Bees Are Bouncing Back from Colony Collapse Disorder - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-01/good-news-for-bees-as-numbers-recover-while-mystery-malady-wanes <comment><USER3> Bees have somebody watching out for them. The insects that have gone missing from our insect traps and windshields are still gone.

[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all- insect...](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insects-gone)

<comment><USER4> Drive thru Oklahoma at night and you'll have a lot of bugs on your car.

Though as I say that, I think about last time I went thru that state I didn't have as many bugs as I remember in the past....

<comment><USER5> Have the street cars and lamp-posts changed their lighting to LED?

<comment><USER6> anecdotal, having both LED and halogen exterior lights on the home I haven't seen any real difference in bug attraction. I did post a while back about how the recent change over of street lamps to LED in my neighborhood messed up the birds for awhile.

I have a standard "orange" streetlamp between my lot and the next house and two LED on opposite sides of the street in both directions about three hundred feet down from the house. It is now like having a full moon all the time. Apparently when mounting LED replacements they get no hoods or other mechanisms to limit light spread

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> All of these articles only ever focus on commercial bee populations. I'm a lot more interested in what's happening to wild bees.

</comment><comment><USER8> Nobody mentions this reason to love bees: they make excellent inspiration. I have a big deadline coming up and just moved my desk to face the garden. Watching the bumble bees nosing around the lavender patch is keeping me more industrious than the carrot/stick!

<comment><USER9> Try putting a bit of honey out and watch how many come. They can smell out honey to rob from a long way off.

<comment><USER8> Im not sure if this is tongue-in-cheek (I was serious in my earlier post) but why not. For science!

<comment><USER9> It wasn't. I was extracting honey from comb one weekend. Shut the place up and left it on kitchen bench draining into a bowl. Came back to half a dozen in the honey, a couple on the bench and others randomly smashing into windows looking for gaps. Even once covered and sealed I could hear them at night getting inside. It was like a version of Hitchcock's Birds, but non terrifying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Mites have been the largest issue and will likely take decades for the genetics to select out for an uneasy balance. In the mean time, the commercial guys can't keep doing business as usual and have to cleanup their act - <USER2> had a nice free ride for a while

<comment><USER11> The article makes it sound like it's not clear that is the issue. By the end it makes it sound like they really want to say it's pesticides, but the farming industry relies on that so much for "good looking" food that perhaps beekeepers are worried that if they point at that, farmers will be angry with them.

EDIT: to be clear, I'm talking about what was written in this article. I know nothing about the past mite issues in feral bee populations. Not debating that.

<comment><USER12> Mites are not 100% the culprit - but a lot of groups including the US Gov't are still looking into all causes.

My father has been briefed by the USDA more than once on the issue, it's complicated and nation states haven't been ruled out according to the last update he had.

Most likely it's a number of causes.

<comment><USER11> Nation states? Seriously? Did they say how they thought a nation state could do that on such a wide scale?

<comment><USER13> Offensive genetic engineering and release of modified organisms is sure to happen once the techniques become available.

It's untraceable, gradual, and the investment required to do it will be well within the reach of major nations.

And what better weapon than one which, once released, requires no upkeep or maintainence and slowly cripples key biological supports of your rival's economy?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> One source claims that bee populations are bouncing back. I think I'd like to see more scientific sources assert this before I believe the good news

</comment><comment><USER15> > "…the overall increase is largely the result of constant replenishment of > losses, the study showed."

Very misleading headline. The bees are not bouncing back, humans are splitting up stronger hives into weaker hives. Kinda like saying humankind is beating cancer by having more babies in third-world countries.

<comment><USER16> This is simply not true.

As other have noted, splitting is a natural process of beekeeping.

however, I've noticed a discernible change in the beekeeping profession in the last 10 years.

To take a step back - there is a huge variation in bee characteristics from hive to hive.

What I've noticed is that package and nuc suppliers (aka bee breeders) are far less likely to treat hives. And it has become near impossible to buy 'traditional' chemical bee disease medications.

The prevailing modus operandi these days is to leverage natural evolutionary processes. I.e. let weak hive fail and therefor let undesirable genes phase out.

<comment><USER17> "As other have noted, splitting is a natural process of beekeeping."

Uh, splitting is very much _not_ natural (at least, I'm taking this to mean artificial splits - if you're saying swarming is a form of splitting, which isn't unreasonable even if it's not the wording I'd use, then disregards this comment). It's part of 20th century beekeeping, yes, but _swarming_ is natural bee behavior, and unnatural practices like splitting, queen clipping, brood cutting, sugar feeding etc. are creating fragile colonies with weak resistance that depend on human intervention (including chemical varroa treatment) to survive.

And this is not just ideology, this is the trend in all apiculture/bee entomology journals over the last say 5 years.

<comment><USER16> If you have a strong hive, do you let it swarm or do you intervene and split it?

(for the uninitiated, good hives grow to the point that the queen and half the hive leave to make a new colony, then you have a 50/50 chance the original hive will raise a new queen, that the queen will mate and make it back to the hive without been eaten)

Let me expand my original statement for clarification. splitting leverages the natural process of swarming in the field of beekeeping.

As to some of the other 'interventions' you mention I politely disagree. It's sort of like saying cows are weak in Canada because farmers don't let them freeze to death in winter.

I recently had a hive attacked by ants. They lost a lot of food and brood. Do I let them head into fall and winter with little to no chance of survival? The fact the ants got into the colony was no fault of the bees, just bad luck.

There's survival of the fittest and there's animal husbandry. The two aren't completely incompatible.

<comment><USER18> They are largely incompatible. The ideal animal husbandry model is different for populations that are going to be culled without breeding. Ex: Veal.

Useing similar methods on fast breeding species where you keep the offspring is a very bad idea long term. The only way to keep things stable is to have breeders who focus on culling the weak. But, you need a large breeding population to maintain genetic diversity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Whatever decrease in losses they have from the disorder, my puppy is making up for by eating them. Or at least it seems like it. I have to make sure he doesn't get near any when I take him on walks and he still manages to get a couple here and there usually. I can't believe he hasn't been stung enough to stop going after them by now.

<comment><USER20> Has he considered authoring a paper on the subject? I mean, if a _cat_ can publish one[0], it would be embarrassing to the canine race if dogs can't.

[0] [http://www.sciencemag.org/news/sifter/philosophy-journal- cor...](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/sifter/philosophy-journal- corrects-35-year-old-article-written-cat)

<comment><USER21> Do not forget Dr.Olivia Doll: [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/sifter/how-one- smart-doggo-g...](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/sifter/how-one-smart-doggo- got-editorial-boards-seven-medical-journals)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Best headline I've seen all day, but the piece is much less cheery.

</comment><comment><USER23> If only we could breed mites that would die off like those genetically modified mosquitos.

Or mites that only live from mites.

</comment><comment><USER24> Reddit have a thread about this and apparently it's misleading and that the Bees are still dying.

I can have a cancer survival rate of 15% and get a 2% bounce back with 17% doesn't mean everything is swell.

</comment><comment><USER25> So all those scientists in Nature and the big science journals were just chicken littles. To know the real story, get it from the pesticide makers!

</comment><comment><USER26> What about the wild bees?

<comment><USER9> Feral ones are basically all dead here in New Zealand. They don't survive long in the wild. This may not be true where you are.

<comment><USER26> So basically this article is like an article that celebrates that tigers are "BOUNCING BACK" even though all the tigers in the wild are dead in many places, and only the ones in zoos live on?

WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I know it's completely circumstantial but I have noticed sooo many more bees around my yard this year over the last several that it's given me hope!

</comment><comment><USER28> Good work bees! I was feeling guilty for wishing them all dead one birthday wish after I got stung.</comment>


Bootstrap-WYSIWYGHTML5 - A JS Plugin To Create WYSIWYG Editors For Bootstrap - <AUTHOR> http://functionn.blogspot.com/2012/03/bootstrap-wysiwyghtml5-javascript.html#.T2teIUzKMWg.hackernews <comment><AUTHOR> Direct Link: <http://jhollingworth.github.com/bootstrap-wysihtml5/></comment>


Peter Thiel's College Dropouts: How's That Working Out? - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/jillian-donfro/peter-thiels-college-dropouts-one-year-checkup.html <comment><USER2> I kind of crashed the awards ceremony where they introduced all the fellows and I ended up meeting a bunch of them.

I was surprised how many were straight out of high school (no college). They generally struck me as bright but immature (not in an obnoxious way--more in a "what do you expect, they're 17!" kind of way.) Most of the businesses didn't strike me as businesses so much as super ambitious senior projects.

I really do agree with the general idea behind the program--college is a ripoff because you can learn the same stuff and build a strong network without going. I think the program's aims might have been better served by having these kids work for a startup (maybe one of thiels?) with an investment guarantee after 3-5 years or something.

</comment><comment><USER3> I met one the Thiel fellows. His employ? He gives talks about skipping college. It was inane; I don't think I've ever met a more transparent circular argument.

I've also met people who dropped out or never went to school, and did amazing stuff during that time. Nobody paid them to do it, though.

The problem with children is that they haven't been around the block. Giving them money just for being young and eager only further distorts their warped, child's view of reality. Put me down as not a believer.

<comment><USER4> Not to mention, college is one of the easiest ways for a person to meet other smart people. Not everyone can afford to be in the Bay Area. A smart student can get a full-tuition (and often more!) scholarship at a solid state university with a little bit of effort.

Join a few interesting clubs, hang around the dining halls, and pretty soon you can find other hackers, or even just awesome people to talk to.

If we're truly going to be investing in _teams_ rather than just investing in ideas, I would place at least _some_ additional value to people who met and worked together in college. It's an experience that's hard to replicate in most places in the US, and seems to allow for strong teams to pop up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Three opposing view points concerning the same subject on Quora:

Positive: [http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of- th...](http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-the-first- Thiel-Fellowship-Class/answer/Danielle-Fong)

Negative: [http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of- th...](http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-the-first- Thiel-Fellowship-Class/answers/1293281)

Off topic: [http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of- th...](http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-the-first- Thiel-Fellowship-Class/answer/Chris-McCann)

Full Question/Answers can be found here: [http://www.quora.com/Peter- Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-th...](http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What- were-the-results-of-the-first-Thiel-Fellowship-Class)

<comment><USER6> tl;dr:

Neg: Exhaustive review of individuals showing that nothing of value (except riding on existing trends) can be shown from any applicant, except potentially in the case of the Solar Energy startup, in which money was used to hire PhDs with actual domain knowledge.

Pos: Saying that everything great is under NDA and that the solar energy stuff is cool, that the youngin' in question has impressed PhDs enough that they want to work for him. No real info, expecting you to trust that good stuff is in the works.

<comment><USER5> Very nice. I only have one question for you - what do you think is more reasonable - or are you reserving your judgement? Pos/Neg/Neutral?

<comment><USER6> I think the "Pos" side should be discounted as it is obviously Thiel centered PR from an employee. I think the "Neg" side should be the default, since one should not presume value until value is demonstrated. That we are still in a sense "early stage" indicates that we don't have a full picture yet and so shouldn't presume that we do.

I have mixed feelings about the program in general. Entrepreneurship programs maybe useful for promoting excited entrepreneurs, but by no means are an adequate replacement for researchers or higher ed in general. In many of these cases, the entire premise is hogwash. Technical innovation comes from depth in a subject area, and you actually have to study something before you can innovate in the context of it.

This is most obvious in the case of the Uncollege movement -- the person and movement are exceedingly shallow and provide nothing of value except as a publicist for other trends in online education. I'd hate to think that his applies across the board, but suspect that it is more true than not.

<comment><USER7> I am not an employee of Thiel. -- Danielle Fong.

<comment><USER7> I'm a mentor; officially for two fellows, informally for another 6. Atop this, they move in my circles. It's a pro-bono relationship -- I'm working with them because I'm excited about them and what they're doing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I thought these wunderkinds were supposed to change the world. :) No one argues that these are bright people, the problem is I think this "fellowship" was a lot of hype to promote an idea that ... I don't know, where's the fruit? Sure, there are autodidacts, but as I always say, they are outliers.

I do find the education focused ones interesting, in "oh boy" sort of way. We're just taking something as dogma (anti-college) and just running with it, where we're going I don't know. There's no "there" there. I feel like this view is so prevalent in our world of computing because there are really 1) many outliers that are great autodidacts and brilliant programmers (but not as many as is claimed) and 2) there are also many that believe they don't need any kind of education because they saw a YouTube on making RoR apps and follow JS blogs but I don't think the rest of the world is really like this.

<comment><USER9> "We're just taking something as dogma (anti-college) and just running with it, where we're going I don't know. There's no "there" there."

You could say the same thing in reverse: it's just opting out of the pro- college dogma.

Colleges have a huge amount of overhead like land, buildings, bureaucracy and enticements like fancy campuses and perks; much of it for students studying soft subjects with a lot of grade inflation. It's all paid for by government incentives and a trillion dollars in student loan debt.

A lot of studies say that college degrees are still worth the cost, but I'd like to know if such studies control for the self-selection of college students. Is it that college puts people on the path toward success or that people on the path toward success tend to choose college? Also, do the various majors independently justify their costs, or are political science majors lumped with engineers?

Today, I'd still probably choose college if I were 18 again (in engineering or one of a few other subjects). But ten years from now, I hope there are better alternatives available (which will make the colleges better, too), and college will just be one option that can survive without government subsidy.

Such a change will also improve the liberal arts and soft subjects at colleges. Right now, such subjects are diluted by a lot of people that just don't know what to do, and think that those subjects are easier and leave more time to party. When those people are no longer encouraged by easy money and enticed by fancy campuses, or fear the stigma of not going to college, then the softer subject classes will be left with serious thinkers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Very interesting that they didn't mention James Proud's Giglocator exit. Maybe they didn't reach out/he decided not to participate in this article, but if you're going for the revenue angle then it should be noted[1]

There are also two fellows in YC right now and are literally days from launching their startups.

(disclosure: I'm a Thiel Fellow)

[1]: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2012/06/20/skip- school-s...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2012/06/20/skip-school-sell- company-meet-the-thiel-fellow-who-just-turned-a-profit/2/)

<comment><USER11> This reads like Giglocator existed before Proud was selected as a Thiel Fellow.

> Proud's early attachment to GigLocator led to his decision to forego a > university education long before the Thiel's 20 Under 20 program had even > been thought up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Interesting how the author choose to profile only fellows whose ventures had no revenue. Kind of like a indirect finger poking.

<comment><USER13> Are you aware of any that have revenue? If so, please reference it.

<comment><USER12> The author earlier in the article referenced the fact that a handful had revenue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Anyone else find it funny that 2 of the 5 are working on education related projects?

</comment><comment><USER6> I believe the title is wrong. Virtually none of the applicants were "dropouts," although some were accepted to prestigious colleges and decided not to go. The program was envisioned as an alternative to college, and most applicants were pre-entry.

<comment><USER15> If that's true, the "College thing he doesn't miss:" detail is also highly misleading, since it too implies they used to be in college.

<comment><USER16> If you look at the bios of the kids, a bunch of them already had degrees and were in higher level university programs before they entered Thiel's program.

<comment><USER6> What is "a bunch" ? 30% ? I still don't think it makes sense to refer to them as dropouts unless over 50% were enrolled in a college at the time of application and left a higher-degree program in order to do the program.

<comment><USER16> Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying this is why we can call them dropouts. I was trying to say here's more reason why they shouldn't be considered dropouts. And specifically, I was adding to the refutation for the "college he didn't miss thing".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This model does not scale!

Few college dropouts are bright up to be selected carefully to go through this process. To do this en mass would be a disaster.

<comment><USER18> Incorrect, a bunch of students with failed/successful experience is better than a bunch of students who go to college, because they were "suppose" to.

I think its best to opt for more freedom, when it comes to picking who they want to spend their adulthood. These new paths aren't for everyone but that's why we should consider this an alternate solution, not a one size fits all one.

<comment><USER17> >Incorrect, a bunch of students with failed/successful experience is better than a bunch of students who go to college, because they were "suppose" to.

Not all college students attended college because they are "supposed to". Even for those who attend college because they are "supposed to", it is arguable that they will end up being better than choosing not to go to college. If someone has no idea what he wants to do in life, it's arguable that going to college is better than not going to.

The truth is that people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg are rare. Most people need a formal education. It's arrogant to think that you can design better alternative than an educational framework that has existed for years to educate the mass.

The Thiel's model works well for a small number of bright youngsters, who might exceed their potentials through a customized training program, instead of going to college to have an off-the-shelf training program. If more and more people drop out of college, or even skip college to do this, it's going to blow up in his face.

<comment><USER19> Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Steve Jobs all attended college. They just didn't finish. Yet, I think they all derived some value from the time they spent in college.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It'd be interesting to consider the whole income statement of each individual, rather than just the annual revenue, which no longer has the $35K per year expense of college, while still gaining a significant education.

</comment><comment><USER21> The vast majority of startups fail and it wouldn't surprise if the vast majority of these kids failed. As long as their lives haven't been ruined by the experience and they come out as well adjusted people, I say more power to them.

Disclaimer: I dropped out of high school to start a company almost 20 years ago.

</comment><comment><USER22> I wish the question was:

Any traction yet?

rather than:

Any revenue yet?

<comment><USER13> How is traction measurable?

[edit] What I mean is, we've witnessed startup after startup with millions of users that go bust. The only way I know of to measure "traction" of a _business_ is revenue.

<comment><USER23> But there are also plenty of businesses with millions of users that only get revenue later in their life. For the first few years, traction besides revenue is certainly acceptable evidence of progress.

<comment><USER24> > _"But there are also plenty of businesses with millions of users that only > get revenue later in their life."_

No. _No_. NO. This is one of the most common stories told in the Valley, but it's also an immense case of confirmation bias.

How many companies with millions users had no revenue for a long time and then became immensely successful later on with a viable monetization strategy?

 _Google_. Maaaaaybe Facebook, the jury is still out on that... aaaaaand that's about it.

The _overwhelming_ , _typical_ case for the "no revenue, all traction" business is _death_ , an acquihire if you're lucky. The fact that there exist a few (by a few I mean one or two) huge outliers does not represent 'plenty of businesses', nor does it represent some kind of trend. Traction-first business with no revenue model baked in have _always_ been the longest throws in software business.

So no, _traction is absolutely not an acceptable replacement for revenue when representing a business' viability_.

<comment><USER22> I think you are right.

A year after getting $100,000 in seed money, they should have some revenue. Maybe not a lot, probably not profitable, but they should have some sales. Worst case, they should be right on the edge of releasing their product.

By year 2, no revenue would be a complete disaster for this program. Having 1 in 6 or 1 in 10 make it would also be a disaster.

<comment><USER25> Is the goal for Thiel to see a quick return on his investment? Or is it set these people up for a better career in the future? I have always understood it to be the latter.

From what I have interpreted, Thiel believes that just getting out into the world and getting to work will put you as good, if not better standing than someone who went to college with respect to future income and employment opportunities†. That doesn't mean they are going to be millionaires on day one. They still have much to learn, like anyone else. One year later doesn't really tell us anything about the success or failure of his program.

† within reason; you are not going become a doctor without the right credentials and he openly speaks to that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The type of person that will succeed without college won't really need it because they have the drive to succeed.

Most people aren't like this.

<comment><USER27> The whole endeavor is lousy.

With regards to 'success', for most people the education you get in college is secondary. What's of primary importance is networking and having that degree on your resume to get you in the door. [1]

But networking and having something on your resume that gets you in the door is provided automatically (and arguably in more effective doses) by rubbing elbows with Thiel and likeminded millionaires and billionaires and being featured in news articles.

So the 'success' of the participants should be _expected_ to be equivalent-to- better than if they went to college just due the design of this stunt.

And it will prove _nothing_ about whether college is useful or not in the general case. Because you can't scale "hang out with Peter Thiel and likeminded movers-and-shakers" beyond a tiny class each year.

[1] Which isn't to say that what you learn isn't important. It absolutely is. It just doesn't have much bearing on your business/monetary-axis 'success'.

<comment><USER25> To be fair, it is not exactly clear if college scales either.

Around 25% of the working population have a college degree and about 50% have post-secondary training of some kind. Only 5% of the working population earn more than $90,000 per year and the _top 25%_ start earning at only $45,000 per year or so. It's a livable income in many places, but that is not what we generally consider successful in business.

<comment><USER24> This disappointment is based on an ancient view of the world - that those with post-secondary educations are abnormally high achievers, and thus one would expect greater than average compensation.

This hasn't been true for _at least_ 3 decades. Post-secondary training of some sort, whether in a skilled trade or a degree program, is critical even if your ambitions do not stray further than "strictly middle class".

Instead of wondering why those with post secondary education aren't rich off their asses, I'm much more concerned about why 50% of the population _doesn't have any post-secondary education whatsoever_ , and how in the hell we expect to keep this population employed and competitive with that foundation.

<comment><USER25> In my case, I simply was not allowed to study in any post-secondary school. I applied to many, but was rejected from them all. Higher education is not accessible to a large number of people.

I have never found it to be limiting to my career though. In fact, I feel I am in a much better position because I was able to use those four+ years more effectively doing my own thing which has made me more marketable than a typical college grad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> If this is the best that the top 24 pics from universities can do, I most certainly wouldn't call this a good criticism of traditional education.</comment>


Ask HN: What do you hate about documentation? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> My biggest annoyance with docs is when there is no example code. I hate it when I'm digging through a class and the methods don't show me, with usable examples, what they do.

This might not be a problem for those familiar with the library or domain the library facilitates. But for me it's always made onboarding longer.

My other peeve is when there is no simple basic implementation of the what the library does. I'm talking realistic drag and drop examples.

Lastly, one of the things I wish other Lang's could do is adopt using notebooks as docs. Using them has made documentation an absolute joy to read.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just want to say I'm working on releasing this soon: [https://trymaniac.com/](https://trymaniac.com/) But genuinely interested in people's experiences with documentation as a whole.

</comment><comment><USER3> No documentation at all.</comment>


Ten Minutes That Mattered: Marc Andreessen - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/05/netscape-venture-capital-intelligent-technology-andreessen_print.html

<comment><USER2> The 3 Rules are great advice. Simple and to the point. And any entrepreneur can relate to them. Marc Andreesen is doing it again. First Netscape, then NING, and now a VC, with a bunch of other stuff along the way. My venture plans to easily work these three rules to the fullest.

</comment><comment><USER3> very pithy - which probably explains why J.B. hasn't penned his own "how to succeed in business" book yet. Just a few more reptilian metaphors, and he'll be on his way to a bestseller.

</comment><comment><USER4> I am going to use those snake analogies.</comment>


Facebook to Pay $40M Under Proposed Settlement in Video Metrics Suit - <AUTHOR> https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/facebook-pay-40-million-under-proposed-settlement-video-metrics-suit-1245807 <comment><USER2> This is a big deal of fraud for FB. They must have lured billions from advertisers by inflating their stats. Pity that they settled so we ll never know the extent of fraud</comment>


Would You Give a Virtual Electric Shock to an Avatar? - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/would-you-give-a-virtual-electric-shock-to-an-avatar/ <comment><AUTHOR> Back around the late `90s there was a tourist attraction setup outside in Branson, MO. It was a very early version of a VR game. Two people climbed into a platform that was like a boxing ring and were given a toy gun and a helmet that displayed a wireframe VR image of the platform you were in.

Our kids played and then urged my wife and I to do it, so we did. It took me a minute or so to get my bearings, but my wife was completely lost. She was just spinning circles in her corner of the ring, basically a sitting duck.

Our kids were laughing and yelling "Shoot her, shoot her". I couldn't do it. I felt awful for even participating in a game where that was the goal.

Later on I got a copy of Wolfenstein and played it a bit, and had fun at first, but not for long. The same thing happened. I just didn't like the idea of running around killing, even it when it was cartoon Nazis.

Nowadays I don't even like watching videos of gamers playing shoot `em up games. I admire the tech, but I just can't play those kinds of games.</comment>


Anti-vaccination conspiracy theories thrive on Amazon - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/27/tech/amazon-anti-vaccine-books-movies/index.html <comment><USER2> Is CNN shocked that when you search for books related to vaccines, you get books related to vaccines?

Or are they insinuating that it is Amazon's job to decide what ideas/opinions are allowed to be sold on their marketplace and as such, it is their duty to deplatform any seller/writer who sells books about subjects that the current society decides is unacceptable? Sounds like modern book burning to me. Why is it that CNN or anyone thinks that people need to be safeguarded from opposing or even dangerous ideas? Do people not have the agency to decide for themselves? How come we don't give the same treatment for religious books like the bible or the quran? Certainly there's some dangerous ideas in them that could lead to hurting people. It doesn't have to stop there either, there are tons of other ideas that can be dangerous like the extremes of either side of the political spectrum.</comment>


Interesting story about corruption - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/09/05/gps.browder.intv.cnn?hpt=C2

<comment><USER2> Unfortunately, that's the pure reality and truth. That's not a single case, for certain. Such things happen almost every day, whenever government people get interest in money you make, you're under a high risk of being under a fake lawsuit, and chances are that you're going to loose everything. There's no obvious way of changing that, except for the majority of people to raise their voices and start doing stuff to stop corruption. Minority will be simply swiped out and no one will ever know about it.</comment>


'MySQL server has gone away' Part 2: session timeout - <AUTHOR> http://www.webyog.com/blog/2009/09/02/%E2%80%9Cmysql-server-has-gone-away%E2%80%9D-part-2-session-timeout/

<comment><USER2> MySQL server has gone away, part 3: net_write_timeout. I wish there was a comprehensive checklist of possible reasons of this 'gone away' error.

An informative entry in MySQL log ("session dropped because of _interactive_timeout_ ") would also be nice, but let's not get over ourselves.

<comment><USER3> Why on earth does a single error message correspond with multiple, completely unrelated conditions? Why can't there be a one to one mapping between error message and error condition?

I am so frustrated with "mysql server has gone away" I am very close to switching to Postgres. We might be forced to put aside 2 weeks learning a new database just because of some avoidable stupidity on the part of mysql.

 _sigh_

<comment><USER2> _"Why on earth does a single error message correspond with multiple, completely unrelated conditions?"_

This aspect I am OK with. It is a client side error, raised when there is no connection to server. It is impossible to provide more details in the error message.

The problem is that you cannot get any more info from the server logs, even with the most detailed debug settings.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Which large tech company will best prepare me to be a startup founder? - <AUTHOR> - I'm soon to graduate from university.<p>- I want to go into big tech for a few years as a software developer to do things like knock out student debt fast and have a secure job as I find my feet.<p>- I also know that I want to found a startup a few years later.<p>- Of the big tech companies, which cultures will help prepare me for this role most? Why and how? <comment><USER2> Work for any big tech company in the beginning. Doesn't matter much in my opinion other than the fact that your goal should be to:

1\. Pay off all student debt as fast as possible. It means that live below your means no matter what you make. Under no circumstances, take on more debt specially credit card, car loan etc.

2\. Try to find a team that is entrepreneurial where your manager has the power to make decisions. Learn how that works. Running your own business comes down to you knowing how and when to decide something based on the situation you are in.

3\. Learn to Sell. Selling is not just about being a typical salesman with a suit and tie. Selling includes your ability to convince people to do something for YOU. For example, you convinced a co-worker to help you with a task ? You just sold. You convinced your manager that xyz is a great idea to build ? You just sold. Learn how to negotiate, convince, persuade and win people's trust. Important for CEOs and founders.

4\. Start a side project if possible. Build something. NO matter how small. Don't worry about whether it works flawlessly. Tinker with stuff. Doesn't have to be code only btw.

5\. Time Management. Learn this early if you can. Don't waste time only watching TV and internet surfing just because EVERYONE else does. Remember that to be a founder/CEO/startup person, you cannot be like others. You have to be different. Not special. Just different. Your time is THE MOST valuable asset. Utilize it wisely.

Many more but I would focus on these areas first. You can then definitely take the next step.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Plan your exit from corporate world. Don't just say "i am going to do it one day" because then you never will. Instead, have a plan and work towards it. You will have your own path but the end goal is the same: to start your own stuff. If you leave this for too long, you will become what I called "Corporate Institutionalized" (stealing from the great Red in Shawshank Redemption). Don't be that person.

<comment><USER3> On point 3, one thing to note is that negotiation from a big corp angle is far different to negotiating as a small startup.

I had a co-founder who worked with a Fortune 50 oil giant. His negotiation style was to bully and pressure, which works great when you're huge, not if you're tiny.

It's not always the case, but an anti-pattern to be careful of.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Don't do it... big tech has a quality of life that you won't get as a founder running your own show. and what will follow is that your expectations will change as a result.

Paul Graham talks a little bit about it here: [http://www.paulgraham.com/boss.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/boss.html)

If you are a person that is meant to run your own business do it now. Real Entrepreneurs find a way to make it work.

<comment><USER5> I highly disagree with this. Big companies are big for a reason, they have found a way to create value for an extended period of time. Learning how they operate can be valuable. That doesn't mean everything they do can be used in a startup but some of it can.

Plus paying off student loans and having a little of your own seed capital is better than scrapping by when you start your own venture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I assume that a big company doesn't give the experience you to become a CEO. It a huge difference between big companies and start-ups. You don't feel there an atmosphere of a startup. I suggest you start working at a start-up. Because you will see all the issues there: how to get investments; acquisition; activation of users, retention. And all shit that happens there. So, you will prepare yourself as the CEO.

One person shared one week ago a spreadsheet with remote open jobs at startups. You can check it here [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Sr0vy3eDn2fcEhxOdkPv...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Sr0vy3eDn2fcEhxOdkPv0BjsWBR7JntDJqRM6_hyjbE/edit?usp=sharing)

</comment><comment><USER3> The longer you work with a big company, the more you develop habits and luxuries that make a startup harder. Money isn't even the bottleneck most of the time. Hunger helps more.

Big companies don't necessarily pay well in the short run either. It's a longer game.

Your best shot might be joining a mid stage startup (Series B and above). They have the money to pay quite well. Or even something late stage like Uber and Dropbox, but these often lose their startup culture.

Go somewhere with a real risk of falling apart.

<comment><USER7> What do you think about startup that got unicorn valuation/late series startup?

<comment><USER3> Not sure about the American ones. Where I live the late stage startups are often too bureaucratic, unfocused, with the 80 hour weeks. When they're too big, they have to justify the valuation by creating a lot of other little side projects. But this seems more a trait of Asian unicorns, who try to switch to Alphabet mode long before they IPO.

<comment><USER7> can you give name for this asian unicorns?, what is alphabet mode?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> You should work at a company where you can directly interact with the CEO and CTO and see what they do. That means a company with less than 100 people.

There's a common application for most YC-funded startups at [https://www.workatastartup.com/](https://www.workatastartup.com/)

<comment><USER9> Thanks for sharing that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I can also recommend a sales or sales-related/product management role as something that would prepare you for founding a startup, especially if your intention is to be CEO.

</comment><comment><USER11> "If you want to grow your career, work at a place that is growing." This might not gel with the potentially higher pay at a FAANG.</comment>


Show HN: Hacking a Raspberry Pi into a wireless airplay speaker - <AUTHOR> http://jordanburgess.com/post/38986434391/raspberry-pi-airplay

<comment><USER2> Did this hack myself a month or two ago - I go the XBMC route (openElec) on the Pi with Airfoil for Windows to stream Spotify. That combination is finicky - sometimes requires one or two connects. When spotify releases a libspotify compiled for the right ARM architecture (something about floating point?) I'm going to run <http://www.mopidy.com/>

The disadvantage of the headphone port of the Raspberry Pi is that it used to put out absolutely awful sound, but that may have improved. Using shairport also has bugs - the audio output from the script sometimes has pops and after about 10 or 20 minutes will randomly disconnect.

<comment><USER3> A tip to avoid the headphone port: Either use the HDMI port or try a usb soundcard <http://elinux.org/RPi_VerifiedPeripherals#USB_Sound_Cards>

<comment><USER2> Yeah, should've clarified that - XBMC comes up on HDMI now and audio is routed through my TV to play music.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why would you do this rather than buy an Airport Express? The cost of the Raspberry Pi, wifi adapter and a basic USB soundcard add up to as much as the real thing, but you spend hours configuring software and end up with a flakey solution. It's great that you _can_ do this, but why not save time and money by buying the real thing? You also get bit perfect optical output and a pretty decent wireless router.

<comment><USER5> Came here to say just this. I never understand these like "money saving hacks" that cost very close to what an actual, legitimate product intended for this purpose would cost, with a ton of work, and less reliability.

<comment><USER6> Well, it's not called "Hacker" News for nothing. CNet is over there.

Anyways, apart from AirPlay (AirPort Express), my RPi is performing XBMC / media center capabilities (Apple TV), streaming network backup (Time Capsule), motion-activated security camera, software-defined radio and X10 home automation. I will shortly be interfacing the GPIO to an SSR and thermocouple so I can use it as a PID for beer brewing and smoking fish. For $35 and 2w of power, that's pretty good.

<comment><USER5> "Well, it's not called "Hacker" News for nothing. CNet is over there."

Cool diss, hope it made you feel better about yourself I guess? Anyway, I simply pointed out that the author framed this as a cost saving tool when it really isn't. Say its a fun hack and I have no problem, but to call this thing a moneysaving hack when it doesnt save a whole lot of money and produces a lower quality device. But hey, your one line diss sounds better so why bother with logic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A note for those attempting to use Ethernet to Airplay mirror:

Your router _must_ allow multicasting between WLAN and Ethernet clients, otherwise your Pi won't show up to iDevices connected via WiFi.

If this is a problem for you (as it was for me) your only solution is attaching a WiFi adapter to your Pi. The consensus for best support, lowest power and tiny footprint is Edimax EW-7811UN (<http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B003MTTJOY>).

I just grabbed an old Linksys WUSB54GS that I had laying around and it played nicely with the Raspberry Pi with little to not effort.

<comment><USER8> That's <http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005CLMJLU> for our friends on the other side of the pond.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> What a coincidence. I did the exact same thing yesterday, following the instructions here: [http://trouch.com/2012/08/03/airpi-airplay-audio-with- raspbe...](http://trouch.com/2012/08/03/airpi-airplay-audio-with-raspberry/). You _really_ need a USB soundcard for this to be usable though, unfortunately.

<comment><USER10> What about HDMI audio output? For those of us who already have a decent, digital A/V receiver?

<comment><USER11> I have XBMC with graphics + sound running over HDMI to my TV, no issues with sound at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This looks like a neat hack. I might attempt something similar at some point.

Somewhat relevant, since many people here are talking about using a USB sound card: I have heard good things [1] about using this hub/dock combo with a Raspberry Pi [2]. Might be overkill for this project but it would give you an all-in-one connection dock for more multi-purpose projects.

[1] [http://www.trilug.org/pipermail/trilug/Week-of- Mon-20120903/...](http://www.trilug.org/pipermail/trilug/Week-of- Mon-20120903/066831.html) [2] <http://www.microbarn.com/details.aspx?rid=102750>

</comment><comment><USER13> Cool hack. There's real demand for a reasonably priced Airport Express alternative, but it's a shame that the RasPi's DAC isn't up to scratch for HiFi use.

You suggest we follow you on Twitter, yet protect your tweets...

<comment><AUTHOR> Bugger, i forgot the 'b' on the url. Thanks for telling me, I wouldn't have caught that otherwise. I'm <http://twitter.com/jordnb>

And I agree. I expect someone could kickstart a little electronics add on to do exactly that - a reasonable wireless DAC to airplay to. But thoughts on it would be that with all the required components still I'd be difficult to undercut Apple's airport express still.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> There is a problem with the instructions though; when you get to the:

'Installing Perl Net-SDP'

Section, and type in the third line of code, after git clone, you get this error message: <http://pastebin.com/MSrqYYKq>

Saying to Contact the author, because there are files missing.

I have contacted the author, and Jordan too.

Does anyone know how to get around this?

<comment><USER15> The missing files aren't stopping you, it's the last line "mkdir _build: Permission denied".

To get around it I just ran the build as root ;)

<comment><USER14> Ah yeah, thank you!

I have everything 'working' now, although it's quite glitchy, making loads of static sounds. After a few restarts etc. it is playing okay now, I don't want stop playing it incase it doesn't work again!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Looks cool! Anyone know any of this for Android? At least for Samsung Note. I want to try to wirelessly stream audio from my Note to my Logitech Z2300.

<comment><USER2> You could get a small little Bluetooth A2DP reciever and stream over bluetooth: [http://www.amazon.com/Belkin-F8Z492TTP-Bluetooth-Music- Recei...](http://www.amazon.com/Belkin-F8Z492TTP-Bluetooth-Music- Receiver/dp/B0047T79VS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356719725&sr=8-1&keywords=a2dp+receiver) There's also ways to stream from Android to Airplay receivers - just search for Airstream in the play store.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is there a way to stream music from a Linux machine to multiple destinations?

Currently I have a notebook with Mint connected to my stereo system for all my music needs. It works nice.

I would love to have the music play in multiple rooms simultaneously. Is it possible? Money is not an issue. I could buy whatever equipment is needed. But I did not hear about any solution yet.

<comment><USER18> I'm not certain it will work but you might look into the Logitech Media Server <http://www.mysqueezebox.com/download> with SoftSqueeze clients <http://softsqueeze.sourceforge.net/>

While intended for use with Squeezebox hardware clients, I suspect you could get an all-software linux client-based synchronized setup working with it. The Squeezebox software is all known for being hackable.

There is some concern about Logitech killing off the Squeezebox ecosystem, but the source for much (all?) of this is available and the community remains active.

<comment><USER17> Wow, I never heard about squeezebox. Sounds very good! I only want the server to be my linux box. The clients can be whatever. I will probably try both: build my own clients with softsqueeze and order some squeezebox radios as clients and see what happens. Nice! Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I hadn't realized the Airplay keys had been cracked. Last time I looked for something like this they hadn't. I've already bought an extra airport express, but I kinda just want to build this for fun. I'm seeing lots of complaints about the PIs dac. How bad is it?

<comment><USER20> > I'm seeing lots of complaints about the PIs dac. How bad is it?

It doesn't really have a DAC at all - it has two PWM peripherals and a filter wired up to the audio jack to generate stereo audio.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Does anyone know of a good standalone speaker that this hack could be paired with to make an airplay speaker for smallish spaces? E.g. not a home's main living area where you'd want to use a higher powered stereo system, but perhaps a bedroom or office.

<comment><USER22> Personally, I'd recommend these. Incredible bang for your buck. [http://www.parts- express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=300-...](http://www.parts- express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=300-652)

You'll need an amp. [http://www.parts- express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=300-...](http://www.parts- express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=300-380)

To run from the headphone port you'd just use a simple male 3.5mm male to RCA(red/white) male.

I imagine the headphone port quality is terrible and the post mentions it. Apparently this is a cheap USB compatible option [http://www.meritline.com/usb-sound-adapter-channel-volume- co...](http://www.meritline.com/usb-sound-adapter-channel-volume-control-mute- switch---p-60824.aspx)

This entire setup should run you well under $100 and sound great.

<comment><USER23> I run this exact setup in my home office and it's great.

I've been wanting to try the Topping amps; this one with an integrated USB DAC looks interesting: [http://www.parts- express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=310-...](http://www.parts- express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=310-312)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Awesome, Going to try this with my Pi.

I presume that it'll work with the HDMI out into my AV receiver well without the distortion from lack of on-board DAC?

<comment><USER25> hdmi works too and has a much better audio quality than the headphone jacket. There are occasional interferences but this could also be caused by shairport or the network connection ( my guess is network ).

<comment><USER24> Better over hardwire than WiFi? Or just the how the Pi handles the info on- board?

<comment><USER25> sorry for the confusion, the problems were load related as a process in the bg was running wild. Runs pretty smooth over both ethernet & wlan now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Nice, a low cost a version of the airport express is exactly what the market needs. I wonder why no company has done it so far?

<comment><USER27> I assume it's because Apple wants to license it, which costs money and they might not allow it

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Just trying this now but when I try to run perl Build.PL. I get Build: command not found

Any ideas?

</comment><comment><USER29> High time i bought the Pi i guess...</comment>


Infosec's inability to quantify risk - <AUTHOR> http://blog.erratasec.com/2015/07/infosecs-inability-to-quantify-risk.html#.VbOb3RNViko <comment><USER2> This article is flawed.

It seems to revolve around the fact that 'people commuting to work are more dangerous than 1 car stopping on the freeway'.

The article then proceeds to explain why this is so:

> 'No human is a perfect driver. Every time we get into our cars, instead of > cycling or taking public transportation, we add risk to those around us.'

> 'We often see cars on the side of the road. Few accidents are caused by such > cars. Sure, they add risk, but so do people abruptly changing lanes.'

The problem with this is that, obviously, the act of stopping the car in the middle of traffic needs to be _added_ to the risk that the security researchers involved have been generating the whole year round. Instead the author seems to compare the security risk of this incident with the risk an average driver generates in a whole year.

And even if it didn't the author's example is also a fallacy of relative privation. The fact that other things are more risky than stopping a car on the freeway, does not mean that it is not dangerous.

Pretty ironic that the author fails in his own analysis while talking about 'proper "risk analysis"'.

<comment><USER3> I think this is an interesting and valid response but that you might be missing his point. He's not saying that relative risk says the highway stunt was ok; in fact, he's saying the opposite, if you read all the way to the end.

In that context, it is reasonable to argue that the added risk was minimal.

<comment><USER2> I did not miss his point, I even agree with his final paragraph. But all but the last paragraph of the article is based on flawed comparisons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4>
      In hindsight, it's obvious to everyone that Valasek
      and Miller went too far. Renting a track for a few
      hours costs less than the plane ticket for the
      journalist to come out and visit them.

In a good world, this would be true. In the world we actually live in, we should remember that a different group of researchers did this in 2010 and 2011[0] and as far as I know, not a single automobile was recalled from the road over that. This time, over a million were.

Security researchers do irresponsible shit like this because too many organizations don't fix bugs when they're "disclosed responsibly". And no one cares about that. When an organization sits on a bug that was quietly reported, no one tells them they're being irresponsible or endangering anyone. It's only after someone does something "reckless" enough with a bug that change happens, and then we blame the people who did some particular reckless event, rather than the people who created a whole system of reckless neglect.

Don't get me wrong. I wish we lived in a world where security researchers didn't have to disable cars on a public highway to make a god damn point. But I don't blame them that we live in a world where that may well be the best avenue available to them to get dangerous flaws fixed.

[0] [http://www.autosec.org/publications.html](http://www.autosec.org/publications.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> This disturbs me. Basically I think he's saying we should accept flawed and unproven technologies in the name of progress because "eh, any new risk is small compared to the risks we already face anyways".

The difference between a software hack and bad driving is one of _responsibility_ for the risks we face. When people are negligent, we humans like to see people taking responsibility and facing justice. This is why the Jeeps have been recalled: the manufacturer is taking responsibility. Sloppy driving is also transient and hard to predict. It occurs when drivers are stressed, fatigued or distracted. Software flaws are just there. They can be triggered maliciously on-demand.

Debating whether self-driving cars are OK, because, hey, they will probably save more lives than they will take gives me chills. What about the emotional detachment this brings? Who will be responsible for these deaths?

I'm not exactly sure what I'm trying to put my finger on. It's not so much our inability to calculate probabilities and run statistical models. This is about something more sociological than that.

<comment><USER6> > Who will be responsible for these deaths?

There is not always a responsible party. What about the child that runs out into the road, and you have no chance to avoid them? Will you decry self- driving cars when this incident happens to them?

Searching for "who is responsible" when the car is self-driving is self- defeating. When the car is driven by an algorithm, the algorithm can be improved. One death could prevent many more. In the case of human drivers, some people refuse to learn from their mistakes, but self-driving cars don't have this issue, and the effects of that learning are much broader than a single driver once the 'lesson' has been learned.

<comment><USER7> Curiously, back when cars first appeared, people _did_ decry them for hitting children (and adults) even if they ran into the road. It was only after a wide campaign (which also created the term "Jaywalk") that car proponents got the public to reverse their opinion. From an episode of the great podcast 99% Invisible:

 _Much of the public viewed the car as a death machine. One newspaper cartoon even compared the car to Moloch, the god to whom the Ammonites supposedly sacrificed their children._

 _Pedestrian deaths were considered public tragedies. Cities held parades and built monuments in memory of children who had been struck and killed by cars. Mothers of children killed in the streets were given a special white star to honor their loss._

[http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the- modern-...](http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern- moloch/)

<comment><USER8> It happened many years ago, but I'll never forget the time I was coming home from work, buzzing west along Foothill Blvd in the darkening evening, and I turned north toward my neighborhood. A small child jumped out from behind parked cars, directly into my path. I laid my bicycle down, the pedal and frame spraying gravel as I stepped off. She looked at me, not scared so much as lost in thought, and wandered on across the street. I smiled and picked my bike up.

It is no wonder that cars kill children, and always have. That child would have died if I had been driving.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Quantifying risk" statistically is meaningful when the risk is triggered by random events. __It 's not meaningful against an intelligent enemy. __

In the early days of commercial security, the enemy was usually lone "hackers". Today, it's organized crime and nation-states. Consider "spear- phishing", aimed at people in key positions, which appears to be how someone (China?) got the entire background check records of most Federal employees. That was statistically unlikely, but as an attack, was worth it.

Too much of computer security is based on defense against large numbers of nuisance attacks. Military thinking on defense starts from "what's the worst they can do to us". It's about capability, not intent. Military organizations have to be aware that kids throwing rocks at the perimeter fence is not the real security threat; it's somebody seemingly authorized getting inside and getting to the good stuff.

<comment><USER10> You are 100% correct. One of the best explanations of this that I've heard recently was on this interview with Brian Snow on the security weekly podcast: [http://wiki.securityweekly.com/wiki/index.php/Episode332](http://wiki.securityweekly.com/wiki/index.php/Episode332)

I think the discussion was in the second half of the podcast.

I deal with infosec people all of the time, and the devotion to risk models (with questionable calculations of risks) is usually annoying, and in many cases whitewashing real issues.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Damn, I was hoping that this would be an article about a general lack of Infosec's ability to quantify risk, not a diatribe on a recent event.

</comment><comment><USER12> This is something I'm struggling with as I attempt to educate myself more about security. I was a bit disappointed he went on to talk about the risk of a _stunt_ , because there is virtually no quantifications of risks in anything I've read on the _results_ of security research.

This seems to be borne out by the arguments about, say, the speed of disclosure vs patching. There is no agreement, and seemingly no desire to quantify the risk and danger of different types of flaw, different strategies for patching them, different disclosure schedules, etc. So, from my layperson's view, it seems like a wild west where the person who shouts the loudest, or acts the most obnoxiously, wins the argument. Cheered on by others who claim that such behavior is optimal overall. As an engineering discipline, it is rather mystifying, imho.

<comment><USER13> "because there is virtually no quantifications of risks in anything I've read on the results of security research"

Nearly all results of security research are given at least some metric for risk quantification. [https://cve.mitre.org](https://cve.mitre.org) is a single example of an attempt to quantify risk. I'm assuming at least at some point you have run across these numbers so the statement is patently false or a complete exaggeration.

<comment><USER12> > so the statement is patently false or a complete exaggeration.

Oh, don't misunderstand me, it could very well be either. I'm not claiming to have discovered this based on extensive knowledge.

Thanks for the link. So the CVSS metric is the one you're referring to? I've not seen that mentioned in vulnerability reports, no. Once again, more than happy to admit this is my failure or lack of diligence to notice. But when I've asked before about quantification, I've typically only got variants of 'you must take all vulnerabilities totally seriously, because the bad guys are powerful and evil.'

<comment><USER14> > But when I've asked before about quantification, I've typically only got > variants of 'you must take all vulnerabilities totally seriously, because > the bad guys are powerful and evil.'

The CVE system is something used (mostly) by professionals who deal with the security/usability/performance/cost/etc tradeoff every day. It makes sense that they do quantify risk. You see this all the time when MS/Google/Apple etc decide whether to patch an issue or not.

Random security "experts" on internet forums are not like that. Many are amateurs with an interest in the topic but they don't work on any major products and so have never had to be faced directly with those other costs. So of course they assume that security is the be all and end all, and nothing else is more important. But you get that in every walk of life. Ditto with cryptographers and privacy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I was flying with a friend one time and he jokingly said "never hack the plane your flying on", while it was just joke, it's something I'd never actually considered although it's blatantly obvious. Sometimes people get caught up in their own curiosity, don't think through their plan and loose perspective on the consequences of their actions.

While what they did was reckless and irresponsible, I think their overall intentions were to inform of the risk associated with vulnerabilities/hacking of this nature and raise awareness. I would assume that they have learned from this, and won't be shutting down cars on a highway to show off anymore.

The thing about risk is that it's best dealt with when there is a clear understanding of it, the conversation on what is appropriate testing, and raising the general awareness of the public regarding these vulnerabilities are both factors that will hopefully mitigate risks moving forward.

</comment><comment><USER16> > In hindsight, it's obvious to everyone that Valasek and Miller went too far.

Not at all; they didn't create new risks, they just exposed existing risks. And the security community's reaction isn't their fault, either.

And sometimes an industry needs a wakeup call to take a topic serious.

<comment><USER7> If doing something risky doesn't increase the risk of bad consequences happening, what does? Whether they "created new risks" seems beyond the point of the criticism - this isn't about exposing the flaw, it's about reproducing it in an unsafe way.

<comment><USER17> The thing is that on one hand it increased the risk of bad consequences to them, but on the other hand it indirectly reduced the risk of bad consequences happening to others.

Increasing the _net effect_ on consequences is what matters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> An inability to quantify risk is attributing a skill set to an industry which is probably not responsible for quantifying risk. Infosec researchers should only be beholden to identifying and detailing risks. There are infosec subsets that require better skills to identify risks, but those subsets are the one's more responsible for quantifying risk in an appropriate manner not the ENTIRE industry.

Quantifying risk is a very difficult endeavor to do properly so any measure of it is done from the security researchers biased perspective. Yes infosec researchers seem to want attention for their work this is often because there is not near enough attention paid to their work. Actuarial science is an entire professional field specifically tasked with quantifying risk, at least from an insurance perspective.

The inferred statement, at least in the title, is that not only do infosec researchers now have to stay up on crypto, assembly, js[buzzword] framework and on and on, but now they must also become actuarial scientists. As a neophyte in the industry I'm having trouble getting caught up to a static point let alone that the static point is a moving and rapidly accelerating target and not in my favor. Adding to this unachievable standard I now must study and become at least somewhat proficient in actuarial sciences is maddening!

<comment><USER18> I completely agree. To make things worse, I'm not even sure that it's practical to use an actuarial approach in a way that will produce remotely valid results.

Actuaries based calculations of probability on past occurrences. This is why car insurance is calculated using a huge variety of variables like age of the driver, make/model of the car, etc.

So first of all, where is the data about past compromises going to come from? Just about no organization is willing to share it unless there is a legal requirement to do so. Unless something dramatic changes, that means only the most high-profile events from other organizations will become part of the pool of data to work with.

More importantly, however, IMO there are far too many variables in order to do anything meaningful with that data. When the exploitability of a particular vulnerability can depend on everything from the specific type of hardware the OS hosting the app is hosted on, to the choice of database back-end, so a single configuration setting in an XML or other type of file, how is that even trackable, let alone something that can be calculated with any sort of accuracy?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> What apologetics for this demo seem to gloss over, or worse, not realize is the real problem, is not just the increased risk. It's the increased risk _and_ removal of choice from all the unwitting participants.

> In college, I owned a poorly maintained VW bug that would occasionally lose > power on the freeway, such as from an electrical connection falling off from > vibration. I caused more risk by not maintaining my car than these security > researchers did.

If while in college and driving this vehicle you decided to film yourself, made it clear your were pretty certain the car was going to lose power, got onto a freeway, and when the car lost power said something to the effect of "oh shit, this is dangerous", then yes, you would be facing a lot of criticism right now too.

If you were a researcher and had a few more years than college age under your belt, and if the point was also to raise awareness about something dangerous, you should expect criticism doubly so, because more is expected from you than some yokel on youtube trying to make a funny video.

Driving a car is an inherently dangerous activity. We've become complacent about it, but there's still many deaths each year (~1.4 of each 100 deaths was car related in 2013)[1]. For most people, it's the most dangerous thing they'll do each day. Driving requires a level of cognitive dissonance about how likely other drivers are to be paying attention, and driving with good intentions. When this is broken, though obviously dangerous driving on the road (such as the speeder doing dangerous lane changes) or introducing unnecessary risks, our reaction is to punish. Police stop dangerous drivers when they see them. These researchers broadcasted equivalent behavior, they are getting an equivalent response (albeit from the public).

1: [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf)

<comment><USER20> It isn't that apologetic:

 _In hindsight, it 's obvious to everyone that Valasek and Miller went too far._

It's not encouraging them to double down and do more live traffic tests, it's encouraging other people to calibrate their reactions a little bit, so as to not lose sight of the very real benefit that came out of the research.

<comment><USER19> I took it as half apologetic, but really, for that I was addressing what I saw in general from arguments from apologetics on this issue, not specifically this reaction.

> It's not encouraging them to double down and do more live traffic tests, > it's encouraging other people to calibrate their reactions a little bit, so > as to not lose sight of the very real benefit that came out of the research.

Sure, I think it's extremely important research. I think it's great they did it. But I think the outcry is important too, so as to not lose sight of the very real benefit that comes out of keeping public safety in mind when performing experiments. It sucks that these guys have to be a poster child for this, when a slap on the wrist would suffice, but I think it's important that _both_ sides of the issue aren't discounted because of the other side.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm not sure I agree - maybe I'm lucky to work in an organisation where we have a good understanding that infsec is all about risk. We build this into pretty much everything we do, and the only way to get stuff done is by demonstrating some reduction in risk.

Where we do have a problem, and it's an industry-wide problem, is that there is no real widely applicable methodology for evaluating and quantifying security risk. There are lots of risk assessment methodologies, but all of the ones we've tried still leave you making subjective decisions and best-guesses.

<comment><USER22> Indeed. The suggestion that risk quantification is absent from information security is completely alien to me. I work in information security and I work on risk quantification almost every day.

It is true that there is no objectively agreed on method for risk quantification. But that's somewhat of a red herring. There doesn't have to be an objectively agreed on method for risk quantification to be useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Not a fan of this post.

Yes, Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek's stunt had _relatively_ low risk, but the difference is that they were risking the lives of innocent people who had nothing to do with it. You don't get to "quantify risk" for others who didn't ask for it, who are completely unassociated with you and your activities.

      "Business leaders quantify and prioritize risk, but we don't, so our useless advice is ignored."

I do agree that progress needs to be made on this front.

<comment><USER24> > "You don't get to "quantify risk" for others who didn't ask for it, who are > completely unassociated with you and your activities."

To take an example from the article: when you change lanes in a car, you're incurring risk for others "who didn't ask for it, and are completely unassociated with and your activities." I agree that it's generally unacceptable to incur risk to others' lives, but in actual fact we do it often.

Not totally related to your point: on the whole people seem to ignore existing systematic risk and privilege preventing non-systematic risk. Interactions with cars kill so many people! The unmitigated disaster that is climate change - a product of using cars - is in all probability going to kill so many more people! But here we are, having a discussion moralizing about the way some security researchers did or did not misuse their car (fwiw, I'm in the "misused" camp).

The problem here might be irresponsible use of cars by two bad actors, but it might be larger?

<comment><USER23>
      when you change lanes in a car, you're incurring risk for others

The difference is there's a reasonable expectation of danger from other drivers every time you're on the road. OTOH, you have no reasonable expectation of danger coming from random security researchers.

      people seem to ignore existing systematic risk and privilege preventing non-systematic risk

Agree 100%, I think we agree on a lot here.

<comment><USER25> >>The difference is there's a reasonable expectation of danger from other drivers every time you're on the road. OTOH, you have no reasonable expectation of danger coming from random security researchers.

Not sure what you mean. If you're driving on the freeway and the car in front of you loses power, why does it matter whether it lost power due to lack of maintenance or because it got hacked by security researchers? The impact for you, and your solution, will be the same: momentary confusion followed by corrective action.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I dont wanna secure shit and i like clicks.

Risk is about data. It doesn't matter if its security related or not. No data, no risk quantification.

You do not have data - so you blog post is actually useless.

</comment><comment><USER27> How the hell can we quantify the risk of data? Where is the price discovery mechanism in a world where "information must be free"? You can only buy insurance if you know not only how likely it is that you'll lose the thing you're insuring but also how much it costs!

Maybe we need to update whatever concept of intellectual property we developed in the 90s that got us to the current state of affairs...

</comment><comment><USER28> Note that before software development suffered from Infosec's inability to quantify risk, it suffered (and still suffers) from lawyer's inability to quantify risk. If you want a black-and-white requirement, ask your legal department. After some length of time, they'll say "yes" or "no". Nothing in between.

It's the same phenomenon.

</comment><comment><USER29> Infosec is easy to quantify: every security hole should be treated as though the lives of every human on Earth depended on it; also, 100% of software has security holes. If you take the logical conclusion of these two statements, it's obvious that the only winning move is not to play.

<comment><USER7> _every security hole should be treated as though the lives of every human on Earth depended on it_

What possible reason would lead you to do that?

<comment><USER6> Maybe the personalities of some security researchers? /s

<comment><USER29> yes, this is correct and what I alluded to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Verizon has a 70-page report on data breaches as of early 2015, which is a necessary step towards the quantification of security risk by insurance companies: [http://www.verizonenterprise.com/DBIR/2015](http://www.verizonenterprise.com/DBIR/2015) . As explained in "Cyber-Insurance: Triumph of the Accountants", [https://securityledger.com/2015/05/cyber-insurance- triumph-o...](https://securityledger.com/2015/05/cyber-insurance-triumph-of- the-accountants/)

 _" What will this mean for companies? At the behest of insurers, they will need to clean up their acts. Just as drivers must show proficiency behind the wheel over long periods of time, companies will need show progress along the curve of "cyber maturity" to gain access to the lowest premiums and the smallest deductibles."_

</comment><comment><USER31> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBIOS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBIOS)

</comment><comment><USER32> The problem with asking for better risk management for infosec is that "better risk management" pretty much comes out the same. In security terms, systems are secure when the cost of breaking the protection exceeds the value of what is being protected. In the software world, in the _vast_ majority of cases, once a vulnerability is known, the cost of breaking the protection is indistinguishable from zero. The result is that it _superficially appears_ that we treat things as binary risk, but in fact we are being perfectly rational.

Some of the rare examples of software security bugs where the attacks are _practical_ but not _free_ : Breaking RC4. BEAST. DDoS. The rare arbitrary code executions that require significant time to attempt due to needing to spray the heap _just_ right.

But most of the time, it's click -> own.

The other thing that prevents useful quantification is that we don't have a Gaussian distribution to be seen. Rate of discovery, maybe, but that's it. We do not have Gaussian distribution on size of protected items, density of vulnerabilities, or anything else. Without that most of our good risk estimation techniques don't produce numbers that mean much to managers.

This is, IMHO, the fundamental reason why infosec doesn't get listened to. Our management structures are still highly Gaussian-biased (decades of manufacturing envy). They can't even wrap their head around software engineering schedules and costs after several decades, and infosec risks have _even worse_ distributions! It is, in my very strong and considered opinion, _perfectly rational_ for infosec to be vigorously ringing the bell. Consider exactly the bug we're talking about now... it's a vulnerability that has the potential to _destroy the auto industry_ , were it properly exploited. (It would not just by Chrysler caught in the crossfire! And my use of present tense is considered. I have little reason to believe this is fixed, nor that it is the only such bug.) Our risk management procedures can not even properly express the idea that an engineer drawing a line between two nodes in the car's communications bus could have that result, can not properly express the Black Swan nature of that decision. But that's not infosec's fault, or at least, not infosec's fault alone.

And it's certainly not a solution for infosec to get more realistic about risk, because "more realistic about risk" probably means we ought to be a good factor of magnitude or so _more_ strident, not less! The more I learn about the risks in this world the more horrifying it gets, and it's getting _worse_ , not better, as things get more interconnected. Again, look at this car bug... it's something that could not possibly have existed 20 years ago. None of us, from CEO to engineer to QA, have even begun to properly process what this means, let alone react to it! And we won't until the Black Swan bites _and probably not even then!_

</comment><comment><USER33> "Risk is binary, either there is risk or there isn't."

What tripe.

<comment><USER34> Taken way out of context.

<comment><USER35> I was going to say "taken in context, then inverted".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Author equates the risk of one person operating a single vehicle that sometimes loses power to the risk incurred when a whole fleet of cars could be subverted by somebody buying a few hundred dollars worth of hardware and tinkering for a bit.

<comment><USER7> No, OP is equating it to the trial the researchers did with a single vehicle.

<comment><USER36> doh, you're right:

> In college, I owned a poorly maintained VW bug that would occasionally lose > power on the freeway, such as from an electrical connection falling off from > vibration. I caused more risk by not maintaining my car than these security > researchers did.

that's what I get for reading and replying on mobile.</comment></comment></comment>


How to Create a Mind - Book Review - <AUTHOR> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/mar/21/homunculism/?pagination=false/# <comment><USER2> McGinn says that "thinking about London while in Miami" involves no pattern recognition, because no senses are involved. But Kurzweil's claim is pattern recognition is key to _memory_ , and certainly memory is involved when recollecting London. It's fine to disagree with Kurzweil's claim about memory, but to imply he's discovered a big loophole ("this point seems totally obvious and quite devastating") and suggest Kurzweil thinks patterns only apply to our senses, is completely silly.

McGinn's tirade against anthropomorphic language is also silly. It's obviously something he's trotted out from previous writings, which is okay if it were insightful. Can't he mentally translate "a neuron shouts when it sees a pattern" into "a neuron fires when a certain combination of it's input terminals are excited" or perhaps instead of "fire" which is potentially anthropomorphic itself, Kurzweil should write a script to replace "fire" with "the voltage-gated ion channels embedded in the plasma membrane will open allowing an inward flow of sodium ions, etc. etc". Please, where does it stop. Look beyond the words to what the person is actually saying.

It's similar to his criticism of Kurzweil's "law" of accelerating change. Sure, it should be called a theory not a law, big deal.

Kurzweil is a huckster, he is selling books, he's going to overstate things. Just make the mental translation law->theory in your mind and move on with your life.

McGinn meanwhile has no opinion on what is actually going to _happen_. He says accelerating change is "just a fortunate historical fact about the twentieth century". So is he saying it has stopped now, 13 years in to the 21st century? I don't believe it has. Or that it will stop? When will it stop McGinn, in 2015, 2029, 2045, 2387? Because this matters _a lot_ in terms of how much computer power we end up with. He has no opinion at all what is going to happen, he only cares what we call things.

<comment><USER3> Yes, McGinn's step from pattern recognition to perceptual pattern recognition is argumentally bad, and kinda jarring in the article. I think McGinn's point is that human cognition involves creative elements (imagination for example) that don't seem well modelled on pattern recognition, but that doesn't come across that well.

McGinn's tirade is not again antropomorphic language per se, it is against homunculism. The idea that a human mind is composed by agents (homunculi) that exhibit mental properties leaves the mental properties of those agents unexplained. That's the reason he proceeds to argue agains the use of "information processing", because he seems to find that also explanatorily lacking.

> It's similar to his criticism of Kurzweil's "law" of accelerating change. > Sure, it should be called a theory not a law, big deal.

It should be called a generalization, or maybe an hypothesis, it isn't even a theory. McGin's question is: is this generalization valid? Can we say? If he sees fault in Kurzweil's evidence for it, why not say it? Why would he have to provide evidence as to when Kurzweil's prediction will fail? The burden of proof is not on him.

<comment><USER2> Kurzweil doesn't believe individual neurons have mental processes. McGinn doesn't believe Kurzweil believes individual neurons have mental processes. It's just a pet peeve of McGinn, it's completely immaterial to the book. I agree in an academic paper one would never say a neuron "shouts" anything, but this a pop-science book, and McGinn should treat it as such.

The burden of proof is not on McGinn, but he is a smart guy, he should have an _opinion_ and should share it. His opinion is only on what Kurzweil's calls the trend, not on the trend itself. This would be like discussing the current budget crisis, and suggesting it be called a budget debacle instead of a crisis, and offering no further insight.

<comment><USER3> On the first point, I think the difference is a quite more subtle. Remember I talked about properties, not processes. Maybe when I said "mental" properties I oversimplified. The model McGinn is criticizing works like this:

The mind has mental properties because it is composed of agents (homuniculi) that exhibit a certain kind of mental, or at the very least, not-physical property (non-physical in the sense that they don't belogn to a physical theory).

For example, one could try to explain mentality in terms of modules of the brain that are information processing agents. But then, how do we explain "information processing" in those agents? Btw, those agents need not be neurons, it could also be sets of them, of something else (they don't even need to be merely parts of the brain). It's true that McGinn is not very tolerant of Kurzweil loose way of talking, but I think it's because he regards the conceptual issues as quite important. He is a philosopher after all, his standards for accepting bullshit can be quite different.

> even talk of "pattern recognition" by neurons is already far too homunculus- > like for comfort: people (and animals) recognize patterns—neurons don't. > Neurons simply emit electrical impulses when caused to do so by impinging > stimuli; they don't recognize anything in the literal sense.

The paraphrases you propose for Kurzweil's way of talking seem to remove homunculism from it, but maybe only partially. I think that can be McGinn's worry, and the reason he goes agains the idea of "information processing". See:

> Even in sober neuroscience textbooks we are routinely told that bits of the > brain "process information," "send signals," and "receive messages"—as if > this were as uncontroversial as electrical and chemical processes occurring > in the brain. We need to scrutinize such talk with care. Why exactly is it > thought that the brain can be described in these ways? It is a collection of > biological cells like any bodily organ, much like the liver or the heart, > which are not apt to be described in informational terms. It can hardly be > claimed that we have observed information transmission in the brain, as we > have observed certain chemicals; this is a purely theoretical description of > what is going on. So what is the basis for the theory?

And then:

> We have discovered that nerve fibers transmit electricity. We have not, in > the same way, discovered that they transmit information. We have simply > postulated this conclusion by falsely modeling neurons on persons.

> ...there is theoretical danger in such loose talk, because it fosters the > illusion that we understand how the brain can give rise to the mind.

On Kurzweil's book being just pop-sience book: McGinn worries, I think, about the public having a wrong idea of what we really have in terms of our explanations of mentality because theoreticians can have a wrong idea of it. Others might think it enough to propose certain hypothesis as solutions of some sort to those problems. But with that, I've polemicized too much for now, I think.

<comment><USER4> You raise some good points, but it's disturbing that McGinn's understanding of basic information-processing ideas is so weak.

I thought that philosophers and computer scientists actually talked to one another.

<comment><USER3> Some do. Hopefully that will happen more often.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think trying to understand "the mind" by way of the brain is like trying to understand Windows OS by way of the CPU. It's just not the way to do it.

Having said that it seems like the book reviewer's central complaint was _To create a mind one needs at a minimum to create consciousness..._. I'm quite skeptical of this claim simply because "consciousness" is such a sketchy concept: <http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-02-27/>

<comment><USER6> I couldn't agree more.

It seems that whenever computers become able to do something that we previously used to define consciousness, we just create a new definition of what it means to be human/conscious that doesn't include that new capability.

Essentially we're continuously redefining consciousness as "that which humans can that machines can't."

My guess is that we'll keep expanding that until human consciousness is just "the version that operates in flesh and blood rather than silicon".

<comment><USER7> Did you read the book? Because that is one of the points Kurzweil makes.

The book review in question is crap. I'm happy to read Kurzweil critics but claiming something is too complex to understand to does not make for legitimate criticism, in any field.

Pattern recognition is a given, how to do it is not. That is really what the book is about (hint: hierarchical hidden markov models.) As for the philosophical stuff, I read The Age of Spiritual Machines many years ago when it came out (and I was barely in high school), so there was nothing in How to Create A Mind that challenged views I've had over a decade to think about.

The whole issue of consciousness I think is minor. Which, I personally would explain consciousness as "living" awareness ( in the book Kurzweil says even the smartest people start to sound stupid when trying to describe this.)

The good news is our industry is not going to get dull anytime soon.

<comment><USER6> Just to be clear, I didn't read the book. I even just skimmed the original post. I was just responding to the parent comment and it's claim about the sketchiness of (the definition of) consciousness.

Perhaps I should read Kurzweil once even if just to see how much our views are aligned..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> We can all agree Kurzweil is past his intellectual expiration date. The saddest part here is he wasted such a good title, "How to Create a Mind," repeating his historical non-usable drivel (not to mention it sounds like a Culture series book).

My current "create a consciousness" track is to get something with pattern completion completion working (NB: aspie nerds often fail this step interpersonally ("Oh, Hello!" " _blank stare_ "), but not intellectually/professionally ("What does this thingamajigger do?" "Oh, well, that's there because historically we used a 3.2 bit kernel to operate the Arm of God and... [30 minutes later]... Why are you falling asleep?").

The thing inside your head stringing your actions together into a coherent after-the-fact story isn't pattern recognition or even pattern completion, but pattern completion completion. You have to take the context of the new world generated by your prior pattern completion and run a new internal world simulation based on that, then take action. This does leave out intrinsic or emotional motivations pulling you hither or thither, but that's a vague writeup for another time. Though, there are plenty of smart people running around in the world with seemingly no emotions. Emotional feeling doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for consciousness (or for being usable to be exploited by employers to make them 10x-1000x richer while you get 0.5x richer).

It's fun to think about at least.

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't understand why the author is adamantly opposed to the book. The author, Colin McGinn, states his only credentials as a psychology student in the 70s.

I believe Kurzweil is likely correct. Pattern recognition is the essence of human intelligence.

<comment><USER9> "I am thinking about London while in Miami I am not recognizing any presented stimulus as London—since I am not perceiving London with my senses. There is no perceptual recognition going on at all in thinking about an absent object "

You could see Miami and you could recognize it as similar to London. That is pattern recognition.

<comment><USER10> Then sitting in Miami and thinking of cheese, or the number 7. Makes no difference, you _can_ obviously have thoughts which are not based on stimulus (e.g. my brain, when wanting "something random" picked cheese and 7.)

<comment><USER11> There are any number of stimuli that could trigger thoughts about cheese. The smell of food, being hungry, a colour, another thought about a time in which you were hungry, something round, something wedge shaped....

The fact that humans are so bad at picking random numbers and so often pick 7 does not seem so unusual if we are based on patterns. Actually, that is the sort of emergent phenomenon that seems rather obvious to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _> There is no perceptual recognition going on at all in thinking about an absent object. So pattern recognition cannot be the essential nature of thought. This point seems totally obvious and quite devastating, yet Kurzweil has nothing to say about it, not even acknowledging the problem._

Is it really the case that my brain is not recognizing patterns when I remember something? I don't think this is the case, otherwise I would never realize something about a remembered object after the fact.

 _> He does in one place speak of dreaming as a "sequence of patterns" and he might try to say the same about thinking. But this faces obvious objections. First, even if that is true, there is no pattern recognition involved when I dream, or when I think about London and my friends and relatives there._

Seems to me the brain is taking random stimuli and piecing it together into a narrative when one dreams. Sounds like there could be some pattern recognition involved there. Also, the author has never spoken of absent friends and said something like, "Doesn't Bob look sad?" Is he remembering the recognition of sadness, or is he recognizing sadness from the memory, and how could one be sure of the difference?

Methinks the author either knows something left unexplained, or isn't being nearly as clever as he thinks.

<comment><USER8> I think the review author means physical in-your-face "perceptual recognition." Thought remembering is a weaker form of physical recognition, but you're right -- it works mostly the same as far as recall is concerned.

With physical recognition (touch, temperature, smell, taste, sound, sight), all the details are instantly available to our perception and recall/memory access is easier. It's difficult to _fully_ remember the feeling of a childhood holiday only from your memory. You get a much richer recall experience if you go back to the place/time of year you lived it. Little things will trigger your memory you didn't even know you remembered.

The review author would be less confused if "pattern recognition" was replaced with "memories linked to what you're thinking about." Saying "pattern recognition" of London doesn't make sense to non-tech people. Saying "You remember things attached to London in your mind" helps out more, right?

I like that we are kinda strange.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm glad McGinn criticizes Kurzweil's use of anthropomorphic language. I'm only in CH 3 and have been waiting for him to translate his friendly, talking recognizers back into neuroscience.

Also bothersome is Kurzweil's repeated but unacknowledged use of Chomsky's ideas about recursion in language.

</comment><comment><USER10> While the reviewer is mostly correct in their objections, probably, I have to disagree that "red" or "the smell of a rose" are not patterns.

The brain perceives by receiving electrical signals from neurons, whether from the optic nerve (which, incidentally, encodes both colour _and_ geometry) or the nerves from the nasal cells. These are going to arrive in the brain as identical chemical 1s and 0s for the brain's sensory pattern recognition circuits to deal with (or whatever.)

Independent thought, recursive concept matching (smell -> memory of childhood, memory of childhood -> fear, adrenal response) and all the rest are a strong point of the criticism, though, since these are obviously not based on pattern recognition.

</comment><comment><USER14> _"Kurzweil's new book on the mind is magnificent, timely, and solidly argued! His best so far!" ~Marvin Minsky_

</comment><comment><USER15> I think this question is central to his disagreement with Kurzweil, "Are we seriously to suppose that dreams and thoughts have geometrical shape?"

Which to my ear, belies his fundamental apprehension of geometry.

</comment><comment><USER16> I would suggest the lecture of Raja Yoga by Swami Vivekananda. I remember in the beggining of the book, it touches this topic in a way that I can't describe using my English habilities.

</comment><comment><USER17> I was really interested in what a Mind-Book would be, and how one would go about about reviewing one such book. I was disappointed.</comment>