Want to code for the devil? - <AUTHOR> http://www.linkedin.com/jobs?viewJob=&jobId=2394070&trk=jobs_biz_prem_srch

<comment><AUTHOR> One of your responsibilities:

 _Identification of product and services potentially infringed by IV's patents_

</comment><comment><USER2> It's even worse than that. You would specifically be one of the minions analyzing code that you can claim infringes IV patents.

Doing the devil's work indeed.

</comment><comment><USER3> Taking advantage of a broken system to make a profit isn't demonic, it's capitalism. People and companies respond to incentives, so if we want these types of companies to cease to exist we must destroy the incentives that caused them to exist in the first place.

<comment><USER4> > Taking advantage of a broken system to make a profit isn't demonic, it's > capitalism.

It sure sounds like you're trying to claim that legal === moral.

<comment><USER3> Of course not, but if we accept as axiomatic that corrupt people will exploit anything they can, then whose fault is it when the exploitation occurs?

<comment><USER4> If we accept it as axiomatic that murderers will murder, then whose fault is it when murderers murder?

Hint: It's the murderer's fault.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Link between health spending and life expectancy: US is an outlier - <AUTHOR> https://ourworldindata.org/the-link-between-life-expectancy-and-health-spending-us-focus <comment><USER2> Looks to me that in USA there is no incentive for healthy lifestyle at all: if you can pay (for the insurance), the healthcare provider does anything regardless your condition or costs. In government-funded health care the idea is to maximize results in the whole population. For example the surgery of fat person is so risky and expensive that it is not worth it, you can save 10 normal persons while the fatty tries to lose some weight. People know that and that is why you rarely see those Texas-style lumbering mounds of flesh in Stockholm.</comment>


Biotech Startup School - <AUTHOR> https://www.baybridgebio.com/biotech-startup-school.html <comment><USER2> Looking good, Richard! Hop on this thread and join the discussions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21408415](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21408415)

EDIT: looks like you're already there. Nice work! Put contact info in your profile, I get a surprising number of email contacts after my comments.</comment>


Tesla's new radar tech predicts an accident caught on dashcam a second later - <AUTHOR> https://electrek.co/2016/12/27/tesla-autopilot-radar-technology-predict-accident-dashcam/ <comment><USER2> There are going to be haters that come on here and try to down play this video..

But there is something to be said about a car that can gauge the movement of others around it, and a car company that is willing to push for a better type of vehicle. The largest automakers in the world have had the power, finances, and means to progress vehicles for quite some time and have not. Tesla's are not perfect, but it terms of what they are doing I give them a big hats off.

<comment><USER3> _The largest automakers in the world have had the power, finances, and means to progress vehicles for quite some time and have not_

No offense intended, but you haven't been paying attention if you think that's the case. For instance, I've read on this very forum how Tesla's driving- assistance technology is a bit dated (camera and no LIDAR, for instance) in comparison to Daimler, et. al.

As for other aspects of progress, I don't know what you're looking for. Within my lifetime alone we've gone from vehicles that need constant maintenance (ignition points and 5K mile plugs, anyone?) to appliances-on-wheels. My Mom's '16 Corvette puts out 450bhp, still gets 25mpg, and I'll bet you could put your nose straight up the pipe and die of boredom before the exhaust fumes get you. And, unlike something of equivalent horsepower from the 70's, you can drive it in town.

Large brands made hybrids, EVs like the Leaf that made an EV "everyman's car" before the Model S and loooong before the Model 3.

So to play it like Tesla's the only one with the guts to do what needs to be done just means their marketing is working.

Signed,

Owner of Many Shares of TSLA

<comment><AUTHOR> In my opinion, Tesla's decision to not use LIDAR shows their system is more advanced than the competition's, rather than it being dated. I have two reasons:

\- LIDAR is extremely expensive! The LIDAR unit that Google uses costs $80,000 by itself [0], whereas the entire hardware package that Tesla uses is $8,000 [1].

\- Path planning, in my personal experience, is significantly easier given millimeter-level accurate readings on millions of points every second, than with 60fps video, even from multiple cameras.

The way I see it, it appears that Tesla has been able to achieve comparable (or better) progress on self-driving cars with significantly lower-cost hardware. The name of the game is making self-driving cars the default option, and that can't happen when the self-driving hardware by itself costs as much as a luxury car.

[0] [http://articles.sae.org/13899/](http://articles.sae.org/13899/)

[1] [http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/20/13346512/tesla-self- drivi...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/20/13346512/tesla-self-driving- autonomous-enhanced-autopilot-cost)

<comment><USER4> Those Google lidar numbers are not reflective of anything that would ship. Much of what Google is doing is capturing all of the ambient data so each subsequent car knows more about the environment than the one that preceded it. You can buy simple solid state lidar units for under $1,000 and there are several in the pipeline targeting $100/unit. It's much more likely to see those on any mass market product.

Delphi is probably the largest auto supplier in the world and they recently invested a significant amount of money into a silicon valley company producing a solid state lidar who are targeting a $250 price point:

[https://www.google.com/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/lianeyvkoff/...](https://www.google.com/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/lianeyvkoff/2016/08/24/quanergy- joins-the-unicorn-club/)

If lidar makes self driving safer, there is no reason at all not to use it.

It's worth noting that in the aftermath of the death of a Tesla driver whose autopilot system couldn't see a white semi trailer, Tesla's sensor supplier reiterated the need for lidar and redundant sensors:

[https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/07/1...](https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/07/12/tesla- autopilot-technology-sensor-lidar/%3Fsource%3Ddam)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is great! I feel like there is going to be a strong opposition to autonomous vehicles as they become more mainstream and widely available. We need more videos and examples like this that show the benefits. I understand auto pilot isn't fully autonomous but these are good building blocks.

I'm really going to cringe when people want to hold on to their super charged car/truck and drive it recklessly in the name of freedom. We can't publicize enough the current dangers of driving.

<comment><USER6> I'm very much against the idea that only autonomous vehicles should be allowed on the road, but I'm 100% behind technologies like the one demonstrated in the video,which is essentially auto breaking with radar assist. I think this technology will be required by law within a few years for all new cars in the US actually.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't think it "predicted" the accident, it just saw the car two ahead braking very strongly. (And the car one ahead didn't see that. ;)

</comment><comment><USER8> I think this is a much more appropriate use of the technology present in Tesla cars than allowing it to self drive. I'm firmly in the "shouldn't have worked that way" camp of Autopilot -- no matter what Tesla or Musk says, the first thing I would think of as someone who is not a trained pilot is that Autopilot is a self driving feature of a car, and believe that the wording and marketing, combined with the reckless use of simple technology like cameras, instead of stronger technology like the radars here, caused crashes. I'm glad that even though they have stronger tech they are still toning down the marketing and the use of any self driving features, so kudos to Tesla (it might have been due to bad PR but still).

However, I have to wonder why this is news. Other cars have had similar technology for a long time but when they prevent a crash it's not news. Is the only reason this is news is because it's Tesla and that they've had high profile crashes in the past, so they're spinning up the PR machine?

</comment><comment><USER9> any guesses as to how the car in front of it could have prevented the accident? what was the human error involved? was it simply a case of being too close to the car in front of it?

<comment><USER10> Leave adequate following room - at least twice what you think you need, stop fucking with your phone while behind the wheel.

<comment><USER11> Great, now I'm going to have to keep doubling my following distance forever.

<comment><USER10> You certainly won't run into the car in front of you until you circle the earth, but then it's the other guys fault!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm guessing the LIDAR saw the second car up rapidly slowing. You could catch a peek of it over the smaller car.

<comment><USER13> Teslas aren't equipped with LIDAR. I think they're the only self driving capable vehicle not to use it.

<comment><USER14> It uses the radar for detection by bouncing it under the car in front.</comment></comment></comment>


It All Started When... - <AUTHOR> https://www.designbutler.co/articles/3-it-all-started-when-i-had-a-realization.php <comment><AUTHOR> Fellow HN'ers - what was your 'now or never' moment when you knew you had to chase your dream or it might never happen? Would be great to hear your stories.</comment>


The Future of PostgreSQL - <AUTHOR> http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2010/05/big-ideas.html

<comment><USER2> The WAL log/hot standby you can read from in 9.0 are big. Back when I used PostgreSQL they were the biggest missing features that I wanted.

If you're doing reporting then you really care about analytic queries. That is in 8.4. But the truth is that most developers don't use their databases in ways where they will benefit. However if you run across cases where you think, "I wish I could just suck this data out, sort it this way, then do this simple processing/grouping and upload that back into the database" then you have probably run across a use case for analytic queries. With analytic queries the only cases where I've had to do that are to join data that is not in the database, to process datasets that were too big for the database server to physically handle, and once because performance really, _really_ required it.

<comment><USER3> you should better use an OLAP engine for that like Sql Server Analysis Service

<comment><USER2> OLAP engine for which? The reporting needs? Or the case where I needed performance?

As for the reporting needs, introducing OLAP would have been a lot of work for something that could be done perfectly well in the existing Oracle database using a supported Oracle feature. There is no need to introduce an expensive new technology stack for an already solved problem.

On efficiency, heh. Hundreds of thousands of items had been given arbitrary tags (on average over a dozen per item, and the same tag could be given repeatedly), and the question was to identify for each item the other items which were "most closely related" based on shared tags.

The fundamental problem with doing this in any kind of a database is that the fastest access path for a given fact is a lookup in an index. Which means a binary search through a data structure to find out the page and row number the data was on, followed by parsing that page in memory to locate the row, and extract the wanted information from that row. This is absolutely the fastest form of lookup available.

The equivalent operation in C++ is access an array by index and pull an element out of a struct. As a bonus it is easy to organize your data so that most of your data accesses take place in on CPU cache.

Processing time for the whole data set dropped from a week to 5 minutes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wish they had a click, click, click and boom -- easy data replication to another server. Same with just hot backups where I could setup a backup job that runs on the hour and lets me fallback to any hour in at least the last 3 days if I have an issue.</comment>


Investing in the Future 200 years in the past - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/paidpost/franklin-templeton/investing-in-the-future-200-years-in-the-past.html <comment><USER2> In case it's not obvious, this is a paid promotion, not nyt reporting.</comment>


Anyone else get their DeepRacer order cancelled? - <AUTHOR> From Amazon:  "Due to a lack of availability, we will not be able to obtain the following item from your order. We've canceled the item and apologize for the inconvenience. If you see a charge for the canceled item, we will refund you within 1-2 business days. If you are still interested in purchasing this item, it may be available from other sellers. Please visit the detail page for this item below."<p>That page just says it's cancelled.  Anyone else? <comment><USER2> Good News! AWS Support is saying that the cancellation was an error that they're working to correct: [https://twitter.com/AWSSupport/status/1151567356394659849](https://twitter.com/AWSSupport/status/1151567356394659849)

</comment><comment><USER3> I received the same message from them. What's odd is that earlier today, the order status showed that it was due to be delivered this evening. However, now I'm not able to find any trace of the order on Amazon. It doesn't show as cancelled... it's like it never happened.

</comment><comment><USER4> The same thing happened to me and I contacted the Amazon order center. I spoke to a contact center agent who told me tough luck. It would be nice if they let their agents know about this mistake.

</comment><comment><USER5> Yes same here. Seems weird since they just handed out 50 dollars worth of AWS credits for the continued delay, along with an explanation of why it was being pushed back and a new ETA.</comment>


Show HN: A site for collaborative poetry - <AUTHOR>

A friend and I spent the last few weekends creating a site for poetry duels. The concept was simple: two poets can choose between a verbal face-off or a constructive build-up, to create a poem one stanza at a time. The duel is set against a stipulated time frame, to decide who wins.
The site has started out in decent way, and have managed to have some pretty awesome duels so far. 'Eintein's Gods' turned out to be a rather interesting one. You can view the duel here: http://blackriverpoets.com/poems/9-einstein-s-gods
Given our hatred for signups, we have kept the site it signup free. We worked with social logins instead. :)
So yeah, do rhyme it up here: www.blackriverpoets.com <comment><USER2> Clickable - <http://www.blackriverpoets.com>

</comment><comment><USER3> Neat and engaging !</comment>


I'm done with haters - <AUTHOR>

I find it a relatively trivial exercise to model my thinking onto any language that I have a relatively broad understanding of, including PHP, Javascript, etc.
So it's always confused / annoyed me why folks seem so hell-bent on bashing language 'X' or language 'Y'.
Finally I had a moment, where the answer became clear.  Those folks are just on a different playing field than the rest of us in the way they (at a fundamental level) receive, and process information / experience phenomena.  They're looking at a forest through a microscope. <comment><USER2> Not to engage in "hate", but why did you post this? I'm sitting here wondering who this benefits. Was your epiphany so massive that you just had to tell us all about it?

I'm genuinely thankful for "hate". Never have I engaged in conversation with a "hater" where I didn't come out of it with a deeper understanding of the subject matter or a new perspective. That's invaluable. Raw negativity is an entirely different beast, however, which is rarely helpful to anybody in any capacity.

There's a big difference between criticism and hate. Not every valid critic is a hater nor is the opposite true. Honestly, your thread made me cringe it's so vapid, specially the end of your comment. Ugh.

You may now call me buddy and just turn around and walk away.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sounds like you are having difficulty discerning between criticism and hate. Criticism is a genuine conversation bringing up new, relevant points. Hate comments regurgitate the same crap over and over. No one learns from it, it's just frothing at the mouth intellectuals who think knowing some random fact is more important than succeeding in life.

<comment><USER2> I'm lost. Now you're defining "hate" as an exercise in irrelevant factoid regurgitation? And juxtaposing that against a priority to excel? At this point I think you're just playing a semantics game.

My questions went unanswered also.

<comment><AUTHOR> perhaps reframing your question / perspective might shed some light... It's ok buddy, whatever you say...

<comment><USER2> Ah, there we are. Away you go, just like the wind. Ego as frail as ever and notions as untouched as they'll ever be. Godspeed to you, you beautiful soul.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I finally feel at peace with this issue, in a much more significant way than ever before.

When I talk to those folks anymore I think they'll just remind me of my 3 year old nephew. I'll smile at them (or their post) say 'ok buddy, whatever you say' and just turn around and walk away.</comment>


Welcome to the vicious world of corporate name-creation - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/media/col/shal/1999/11/30/naming/print.html

<comment><USER2> 37signals mocked this back in the first bubble:

<http://www.37signals.com/enormicom/>

It's almost dead on. Wow. I'd thought it was pretty bad hyperbole even for 37s, but it's exactly accurate.

Edit: The last paragraph is _amazing_ : "our senior manager for Internet development just fell in love with the name 'Jamcracker.' And so today, the Harvey meeting is known as the Jamcracker meeting. There are 300 people at this company who identify Jamcracker with Harvey." among others.

</comment><comment><USER3> Incredible. If you think paying over a million dollars for "mood boards" is a good investment, I have some Albertan seal-hunt licenses I'd like to sell you. This is a prime example of the advantages startups enjoy: your competitors spend a million bucks on something you can replicate in an afternoon.

<comment><USER4> I'm an Albertan and I object to you selling licenses to kill the seals in our zoos.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Every couple years this story pops up. I love how some company took Jamcracker.

>> Bahr stops for a moment, as if listening to herself. Then she bursts out laughing. "Listen," she says. "I take it back. You write whatever you want to write. If someone out there wants to name their company Jamcracker, God bless them. And good luck to them."

<comment><USER6> Oh my. Jamcracker Inc. raised $100 million in 2000.

<http://news.cnet.com/2100-1033-247167.html>

<comment><USER7> The point is, the name is overrated. Think of the Wii, how people hated the name. A few months on, who cared? They wanted to buy the widget, and never mind what the widget is called. The name does not define your product; the product defines your name. Anything else is just voodoo.

Paying for someone to name your car model "J30"? Oh come on.

This reminds me of the (semi-apocryphal) story of the creation of the Euro symbol. A European Commissioner, Jean-Pierre Malivoir, was given a big pot of money to hire a designer to come up with a proposed symbol for the new currency. He thought it was a total waste of money, and sat down and came up with the early version of what is now the Euro symbol himself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I hope that guy was being facetious when he said he doesn't understand why some women find "Jamcracker" uncomfortable. If he was being serious, he lacks such basic intuitions towards spoken English language that I wouldn't want him anywhere near my company name.

</comment><comment><USER9> Examples of their creations:

 _Navistar and Tempstar, Telegy and Telegent, Verbex and Azurex, Nortel and Meritel._

They do sound like they were created by brand consultants. Meanwhile Yahoo, Google, and Amazon are doing ok just taking whatever the founders picked.

</comment><comment><USER10> "You might have a provocative, fun name. But do you have the basis for a lasting brand? We still don't know how compelling a brand Yahoo will be 10 years from now. I sense a real missed opportunity."

</comment><comment><USER9> And I thought it was bad that we can spend several hours of meeting time arguing about the name of a product at my large company....

</comment><comment><USER11> I kept checking that this wasn't the onion while reading it...

</comment><comment><USER10> (1999)</comment>


Go To Hellman: Heisenberg's Uncertain Copyright - <AUTHOR> http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/heisenbergs-uncertain-copyright.html <comment><USER2> TLDR; lots of books that are under the extended copyright regime in the USA are public domain in other countries such as Australia. What does this mean when you can access them on the Internet. Uses Great Gatsby as an example since that is Public Domain in Australia</comment>


The world's biggest hedge fund, run like a cult - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/news/business/wallstreet/ray-dalio-2011-4/ <comment><USER2> You can discuss the managerial points in this article, but as an aside:

I hate articles like this.

I used to work on wall street, and these sort of articles were rampant up until the burst: they glamorize financial "wizards", hedge funds, trading life etc. They're financial porn. They glamorize what, in my opinion, is a dubious field. All the while attracting all sorts of people into a field that has already proven it's "value" or lack there of to society.

I'm starting to see more and more articles like this, and it frightens me how quickly the world is getting back to where it was just a few years ago.

<comment><USER3> I agree that its financial porn. I disagree on the "dubious field" and "no value to society" premise - In the past, I've interviewed with and worked for several s/w startups that were/are much more dubious and useless than finance.

Also, "attracting all sorts of people into the field" is really stretching it. Getting into the field to make a serious non-trivial impact - like running a derivatives desk or managing say a non-ferrous futures portfolio or even something straightforward like a 130-30 long-short equities fund takes a whole lot of expertise, something a whole lot of people simply don't have. For example, the codebase for one of the largest 130-30 fund in the world, run by Blackrock out of the Howard street office in SF, is actively managed by 3 Applied Math PhDs, 5 Java Programmers with CS Masters, and a dozen SQL , QA & misc scutwork CS undergrads. The guys using the codebase ie. the portfolio managers and the junior portfolio mgrs, are another dozen econ grads with CFAs and some 50 years of combined market experience. Its a pretty challenging job, and they've come up with a +ve alpha through most of the crisis, which is a minor miracle in itself.

<comment><USER4> Your first paragraph contains a deductive error.

Your second paragraph has enough industry lingo and insider info that it strongly suggests you work(ed) for a hedge fund, yourself. So your opinion on whether it's a dubious field or of value to the society is going to be a wee bit biased. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I interviewed with Bridgewater, it's definitely true about the personality tests, I was given two of them and they asked me questions about my results and what I thought about them. It was really obvious they were looking for a certain type of person... definitely someone who was maleable.

They then asked me about a time where I disagreed with a superior and how I handled the situation. I told them that every situation is different and that to me... there's no one right answer. I don't think they liked that response. Needless to say I didn't get the job, despite the fact that I aced all of their quantitative questions. It really is all about the company culture to them. Either you fit the cult, or you don't. I'm sorta glad I didn't.

<comment> buff-a "They then asked me about a time where I disagreed with a superior and how I handled the situation"

"I told them that every situation is different and that to me... there's no one right answer."

I would have made the same mistake right out of college. The right answer would have been to "tell them about a time where you disagreed with a superior and how you handled the situation."

The question was not designed to produce a report on how you handle disagreements with superiors. It was not even designed to see if you could follow instructions like a lemming.

I suggest you look the real reason you didn't want to give an answer: the fear that it would be the wrong answer. The fear that these people would listen to how you handled a single situation and determine from that single data point whether or not you are suitable for a job. So the answer you gave them was "I don't want to give you an answer because I believe you to be short sighted fools who have no experience of human relationships and will therefore judge me by this one answer".

The question was designed a) to start a discussion on interactions with superiors and b) to determine your level of fear of giving a wrong answer in an interact with superiors.

Instead, you had a disagreement with your superiors-to-be about the quality of their question and demonstrated that in such situations your response is to be defensive and provide no information, instead of getting the ball rolling.

<comment><USER6> Wow,

This is a good information on a pretty sinister approach....

Essentially, ask someone _bad_ question and see if they squirm. Now I understand...

Yes, I'll keep this is mind...

<comment><USER7> Isn't that just an example of the widely used STAR[1] question? AFAIK these are very common.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation,_Task,_Action,_Result>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> All large organisations work like this, although the culture in this company seems to be more aberrant from the norm than usual.

Beyond a certain size [1] a company can't get by on the personalities of individuals and has to officially define the major elements of its culture in policies and the like.

Hackers tend to dislike these policies because they (hackers) tend to be fiercely individualistic. But large organisations need (the vast majority of) people to follow rigid rules [2].

[1] e.g. see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbars_number>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance>

<comment> buff-a But this is why such organizations fail (EDIT: or succeed sub-optimally with a horrible culture that doesn't resemble the fairy tale policy document) . They create a culture of "policies and the like" in which individuals are supposed to be perfect examples. But the reality is that each business unit (of any size) is run as personal fiefdom based on the ego and personality of the person in charge. Such "policies and the like" are guaranteed to fail.

And the reason that they fail is because regardless of whatever they put in print, the people in the organization are still ego machines. They still deal with emotions rather than content. They deal with the meta-message ("this person thinks he is clever than me") instead of the message ("this _idea_ failed to produce dollar value"). Their brain is wired to produce the meta- message and what it means for them and their future, instead of the message, and what it means for the company and the company's future.

So basically you got as far as reading that Company X has a Policy and stopped reading, instead of getting the whole point which is that this company's policy is _nothing_ like any other company's policy.

That was poor, superficial analysis on your part. Go and read Principles and come back with a better analysis. [http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgew...](http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgewater- Associates-Ray-Dalio-Principles.pdf)

<comment><USER8> I think you're being a little harsh on me but perhaps it's my own fault for not explaining in more depth.

I certainly don't think that the way large organisations are currently run is the best way for them to be run. In my own very large organisation I actually introduced a (bespoke) system to allow communication that cuts across hierarchical boundaries.

I've taken some serious knocks pushing my agenda and it's taking a long time for the culture to change. Only now are some (20%) of our large number of directors starting to "blog" openly to staff rather than sending messages up and down the hierarchy. I hope to get managers beneath them to start using our internal social tool too.

I know that policies fail. I'm well known as a rule-breaker within my organisation but I'm also known as a person who can "get things done". I don't just mean that in a technical sense, or in a works-very-hard sense, but in a will-ignore-your-rules-to-get-things-done sense. Inevitably this means that I tread on some toes.

However, policies do have their place in large organisations. Very few people actually care about achieving any kind of significant change in such an organisation - many are happy to work 9-to-5 and just do what they're told (and do as little as possible). Policies are designed for exactly these people.

In an ideal world every worker would actually give a damn about their work and innovate in their own little area of responsibility. But it turns out that the way things are structured doesn't encourage this sort of behaviour. It's very hard to pay someone more than a lazy person with the same job title if they have the same job title.

I acknowledge your point about how people in large organisations will often look to better themselves at the expense of the company rather than seek to better the company and then hope for commensurate reward. I could talk about that for some time, but it wasn't really in the scope of my reply above. I do understand that many people act in this way. I could talk all day about why individuals might pursue goals different from those they're actually paid for but I'll skip it for now.

Coming back around to your point (per paragraph 3), I'd have to say that I do understand (as much as an individual can) the nature of large companies. My "company" is the fourth largest employer in the world and figures for how many people work for us tend to vary. However, it's somewhere between 1 and 2 million people. We have a very developed notion of "corporate culture" where I work :-)

My original point was that all companies do have a culture, as do all groups of people. Past a certain size it is always beneficial (to the shareholders) to ensure that the individuals within your company do not act as individuals so much but instead act in a way aligned to your corporate goals.

I did glance at the document you linked to but I don't really see the point of reading it all just to reply to your comment :-)

<comment> buff-a It will take somewhere between 30 minutes and the rest of your life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> All this talk of culture got me thinking of Zappos and all the great things that Tony Hsieh & his team are doing there. Although Zappos is equally serious about their culture, it's interesting that it seems very different from Bridgewater's - or is it? Both are incredibly successful, quirky companies run by very strong leaders with a lot of charisma, totally dedicated to their principles, companies and corporate culture. Comparing the cultures of these companies would be very interesting - maybe something for a journalist or blogger?

<comment><USER10> It's almost like comparing countries.

Some are dictatorships, others are free and more democratic.

<comment><USER9> Heh :) They seem like each other's opposites but both are incredibly successful and liked by their respective employees. Maybe the truth about great corporate cultures is finding people who believe in your principles above anything else no matter how crazy they might seem?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sometimes it's better to be a cult than a mass organized religion.

Seriously, if you actually read the philosophy, it's extremely logical and sensible. I would expect it to resonate with most engineering-minded people. Basically it's just: be realistic about things, base decisions on logic and not emotion, demand high standards, strive to get better all the time. What's the problem? In most competitive disciplines -- e.g., pro sports -- people value harsh feedback so they can improve. Why isn't this the case in most American businesses?

Personally, I'd rather be a part of an organization like this than a part of a typical large firm, where there's constant politics, gossip, and rampant realization of the Peter Principle (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle>).

Dalio responds to a lot of similar criticism in a letter to Dealbreaker when his document was first leaked last year ([http://dealbreaker.com/2010/05/ray- dalio-explains-his-princi...](http://dealbreaker.com/2010/05/ray-dalio- explains-his-principles/)).

</comment><comment><USER12> "radical transparency" is a powerful concept. Weird and uncomfortable at first - but I generally like it. In case anyone want's to see their 100+ page internal company manifesto, it's right here:

[http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgew...](http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgewater- Associates-Ray-Dalio-Principles.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER13> I was made an offer by BW but could not take it for personal reasons. Here is my take.

a. It did not strike as a cult to me. It is pursuit of excellence. b. I met some of the smartest yet simple minded people there. c. The whole idea is that the focus should be on productivity and pursuing truth. d. People spend inordinate amount of time in proving their conclusions, rather than seeing things objectively. That is what the culture tries to tackle; head on. e. I saw decisions being made with egos put aside. It was like watching a flock of birds move together. They all understood where they were going, implicitly. f. Read ray's principles and see if you can find a hole in them, I would be glad to hear your arguments. g. If I founded a company, it would take inspiration from this culture.

PS: I have currently no vested interest in them.

</comment><comment><USER14> The fact that similar Bridgewater stories are cropping up out of no where is no coincidence. They are clearly ramping up their PR. I wonder why...

<comment><USER15> Going public? (though they explictly said they won't). Hedge funds are notoriously sensitive about privacy. The fact that Bridgewater has been featured in a number of high profile articles in main stream media makes me wonder if they are looking to go public, or to attract further funding (i.e. more clients).

Alternately, it could be as simple as Mr. Dalio wanting to do a bit of self PR before an impending book release?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> "[While] the rest of the financial sector was busy pumping rocket-grade helium into the credit bubble, a young Bridgewater investment associate named [...] "

Helium is not explosive.

</comment><comment><USER17> The article is naturally pop-ish. The actual Principles book from the website is quite interesting though. It comes off sounding a bit like a self-help book, but nonetheless it attempts to solve certain significant issues in large organizations. People begin to worry about ego, credit, allies, etc. Values that are relevant to doing a good job - understanding a problem, finding the right solution, being honest - are no longer a priority. These are all values that might be easy to keep in a start-up sized business, but the question is, how do you scale these values to a large 1000+ person organization? Perhaps Bridgewater has this answer.

</comment><comment><USER18> Hahaha, I briefly dated an HR person for bridgewater. She were very serious about culture first, skill second. They had a very strong bias towards certain Ivy League schools and certain personality traits. She gave me a long lecture when I was staffing up a project, told me looking for specific types of programmers was all wrong, I needed to find what makes great programmers and go out and recruit them even if they had never programmed. Too bad I had 6 months, not 30 years.

Edit: Is that the same Holden Karnofsky who was caught astroturfing MetaFilter for GiveWell.com? If so, he is a pretty well known guy, not some rank and file nobody.

</comment><comment><USER19> i used to work at bridgewater as a developer. i liked the culture there and wish more companies had cultures like them. why would you want to work at a place full of problems hidden from sight. no one calls you out because they don't like you. they do it so that you can get better and don't make the mistake again and that your peers also do not make that mistake. if you are not confident enough to be able to learn from your mistakes and make sure your cohort are also not making mistakes then you should look else where to work.

also its not cult like there. cults try to remove you from your previous surroundings and indoctrinate you so serve a leader because they promise you salvation. i was not promised salvation and i was given a pay check and could leave if i wanted to. i will say it is some what like a club in that if you don't fit the mold then you will be fired. by the mold i mean from a business perspective you should act according to proper business protocol (which for them more or less means learn from everyone's mistakes, call out bad business decisions so that others can learn from someones mistake, know your understanding of the market decays so it should always be questioned and updated).

as for the siavosh's comments relating to finance being a "dubious field", i would change that to there are many dubious people in finance. also by dubious i'm assuming he is referring to random walk hypothesis or some such logic. If you look at ren techs 45% return since its inception in 1988 i would not call that dubious, so there are players who understand the market and many dubious people who do not.

i think having a binary opinion about the merits of finance (specifically capital allocation) benefiting society are wrong. You can easily point to bernie madoff and say see...useless! or you can think of all the investors who had the courage and means to invest in apple computers or genentech. was correctly picking to allocating capital to apple a waste of societies resources?

</comment><comment><USER20> I think it is interesting that this thread (at the the time of posting this comment) has 62 comments and 122 points, while 3 posts of the Bridgewater philosophy (which is quite interesting and a more substantial read than this article) have a collective 7 upvotes and 0 comments.

</comment><comment><USER21> Sounds interesting. Not sure whether I agree with his philosophies or not, but here's a PDF of Principles, the book that the article referred to:

<http://dl.dropbox.com/u/274/Principles.pdf>

<comment> buff-a Or a direct link to their website:

[http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgew...](http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgewater- Associates-Ray-Dalio-Principles.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> > The Goldmanite trails off. "What do they do? No, seriously. Do you know?"

So not even Goldman Sachs knows what they do? Goldman is also incredibly secretive, so kind of funny to see one of theirs being surprised by that behavior elsewhere.

<comment><USER23> One of the key things that Goldman has (as a hedge fund) is the ability to see what all their clients are doing. Because they really are a sell-side shop. Hedge Funds, OTOH, are used to being spokes, rather than hubs, and so don't expect to know what everyone else is doing.

Goldman's prop days are numbered (theoretically) with the new legislation that inhibits banks trading their capital so vigorously.

<comment><USER24> _One of the key things that Goldman has (as a hedge fund) is the ability to see what all their clients are doing._

If you have evidence of this, please notify the SEC so they can permanently shut down Goldman's brokerage operation and file criminal charges against the people involved.

<comment><USER17> Not sure why you would say that.

If you buy a stock from me, and I talk to 1000 more people just like you, who all buy more shares of the same stock, I will have a view that this stock is getting a lot of interest. Nothing illegal or criminal about that.

<comment><USER24> _If you buy a stock from me, and I talk to 1000 more people just like you, who all buy more shares of the same stock, I will have a view that this stock is getting a lot of interest. Nothing illegal or criminal about that._

If you are in this position, you work in brokerage. You have this view, but since you don't work on the prop desk, you have no ability to act on it [1].

It is highly illegal for you to reveal this information to anyone working the prop desk.

[1] You could trade on your own personal account, but that is highly regulated also.

<comment><USER17> No. You don't necessarily work in a brokerage. You work as a market maker. You are obligated to constantly show a price at which you will buy and a price at which you will sell. Inherent to being a market maker is using the information the market tells you to take views (which influence the buy/sell prices you show to the market - which of course influences your profitability). Do not confuse this information with "insider trading." This is very, very different. Knowing information about the company fundamentals that is non-public is highly illegal. Knowing that a lot of people want to buy stock from you and using that to influence your trading is not.

<comment><USER24> I was responding to this: "One of the key things that Goldman has (as a hedge fund) is the ability to see what all their _clients_ are doing...Hedge Funds, OTOH, are used to being spokes, rather than hubs, and so don't expect to know what everyone else is doing."

A market maker is merely a prop desk running a particulra strategy. They have no information on Goldman's clients. They behave exactly like any hedge fund.

Insider trading is a red herring, I don't know why you bring it up. Mdda claims Goldman is breaching their fiduciary duty to their clients.

<comment><USER17> "A market maker is merely a prop desk running a particulra strategy. They have no information on Goldman's clients. They behave exactly like any hedge fund."

The common understanding is that a market maker is not exactly a prop desk. The clients of a market maker are the counterparties who take the other side of the market maker's markets. (These counterparties are Goldman clients). Market makers are not hedge funds and don't fundamentally behave like hedge funds, though I suppose both during their line of work take views on markets, so there are some similarities.

My point was, market makers, by definition, know what (their) clients are doing and take market views based on this. The major value in being a market maker (which is a huge part of Goldman's capital markets business) is seeing client flow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> First time I've heard of Radical Transparency (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_transparency>) seems freakin' awesome.

</comment><comment><USER26> 4 == 1 @ [http://nymag.com/print/?/news/business/wallstreet/ray- dalio-...](http://nymag.com/print/?/news/business/wallstreet/ray- dalio-2011-4/)

</comment><comment><USER27> There was a new yorker article about this

[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/07/25/110725fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/07/25/110725fa_fact_cassidy?printable=true&currentPage=all)

Transparency is an interesting theme in the New Yorker article. Dalio sees ego as being a major barrier to success. He makes efforts to create an organization where frank discussions can take place without emotions getting involved.

<comment><USER28> Ego minimization is a hallmark of cults, inflicting torture, and the military. What Dalio is looking for is a reliably top-down-authoritarian company.

<comment> buff-a Complaining about ego minimization is a hallmark of egos.

<comment><USER28> Observations aren't the same thing as complaints.

<comment> buff-a Using logical fallacies[1] to complain, and then claiming that those remarks were merely "observations" is a hallmark of egos.

      [1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

<comment><USER28> Are opinions hallmarks of egos as well?

<comment><USER29> I think one of Dalio's principles answers that.

"Ask yourself whether you have earned the right to have an opinion."</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Do 40 yr-olds apply for YC funding? - <AUTHOR>

FAQs say the average age is 25. Does that mean there are some 10 yr-olds balancing out folks in their forties...? <comment><USER2> That's the median age. That's what people really mean when they ask about the characteristics of the average founder.

And yes, people in their 40s apply, and we've funded at least 2, IIRC.

</comment><comment><USER3> I did YC this last summer and it worked out great. I am 39, so close to 40. Age does not really matter- you just need to be able to work hard on something for free for a while. Often older people with the talent to do a startup just can't bear the opportunity cost of the well-paying job they would give up.

</comment><comment><USER4> no, it just means that the majority of the people who look for funding are people fresh out of college, probably in the 20-24 range. all it takes is three 20 year olds to offset the 40 year old.

</comment><comment><USER5> The reason that the average is so young is that younger people tend to be more able to take the risks of starting up. I wouldn't get caught up in age mathematics. Either you've got it in you or you don't.

</comment><comment><USER6> I did a couple of years ago when I was 42, but it didn't work out.

I think it's not common, but they don't automatically reject you because of age, either. At least I hope not.</comment>


If you earn more than $31k a year, you're in the top 1% richest people globally - <AUTHOR> http://www.globalrichlist.com/?hn

<comment><USER2> Umm, I think the cost of basic, unavoidable living expenses has something to do with how "rich" you are.

Which is why $31k might seem plenty "rich" in many parts of the world, but in places like NYC or London or Moscow, not so much.

<comment><AUTHOR> Believe it or not, this takes into account living expenses. Currencies are not converted using current exchange rates, but using PPP (purchasing power parity).

According to these figures, it takes the median average American on a salary of $50k two minutes to earn enough to buy a can of Coca-cola. The average Indonesian needs to work two hours to buy one, _at local price_.

<comment><USER3> Living expenses (especially housing) vary wildly within the area that uses American dollars. Someone in San Francisco can hardly afford a place to live on $31k. Someone living in a rural area in the US can afford a pretty nice house on the same amount.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> These sorts of things are really just apples to oranges comparisons at best. By the time you correct for differences in the cost of living to start--let alone differences in the standard of living--it kind of becomes meaningless.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually, they do take into account differences in cost of living. The basket of goods used to calculate the PPP rate includes things like cars, vacuum cleaners and electricity. (I don't know the details, TBH) See my other reply to kalterstern.</comment></comment>


White House office to delete its FOIA regulations - <AUTHOR> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/16/white-house-foia-regulations-deleted/24844253/

<comment><USER2> So much for that 'most transparent presidency ever...' campaign pledge.

[http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- room/news/283335-obam...](http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- room/news/283335-obama-this-is-the-most-transparent-administration-in-history)

</comment><comment><USER3> The title is, though perhaps not inaccurate, not particularly useful: there is one (and only one) White House office (the Office of Administration) that had previously been understood _not_ to be exempt from the FOIA, and which, therefore, has a set of regulations addressing how it deals with FOIA requests, as is normal for agencies subject to FOIA requests.

In 2009, as a result of a lawsuit that was initiated against the Bush White House, a federal appeals court ruled that the White House Office of Administration is _not_ subject to the FOIA at all.

The Administration is now removing the regulations that have been obsolete since that court decision.</comment>


The Deadly Boredom of 'A Meaningless Life' - <AUTHOR> https://quillette.com/2019/08/07/the-deadly-boredom-of-a-meaningless-life/ <comment><USER2> "Tradition is a set of solutions for which we have forgotten the problems. Throw away the solution and you get the problem back"

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. In many ways tradition is disappearing, at least where I'm from, and I can't yet tell if it is for better or worse.

<comment><USER3> It's easy to destroy things buts very hard to come up with something to replace them. Religion is a good example, borders also comes to mind.

Not saying it's all black vs white but some traditions emerged for a reason and should be fully understood before being destroyed. Again religion is a good example, life meaning was a solved problem for most believers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been a dark place recently (dark enough where I forced myself to find a doctor)- and one thing that came to me is "Why am I still here? What is worth living for?"

And the only reason I could come up is that there are a few people who would miss me. Nothing in my life really provides meaning. My job provides meaning to the world, but me.

Life has become Meaningless, and there are groups out there that provide a sense of community and meaning. How do you fix that- when communities are becoming more exclusionary.

<comment><USER5> Life does not ask "why?", it only asks "how?". Just enjoy being alive! :)

Looking too hard for meaning, even if you zoom out a little to the context of our solar system is a sure way of getting depressed.

The meaning of life is to experience life, in all that it has to offer.

If you have made your arrangements well, then your job is a part of that. Otherwise, at the very least, it is what you need to do to survive at whatever level of comfort you need - don't knock it, it's not a small thing!

From experience, this "dark place" is entirely self-manufactured by your own mind that is not taking instructions from you. Working to address that is he way out.

<comment><USER6> >From experience, this "dark place" is entirely >self-manufactured by your own mind that is not taking >instructions from you. Working to address that is the >way out.

This is a frustrating belief I have come up against time after time from people who cannot seem to understand that their experience isn't everyone's. Most people I know who live in the dark place have plenty of valid external reasons. I know I do. While my mental state can be influenced by attitude to one degree or another, the root cause are entirely NOT self-manufactured. This is a real problem seeking any sort of care for it since people believe as you have stated either from their own experience of "getting better" from nothing but an attitude or primary situational depression etc, or because others have told them so. It's a universal complaint from those I know who have real issues.

<comment><USER5> > This is a frustrating belief

It is not a belief. It is a realisation that came from 15 years of inner work, for which I literally travelled the world.

But if you want to play the victim and wallow is self pity that is your right - it is your life to live as you please. For me, I was done with that shit a long time ago and chose to do something about it.

That said, I would never claim that it is an easy thing to do. I also realise that some people's physical circumstances may make this more difficult still - I am very grateful that I have been spared these extra difficulties.

> the root cause are entirely NOT self-manufactured

Unless there is a way someone can beam thoughts into your head, or inject chemicals into you, or mess with electrical circuitry in your brain, what you think and feel is entirely self manufactured within your own body. It is simply your own inability to control your compulsive responses to external stimuli that is causing the problem for you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Life never has a meaning. Whatever you do, will be washed away with death. As death is inevitable, you don't have to worry about it. Until it comes, try to enjoy things. Practical way to do this is - stop thinking. if-else won't work. get some physical activity or some creative work. chck book - wisdom in insecurity by alan watts. initial pages may not sound good, but after that it is gem. once you start enjoying each moment without worry (even worry of meaning) of future and past, death is also just another moment.

For boredom, stop using cellphone, facebook, HN and everything for few days. And invest in building, creating or watever work you like, with focus. If you don't like anything, just start with something, after few days you will see difference. key here is patience.

Above both statements seem contradictory. But that is how life works. Get away from instant pleasures. Devote to process without thinking about fruits. See nature. Gist is start doing something, stop worrying outcome and focus on finishing it but don't get obsessed with fruits. This is also meaningless but it will give some involvement in life and take a away from thoughts.

Remember always, life is all about journey not destination. Make your ride enjoyable. Either you enjoy or not, destination is fixed. Your ride is your responsibility, not others. If you keep thinking, you will miss beautiful scenery of life.

if you're spiritual person, look into indian advaita philosophy and stoicism.

[http://theory.stanford.edu/~sbansal/geeta_saar/geeta_saar.ht...](http://theory.stanford.edu/~sbansal/geeta_saar/geeta_saar.html)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8MeqJxs4iM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8MeqJxs4iM)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi#Self- enquiry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi#Self-enquiry)

</comment><comment><USER8> American society, led by its rich, capitalist elites, divides people into winners and losers, from the time children are born through their whole lives. People are buried in a system of hierarchy and dominance. If you want people to feel like they belong you have to put an end to that system. There can be no more winners. Get rid of the private schools, the prom kings, machine guns, homelessness, "good" neighborhoods, private planes, the whole damn system. Build compassion and equality and accountability into everything. Deprive the winners of the satisfaction of dominating the losers.

<comment><USER9> Hierarchy and dominance are built into our DNA. If you believe in evolution, then you might believe that we have evolved this way.

Winners choose the outcome because they have won. There's nothing American about this.

What you're asking for is: you won using methodology A, so now provide an environment so that methodology B might thrive.

This doesn't change the fact that methodology A is the route that got us here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I found reading the bhagvad Gita gave me a lot of direction when I get into that state

</comment><comment><USER11> Can we really look at the past for direction? It was more or less full of conflict. We need modern solutions to modern problems (or not so modern problems), not regress towards old points of view.

<comment><AUTHOR> Progress is getting closer to achieving a goal. Just because something is newer or 'modern' does not mean that it is progress. Look at the regress of the 20th century with the modern regimes that were going to usher in utopia.

Progress may also mean avoiding dead ends. If you goal is to get to the moon, climbing the nearest tree is not progress. It's regress.

So, no, we don't need modern solutions. We need effective solutions. If the solution happens to be modern, that is besides the point.</comment></comment>


Articles and Stories We Do Not Want to Read or Edit - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/01/articles-and-stories-we-do-not-want-to-read-or-edit/549494/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> It seems like Vice took huge swaths of this as a guide, sadly inverted. Nothing for us here to worry about though!

 _Next stop, Mars._

...Uh oh...

 _Throw in a couple more modern cliches—something about driverless cars and the trolley problem, say—and Manning's list could just as well be used today._

Ouch... ok that got personal in a hurry.

</comment><comment><USER3> Amusingly, the seniority system did end in Congress, the District of Columbia did get home rule, and commercial TV came of age and passed its sell-by date.

<comment><USER4> In what sense did the seniority system did end in Congress? House Republicans take into account fundraising in addition to seniority for leadership positions, but my impression is that Democrats and the Senate are basically a normal seniority system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Geez, "Next stop Mars" is still going strong all these years later.

<comment><USER6> I am hopeful that at some point the "Next stop Mars" stories will end

<comment><USER7> Superseded by "Next stop Europa".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting to see this on the same day as the doctorow article. Corey says we become immune to persuasion tactics. The Atlantic says otherwise. And Vice says "next stop: Mars!"

</comment><comment><USER9> My favorite: "Insolence of the young: shame of a nation."

<comment><USER10> That it's followed up with: "likewise, 'The Wisdom of the Young: Salvation of a Nation'" is the clincher. Breathless pandering is still pandering, even (especially?) when your group is the one being pandered to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> reminds me of News of the Weird's list of story types it would no longer accept because they happen often enough to not qualify as weird ... cat ends up 300 miles from home, super slow high-speed chase, couple having sex on co- workers desk after hours...

</comment><comment><USER11> And if I could add a meta type of story I wish reporters would stop writing, it would be "The Death of X", when X is not a living being; e.g. The Death of [some Technology]. Most technologies never die. They just fade asymptotically. And all the premature announcements of death, while they're great for clicks, are less great for giving readers information...

<comment><USER12> Don't you remember when "gamers" ended because some buddy-buddy journos on a private forum decided to simultaneously declare "the death of gamers"?

Gamasutra was amongst them, and they still crop up here every now and then.

<comment><USER13> I do remember that statement. I even still agree to the basic conceit of the first article I read on the topic a while back - I want to say it was an editorial on the Escapist.

"Gamers" as they were in the past, have been pulled into the public eye. The mass popularity of E-Sports and Let's Play and Twitch & other streaming services means that in general, everyone is a gamer. It's not a separate language or culture with esoterica of its own. Whether it's your mother who plays Candy Crush & Farm Friends on Facebook, your "hardcore" buddies playing the newest Doomclones and Dotaclones, the hordes of Minecraft & Minetest players, mobile gamers, etc., games - and gamers, are everywhere and everyone. The "Gamer" as a separate being unto himself has basically died. He's now just another nerd.</comment></comment></comment>


Apple TV 4K Review: So Close, So Far - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/21/16341876/new-apple-tv-4k-review-2017 <comment><USER2> mode switching is very important. The upscaling is always worse than if my TV is trying to handle it.

I have a "niche" device called the Nvidia shield, and it does not support per- app switching either. It is slated for Android Oreo though, but until then I am running the shield on 1080p and just watch 4k netflix on lg smarttv.

Tbh, I would feel better if mode switching wasn't required at all, and Android and apple would invest in truly great upscaling techniques that can rival the native TV capabilities. The problem is, that I can't really as a consumer quantify if the upscaling is up to par, and rather assume that the TV is always better.</comment>


No, You Can't Use My Photos on Your Brand's Instagram for Free - <AUTHOR> https://petapixel.com/2017/07/13/no-cant-use-photos-brands-instagram-free/ <comment><USER2> There is a real two-sides problem to copyright in the digital age.

If you're too small like this guy then people will rip you off and then fight you on it.

If you're big enough you can use legal and extra-legal mechanisms to squash legitimate fair use and prevent the commercial parts of future from ever being freed for general use.

<comment><USER3> Sure, but doesn't that pretty much describe the entirety of our existence? People with money/sway have more power than those who have neither. I don't see that ever changing.</comment></comment>


Hit Me! A Developer's Guide to Decentralized Ethereum Gambling - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@antsankov/hit-me-a-developers-guide-to-decentralized-ethereum-gambling-2c37aac41a9b <comment><USER2> He says it's slow, it's boring and you'll definitely lose your money, but it nevertheless constitutes a "cool" example of a Dapp. ok.</comment>


Skeptics discount science by casting doubts on scientist expertise - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/09/skeptics-discount-science-by-casting-doubts-on-scientist-expertise.ars <comment><USER2> This is not the first Ars Technica article I've seen that erroneously compares the "controversy" surrounding evolution with the controversy surrounding global warming. Evolution is a binary fact. It's either true or not and, as rational, informed people know, it's true.

On the other hand, anthropogenic global warming is a matter of degree. Scientists largely agree that there has been some AGW (although it's not settled to nearly the confidence of evolution). What people object to is the constant bombardment with doomsday scenarios. The magnitude and implications of AGW are NOT settled and yet it's often claimed that hugely invasive and costly public policy initiatives must be enacted to combat worst case outcomes. Scientists and activists who carry the science further than its legs undermine their credibility and make it tough to discuss the issues fairly. It's pretty sneaky to suggest that if you don't toe the popular line on AGW, you're probably a Creationist.

<comment><USER3> I never thought about evolution and creationism as mutually exclusive.

<comment><USER4> This is because you are using your intuitive definition of creationism and not the one that has been historically used in this argument.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's obvious why the public is divided: if you feed them (through the media) with the "debates" and "disputes" where "each side has to be represented" you're sending a signal: "there's 50% chance of X and 50% chance of not X." Average that then across the population and don't be surprised that you'll have almost 50% of people believing X and 50% of people believing not X.

If any media would make fair representation, they'd have to host for example 1000 scientists for one side and one (where they'd also have to constantly note that that one is typically not qualified in the area he disputes) for another (or even 10K scientists for one side and one for another etc.) That wouldn't make nice "debates" to sell advertising minutes or brag about the number of the viewers!

When you argue alone with the fool most won't see the difference.

Note also that the better title would be "The Unqualified Skeptics..."

<comment><USER6> I think there's a related phenomenon: we have "debates" and "disputes" over the expected effects of economic policies, social policies, political policies, etc. and then we get to see those policies in action. Neither major US political party seems to do better than 50/50 overall, despite having "expert" opinion from professional economists, social scientists, and so on. The media providing coverage of the debates, the arguments, and the policies don't generally do a good job of picking out the best analysis; their track record is far worse than 50/50. But viewers keep watching!

Then the same politicians and the same media trot out "scientists" in support of various measures. Sometimes the scientists are legit, and sometimes they're cranks. Sometimes the scientists are legit, but are talking about policy preferences rather than science. And most of the time, the politician or media member giving the "scientist" the podium doesn't have the expertise necessary to understand if the person is legit or totally nuts. And all of this gets ratings, so the media keeps it coming.

Throw in a little confirmation bias -- where people remember their side's successes and the other side's failures, and therefore trust of their side's experts and distrust of the other side's experts -- and you have a recipe for divided opinion even where there shouldn't be.

<comment><USER7> > Neither major US political party seems to do better than 50/50 overall

I'm not sure what that even means or how you could measure it. Most political policies don't have tangible win/lose results. There are not often going to be actions that make everything peachy. Usually choices have pros and cons, and it's easier to get the public to notice the cons than it is to get them to evaluate the trade offs involved. Also, if the cons don't materialize within two years, the public will probably not connect the dots.

So watch some cable news, form your half-ass opinion and go vote.

<comment><USER6> > Most political policies don't have tangible win/lose results.

No -- but occasionally politicians will state a particular tangible, directly measureable result they're expecting a policy to produce (either pro or con). They seem to be wrong as often as they're right, across the board.

Ideally, we'd have a policy suggestion, true experts would give us a clear understanding of the tradeoffs involved and the actual effects of the policy, and we could evaluate them and make sensible decisions. What we actually get are policy suggestions, statements from both sides' hand-picked "experts" declaring fictional effects of the policy, we vote for whatever sounds the best to us, and half the time the end result is totally different from what we thought we were voting for. And pretty much all the time, both sides cherry- pick statistics that don't really measure what they say they're measuring in order to prove that they were right all along.

And then we wonder why people are skeptical...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Odd though that people only seem to doubt the evidence when they want to do something!

Don't want to give up smoking, drinking, sugar, driving an SUV or running the AC 24*7 ? Then convince yourself that the scientist are divided on the health benefits/global warming.

I've yet to see somebody say that scientists are divided on general relativity and therefore I don't need to worry about falling off this cliff.

<comment><USER9> _Odd though that people only seem to doubt the evidence when they want to do something!_

Creationists doubt the evidence for evolution, but what do they want to do? Similarly the Holocaust "deniers". (Most don't actually deny the Holocaust, they dispute the scale.)

 _I've yet to see somebody say that scientists are divided on general relativity and therefore I don't need to worry about falling off this cliff._

I have known people who denied Einstein's theory of special relativity. They don't seem to want anything other than to argue about it. In fact annoyance over that was why I stopped reading James P. Hogan. (This was before he expressed his more controversial views.)

There are also a number of scientists who have doubted general relativity, and they are generally credited with moving the discussion forward by providing something concrete to test. GR has done well under those tests, but it was important to have reasonable alternatives presented. (It is worth noting that 2 of the 3 classical tests of GR match the first order predictions of any theory that reconciles gravity with special relativity, and gravitational redshift falls out of quantum mechanics. So the classical tests didn't actually test the theory very well.)

Nobody sane doubts the reality of gravity though. People who are prone to walking off cliffs because they think gravity is not real generally end up dead or institutionalized for good reason.

<comment><USER10> > Creationists doubt the evidence for evolution, but what do they want to do?

Teach Christian mythology in science classes.

<comment><USER8> Since it's all old testament stuff, they are teaching Muslim mythology as much as Christian - but really teaching Jewish mythology !

Has anyone told them?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Scientists are still people, funded by money that comes from other people. I don't think they should be revered. I don't think that there should ever be a "come on, this is what we believe now, get with the program". I'm always up for skepticism. I don't like this "what's wrong with these people that they're not listening to us" attitude.

EDIT: It's not a bad article, but it ignores the possibility that people doubt the particular scientists for legitimate reasons.

<comment><USER12> <http://xkcd.com/675/>

<comment><USER11> Sure, people shouldn't pretend to be scientists either. This is just about the fact that people have the right to raise objections outside of the realm of science. "Are these scientists paid by politicians or corporations?" "Are these scientists a little too sure of themselves on this theory to be dictating our lives just yet?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> " .. The Semmelweis reflex or "Semmelweis effect" is a metaphor for the reflex-like rejection of new knowledge because it contradicts entrenched norms, beliefs or paradigms. It refers to Ignaz Semmelweis, who discovered that childbed fever mortality rates could be reduced ten-fold if doctors would wash their hands (we would now say disinfect) with a chlorine solution. His hand-washing suggestions were rejected by his contemporaries."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis_reflex>

<comment><USER14> I just read Atul Gawande's _Better_ where there is a good discussion of Semmelweis, Apparently, Semmelweis was an extremely obnoxious nutjob, which is why he was ignored. When Lister started a lower profile, less obnoxious, program to do basically the same thing a few years later, he was much more successful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> _Ninety-seven percent of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science accept the evidence for evolution..._

I'm surprised it wasn't higher.

</comment><comment><USER16> Science is a testable, reproducible hypothesis. Computer models (the foundation for AGW) never have been and never will be science.

</comment><comment><USER17> More info about the survey here: <http://norvig.com/oreskes.html></comment>


Reddit is Censoring News about the NSA and XKeyscore - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1jfp3y/large_scale_censorship_of_the_new_nsa_leaks_top/

<comment><USER2> To be clear, these articles were not removed by Reddit. Nor is the linked /r/conspiracy thread accusing them.

This is about community moderators of those particular subreddits. At worst, they are being accused of selectively removing articles that were perceived to be editorialized.</comment>


Biggest Mistakes You've Made? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Sitting on ideas only to see other people implement them and whiz by me. In hindsight, I've learned that I shouldn't wait and do what I need to do right now.

</comment><comment><USER3> 1\. Having a go at it alone. 2\. Taking too long to launch - fail early, fail often, iterate. 3\. In-efficient outsourcing.

</comment><comment><USER4> Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from practice. Practice entails making bad decisions. ;-)

I've always been hesitant to make decisions when I didn't have all the information. My current approach is to gather a reasonable amount of information, throw my energy into a particular course of action, and be willing to turn on a dime if contraindications present themselves.

To sum up: My biggest mistake has been my fear of mistakes.

</comment><comment><USER5> Moonlighting for so long, the sin of sins.

</comment><comment><USER6> Grad School :(

<comment><USER2> I wouldn't say grad school is a mistake. It's a good place to meet a lot of smart people that you could potentially partner with or even get technical advice from. Grad students that I know are geniuses.</comment></comment>


How an inmate hacker hid computers in ceiling and turned his prison upside down - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/10/16447264/prison-hacker-recycled-computer-fraud-ohio-marion-transkiy <comment><USER2> Did we time travel back 6 months?</comment>


After 30 years of coding and tech management, I want to get into movie making - <AUTHOR> I see often Ask HNs asking what would you do if you were not in tech? I am trying to get into something else, namely making movies and documentaries.
Because I know nothing about this business, the first one is only on the sidelines and as investor, however, the plan is to get more and more involved.
Here it is:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07NPZWHFV
Wonder if anyone else here did something similar and has tips on, for instance, getting larger investments and doing promotion. I have only ever gotten investments or promoted software and software services. <comment><USER2> Try reading about Shane Carruth and what he did. He quit an engineering job to make Primer (which won grand jury at Sundance) for around $7,000 by doing everything himself--editing, scoring, directing, cinematography, writing, acting and producing.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_\(film\))

</comment><comment><USER3> It's an admirable and seductive goal that I can identify with. I've been tangentially in the film & TV business from the 'enabling tech' side and have enjoyed having exposure to it.

An approach you could think about is to decide what value you are going to uniquely bring to the table in the early phases of a creative media project and focus on developing proof points of that. One angle could be your tech and management skills amplifying the investment and passion you bring. Personally, I rarely see investment capital as the fundamental limiting constraint, thus suggest you might not want to focus on that as your primary value.

When you said "I know nothing about this business", I thought two things. First, it's great that you know you don't know. Second, it's likely you may have a bad time as an investor until you build more domain expertise. As an angel investor, I've learned my judgement tends to be far more accurate when I focus on areas I have expertise in. Additionally, I can also provide help to positively influence the outcome.

</comment><comment><USER4> In remember a story from my fikmmaking class 20 years ago.... Rodrigo Garcia (the son of Gabriel Garcia Marquez) wanted to be a filmmaker.

The industry is quite closed. Everybody knew almost everybody and it was quite hard to break into the industry.

This guy did something unusual.

Instead of trying to be a director from the first time, he bought a piece of equipment for moving the camera up/downwards, leartn how to use it perfectly, and rented the device with an operator... which was him, of course.

This way he was able to get in touch with the industry, make contacts, etc.

My advice is to do something similar.

Get a copy if the American Cinematographer Manual from the ASC, use it to learn the language of the industry, and do like Rodrigo Garcia (he was director of photography): use your current skills to find a contractor niche where you can get to know people in the industry.

</comment><comment><USER5> I spent about 8 years in the independent film business. It's a business that attracts people because they love movies or like the glamour of it, and from an investment standpoint, is one of the least likely to return. Lots of hand waving, creative people, and cool parties. Almost no assurance of success, even for execs with years of experience.

<comment><AUTHOR> That makes sense, although the guys I am working with had a few solid successes. I am definitely not in it for the glamour; I am in the liking (horror) movies camp.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Depending upon how much money you're thinking of investing, you could look to get involved with OceanX. They are soon to launch their newly redoublantes ship, Alucia 2. Along with "science!", it will include a full video editing suite for working on documentaries while at sea.

For those that don't know, most of The Blue Ocean 2 documentary was shot on the first Alucia.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm investigating crossing over as well, but via animation. Am currently making an interactive kids story. Thinking about some animated shorts also, but curious about differt potential distribution opportunities of software vs straight video.

</comment><comment><USER8> I wonder if there's a road in via the tech industry as well. Movie streaming companies like Netflix and their rivals all make money on producing their own content.

YouTube is also low capital, decent pay to start on things like documentaries.

</comment><comment><USER9> The video turned out great! Good luck with your new business. You can take part in different competitions, challenges. Winning the competition is a good advertisement.

</comment><comment><USER10> Andy Weir was a software engineer before he became an author and wrote The Martian.</comment>


Ask HN: Pivot from 'data science' to X? - <AUTHOR>

You always hear from engineers wanting to break into 'data science'. Well, I'm a data scientist trying to break out!
I'm an embedded analyst in a small organization doing bigger-than-Excel-can-handle work (think: Python, R, SQL, UNIX utils, data viz, etc.), and I am disillusioned. At the end of the day, I'm just an in-house data janitor, supporting the people who make the real decisions. I want a job where I have 1. a role relating directly to the company's core business, 2. access to mentors and promotion opportunities, and 3. the opportunity to make sales or products, not just charts and tables. I know this may mean downgrading data hacking from 'love of my life' to 'secondary skill set supporting my main work', but I'm ready to pick up new skills and make the change.
Has anyone pivoted from embedded data analysis to a different career? What was it like? Am I correct in feeling like there's a ceiling to where data crunchers can go in many organizations, or is that just my particular job? What new careers might I look into? <comment><USER2> I totally hear you. As a quantitative analyst, I did something similar for years (I personally cherish the experience. I became very good at hacking together stuff fast =p).

Would you be interested in leveraging your skills AND learning about distributed systems and databases in a highly concurrent setting? If so, drop me a line (my email is on my profile).

</comment><comment><USER3> Your skills are really needed on the market, maybe try to do some consulting? Still around your knowledges but will allow you to explore many different stuff!</comment>


Full-Time Startup: Skribit Week 2 - <AUTHOR> http://paulstamatiou.com/2009/01/17/full-time-startup-skribit-week-2

<comment><USER2> Anyone know about something like Gang of Five in the bay area?

<http://www.gangof5.net/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Glad you're loving it Paul. Looking forward to those pro features you won't tell me you're working on ;)

</comment><comment><USER4> Courage Paul!!!

</comment><comment><USER5> This guy is living the dream! Way to go!</comment>