Why Can't America Handle the Coronavirus Crisis? - <AUTHOR> https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/why-cant-america-handle-the-coronavirus <comment><USER2> The elephant in the room (re: the pandemic response) is the privatized health care system. With costs so high, people will avoid treatment, and with few security nets, people will go to work sick. How exactly do you prevent a rapid spread in that situation?

<comment><USER3> People seem to hold the Dutch healthcare system in high regard, and it's private.

<comment><USER4> According to the German Wikipedia article every Dutch person is required by law to have a "legally defined" healthcare contract. Sounds quite different to the US system.

<comment><USER5> It sounds quite similar to the Obamacare individual mandate. Of course that's gone now...

<comment><USER6> private health insurance in the US is (even under Obamacare) expensive, and the deductibles are high if you're on those cheap plans.

Under an Obamacare cheapest possible insurance option you're not going to be _bankrupted_ by (for example) a heart attack, but you'll still be paying the bill for a long time. That ignores hospitals like SF general that charge you directly (and are out of network) so you can still be trivially bankrupted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The climb acronym from the article, it is same reason we can't build nuclear plants on time or or budget anymore.

</comment><comment><USER8> The simplified answer: the US is a late-stage civilization in gradual decline since either post-WW2 or about 1960.

The "frog" has been "boiling" slowly for a long time and is almost cooked.

See also:

\- _America: The Farewell Tour_ by Chris Hedges

\- Chalmers Johnson's _Decline of Empires: Signs of Decay_ [https://youtu.be/Q2CCs-x9q9U](https://youtu.be/Q2CCs-x9q9U)

\- _The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ by Gibbon

\- _The Rise and Fall of the Great Empires_ by Taylor

</comment><comment><USER9> Handling it better than a lot of countries…

<comment><USER10> Better than who for example? Better than Iran? I'd certainly hope so. Other than Iran, I'd say it's too early to tell.

<comment><USER9> China? At no point we're we arresting people for spreading the word about it?

<comment><USER11> >> Better than who for example? Better than Iran? I'd certainly hope so. Other than Iran, I'd say it's too early to tell.

> China? At no point we're we arresting people for spreading the word about > it?

I'm no fan of the Chinese government, but

1) their authoritarianism both kick-started this epidemic and bungled the initial response

2) AND seems to have contained the epidemic once its severity was understood.

The US and many other developed countries seem to be on track to bungling their initial response, as well. That's pretty inexcusable since they've had the benefit of months to prepare.

The US government should have paid to build up a test kit stockpile _in February_ , but I guess now we get to see how badly free market principles handle an epidemic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> But according to Western media, free, rich, and democratic America, with our great President Trump, should be able to handle this crisis, much better than poor, enslaved, and totalitarian China.

This is what the Western media has been pushing down our throats for the past 2 months. Did something just change in the past week?

[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/why- democr...](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/why-democracies- are-better-fighting-outbreaks/606976/)</comment>


On the emptiness in the concept of neutrality - <AUTHOR> http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/56888930628/on-the-emptiness-in-the-concept-of-neutrality <comment><USER2> The blog post is not "on the emptiness of the concept of neutrality", despite its title. That would have been interesting. Instead, the post just states that inaction isn't neutrality.

It mentions that the concept of neutrality is abused, but the title says the concept of neutrality is entirely empty. Two very different things. That title just abuses the concept even further. I guess Lessig is still good at what he does.

<comment><USER3> He's as good as he ever was!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke#Disputed](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke#Disputed)

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

<comment><USER5> "A witty saying proves nothing"

-Voltaire

[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire)

<comment><USER6> "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana"

-Groucho Marx (maybe)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_flies_like_an_arrow;_frui...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_flies_like_an_arrow;_fruit_flies_like_a_banana)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm so super frustrated and upset about this MIT thing. The hallowed halls that I always associated with all things hacker-ish and who invented many of the key things modern society has come to rely on has truly failed those it spawned.

The loss of context by the MIT staff is just so heart breaking. If I had my true revenge fantasy I'd tear the institution asunder, figuratively. Rebuild it in the true spirit of learning.

Ultimately with the whole fiasco... before the police were involved, No one was Substantially Harmed!

I feel like Boston, MIT and the area has become a dangerous place to not follow the rules. Perhaps its time for another Go West Exodus. Because a part of my brain tells me this whole mess would never have gone down in the bay area.

Come join your brethren my east coast brothers and sisters!

<comment><USER8> > Ultimately with the whole fiasco... before the police were involved, No one > was Substantially Harmed!

Not only was no one harmed, the owner of the rights to access the journals downloaded, JSTOR, explicitly asked to drop the charges.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> "You can't be neutral on a moving train."

\- Howard Zinn</comment>


What to do when someone launches the same product just before you? - <AUTHOR>

I've been learning to code these past 6 months whilst building my dream startup. I'm probably a month or two from beta launch.
Just now, another startup has just launched my exact idea. Their team looks larger, they have more experience in development and marketing and I'm a sole founder.
What do I do now? I still plan to launch asap but I feel hugely demoralized. The competitor has used a popular twitter user (2+ million followers) to promote their site.
Any suggestions or experiences would be greatly appreciated. <comment><USER2> Apply to joining their team. Lets look at some facts:

1) Its just you.

2) There is a lot more to a startup than just the product.

3) They have momentum and you are not launched.

You can offer:

1) Interest in the area + your ideas

2) You are inexperienced but clearly capable ( learned coding in 6 months)

You will learn a lot for the next idea you have and develop connections for the future.

Sorry to be brief but I have to head out to work!</comment>


The mathematics generation gap - <AUTHOR> http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2011/05/bridging-the-mathematics-generation-gap.html <comment><USER2> This article has an economics spin to it, which is interesting as only insiders seem to understand how much mathematics is required in that field. Greg Mankiw lays out a similar defense of mathematics in what we might assume to be a more logic or intuition driven field. ([http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-aspiring- economis...](http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-aspiring-economists- need-math.html)) His advice for aspiring Phd students in economics suggests as much mathematics as many undergrad programs require ([http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/which-math- courses.ht...](http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/which-math- courses.html)).

What's this mean about calculators and learning the basics? There are concepts that you can't mentally understand if your mind can't map the basics of math. I see it in real world examples (people can't make quantitative business judgements on the fly) as well as abstract reasoning. One of the critiques of Google is similar - by reducing what we need to remember, we reduce our ability to process certain ideas on the fly.

Like many things, it's ultimately a trade-off. Are the things we mentally miss from utilizing calculators and Google more or less important than what we gain in added productivity? (Is it worth the health hit of driving 5 miles to work rather than walking? Can you mitigate it by spending half the saved time in the gym?)

</comment><comment><USER3> People who can do basic arithmetic on paper have an advantage with back-of- the-envelope calculations and ballpark estimates, and will end up using such simple and effective tools more often. The mental cost of pulling out a calculator and concentrating to enter all digits in sequence is just too high sometimes.

There is also an often overlooked educational advantage in that pupils get early exposure to working with simple algorithms. Becoming used to the idea of following a sequence of unchanging steps, for varying inputs, comes in handy for understanding more complicated algorithms later on (such as those involved in algebra, calculus, and computer programming).

<comment><USER4> Having an understanding of the meaning of a mathematical concept does not require continuous, ongoing, manual, exercise of its mathematical calculation.

For example, I'm willing to bet that virtually all of you reading this fully grok the concept of "square root". Your understanding of this is probably strong enough that you can wield it in day-to-day usage, successfully employing it to build back-of-the-envelope estimate, etc. Yet how many of you actually know how to calculate a square root by hand?

I've been shown how to do it, but have never done it myself but for once or twice. I also know how to estimate it via via calculus and interpolation. But I don't know how to do it now, and I've not even done it enough times to have gotten an understanding of the workings of "square root" by way of repeated manual application of the mathematics.

So, how to explain the fact that I (and presumably you) are so comfortable in employing the concept?

<comment><USER3> Knowing how to do a square root efficiently by hand is probably a bit overkill, although it can still be useful sometimes. I was rather arguing about addition, division etc., which come up much more often in back-of-the- envelope calculations; and which also provide a much easier and earlier introduction to the kind of algorithmic thinking that is required in algebra, programming etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _Calculus_. Not arithmetic, calculus.

Economics, even the basic stuff when taught at the college level, involves a couple of integrals. If you have a good, solid, intuitive grasp of what an integral is and what it represents, all this stuff is obvious. Obvious to the point that when the prof says "this is an integral" that will explain the concept better than the English definition. On the other hand, if integrals to you are voodoo witchcraft that puts numbers on a physics exam, then when you reach the same point in the lecture you'll be dealing with something extra you have to learn, rather than something that helps you learn. You'll be worse at economics because you can't switch back and forth between the concepts and the models. If someone gives you an equation, you won't be able to interpret it, and if someone defines a new concept, you won't be able to calculate it.

<comment><USER6> I missed Calc in hs/undergrad but need it much more later on (and felt pretty innumerate without it), I remember picking up the classic "Calculus Made Easy". I was immediately stunned by it's simple description of integral:

"Now any fool can see that if x is considered as made up of a lot of little bits, each of which is called dx, if you add them all up together you get the sum of all the dx's (which is the same as the whole of x). The word 'integral' simply means 'the whole'"

After reading this and more I asked a few people who I know knew calculus how they would explain an integral (figuring that they would give a similar definition and would delight in finding a book which explained it so clearly) and was shocked to discover how many could calculate it without really understanding what it was or at least being able to describe what it was in clear terms

<comment><USER7> I think of everything in the form of signals, so I define the integral as "the area under the curve".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I vehemently disagree. The gap we should be worried about is the reason gap.

While I enjoy math tremendously, part of my deep dissatisfaction with economics as a field is its _incredible over-reliance on math_ as a tool for analysis. I'm speaking as someone who dreamed of being an economist all through high school and early college. Classically, economics had very little to do with (numeric) math, and much to do with reasoning about how people behave.

However, as modern statistics (and math as whole) began to develop rapidly in the early 20th century, and as logical positivism became a dominant philosophy (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism>), economists took note and begin applying these tools liberally to their field. They started collecting and compiling tons of data on anything they could measure. Data is compelling: numbers give a sense of precision and clarity that mere reasoning does not. But this appeal is also what makes numbers dangerous. Though rigorous empirical testing of hypotheses in science is clearly one of the greatest advancements of the last 200 years, it has often been misapplied to other fields where the same controls are hard to apply. And experiments without controls can produce essentially meaningless data. Economic data is particularly complex, and there is still much debate as to how to calculate even very basic oft-quoted economic figures like inflation, unemployment, and GDP.

Though there was significant debate about the usefulness of these new tools, they became enshrined by the two dominant mainstream schools of the 20th century: Keynesianism and Neo-Classicalism. This bastardization of the field has made economics into a cargo cult science, where researchers regularly base their knowledge on data that is only slightly more controlled and scientific than corporate accounting.

This is not a trifling academic concern. So much of our lives is affected by what economists do and say. The bigger concern I have for young economics students is that their lack of mental math skills will make them more inclined toward the kind of overly precise large number manipulation that computers and calculators make so easy. I hope, for all of our sakes, that these less mathematically-inclined students will instead be wary of the numbers and critically apply reasoning to the models and assumptions they have been taught.

<comment><USER9> It sounds like you're calling for the application of reasoning without measurement. How would that work?

<comment><USER8> What I'm calling for is for economists to drop the pretense and misconception that using empirical methods for studying macroeconomics makes it scientific. And I'm suggesting that being good at math is not useful unless you're using useful data. In the study of logic, arguments can be considered _valid_ if they are formally correct, but still _unsound_ if their premises are false. Much in the same way, one can perform any number of valid mathematical transformations on data but still be left with unsound conclusions if those data were gathered incorrectly.

I am not saying that empiricism is inherently flawed, or that we should stop collecting economic data. And I I do not intend to advocate any particular school of economic thought here. All I'm advocating is that students be taught how to think critically about what they are being taught. So much of a modern economics education consists of looking at the changes in figures over time that very little is spent focused on a more general kind of reasoning.

The kind of reasoning I'm calling for is not easy to define. This is one of the tremendous advantages numbers have over argument in most minds. This kind of reasoning takes into account the notion that most of the information we obtain is not perfect or complete, and that many of our determinations are really judgment calls on what is more likely to be true. If empiricism is reasoning with your eyes, this is reasoning with your nose. It is a trained skill that allows you to recognize dubious premises and unspoken assumptions. When refined, it allows you to distill the essence of arguments down to a set of axioms that you can use to build a coherent model of the situation at hand. It is this _theoretical_ side that allows you to understand how to construct experiments that test hypotheses, or whether that is even possible in each case.

To demonstrate the importance of gaining an understanding of the theory and rules behind something before testing it, I offer a parable:

 _The commissioner of the NFL once decided that teams were punting too much and he hired an econometrician (economic statistician) to study the situation and provide a solution to this problem. The econometrician applied his skills to the task at hand, aggregating data from several seasons to find correlations. He noted that there is an incredibly strong correlation between forth downs and punting, and he recommended that the commissioner ban fourth downs. In the next season, offenses were only given three downs. To the econometrician's surprise and the commissioner's chagrin, teams actually punted more frequently, as the fewer number of downs dramatically limited offensive opportunities._

The econometrician's misunderstanding was based on something rather obvious (if you understand American Football): a failure to separate correlation and causation due to an ignorance of the rules of the game. And compared to a global economy, football is a very simple game, with very simple rules. Applying reasoning to the example is very straightforward, but applying the same thing to a world of dynamic human behavior is much more subtle. Which is why students ought to be trained to question assumptions and sense where logic and math have separated themselves from the reality they are supposed to help us describe.

People will disagree about when things correlate to reality, and about what things make sense in parables. But almost anyone can learn to recognize when a number seems too specific, just like most decent coders learn to recognize "code smell." Just the other day, someone told me confidently that 65% of communication is non-verbal. Now, while I almost agree intuitively, I immediately asked where they heard that, and how someone could have arrived at that figure, which seemed oddly specific for something (communication) that I don't think is frequently quantitized. Every student of a soft science needs to have this skill strongly developed, or they will begin to take these kinds of things at face value.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "students can now solve problems that were previously too time-consuming to attempt, and can focus on underlying concepts."

The question should be whether the more time-consuming problems are helping to understand the underlying concepts.

In my experience this is not always the case. My high school maths teacher made us do extensive graph plotting by hand and it was slow and tedious.

At university, my physics course used software to visualise vector fields. We could tweak the inputs and see WHAT it did immediately. We could examine much more complicated scenarios and it seemed we were gaining an intuitive feel for the subject, but we didn't really learn HOW the inputs lead to the outputs so we couldn't apply the knowledge to other scenarios (even simpler ones) without the software.

2 decades on, and I wouldn't know where to start if I had to tackle even a trivial vector field but I can still picture reasonably complex graphs in my head just from looking at a formula which I find surprisingly useful in everyday life.

Perhaps mine was just not a very good course (in an otherwise excellent program) but care should be taken to ensure the technology really does aid the understanding of the underlying concepts and not distract from them.

</comment><comment><USER11> Reminds me of the classic story of Richard Feynman vs the Abacus: <http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/abacus/feynman.html>

I never really memorized basic math tables in school and it annoyed me at a low level for years. So a few weeks ago I added addition (0+0 ~ 50+50) and multiplication (0x0 ~ 12x12) tables to my flashcard app to try and remedy that lacking. It's been depressingly and frustratingly difficult so far.

<comment><USER12> Out of all the comments this one made me the most depressed. 11x12 is something you need to think about?

At my high school we had these expensive graphing calculators that were supposed to last for four years. I of course lost mine in early grade 10. Best thing by far that happened to me.

I was always that the top of my class for mathematics, so I was usually pretty bored with the homework, but all of a sudden I thought of a new challenge: Do all the homework without any calculator whatsoever. Yes, even things like 3^4 + 5^(1/4). At first of course it was painful, but at least I was doing _something_. I had a much better understanding of actual graphing than anyone else as well, because I would boil the functions down to their key points and play with them until I saw what they did at infinity.

I ended up getting my calculator back in late grade 11 (funny story, I had to sub in for a math teacher at the last minute because there was a wave of sickness at the school, so I was teaching people one year younger than me) and I saw my trusty calculator on the desk in front of me (I had engraved my name with a knife). I picked up and said "hey thanks, I've been looking for this."

Since then I've always been able to do math in my head and it is unbelievably useful. When people say "oh so that is log(800), what is that" and I respond with "roughly 2.9"* they are flabbergasted, but I know how the curves actually work, I haven't outsourced that knowledge to a machine.

Programming is great and we should have graphing calculators in some part of the math curriculum, but students should be able to do this type of math by hand/in their head.

*I checked this after answering it in my head and was mildly amused. Here was my thought process: log(1000) = 3, log(100) = 2 a log graph has a consistently degrading slope, but one that will still take you to infinity, so the last 200 units in the 100-1000 range will be worth less than the first 200 units. And since halfway there is roughly log(300) and we assume a kinda-semi linear path form there (rounding down because 800 is higher on the scale) it comes out to roughly 2.9.

<comment><USER7> _Out of all the comments this one made me the most depressed. 11x12 is something you need to think about?_

I don't find that especially depressing. If you have to sit down with a pencil, yes, you need to play catch-up a bit, but is it so terrible not to have it memorized? I personally always get by with things like "12x12 = 144, so 144 - 12" or "12x10 = 120, so 120 + 12". I just don't have a use for memorizing the complete table, so while I knew it 2 decades ago, I have lost pieces of it.

<comment><USER13> To multiply 11 by 12 you just "split" the 12 and put a zero between the digits: 1_0_2. Then you add the digits in the 12: 1+2 = 3. Then you add the result of the 2nd operation to the zero in the first split: 1_0+3_2 = 1_3_2 = 132.

This technique works for any 2 digit number multiplied by 11.

What IS especially depressing is that the slowest and least efficient arithmetic techniques keep being passed on for generations. Mainly because it's easier to teach the dumb way and teachers are too lazy to learn how to teach anything new. The result of this is that most students end up hating arithmetic and calculation, and subsequently any further math, because they are never taught the fast and fun way to do things.

If you ever have a job interview at a hedge fund or trading firm, you will not get past the phone screen if you can't do this sort of arithmetic in your head.

<comment><USER7> Well, to each his own. I always _hated_ the kind of math where you have to remember a basketful of little tricks, like your method of computing products of 11. I have always much preferred "the-method-I-invented-on-the-spot", my approximate method using nearby known numbers being one of them.

The most exciting math tests for me were always the ones where I couldn't remember the 'trick' for half the problems, and would re-invent the solution. It didn't always go well, but the GREAT SCOTT!!! moments were some of the best in all of college.

<comment><USER13> Approximate estimation is what you need to multiply other two digit numbers quickly. It just happens that there's a trick for multiples of 11. There's actually probably less than 20 other "tricks" that help with rapid calculations.

<comment><USER14> I don't understand why this trick is necessary. For 11x<number> you can just do 10x<number> \+ <number> which is easy until you get to 3 digit numbers, but even then continues to work.

<comment><USER13> Speed. The "trick" breaks down the problem so there's always a simpler summation to perform. In half of the possible products, one only has to add the sum of the digits to zero. For the rest, just slot the 2nd digit of the sum where the zero goes, and add 1 to the first digit. Most people can do either of those two simple additions faster than they can do sums like 210+21 or 390+39. If one is already quick with the latter kind of addition, then the trick is unnecessary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is there any evidence that being unable to do mental arithmetic has any correlation with understanding complicated mathematics?

All to often with articles like this I can't help but think of grouchy old people with congnitive dissonance who are now conviced that (a) young people are stupid and (b) things were better in their day and (c) since they had to learn mental arithmetic the young one should learn it too.

<comment><USER16> _Is there any evidence that being unable to do mental arithmetic has any correlation with understanding complicated mathematics?_

That's a very good question. This question has not been studied as rigorously as it should have been. Here are some suggestive observations. Professor W. Stephen Wilson surveyed many colleagues (other research mathematicians) once to ask if they thought advanced mathematics could be learned without a basic understanding of arithmetic. The responses he received

<http://www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/ED/list>

included comments such as "I am shocked that there is any issue here" and "That it is even slightly in doubt is strong evidence of very distorted curriculum decisions" and "One of my favorite attacks is that we are _helping_ the students by insisting that they do things by hand because otherwise they can waste a lot of time when the calculator would fail them." One especially thoughtful comment, by a mathematician who has long thought deeply about teaching mathematics, was "It might be argued that we do not really require students to fiercely add, subtract, multiply and divide in our university courses - which is true. But we do require an automatic understanding of these operations and why they work because WE BUILD FROM THERE."

The longer story about understanding arithmetic--REALLY understanding it--and how that relates to learning beyond arithmetic can be found in the book Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics by Liping Ma

[http://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Teaching-Elementary- Mathematic...](http://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Teaching-Elementary-Mathematics- Understanding/dp/0805829091)

(well reviewed by two mathematicians who study mathematics education)

<http://www.ams.org/notices/199908/rev-howe.pdf>

<http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/fall1999/amed1.pdf>

A classic article on the subject is "Basic skills versus conceptual understanding: A bogus dichotomy in mathematics education"

<http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/fall1999/wu.pdf>

A recent effort to embody strong conceptual understanding of basic skills into a mathematics textbook is Prealgebra by Richard Rusczyk, David Patrick, and Ravi Boppana,

[https://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Store/viewitem.php?item=...](https://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Store/viewitem.php?item=prealgebra)

which points to what young students should be able to do WITHOUT a calculator if they really understand mathematics well.

One example I know, related to me by an economics professor, is teaching a lecture on economics in which the professor (the one who told me this story) said, as part of a calculation, "20 percent," and then was interrupted by a student who asked, "You just said '20 percent,' but you wrote '.2' on the blackboard. Why did you do that?"

<comment><USER17> What it really all boils down to from my point of view is that the question is "Can we really teach mathematics ( _qua_ mathematics, as opposed to raw computation) without at some point creating a firm intellectual foundation?"... and there are some people arguing _yes_ , which just boggles the mind.

Yes, you may never in life have to subtract 1/4 from 3/4, but even so, in the grand scheme of mathematics manipulating fractions is the _easy_ part, and still useful if only as a really good place to practice and pick up useful manipulations on relatively concrete items, before you move on to more abstract versions of the same operations, which _are_ used everywhere in mathematics.

(I'd also point out I phrased it as "at some point", not "at the beginning"; in general we can't solve the chicken-and-egg problem and just start Kindergartners on pure set and number theory. But at _some_ point you need a decent foundation laid down or you will never build a strong structure.)

<comment><USER18> The argument isn't that we can teach mathematics without a firm intellectual foundation. The argument is that arithmetic is not that foundation.

No one would argue that you should know the turn by turn direction to drive from the White House to the Liberty Bell and use that to generalize how to read a map. We don't force kids to memorize Harry Potter and then later expect them to generalize that our into literacy. History courses don't start with Supreme Court cases and wait until students generalize out the Constitution.

By starting with the abstraction and moving toward the concrete, we give the information context and allow the students a good mental framework to build upon as they learn the details. Starting with the concrete and moving towards the abstract is needlessly confusing and robs the students of the firm intellectual foundation that they need to understand the subject.

<comment><USER17> I'm not arguing arithmetic is that foundation; I'm arguing its an unremovable _part_ of the foundation. There's more to it than that, but for all the well- documented foibles of true mathematicians when it comes to simple arithmetic, how much math can someone _really_ be learning when they are staring blankly at 3 times 5?

There's a lot more to programming than creating and calling functions, but I'm yet to see an interviewee struggle with how functions work in their putative "best" language _but_ they're otherwise brilliant. You can't be progressing very far if you're burning _that_ much mental effort on the very, very basics of the task at hand.

By starting with abstraction and moving towards the concrete, you're completely fighting everything about how we experience life and learn. Nothing else works that way. The only abstractions you can teach that way are series of words that students can mouth without understanding, but have no true comprehension of.... gee, that sounds a bit familiar.

<comment><USER18> I'll completely agree with you that a student who can't multiply three by five doesn't understand mathematics. However, I'd argue that I'd rather have a student spend ten hours figuring out that 3*5 = 5+5+5 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 = 15 than to have a trained parrot that simply squawks the answer. The first student was slower, but it's the parrot that's mouthing a series of words without understanding.

As for the rest, I disagree that I'm fighting that standard learning pattern. In nearly every subject, we start with a generality and then move into specifics. We learn about the Roman Empire before we learn about Cicero. We learn about teeth before we learn about incisors. We learn about protons before we learn about quarks. We learn about function calls before we learn the standard library. We learn about China before we learn about Beijing. Almost all learning is performed through iteratively refining a central abstraction with increasing detail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's well-acknowledged that those who don't understand the fundamentals of a subject are hampered.

Whether it's _computer use_ , _programming_ , or _mathematics_.

Of course, the prof would do well to become fully familiar with a TI-89 or a HP-50 graphing calculator. It's ignorant to bash what you don't understand.

Since having a sense of math is required for being a mature citizen in modern life - think about all the numbers we are flooded with regarding public policy - it is no surprise that as numeracy goes down (helped by our good friend Calculator), mass voting wisdom goes down with it.

Speaking as a US citizen.

<comment><USER15> The fundamentals of mathematics are logical deduction, reason and abstraction. Not begin able to do 134 * 23.

<comment><USER20> Unless you are a savant of sorts, being able to do 134 * 23 in your head requires all three.

For example, you note that 134 * 23 is really 134 * (20 + 3), which is just 2680 + (100 + 34) * 3 which leads to 2680 + 300 + 102 = 3082. And that is just one way of doing it.

I do agree that arithmetic ability isn't all that great. But there is more logic and reasoning involved than you would think at first sight.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Funny I feel the same way about IDEs as the author does about calculators. They have their place, but they can also be a crutch that contributes to mental weakness. I know devs who can't write code without Visual Studio prompting them every step of the way.

<comment><USER22> You should at least explain why that is bad.

<comment><USER21> There is a contention in the subject article that "deep understanding of mathematical concepts is related to basic number sense" and that e.g. students who must use a calculator to compute 3 X 5 = 15 are lacking that.

I was implying my feeling that there is something similar going on in programming... if you are helpless without an IDE, then you are lacking some "basic sense" about your craft. Though I can cite no studies to back that up.

<comment><USER23> Someone who can't develop outside of Visual Studio probably is missing some "basic sense" - but will that really do them any harm?

<comment><USER24> Absolutely. They'll never be able to experiment with a platform that Visual Studio doesn't support. Or with the many fine languages that don't have a fancy IDE.

They will artificially limit their career and opportunities based on a tool.

<comment><USER25> _They will artificially limit their career_

What languages provide more jobs opportunities (i.e. career options) than C/C++[1], C#, and Java?

[1] no, I'm not saying C and C++ are the same thing, but I haven't seen a C++ IDE which isn't also a C IDE.

<comment><USER24> Using only Windows is very limiting.

<comment><USER25> Eclipse is cross-platform. As is Mono, come to think of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I haven't memorized Taylor series for all known functions, so I occasionally have to reach for a calculator. I guess I am mentally weak and the sine of a broken education system.

Oh wait? We've arbitrarily choosen multiplication tables and fractions as "the thing" to memorize because that's what was done before calculators were ubiquitous. Thank God. Now I can go back to being smug and imposing my value system on people I've never met about when calculator use is appropriate. :-)

<comment><USER27> > the sine of a broken education system.

:D

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> _Graphing the production function F(x)=ln(x) by entering the function into a graphics calculator and copying down the result just seems like cheating._

Well, yeah. But math courses that require a graphing calculator don't ask, "write down the graph for f(x) = ln(x)".

The problem here is two-way. This professor does not understand what the graphing calculators are capable of (which he admits), nor does he understand what the previous math courses were like that relied on them.

<comment><USER29> I've been in a few math courses that have not required a graphing calculator, we were required to memorize basic functions to help us solve problems more quickly, and to understand more of the intuition behind the math, and what the graph is actually telling us.

<comment><USER28> My intro to calculus class forced us to memorize the standard values for sin and cos for the quarter-values of pi for the same reason. For those quizzes, we could not use a calculator, of course. But for the rest of the class we used a calculator.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I may be old school, but I believe that technology can only very mildly help with mathematical understanding. Math is build of bricks, one on top of the others. And to understand advanced concepts, you need a deep and solid understanding of the lower layers. I think you only get this understanding by thinking hard, looking at examples and building your own.

Calculators are fine if you are dealing with numbers, but if you work in a quantitative field you often don't deal with numbers directly: you deal with expressions involving variables. You manipulate the expressions, and at the very end you plug in numbers. A calculator is of no help, and I hope you did not use one when you learned how to deal with numbers. You better be able to manipulate fractions, and know the distributive & associative laws, and know when to complete the square, and the exp(ln(x)) trick, etc… What, you say I could use Mathematica? Of course, and I do -- when I know exactly what to compute. But generally I do not: I have these relations and I try to make sense of them. Moreover, when the final result is nice, concise and elegant, it means that I do not fully understand the problem. Examining the computation will help me understand what is happening: what part of the equations cancel with what other part, and do I understand why? Good luck doing that with Mathematica.

Another example: continuity. Nothing is simpler: you plot a few graphs, and the functions are discontinuous where there are jumps. Who need this epsilon/delta gibberish?

\- Functions that are discontinuous everywhere? Ok, I can wrap my head around that. Still no need for epsilon deltas.

\- A function that is discontinuous on the rationales and continuous on the irrationals [1]? Good luck understanding that with your graphic calculator.

\- And the topological definition of continuity [2]? This is a beautiful definitions, that unifies all the definitions of continuity you have seen for all these functions of THIS space into THAT space. Well, thinking and well chosen examples are going to help you understand the definition, not technology.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomae%27s_function>

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_function#Continuous_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_function#Continuous_functions_between_topological_spaces)

<comment><USER31> I must sincerely and strongly disagree with you. Technology can help elucidate mathematics beyond plug and chug. Teaching is one of the best ways of learning. a rough paraphrase of something I read someone say is they write a new book every time they wish to learn something new.

Writing a computer program which embodies a mathematical concept is teaching the most retarded entity that is capable of more than just arithmetic. Certainly anything which is non-constructive falls outside of this, but in laying a motivation and providing a foundation that reduces the amount of problems you need to do by say an order of magnitude? Technology is unmatched. Although the requirement on constructive* maths seems restricted you would be surprised that both your [1] and [2] level of abstraction can be tackled with such tools. <http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mhe/papers/entcs87.pdf>, <http://haskellformaths.blogspot.com/>, [http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/08/algebraic-topology-in- haskell...](http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/08/algebraic-topology-in-haskell.html)

You do it this way, vary enough examples and try to anticipate results, you will develop a number sense that is required to be comfortable with maths. It worked for me.

* I am skeptical in the reality of arbitrarily real numbers because I am skeptical in the reality of hypercomputation.

<comment><USER32>
      Writing a computer program which embodies a mathematical
      concept is teaching the most retarded entity that is
      capable of more than just arithmetic.

I have to agree with this. Solving a problem - this isn't even limited to just math - with a computer program often means to _generalize_ it. Generalization requires understanding. Thus, if you manage to generalize something, you have understood it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Economists could do students a huge favor by switching supply and demand graphs so that the independent variable is on the X axis, like every other graph in the world.

</comment><comment> alan-crowe > And because I've heard these calculators are programmable,...

I'm happy to suggest that a student get himself a programmable calculator and use it like this: [http://www.reddit.com/r/learnmath/comments/jl9gz/evaluate_th...](http://www.reddit.com/r/learnmath/comments/jl9gz/evaluate_the_limit_without_lhopital/c2d2u26)

Notice though that I'm assuming that the student is completely on top of place value and arithmetic. I assume that they can look at 0.17157, 0.16713, 0.16671, 0.16667, and recognise 1/6 emerging from the murk.

</comment><comment><USER34> Forget about "Recent research", look in the history books!

"However, this switching from counting rods to abacus to gain speed in calculation was at a high cost, causing the stagnation and decline of Chinese mathematics....In Ming dynasty, mathematicians were fascinated with perfecting algorithms for abacus, many mathematical works devoted to abacus mathematics appeared in this period, at the expense of new ideas creation."

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

Weee, its repeating!

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm going to speak from the role of recent graduate in Software Engineering, a strong focus on math here...

1) Visualization of mathematical concepts is a skill that many students simply lack. When someone asks me to crunch out 1.5 * 3.67 mentally I don't see much of an issue because its a simple concept for me to break it down and go 3/2 * 11/3 and work from there. Many people don't make the connection and the root of that issue exists beyond the whole calculator discussion in my honest opinion.

2) The first reply on that page is a very important one, students with a strong mathematical foundation are found in the natural sciences. It is rare to find students practicing strong math skills outside of these faculties. Its the same argument we saw with Engineers lacking english language skills, the students who excel in that field are drawn that way so its only natural to have some deficiencies.

3) Profs from a different generation gap are part of the problem in the idea that they're slow to adopt a technology-centric system. My honest opinion is that formula sheets should be allowed in all exams with the criteria that: i) they're hand-written ii) they're of limited length (1 standard 8.5x11 sheet of paper, single sided) and iii) no photo-copies This forces students to look at the information they've been given and make rational decisions for what formula are important, which ones can be memorized, and enforces studying. My electrostatics course forced memorization on us and I spent more time shoving formulas into my noggin instead of applying concepts to solve actual problems. As soon as the final was complete those formuli leaked from my brain onto the floor and are now forgotten. I honestly wish I was allowed more time to solve problems then to attempt memorization.

Basically what I mean to say when I state that "profs are slow to adapt" is that we live in a technology centered world now. Information such as formula or constants are accessable almost instantly from google and the likes so instead of using valuable time to have students memorize these things time would be spent better if they allowed "cheat-sheets" and instead required a higher amount of work or knowledge per semester. I'd gladly trade the time spent memorizing different formula for magnetic flux in favor of another two or three chapters from the book giving more than the "ideal scenario" cases we were given.

</comment><comment><USER36> Economics demands a strong background in math and any undergrad program worth its salt will require at least multivariate calculus (if not analysis), linear algebra and a fairly robust course in statistics. Beyond this, a proper understanding of metric spaces, fixed point theorems and rigorous stats are all useful and almost essential tools. All of these courses should be proof based. I've said it before and I'll say it again: If it's not proof based, it's not mathematics. It's computation (and I don't mean computer science).

Unfortunately, even programs at many "top" universities sometimes skip these requirements. There are very few undergrad economics degrees worth the paper that they are written on.

As to the theory that arithmetic is any determinant of success in real math, I have only anecdotal evidence that this is false. Having gone to an undergrad university with a top 5 math department, I can assure you that people who are some of the most significant contributors to their fields sometimes struggle at the chalk board when it comes to "basic math." I think it is not clear to most people that arithmetic is not math. It is not the "base" of math, and skill in this area does not provide a "strong foundation" for math. Math is the study of quantity, structure, space and change (to borrow a leaf from wikipedia) among other things. It is the most fundamental of the sciences in a metaphysical sense (it may be argued that philosophy is the real root, but I would say that at their most fundamental, there is significant convergence between math and philosophy). Arithmetic is not related in any form to this.

</comment><comment><USER37> I used to work part time as IT support for a public school system back in College(07), and it shocked me to see every single student in a 6th grade class pull out TI-89s or better! to handle logs and exponentials. I'm not talking about solving them to get the decimal number, no, this was to do things like solve for x in: e^3 * e^4 = e^x Yes in the real world we all rely on calculators to some extent but if you can't piece together basic math you'll struggle to solve unfamiliar problems.

</comment><comment><USER38> I think that learning to do mental computations vs. relying on technology is a trade-off. As hermannj314 pointed out [1], there's an issue whether memorizing multiplication tables/trigonometric tables is a matter of fundamentals, or it's just how we used to live before calculators to be able to compute anything. Well, I think it's both in some sense.

Human brain is good at some things (pattern matching, quick look-up, aka. intuition), and terribly bad at others (computation, explicitly running algorithms). I do believe that we should augment our mental skill whenever possible - we're already thinking using our environment [2], so unless one rejects pen and paper, or even looking at things around him/her, one is using his environment to increase his mental powers. So why stop at handwriting? Why not use slide rules, calculators and Google?

There's the other side of the trade-off though. Learning tables with numbers, or multiplication tricks, or doing lots of exercises with plotting functions by hand is the way we leverage the power of our brains. Our minds seem to be good at caching stuff and quickly looking things up, so the more such mental tools we incorporate, the more power we can get of our thought process.

In a very simplifying way:

Our cognitive powers = internal 'skills' in thinking * external tools we have.

The best strategy is to properly invest on both sides of the multiplication. Boosting only one side is suboptimal.

[1] - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2924937>

[2] - <http://consc.net/papers/extended.html>

</comment><comment><USER39> Mathematics is a system of learning and reasoning, arithmetic is the process of actually computing an answer. While it might be nice to be able to compute compound interest in your head no one is seriously proposing that anyone do multivariate linear regressions with a pen and paper, we simply have much better tools for _computing_ the answer.

In a modern society with large amounts of non-human computational power it's far more economical for humans to focus more on math and less on arithmetic.

</comment><comment><USER40> I am baffled by the idea that today students can't do basic math problem without resorting to calculators. Big tedious problems, I can understand.

I am a 20 years old.

<comment><USER41> Just curious: where does 'basic math' end for you? 13 * 7? 43 * 76? 123 * 42? sin(PI/3)? 12534 + 3 * 26327?

Which ones do you need paper for? Which ones would you use paper for if it were readily available?

<comment><USER42> I would need paper for all but the first, and could not solve the 4th without a calculator. Not sure what the norm is, here's my data point.

<comment><USER35> More of a curious question but are you saying you're _incapable_ of solving the last one without paper or just that its really not worth the time. Any of those example questions I could do without paper (I'm 23 for a reference) but I certainly wouldn't attempt the last one without it unless someone was challenging me since it'd take more time than what its worth.

<comment><USER41> With the problem in front of me, I would not think doing the last one on paper would speed up things. On paper, it would feel like

        Load X
        Triple
        Store Temp
        Load Temp
        Load Y
        Add

I would optimize that store/load away. If, on the other hand, someone told me the problem, I probably would not remember Y by the time I needed it (seven plus or minus two is about two, apparently)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> "Calculators make fractions obsolete."

This is just nonsense. the digits after the dot are just fractions in powers of 10 and they are much less useful if you actually need to do something in real life with your result, like cutting pie to use a classic in fractions.</comment>


IBM brings proprietary supercomputing technology Watson to fight cancer in India - <AUTHOR> http://www.thehindu.com/business/manipal-hospitals-fights-cancer-using-ibms-watson/article7941942.ece <comment><AUTHOR> The NCI in the US has funded projects like TCGA [https://gdc- portal.nci.nih.gov/](https://gdc-portal.nci.nih.gov/) \- which has open- sourced both the platform, the APIs & the genomics data.

Shouldn't life saving technology be kept open-source?</comment>


Ask HN: Where are all the devs on Google Plus? - <AUTHOR> I keep reading that Google plus is used by devs. Every time I jump on there it's a ghost town. Am I just looking in the wrong places? <comment><USER2> They updated it about a year ago, breaking all the old links. Now nobody goes there.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm on there, though mostly for the vibrant RPG community.

Whether it looks like a ghost town depends on how many people you are following, and which communities you're a member of. And whether you've configured those communities to actually show all of their content in your stream, which is something you have to do manually for every community you're in. So that's a pain.

Google has been trying to hard to chase people out of Google+, but people are still holding on, because there isn't really any good alternative. It's a shame to see Google undermining their own platform like this, though.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've used Google+ as my primary social network for a long time, and in the last year, it's been drastically quieter. The whole "ghost town" thing used to be kinda a gag, now it's kinda for real.

Also, "all the devs" in Google+'s case, primarily means "all the Googlers" plus a variety of people who dev primarily on Google platforms and hence want to follow all those Googlers.

<comment><USER5> Who thought "Google Plus" was a good idea for a name? It even sounds ridiculous to say.

<comment><USER6> I don't know, if there's anything to it, but I once heard that Google Plus was originally not planned to be a social network and rather was supposed to be a way for celebrities and companies and such to provide additional information about themselves, which would then get displayed in the Google Search results.

And like, for that the name would actually make somewhat sense.

<comment><USER4> My understanding was just that since Google+, as a "social feature" was supposed to be integrated with everything Google. (See the controversial merges into Gmail, YouTube, etc.) So it was kinda Google+Social. So like an upgrade to Google, rather than being a separate, distinct site like it's seen now.

<comment><USER3> Google doesn't really seem to understand their own product. Most people love(d) it as an independent social network because its features are way better than those of Facebook and others, but Google keeps messing it up by nerfing or removing popular features, adding useless ones, integrating it with the low-quality comments on Youtube, not showing everything you want to see, showing things you don't want to see (the hated "+1 sharing"), etc.

It could have been fantastic, but Google seems determined to kill it. Lately I've seen very enthusiastic early fans leave Google+ and just submit to the horror that is Facebook, because at least that's predictable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Aside from HN, perhaps you could try:

* IRC Channels

* Twitter (search by profile contents and/or hashtags)

* Mastodon? Still a bit unproven, but the atmosphere there resembles the 90s web.

<comment><USER8> mastodon has a few. try the tech instance or sec one

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Just a small corner for a small language, but the Dart group is pretty active and is where I get my news: [https://plus.google.com/communities/114566943291919232850](https://plus.google.com/communities/114566943291919232850)

</comment><comment><USER10> Quite a few Linux devs are on G+: Linus, Greg Kroah-Hartman, David Airlie, Lennart Pöttering, ...

</comment><comment><USER11> Yeh dev here who shunned fb et al initially - the're heaps of communities but you can't display a snippet? Hands up I created some of them but am wondering what the point was... teeny-tiny bit of markdown would make it really adequate.

</comment><comment><USER12> I know there are devrels from the Android team that are pretty active in the communities there.

</comment><comment><USER13> Well, more than other populations which, these days, isn't saying much.

</comment><comment><USER14> devs need to spend time actually focusing on something, not wasting time on shallow stuff like social media. If they do, they're going to pick a social media site that has a better payoff than G+

</comment><comment><USER15> It IS a ghost town.</comment>


Arduino-Based Outdoor People Counter - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/petervojtek/diy/wiki/Arduino-based-Outdoor-People-Counter

<comment><USER2> Nice project, and will probably work great for short-term studies, but you'll want to improve the battery life and work hard on weatherproofing if it's to be used in the field for anything other than temporary projects.

I used to work for a company ([http://www.trafx.net/](http://www.trafx.net/)) that specialized in making a device just like this, but using a passive infrared sensor instead of the ultrasonic sensor. The _number one_ field problem is moisture damage to the electronics. Condensation, UV failure of seals, ice expansion through seals, etc. The list goes on. Based on the moss on the trees in the photo, it looks like a pretty wet environment, so you'll want to double-triple-quadruple seal that case and sensors before you think about leaving it outside for more than a month or two.

For comparison, we had some customers that had had our units in continuous use for nearly 10 years. Battery life on 3xAA alkaline was about 60 months using the IR sensor. The Arduino+ultrasonic sensor is a pretty power hungry combination for a battery-operated unit that might need to operate for extended periods. 5 days is a pretty short study period, a lot of the useful statistics that land management organizations want to see will span multiple years.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks for feedback. you are right, the battery life is poor.

the problem with the battery life is not the arduino itself - a bare atmega328 (the hearth of arduino) will live for several months from a 3AA battery.

the real power consumption comes from the ultrasonic sensor - I tried to completely cut it off from power between measurements, however the ultrasonic circuit is not recovering properly from these on&offs (I was looking for help on arduino forums but without response: [http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?topic=216079.msg1589123#ms...](http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?topic=216079.msg1589123#msg1589123))

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This may be a dumb question, but isn't this more of a "movement detection counter" rather than a "people counter"? Nothing sets apart an animal vs a human triggering this, right? I was imagining a camera with CV processing the images or something.

<comment><USER4> The ultrasonic transducer probably does a pretty good job of warding off animals. Nothing quite like disturbing the wildlife while counting how many people are disturbing the wildlife.

<comment><USER5> But arduino. Arduino arduino, arduino. Don't you know it can last five days?!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> From the description:

 _> Video [here]. Photos are [here]._

Sorry for the nitpicking, but I think you should avoid "here" links and use descriptive link names instead. ([http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/noClickHere](http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/noClickHere))

<comment><USER6> Wow. So many downvotes. I never thought that constructive criticism on a product's presentation is undesired on HN. What's wrong with my comment?</comment></comment>


The Final Days of DRM: Yahoo Music Store Closing, Will Eat Your Purchased Music - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/yahoo_music_store_closing.php

<comment><USER2> I wouldn't say just yet that DRM is in it's final days. People have downloaded over 5 billion tunes from iTunes, and it's the US's biggest music retailer with something like 80%+ market share.

Yes, Apple does offer DRM-free tracks, but those have only been available there for about a year. And does anyone know if they're yet doing this with any labels other than EMI?

DRM use does seem to be declining, but it's going to be a while yet before it disappears completely.

<comment><USER3> The funny thing is that stories like Yahoo's and Microsoft's are the reason DRM is declining.

If the record companies _really_ cared about DRM, they would provide a service to distribute keys once an online music store closes... instead of creating a mass of disenfranchised customers who will think twice before buying DRM-laden music again.

But, no, they'd rather monetize the customer's convenience than protect their music.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This could just as easily been titled "Another Music Store Falls to the iTunes Juggernaut"

<comment><USER5> Yeah, but what matters is that people are losing music over this one.

<comment><USER4> I agree that's a big deal, I was just critiquing the "End of DRM" headline as being misleading and pushing an (untrue) agenda.

<comment><USER5> Point taken. But then, we nerds are prone to sensationalism over facts just as everybody else is. Proof: TechCrunch, the current reddit userbase.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> All I can say is this: Told you so.

DRM was a broken concept from the start.

Let's move on.

<comment><USER7> Amen. Although let's all acknowledge the music industry will try it again in another form. They just never learn.

<comment><USER5> It's all your fault for not sticking to records.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What are the popular and good mp3 stores out there that don't use DRM?

<comment><USER5> Amazon's doesn't, I don't think. iTunes Plus is DRM-free as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Since I actually worked on something closely tied to the Yahoo Music property (NOT on the DRM side, don't worry!) when I was with Yahoo, I'm sad to see it closing. I know several folks who may be out of a job because of this news. Sad.

I think when Ian Rogers left, that was the beginning of the end: <http://mashable.com/2008/04/03/ian-rogers-leaves-yahoo/></comment>


How Smart Leaders Build Trust - <AUTHOR> https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/how-smart-leaders-build-trust?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=07012016&utm_campaign=gsbbrand <comment><USER2> Was looking forward to reading this, but seems like it's just a plug for a book. So I'll part ways.

tl;dr Trust is giving up control. Trust requires integrity, competence, and authority. Sometimes people betray trust. If it's a large betrayal, part ways, otherwise apologize and forgive.

<comment><USER3> Exactly, nothing about this was "new", it takes trust to be a leader. WOW! This was a plug for a book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When posting on here, make sure you either remove the attribution parameters (utm_medium etc.) or assign them correctly.

</comment><comment><USER5> Trade, Not Trust In Globalization;</comment>


GitHub Launches an Engineering Blog - <AUTHOR> http://githubengineering.com/hello-world/

<comment><USER2> There are two posts on the blog right now:

Workload Analysis with MySQL's Performance Schema

[http://githubengineering.com/using-mysql-performance- schema-...](http://githubengineering.com/using-mysql-performance-schema-for- workload-analysis/)

Browser Monitoring for GitHub.com

[http://githubengineering.com/browser-monitoring-for- github-c...](http://githubengineering.com/browser-monitoring-for-github-com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Why not a proper github.com domain? First moment I saw the URL I thought "fake".</comment>


College Students Spend $141B per Year on College Costs (Visualization) - <AUTHOR> https://www.theclassroom.com/cost-analysis <comment><USER2> Is it just me or does 17k/student/yr for tuition, books, food, and accommodations not seem unreasonable

<comment><AUTHOR> It is not unreasonable--but that is the average case. Many students live with family and keep costs low. Costs can be much higher than that for individual students depending on circumstances.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> great visualization</comment>


Why Startups Should Care About Content Marketing - <AUTHOR> http://blog.intigi.com/10-reasons-why-startups-should-care-about-content-marketing/

<comment><USER2> I understand the "Y reasons why Z" formula works, but I'll give more respect to a writer who can express their ideas without it.

Most of the time it's a way of papering over the fact that the article isn't really saying that much. This article is no exception.

"Retention: A static website with quickly aging content is not particularly interesting for prospects or existing customers. In contrast, a site that provides new, engaging material on a regular basis is a real draw. If prospects visit your site regularly, they're more likely to become customers. Furthermore, you're more likely to retain existing customers if they find ongoing value by engaging with your company."

Talk about mailing that shit in. There's no substance there. No data. Nothing insightful. If you asked an intelligent person comfortable with the web to rattle of ideas about why content marketing might be useful, you'd get a list much like the one presented here.

Give me something new, surprising, and insightful please. Nobody will remember this article two months from now. Hell, I won't remember it tomorrow.

 _Edit_ : I'll add, I really do get why people write these articles. They work. They're easy to digest. They get tweeted, shared, voted up on sites like HN, and ranked well in search engines. It's a valid tactic, I just don't think it makes for writing that grips me by the balls, as it were.

<comment><USER3> Well said.</comment></comment>


Window Pong - <AUTHOR> http://www.project-euh.com/pong/ <comment><USER2> I dunno what's going on, but this link sent my FF3 into the nut house, with windows flicking across the desktop and creating new windows. I'm flagging it.

<comment><USER3> That's the point. You play pong with the moving windows that it creates. Nothing malicious here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Worked fine for me in Safari; very cool.

</comment><comment><USER5> scared me at first

</comment><comment><USER6> Worked fine, but this is at least three years old.

<comment><USER7> Project Euh is an old thing, but I still love some of its things. It's quite clever, and most of the Internet isn't built to care about clever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Please remove this link. The link points to a porn website. How can this get through HN ?

<comment> a-priori Eh? Worked as advertised for me, no porn.

<comment><USER9> No porn, but didn't work as advertised.

It wanted to pop up four windows and then it wanted to move them around my desktop ... jeez, I almost felt sorry for it :)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is anyone using BTC or cryptocurrencies for transactions - <AUTHOR> It seems that most of the focus on cryptocurrency now-a-days is for market speculation and investment purposes. I'm thinking of building a product that uses BTC as the main method of buying the product. Is anyone buying products with BTC? <comment><USER2> I tried to transact in BTC and BCH to donate to a s/w charity. The fees exceeded the value of the donation I had in mind. The protocol was not good, I sat behind a 15min time window which didn't complete in time. The representation (a URl like model) was not clear, i was scared the element behind the URL wasn't actually a BTC address, couldn't check quickly. Overall, I'd say transacting is hard.

Which is a shame, because if its not useful to transact small sums, its only really relevant to transact big sums. And that means its future really is IBM and FinTech, not mediating outcomes for small sum people like me. (I'm not interested in the speculative quality)

There are signals the charity sector is looking to use it to get rid of some graft in the emergency-intervention situation where a lot of freeloaders can pile in as middlemen in a transaction chain. That would be really good.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was thinking about the charity and donation sector as well for my use-case. So it's good to see that other people are working on it, are there any links that you can send about the use that you've seen?

<comment><USER2> I went to the Sydney blockchain workshop in 2017, and the people who presented there were from "save the children" in the UK.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't, and I think part of why it's not used so much for transactions is privacy. Most cryptocurrencies provide a public log of all transactions.

Bitcoin Private [https://btcprivate.org/whitepaper.pdf](https://btcprivate.org/whitepaper.pdf) will add privacy, we'll see how it goes. Also LiteCoin is introducing LitePay in a few days, which might change things.

NewYorkCoin [https://www.wsj.com/articles/newyorkcoin-gains-traction- in-c...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/newyorkcoin-gains-traction-in- cryptocurrency-circles-1519147112) is actually used as currency in NYC, and is fast enough and has no transaction fees.

So we're at the early stages of things, but between Bitcoin Private, Litecoin, and NYCoin, I expect lots more people will be buying with cryptocurrencies over the course of 2018

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting... it seems that the smaller alt coins may be used for transactions, but theres a ton of them, and trying to support transactions in all of them may be difficult. Thanks for your thoughts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> No. It not economical to get the currency. It costs too much hardware and electricity to earn it. And the inflation from my nations's currency doesn't out weigh the advantages to just exchange it.

Plus there nothing physically backing up the cryptocurrency. Which means as soon as the public looses confidence it nothing more then. Also what happens if the internet goes down? There no way to access your wallet.</comment>