity when they apply. If you are accepted in the S17 batch, we will help you incorporate in the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> How many seconds of reviewer attention does the average[1] application get before they move on to the next?

[1] confusing, not very good

</comment><comment><USER27> We built both iOS and web apps. Both require login currently and the iOS app is farther along and more interactive as that is how we capture images. How do we get you guys the login info we made you? Or would we be better off sending a demo video showing both working in concert?

<comment><USER28> One way to do this is to have your server respond to an obscure route like /x92y37ruhij0d8f8h1803rf and return a cookie with an automatically saved session for the demo account. But the deadline has passed now, anyway ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Hey Aaron! My team applied earlier this week and we're eager to join the YC community. Are there any traits you look for in applicants? We've read tons of PG's essays but I'm interested in your perspective. Thank you for taking the time to do this AMA!

</comment><comment><USER30> On the applications is there any best practices to follow? How long should we keep our answers?

Thank you!

</comment><comment><USER31> Were all the applications viewed yesterday? The link we included with our wireframe was having problems yesterday and I realized that today. I replied to the submission email earlier today. Is it too late?

</comment><comment><USER32> What are the chances of In college stud, whom drop off school to work on their startup and apply to YC. And its a first experience. But totally obsessed about the idea involved and also open to changes.

</comment><comment><USER33> Hello, we have problem on being able to move to California if we where accepted. My wife will be carrying twins at that time. Is this a deal breaker for YC? If not how do I relay my issue? Thanks

</comment><comment><USER34> Does people who have been to market with their product have an edge over those who are in development phase?

</comment><comment><USER35> What do you look for when evaluating nonprofits?

Also, would you be open to funding a nonprofit in a similar space to one you've already funded that's doing things in a different way?

</comment><comment><USER11> If you've applied early, will the (updated) application be checked again after the deadline, or are the chances that it's been looked at already and already evaluated?

<comment><USER3> We only read applications that have been fully submitted.

<comment><USER11> If one has submitted early (by clicking on the button by accident), could it be that enough reviewers already looked over the application and evaluated it already before the official deadline?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Would emails from prospective enterprise customers be viewed favorably (in lieu of LOI)? We're working with these firms for concept testing - solution is in development.

<comment><USER3> For enterprise companies, this is definitely useful, but not definitive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Where is the line on "What is your most successful hack of a non-computer system" question? What would you consider clever and what would be over the line?

<comment><USER7> What if my best computer system hack is more impressive than my best non computer one?

Can I include multiple "hacks"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> My prospective cofounder could not move to the US, so I applied as a solo founder. Co-founders must be in the US for three months?

</comment><comment><USER20> Do YC reviewers watch the video first, or at the same time as the text app, or only watch the video if they like the text app?

<comment><USER39> I have no idea what the process is but in a previous application my video (AFAICT from YouTube Analytics) was never viewed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> What's the question you wished people would ask for?

Something that a lot of applications get wrong and kills their chances early on.

</comment><comment><USER40> Im working on a product for the real estate market in Argentina: does that work against me for the YC application?

<comment><USER41> YC funds companies that focus in other (non-US) countries. There are a few that demo'd a few days ago that focused in Africa for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Do you keep to a theme for each batch bc I thought I saw something about AI- driven corps this summer?

</comment><comment><USER43> If we're close to closing a seed 500k round, would you recommend we still apply for YC?

</comment><comment><USER44> Is it unlikely for a startup in the mock / rendering stage to get accepted into YC?

<comment><USER3> Nope - we accept plenty of companies at that stage.

<comment><USER45> What are some recent examples?

It would be particularly impressive for a team of ~2-3 people to:

\- build a product

\- handle legal/HR paperwork to set up a company + recruit + hire

\- launch

\- iterate based on feedback

\- Get solid traction by demo day

in just 3 months (the duration of YC).

It seems to me that in the early days of YC, most companies would finish the YC program while still in the idea phase or barely past it, whereas most recent YC companies already have solid traction by demo day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Hi Aaron!

Does it look bad if we have 4 founders ?

Thank you, Channa

<comment><USER3> Nope. There's no good or bad when it comes to the number of founders so long as there's a reason for it.

<comment><USER37> Except 1 :-)

<comment><USER47> Or 49 :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> What would you say the ratio of for-profit vs. non-profit applications is?

</comment><comment><USER49> AMA is a registered trademark of Reddit, Inc. (#86944696).

<comment><USER7> YC owns part of Reddit, I think. Don't anticipate any lawsuits over it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> how to change email address of HN?</comment>


Myspace May Soon Lay Off Large Portion of Staff - <AUTHOR> http://networkeffect.allthingsd.com/20101231/myspace-mulls-significant-layoffs-with-potential-sale-looming/ <comment><USER2> I had no idea that Myspace had relaunched as a media hub 6 weeks ago. Not that my own awareness is really a solid metric, but I am a relatively trend aware 20 something. That should say something to Myspace.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm not sure why they're still running _at all_.

<comment><USER4> You don't know why the 28th most popular site in the US with a $500 million/year ad revenue stream is still running?

<comment><USER5> Also of note, Rupert Murdoch bought myspace for only around $580 million (hard to believe in today's era of crazy multi-billion dollar inflated valuations), so myspace is probably already close to a profitable investment.

Despite the fact that facebook has become the new popular hub for individual social networking, myspace remains one of the few sites that caters to independent bands well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's not fair that software developers never get a chance to lay back and enjoy the long term payoffs of the fruits of their labor, it's like the slaves who toil endlessly to plant the crops then the moment the time of payback comes, they only get a small portion, and in order to survive the slaves must find other work asap or else they will starve.

It takes us massive amounts of effort to build something that makes money, and the moment we finish it, we are fired and other people sit back and enjoy the long term profits. Something has to be done about this.

Software I wrote many years ago is generating massive profits for OTHER PEOPLE. Yet here I am not seeing a cent of that. We still only get paid a "salary" because that is the going wage, regardless of if our software earns 10 million dollars. ITS NOT FAIR I SAY.

<comment><USER7> If you are convinced the buyers of your labor make surplus profits, why do you keep on selling said labor?

<comment><USER6> Because I don't have much money left my bank. If I don't work for someone, I won't eat. I know the solution is to capitalize on the unfairness and make things unfair in my favor by starting my own company, hiring some programmers, have them build something that makes money, hire other people to sell it, then pay them a tiny fraction of what I bring in. But that takes risk. I want big money with no risk.

<comment><USER7> "I want big money with no risk."

Not going to happen.

You should consider moonlighting.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Burn After Clicking – One Time Use URL for Secrets - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/poblahblahblah/burn-after-clicking/ <comment><AUTHOR> I made this because I got sick of seeing passwords copied around in emails and on slack. Normally I would say "we should use GPG," but that's not always super user friendly for non-technical folks.

It encrypt's the body of the "secret" using a default passphrase, and you can optionally set your own to encrypt and "lock" the secret.

I opted to not add in any support for creating users at this point since my intention was to have a company run this internally on a private WAN, although I am sure my position on that will change.</comment>


Ask YC: Has anyone used AngelSoft? - <AUTHOR>

Hi.  I looking for ways to raise start-up capital and wondered if anyone has had a good or bad experience with the AngelSoft software? [angelsoft.net] <comment><USER2> Clickable link: <http://angelsoft.net/>

Earlier discussion about Angelsoft: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=168575>

Discussion started by Fred Wilson: <http://blog.angelsoft.net/2008/09/06/response-to-a-skeptic/></comment>


How a Handful of American Tech Companies Help Radicalized the World - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/ryanhatesthis/brazil-jair-bolsonaro-facebook-elections?__twitter_impression=true <comment><USER3> Non-AMP link (readable without JS, at least for me):

[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/brazil- ja...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/brazil-jair- bolsonaro-facebook-elections)

</comment><comment><USER4> It's reaching the level for me where I am sitting at my desk right now, I am supposed to be writing code for a huge corporation, and I'm just thinking to myself - what's the point? The world is literally going down the drain and there's few hundred people around me producing entertainment content - <USER2> almost feels like a joke, like we should stand up and walk out. I feel like few years ago maybe it wasn't great, but at least it felt like it was getting better, slowly. Now it's the exact opposite - I wouldn't be surprised if all of this lead to another world war, or a huge genocide against a minority somewhere.

Anyone has any ideas on how to deal with how depressing the world is around us? And then - how do we help(without getting killed/landing in jail)?

<comment><AUTHOR> Its interesting how the shift happens very quickly. I feel exactly the same and so do many of my friends. I don't have answer for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> How a Handful of American Tech Companies Helped Radicalized the World

or

How a Handful of American Tech Companies Help Radicalize the World

<comment><USER6> surely Helped Radicalize.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Catholic Church headline in 1500s: "How a handful of Gutenberg press printers radicalized the world."

Distributing a Gutenberg bible was punishable by death at one point. Plenty of war and persecution resulted from the conflict between Protestants and Catholics. Availability of printed bibles in the vernacular played a major role in magnifying the conflict.

<comment><USER8> That's a pretty dramatic metaphor. Can you describe why you think it applies?

<comment><USER7> The Ottoman Empire banned printing presses because they were blasphemous and politically destabilizing and they fell dramatically behind the west leading to their eventual total defeat.

Free speech enabled by new technologies has good and bad parts, but it's more good than bad. The desire for political stability and maintaining the status quo over everything else is a really lousy way to run things and it's just better to accept that the benefits of free and open communication are better than the risks or a pervasive A.I enabled censorship state like they have in China.</comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft has CUSTOM home pages, has anybody noticed? - <AUTHOR> http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx <comment><USER2> That's actually a good looking site. I guess I shouldn't be surprised...MS has plenty of money to hire the best (how to explain their software, though?).

But I'm most impressed that they've figured out that if apps aren't being developed for Windows, they will die a slow death. Front and center they're offering free software development tools, and a great vision of what those tools could do for you (turn you into the next Bill Gates). It's a lie, of course, but still, it's a hell of a good image. (It's a lie because Microsoft will not tolerate the existence of another Bill Gates within their eco- system...you can only ever be a servant to MS when building for MS.)

Anyway, I'm impressed. Really clean design with clear pathways to do things on the site.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Wait a second... when I saw it, it had Bill Gates' photo in the big box with a link to Visual Studio, and an ad for Visual Studio on the right.

The Google cache shows the Microsoft site with an X-Box in the big box, and a game ad, DirectX, Templates, Clipart, and Microsoft Office links.

It must know from cookies in advertising it shows all over the web to know if your IP has seen a lot of XBox ads on XBox sites, or if your IP has seen a lot of Visual Studio ads on Slashdot (even if you don't click) it shows the Visual Studio home page.

Even if you don't click a Microsoft ad, it seems to know which site to show you, probably by collecting IP addresses from different web sites where they show ads.

</comment><comment><USER3> On top of "Popular Downloads" is: "Windows Server code name 'Longhorn' Beta 3". I doubt they show this to all visitors, too...</comment>


The AI delusion: why humans trump machines - <AUTHOR> https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/the-ai-delusion-why-humans-trump-machines-robots-artificial-intelligence-alpha-go-deepmind-marcus-davis-koch-mitchell-review <comment><USER2> Recognition of the powerful pattern matching ability of humans is growing. As a result, humans are increasingly being deployed to make decisions that affect the well-being of other humans. We are starting to see the use of human decision makers in courts, in university admissions offices, in loan application departments, and in recruitment. Soon humans will be the primary gateway to many core services. The use of humans undoubtedly comes with benefits relative to the data-derived algorithms that we have used in the past. The human ability to spot anomalies that are missed by our rigid algorithms is unparalleled. A human decision maker also allows us to hold someone directly accountable for the decisions. However, the replacement of algorithms with a powerful technology in the form of the human brain is not without risks. Before humans become the standard way in which we make decisions, we need to consider the risks and ensure implementation of human decision-making systems does not cause widespread harm. To this end, we need to develop principles for the application for the human intelligence to decision making.

[https://behavioralscientist.org/principles-for-the- applicati...](https://behavioralscientist.org/principles-for-the-application- of-human-intelligence/)

<comment><USER3> Myron Aub, a low grade Technician, discovers how to reverse-engineer the principles of pencil-and-paper arithmetic by studying the workings of ancient computers which were programmed by human beings, before bootstrapping became the norm—a development which is later dubbed "Graphitics". The discovery is appropriated by the military establishment, who use it to re-invent their understanding of mathematics. They also plan to replace their computer- operated ships with lower cost, more expendable manned ships to continue the war.

Aub is so upset by the appropriation of his discovery for military purposes that he commits suicide. As Aub's funeral proceeds, his supervisor realizes that even with Aub dead, the advancement of Graphitics is unstoppable. He executes simple multiplications in his mind without help from any machine, which gives him a great feeling of power.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feeling_of_Power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feeling_of_Power)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _In some circumstances it has been surpassed already. It's not an unfamiliar > experience today to wonder whether we're interacting online with a human or > an AI system, and even alleged experts have been taken in by bots like > "Eugene Goostman," which, posing as a Ukrainian teenager, fooled a panel of > Royal Society judges in 2014 into thinking it was human._

No, the Turing test has _not_ been surpassed. The "panel" was not fooled; _one_ judge on the panel was fooled. And how, I don't know. The sample dialog on the Wikipedia page for that bot is the sort of pointless trivia questions that a bot can answer and a human can get wrong, and it won't tell you anything about who you're interrogating. If you instead try holding context across multiple inquiries, the charade will quickly reveal itself,

(">" = human, "<" = bot's reply.)

> Hello.

< Nice to meet you! Please tell me how you found me and what you'd like to discuss :-)

> Through Wikipedia. Tell me about somewhere you've visited.

< May I ask you about the real reason of your interest? Maybe, let's talk about something else? What would you like to discuss?

> Curious about your history. Why do you not want to discuss it?

< How do you know? I thought nobody could guess that! Could you tell me what are you? I mean your profession.

The previous reply is nonsense, and the constant evasion is typical of chat bots like Cleverbot. _Clearly_ bot. I know I'm not blind, but I think we're kidding ourselves to equate this with the dialogue capabilities of a human. It took 3 queries to get to that. Even more recent attempts, like AI dungeon, fall apart after 2-3 queries that require context and understanding.

<comment><USER5> On the other hand, I regularly get phone (sometimes email) support that seems to have similar flaws and I know (I think I know) it's humans. It seems quite dramatic the difference when the person on the other end does handle context and analytic thinking.

Maybe there's a bifurcation going on, and some people are converging with AI and others are not?

<comment><USER6> > On the other hand, I regularly get phone (sometimes email) support that > seems to have similar flaws and I know (I think I know) it's humans.

Conversational bots for support are increasingly common, and the voices are getting better, and even outside of actual conversational bots humans following flowcharts that essentially render them into conversational bots have been a thing for quite a long time.

<comment><USER5> By "conversational bots", you mean the sort that say "I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that" in response to most things? I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about being able to discuss a topic briefly but not focus on the right details in order to be responsive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Koch (or perhaps just the reporter quoting him) contradicts himself. Even in his own definition of consciousness a machine architecture merely needs a feedback loop to be conscious, something hardly unheard of in computer programs. Now arguably that definition isn't terrible because human consciousness does seem like a supervisor -- something that synthesizes all the subprocess work and makes sure it has a coherent story.

<comment><USER8> Don't worry: Tononi (and, by extension, Koch) have thought about IIT much more than the author of this article.

You are correctly pointing out the conflict between computationalism ("consciousness is what certain computations feels like from the inside") and physicalism ("consciousness is what certain computations feel like from the inside, when they take place on physical substrates, perhaps requiring the involvement of quantum decoherence").

One of the best primers on the current state of academic hypotheses on these topics is the whitepaper "Principia Qualia" by the good folks at the Qualia Research Institute [0].

[0] [https://opentheory.net/PrincipiaQualia.pdf](https://opentheory.net/PrincipiaQualia.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Don't want to drag down the enthusiasm, but we really should distinct between data analytics, actor systems, etc. and of course "artificial intelligence".

<comment><USER10> Also, we should make a distinction between multi-layered, hierarchical information, classification and decision finding systems in general and a possible machine implementation thereof. Those systems have shown remarkable performance when operated by humans, e.g., the Dowding System [0]. (I don't think that any ML/AI systems are able to surpass this currently.)

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowding_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowding_system) (The article contains only a quite crude and basic representation of the operations of the filter room.)

<comment><USER9> The point is that looking at artificial intelligence like this is naive. There are some things Actor systems excel, but fail at others. There are some things NN can do pretty well, but suck at others. Comparing humans to all applications of AI is naive and no definitive answer can be given, because it really depends. I think that this will be the status quo in the future.

<comment><USER10> This was more about comparing multi-layered systems to single actor ones and about us more or less ignoring, what humans could achieve and historically have been achieving with those, rather taking multi-layered information processing as a defining characteristic of algorithmic systems. (Actually, this isn't new, it had been deployed with massive success, and we are repurposing it with mixed results.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _In Koch's picture, then, the Turing Test is irrelevant to diagnosing inner life. What's more, it implies that the transhumanist dream of downloading one's mind into an (immortal) computer circuit is a fantasy. At best, such circuits would simulate the inputs and outputs of a brain while having absolutely no experience at all. It will be "nothing but clever programming… fake consciousness—pretending by imitating people at the biophysical level." For that, he thinks, is all AI can be. These systems might beat us at chess and Go, and deceive us into thinking they are alive. But those will always be hollow victories, for the machine will never enjoy them._

This is really damning humans with faint praise. "Machines may eventually do every job better than we can, and be immortal, but I promise that humans will remain superior in some completely undetectable way."

<comment> lachlan-sneff I've never understood why people feel that way. As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that consciousness is not able to be emulated by a machine.

<comment><USER12> A machine could emulate consciousness in the sense that we could probably in principle build a machine that acted, viewed from the outside, as if it were conscious. But we have no way to measure whether something is conscious or not so we would never really know if the machine actually was conscious, had interiority, had qualia, etc. (three different ways of saying the same thing).

There is no good reason to believe that consciousness is reducible to physical phenomena. I think that intelligence is almost certainly reducible to physical phenomena, but consciousness? No. Consciousness is a mystery that quite likely will forever be beyond the reach of physical investigation.

<comment><USER13> By the same argument I'll never know if other humans are conscious.

<comment><USER14> This is clearly the case today, pending some new discovery or intellectual leap surrounding consciousness. For all I know, you are unconscious, and your purpose was to type that comment so as to trigger my realization I am the only conscious being in existence :)

(Not a good way to live your live, but a theory consistent with the evidence.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Brain-neural interfaces or other high bandwidth sensory tools (like VR) seem to be a good path to start answering the falsifiable hypotheses around consciousness. It seems imminently possible to link minds, either physical minds or a physical-virtual duality, and start experimenting with the qualia that emerge. I'd conjecture that a highly dedicated individual today, with clever hacking, could actually perform crude experiments using available hardware to deduce if they can shift their consciousness to a form of duality with a virtual agent by sufficient sensory override.

<comment><USER15> > if they can shift their consciousness to a form of duality with a virtual > agent by sufficient sensory override.

Can you explain what you mean? It seems we already have this with naïve use of consumer VR devices on most VR experiences.

For instance, while playing Richie's Plank Experience, the player already feels qualia due to:

1\. virtual self in virtual world: looking down the plank in mid air where the plank is virtual and being in mid air outside a tall building is virtual

2\. physical self in physical world: if a friend nudges you from behind (or out of sight of virtual self), or you have a fan blowing wind that would correspond to the breeze you would expect to feel in the virtual world, or you're walking on a real plank to which the virtual plank has been resized/calibrated (this one is a true hybrid real+virtual 'quale': you see the virtual plank but feel the real plank with your feet).

If you meant the virtual agent would have separate agency from the player, please explain as I don't quite follow.

<comment><USER14> Well, there are a variety of theses around if one could transfer ones consciousness into a computer. Presumably, if this were possible, it would also be possible to _partially_ transfer ones consciousness into a computer. Now, this is going to be a subjective measure (at least for now, unless we find a way to measure consciousness.) However, if someone were able to self report that their consciousness were transferred into a computer, that would at least be something. So, inductively, if a person were able to self report that their consciousness were _partially_ transferred into a computer, in some form or another, that would be some evidence a more meaningful transfer could occur. So the question reduces down to what mechanisms exist today that would potentially allow such a partial transfer.

I think a huge gate opens if you get a high bandwidth brain/computer interface. But until then, an experiment like the following may give us a glimpse of the tractibility of such transfer:

\- First, you need a full audio and visual override of one eye and one ear (basically over-ear headphone in one ear, and over-eye VR goggle.)

\- You also need to be able to track _something_ on a person that a) is underutilized in the 'real' world and b) has sufficient bandwidth to convey some kind of agency of control over a virtual agent. For example, you could wire things up so a person's toe orientations could measured, or internal teeth motion, or subvocalization, etc. You _could_ have dual-use mechanics, like a dedicated hand controller that still gives you freedom to use your hand, but I'd argue this might compromise the experiment.

\- Combined with these two, with the hardware on and the inputs working, connect this person bi-directionally with a virtual agent in a simulation. (Basically a modern first person video game would probably suffice.) The video and audio feedback is obvious, you'd need to come up with a mapping of the inputs. Give the person some goals to accomplish in the simulation that are non-trivial and take concerted mental and physical effort to do.

At the end of say a months worth of this dual immersion in both the physical body and the virtual, have the person self-assess their conscious state. I think it's even odds that they feel like they are playing a video game still, or are actually manifested consciously as inhabiting two places at once, whatever the hell that means. The experiment is predicated on the idea that brain plasticity would start to allow the person to experience a level of conscious experience and control over the virtual agent similar to the physical world, since their sensory inputs and agency is at some level of parity in time and bandwidth between both physical and virtual. It's far from total parity, but it's well beyond what has been possible to do in recent history, so may be past the tipping point necessary for changes in conscious experience.

If the latter were to occur, and the person feels a duality of presence, the subjective experience of say, closing off the person's other remaining senses which are attached to the physical world (ie their free eye and ear, etc.) and waiting another month, may actually result in a representitive experience of what a consciousness transfer would feel like.

<comment><USER16> No you don't: Have you seen the TV show "Caprica" ? Part of the plot is that a girl creates an artificial afterlife by duplicating people upon their death from data collected during their life, ironically accidentally killing herself in the process. Technically that's a spoiler, but it's put sufficiently misleading I hope, plus it's revealed in the first 20 minutes of the first episode.

And this can work. You could copy a human merely by observing them. If you get enough data on a person (say yourself, so it isn't creepy), and train an algorithm. Once the algorithm is good enough at imitating you that your own mother can't tell the difference between a robot containing that algorithm and you, is there still a difference. And now every mathematician should say "No". After all, 4 and IV is the same number.

You don't need audio or visual override. You don't need to give any agency to any flesh and blood over a virtual body. Even the robot mentioned before is really more of an optional thing, you could eliminate it.

You could simplify further. You don't need to duplicate a human, you just need to provide them with "a kid". An algorithm that's purely virtual but that is sufficiently smart that humans can raise it to become part of human society. But it's mind can start out mostly empty. So you don't even need to duplicate anything, you just need a sufficiently complex learning algorithm and a way to interact with it, and a human (perhaps preferably a couple?) to teach it, if you're willing to give it a generation or two.

<comment><USER5> "Once the algorithm is good enough at imitating you that your own mother can't tell the difference between a robot containing that algorithm and you, is there still a difference. And now every mathematician should say "No". After all, 4 and IV is the same number."

I don't understand what you are talking about. Do you think identical twins share the same consciousness? Is a clone the same person as who it was cloned from?

It seems to me that "4" and "IV" are abstract concepts that have a basically unlimited number of relationships with the real world, like tentacles. The mathematical concept of _four_ is just one of those linkages.

<comment><USER16> The point of the exercise was to prove that something non-human can be conscious at all. So if it "shares the same consciousness" that's great. If not, still good enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> >It will be "nothing but clever programming… fake consciousness—pretending by imitating people at the biophysical level." For that, he thinks, is all AI can be. These systems might beat us at chess and Go, and deceive us into thinking they are alive. But those will always be hollow victories, for the machine will never enjoy them.

Mostly agree with Koch, but I'd take it a step further...

There's major problems behind the concepts of AI and even intelligence itself - and it's difficult to articulate why. It's as if these terms require aggrandizing to the point of impossibility or they lose all their apparent meaning. Which is why I feel we'll never achieve what we call (Strong/General) AI, or if we do, we will always find ways to be unimpressed by it...

I mean, is it that absurd to consider that the ideal concept beholden to intelligence isn't a reality - even in humans? If you pull back enough layers on how or why humans think or do the things they do - we arrive at things we can't explain. We don't know what causes intelligence and have trouble coming up with an adequate definition for it; similar to the concept of life. For all we know we might be just highly complex biomechanical machines operating on stimuli, analogous to what current computers already do. Where's the fine line between making something conscious/unconcious?

<comment><USER18> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie)

There's no discernible difference between p-zombies and 'real' conscious beings. There's a good chance that we're all p-zombies and a distinction between zombie and real doesn't exist.

> If you pull back enough layers on how or why humans think or do the things > they do - we arrive at things we can't explain.

Sounds a lot like a magical argument. There's no evidence that anything about the way human minds work is fundamentally unexplainable.

<comment><USER17> >There's no evidence that anything about the way human minds work is fundamentally unexplainable.

Agreed. What I'm implying here is if we come circle to fully explaining how the brain works, then in theory we could predict how someone will function if given all input conditions (whether this is practical is another matter). If this is true, then wouldn't we just be biomechanical robots operating on stimuli? Would we be any more intelligent than say a rock, that similarly just reacts to physical stimuli? Or are we just a more complex rock?

<comment><USER19> > If this is true, then wouldn't we just be biomechanical robots operating on > stimuli

Yes, that's right. Which is one of the big problems with this line of argument for many people -- how do you reconcile "biomechanical robot" with the concepts of "free will" and "moral decision-making"?

I'm personally agnostic on the issue (I don't believe science is able to answer this question yet -- or possibly _ever_.)

I do think it's interesting that you say " _just_ a biomechanical robot." The "just" implies that being a robot -- a fancy rock -- in some way _isn 't enough_. But in my mind, there's absolutely no (objective) reason to think of a human as any better or more important than a robot, or a rock.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, sorry I don't mean to imply that.

I'm just trying to challenge people's assumptions of what makes something intelligent. To me, it's not precisely clear as to what makes something intelligent, and is why I think we've had trouble coming up with a satisfactory test for determining when a computer is intelligent.

<comment><USER19> Gotcha -- that makes total sense. Thanks!

(P.S. Sorry for putting words in your mouth -- I don't want to imply you said anything you didn't. My bad there.)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


This is great. But I'm not coming back to your awesome web-app after signing up. - <AUTHOR> http://www.tawheedkader.com/2013/10/this-is-great-but-im-not-coming-back-to-your-awesome-web-app-after-signing-up/

<comment><USER2> #5 Be ridiculously bad ass

I'm pretty sure the first time most of us visited facebook or twitter, we didn't think "Oh shit! This is amazing. I have to come back here everyday!"

Those sites are only interesting because our friends are there and because over time, they evolved into great ideas. At one point 'tweeting' or even 'twittering' before it became known as 'tweeting' was said more in jest than in seriousness. Now, in hindsight, it seems painfully obviously that it was a great idea.</comment>