String types in Rust - <AUTHOR> http://andrewbrinker.github.io/blog/2016/03/27/string-types-in-rust/ <comment><USER3> My favorite bit of learning with Rust strings was the WTF-8 format: [https://simonsapin.github.io/wtf-8/](https://simonsapin.github.io/wtf-8/)

Implemented: [https://github.com/rust- lang/rust/blob/master/src/libstd/sys...](https://github.com/rust- lang/rust/blob/master/src/libstd/sys/common/wtf8.rs)

<comment><USER4> WTF-8 is great, and lest anyone think that it's intended to be a joke it's worth mentioning that it's actually a very useful thing:

 _" WTF-8 (Wobbly Transformation Format − 8-bit) is a superset of UTF-8 that encodes surrogate code points if they are not in a pair. It represents, in a way compatible with UTF-8, text from systems such as JavaScript and Windows that use UTF-16 internally but don't enforce the well-formedness invariant that surrogates must be paired."_

Though note that it's only suitable for internal usage (as in, you wouldn't expose an API that uses WTF-8), so it's not something that you need to actually think about when learning Rust. :P

<comment><USER5> I don't really get the point of it; I'd think that, properly, what you'd want is:

1\. a plain "buffer of unparsed octets" type (like Erlang's "binary" type), to hold onto your weird invalid UTF-16 (or whatever other weird invalid stuff you like);

and 2. a strict, validated-on-construction "sequence of codepoints" type.

Going from #1 to #2 wouldn't be a direct cast; it'd instead be a stream-parser function that could be hooked with a callback, which would be handed parsed- and-valid, and invalid-and-left-unparsed, "segments":

       maybe_parsed_segment() = valid_string_of_codepoints() | binary()

...and would then respond with a valid segment, which could just be "" to discard the input segment.

The default callback would presumably respond to a binary() of size N by emitting a "�" string of length N. That's pretty much what we have today, but both sturdier and more extensible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _In this post I'm going to explain the organization of Rust's string types with String and str as examples, then get into the lesser-used string types—CString, CStr, OsString, OsStr, PathBuf, and Path_

Ouch. So one thing that Rust is not going to succeed at is not having the chaos around string types that C++ has. Why is it that some languages can get away with just having 1 unicode string type with libraries to translate to other representations as needed, but not others?

<comment><USER7> To be fair, Java and C# -- two languages that you would probably consider as having one unicode string type -- also effectively have two string types between `String` and `StringBuilder`. [0] Java also has `java.nio.file.Path`. [1]

[0] Java also manages to conflate synchronization into the mix with `StringBuffer`.

[1] C# (thankfully) just has static functions to manipulate strings as paths.

<comment><USER8> If you want to add IO into Java's mix, you can also use StringWriter.

Also I personally don't consider paths as strings, nor URLs – both are types for specific purposes with specific invariants, which are distinct from strings'.

<comment><USER7> I suppose it depends on your definition of a string. If it's an ordered collection of glyphs, than paths and URLs are definitely strings with invariant restrictions. But, of course, that's hardly a useful definition when you need to take a URL as input, is it? So I agree that treating them as separate types with an external string representation is a very useful tool to have, even if I don't agree that it should always be applied! Having worked with the Path class in Java, I personally find it an impediment to understandable code, but I'd also be willing to accept that that particular implementation and my intuition simply don't mesh well.

<comment><USER9> > I suppose it depends on your definition of a string. If it's an ordered > collection of glyphs, than paths and URLs are definitely strings with > invariant restrictions.

That's not quite true -- on POSIX paths are strings of _bytes_. POSIX doesn't specify any particular encoding[1]. AFAIR the only restrictions on paths are around the NUL (0) byte and '/' (47).

[1] I'm sure we'd all be happier if Unicode (encoded as UTF-8) were specified as _the_ way to do paths, but POSIX was invented quite a bit before Unicode & UTF-8, so here we are.

<comment><USER10> And on Windows it's "potentially ill-formed UTF-16": [https://simonsapin.github.io/wtf-8/](https://simonsapin.github.io/wtf-8/)

Basically if your language/std-lib claims to be cross platform and considers paths to be definitely-utf8, it's busted. I think, maybe, plan9 is a case where this claim holds?

<comment><USER11> > And on Windows it's "potentially ill-formed UTF-16"

On Windows, and in many Windows APIs, the return value is a "sequence of UTF-16 code units" (which is essentially a fancy way of saying "a sequence of 16-bit words"). This goes back to Windows originally using UCS-2, where any sequence of 16-bit words is valid (because there wasn't any concept of a surrogate, yet alone a lone surrogate), given its support predates the Unicode consortium extending Unicode to 21-bits and along with it UTF-16's existence (1996).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Thanks for this is was very helpful.

Honestly I think the main thing that trips people up here is the naming convention. If it was String and StringView rather than str I don't think people would have nearly as much trouble. I guess the name was chosen for brevity considering how pervasive &str is in rust code.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, it's sort of historic. I like to joke that renaming String to StrBuf is my only wish for Rust 2.0.

That said, if anything, it would be StrBuf and str, because str is a primitive type, hence the lower case. It almost wasn't a primitive type, but there were drawbacks, so we kept it as one.

<comment><USER13> What were the drawbacks?

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/19612](https://github.com/rust- lang/rust/pull/19612)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Hey, author here! Happy to answer any questions people have, and happy to hear any feedback.

<comment><USER15> _String (the "owned" sort of string type) is a wrapper for a heap-allocated buffer of unicode bytes. str (the "slice" sort of string type) is a buffer of unicode bytes that may be on the stack, on the heap, or in the program memory itself._

"unicode bytes" aren't a thing; bytes implies encoding (and subscripting yielding <=0xff), otherwise it's "codepoints" (and subscripting yielding an int somewhere on the unicode planes).

Further down:

 _String and str are guaranteed to be valid UTF-8 encoded Unicode strings. If you're wondering why UTF-8 is the standard encoding for Rust strings, check out the Rust FAQ's answer to that question._

That's spot on. Please add this to the first part, too; "... buffer of UTF-8 encoded unicode bytes". or even just "encoded unicode string." It will be clear what is (and is not) meant.

Otherwise nice article! Even understandable for someone with no Rust experience.

<comment><USER14> Sure, no problem.

As a kinda funny aside, I also wrote the linked-to FAQ answer. Took a number of drafts to get all the fiddly Unicode terminology right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Nice writeup.

I'd like to see some examples illustrating appropriate usage of Clone-on-Write with Rust strings - that's something I personally have struggled with while learning rust.

<comment><USER17> I've used it when I wanted to provide a value which was statically initialized with a literal in the source, but which could possibly mutate during program execution. Instead of doing `String::from` and performing the heap allocation regardless, the heap allocation is only performed if you actually mutate it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Stupid question: Why "str" instead of "Str"? (For homogeneity)

<comment><USER13> Oh you wouldn't believe the huge amount of bikeshedding that went into the naming of `String` and `str`. :) The end result might not be the nicest - <USER2> my eyes at least - but at least a decision was made!</comment></comment>


An open letter to web platforms about gTLD adoption - <AUTHOR> https://iwantmyname.com/blog/2014/02/an-open-letter-to-web-platforms-about-gtld-adoption.html

<comment><USER2> > But without your help, adoption rates will suffer. And if adoption rates > suffer, the vast expansion of the internet namespace is all for naught.

That's the wrong attitude to take, I think.

Many of us would say that adding new TLDs is silly. In practice it looks like nothing more than a way for registrars to say to the owners of widgetr.com, that they now need to pay for widgetr.abc and widgetr.xyz, too.

But there is a better reason why the new TLDs should be recognized as such: because they _are_ TLDs. Failing to recognize them as such is incorrect behavior.

<comment><USER3> IPv6 is the new Internet Protocol, but that isn't helping it get support (much, anyway).

I know it's a terrible attitude, but I read "if adoption rates suffer, the vast expansion of the internet namespace is all for naught" and my first thought was "...and I really don't have a problem with that." So if there are a lot more people like you and me, gTLD adoption may follow a curve more like IPv6.

<comment><USER4> Yeah seriously. It does just seem like another money grab.

The ole "create money from nothing" business model.</comment></comment></comment>


Jailbreak for an Active iOS Version - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/cj123/canijailbreak.com/commit/751fe3c001eb7617aa390b928ae34036c14e68e6 <comment><USER2> Amazed they can keep finding jailbreaks. You'd think Apple would have everything locked down by now.</comment>


For sale: A million-dollar iPad address - <AUTHOR> http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/22/for-sale-a-million-dollar-ipad-address/

<comment><USER2> "This is probably the first very smart thing I have ever done in my life, he says"

Wow, talk about oversized expectations.

$1m a pop for mediocre, trademark infringing domain squatting?

If only it was so easy.</comment>


For students, a right to be mean online? - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-youtube-schools13-2009dec13,0,6315794,full.story

<comment><USER2> Dup: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=993922></comment>


The Life Story of Nikola Tesla (Documentary) - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tesla/electricity-the-life-story-of-nikola-tesla <comment><USER2> I see a page full of grammatical errors, inane capitalization, awkward sentence structure, and spelling irregularities like "Face Book." It probably shouldn't affect how I feel about their ability to actually complete the project, but... I mean, just check out this sentence:

> The Teams Background! Wilhelm Cashen engineer and entrepreneur with a long > career in electromagnet controls and systems, has followed in his mentors > Nikola Tesla, throughout his career.

Anyone else get thrown for a loop reading this? The guy seems impressive and well-qualified for this project, which is why it's so strange to me that he's writing at a fourth-grade level. It certainly doesn't inspire confidence.

Maybe English isn't his first language. In any case, I wonder how much more funding the project would get if it was presented more professionally.

</comment><comment><USER3> Have a look at this movie based on life of Nikola Tesla - <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNGSOCzXv80>

</comment><comment><USER4> It's not a documentary, it's a docudrama.

So beware! There's enough Tesla hagiography going around as is. For example, the video update claims that he never received a penny for his work, which is not true in the slightest. His patents were licensed, he was paid royalties, he got salary when working for Westinghouse, and got significant funding for many of his large scale experiments. He was also definitely -not- the creator of electricity, and his name was not 'virtually removed from history'. Time magazine put him on the front cover in 1931!

Also, this movie called the Prestige?

<comment><USER5> In order not to leave people guessing what Tesla did or didn't invent, here is the list of his patents:

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

And here is the section on radio:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_radio#Tesla></comment></comment>


The Internet of the future? SEO friendly single page apps with Angular Universal - <AUTHOR> http://blog.angular-academy.io/angular-2-universal-meet-the-internet-of-the-future-seo-friendly-single-page-web-apps/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is a demo on what Angular universal can do: allow to implement server side rendered apps that take over on the server as a single page application, bringing the best of both worlds:

the SEO friendliness of static content, the instant navigation of a single page app and the performance needed to improve the mobile web experience of our apps.</comment>


Resugaring – adding the syntactic sugar back into your program - <AUTHOR> http://blog.brownplt.org/2016/02/06/resugaring.html <comment><USER2> > x + y is syntactic sugar for x.__add__(y)

It's more complicated than that. If __add__ fails it falls back to __radd__:

      >>> class Spam(object):
      ...   def __radd__(self, first):
      ...     return str(first) + "radd"
      ...
      >>> 5+Spam()
      '5radd'
      >>> Spam()+5
      Traceback (most recent call last):
        File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
      TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'Spam' and 'int'

I skimmed the paper to see if it caught this nuance, but don't think it did. ("The desugaring follows a strategy similar to that of Python, by applying the _plusmethod of the left subexpression to the right subexpression")

(The "." is another level of sugar, as "a.__add__" is equivalent to "getattr(a, '__add__')". And "a" is sugar for 'a', as single quotes were in Python before double quotes.)

> Syntactic sugar is when you define a piece of syntax in a language in terms > of the rest of the language.

I believe that definition is incomplete. Is the "for" loop in C syntactic sugar for a while() loop?

      for (x=0; x<n; x++) { ... }

is equivalent to

      x=0;
      while (x<n) {
        ...
        x++;
      }

or is the "while" loop syntactic sugar for a for loop?

      while (condition) {
         ...
      }

is equivalent to:

      for(;condition;) {
      }

Given the 'goto', both are sugar for an if/goto plus automatic goto target label generator, so I'll repose the question in a C-without-goto variant language.

<comment><USER3> > > Syntactic sugar is when you define a piece of syntax in a language in > terms of the rest of the language. > I believe that definition is > incomplete.

Thanks for pointing that out. What I _really_ meant to say is:

"Syntactic sugar is when a piece of syntax in a language is defined in terms of the rest of the language."

<comment><USER2> I think we can agree that given while() and for(), one is sugar because it can be defined by the other.

My observation is that while it's possible to say there is sugar, it's not possible to say which of the two is the sugar. That is, the while() can be defined in terms {language - while()} and for() can be defined in term {language - for()}.

<comment><USER3> Sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm suggesting that you call a piece of syntax syntactic sugar when it's actually _implemented_ in terms of the syntax of the rest of the language. So it's possible that, e.g. while() is sugar in one C++ implementation and for() is sugar in another.

That's just a question of terminology, though. There's a paper by Felleisen[1] that makes what _you 're_ talking about precise. What you do is you ask weather an extended language can express a piece of syntax with respect to the base language. Your statement then becomes:

Let C* be C++, but without while() or for(). Then, (i) C* + for() can express while() with respect to C _. (ii) C_ \+ while() can express for() with respect to C*.

And all of this is made completely formal, and it's used to talk about the expressive power of programming languages.

[1] [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.51....](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.51.4656&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

<comment><USER2> I agree, it's only a question of terminology. My comment was only that the definition as given was incomplete.

Thanks for the link. It's too much beyond me to really follow, but I've no doubt that such a definition is possible.

Would you say that Python's with statement is sugar? The PEP at [https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0343/](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0343/) might suggest so, but Python has no way to generate new unique symbols for variables, so the translation of:

      with open(filename):
         pass

can't trivially be converted to:

            mgr = (open(filename))
            exit = type(mgr).__exit__  # Not calling it yet
            value = type(mgr).__enter__(mgr)
            exc = True
            ...

because of possible name collisions.

<comment><USER3> Renaming things isn't something you as a programmer should have to do; that should be handled behind the scenes by the desugaring system / macro expander. So yeah, I'd say that's a fine piece of sugar.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


John Carmack on the Joe Rogan Experience [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udlMSe5-zP8 <comment><USER2> On open sourcing Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake: [https://youtu.be/udlMSe5-zP8?t=591](https://youtu.be/udlMSe5-zP8?t=591)

Neuralink: [https://youtu.be/udlMSe5-zP8?t=2523](https://youtu.be/udlMSe5-zP8?t=2523)

Artificial General Intelligence: [https://youtu.be/udlMSe5-zP8?t=2778](https://youtu.be/udlMSe5-zP8?t=2778)

Quantum Computing: [https://youtu.be/udlMSe5-zP8?t=3106](https://youtu.be/udlMSe5-zP8?t=3106)

"Engineering is figuring out how to do what you want with what you've actually got": [https://youtu.be/udlMSe5-zP8?t=3190](https://youtu.be/udlMSe5-zP8?t=3190)

End of Moore's Law / On CPU architecture: [https://youtu.be/udlMSe5-zP8?t=3860](https://youtu.be/udlMSe5-zP8?t=3860)

5G and streaming (games & video): [https://youtu.be/udlMSe5-zP8?t=4288](https://youtu.be/udlMSe5-zP8?t=4288)

edit: like already mentioned there are a lot of topics covered, some even for just a few sentences, the conversation flows, worth watching the whole thing

<comment><USER3> Carmack briefly mentions 5G and streaming games. I think there is good economic reason for the 5G gaming is eventually coming (it may take some time) because low latency enables it.

If you think about the price of gaming PC or console, there is huge discrepancy between the budget of hardcore gaming enthusiast and casual gamer. It would be nice to get $5000 gaming tower in every house, but you don't. Many casual gamers would rent $5000 - $10,000 worth of gaming hardware for few hours a week it was simple. Only way to get bleeding edge high-end gaming to masses is to put GPU and some other parts to the edge (or at least within the same city) and stream or partially stream the game to cheaper computer device and screens.

Consider $5,000 worth of bleeding edge hardware that costs $1/hour to run. If you rent it for $8/hour, and it only sells for 5 hours per day for gaming, the HW pays itself back in 5 months. It could be rented out for other stuff in the meantime. Cloudflare, what do you think?

I could see a market emerging similar to school VHS/DVD/Game rentals. There is limited computational resource near you and you can rent it for gaming. If all is taken (weekend evenings) the 'shelves' are empty. On working/school days and hours you get the same thing cheaper.

It probably happens in Japan, South Korea and Nordic countries first.

<comment><USER4> There seems to be confusion about what hardcore gaming means? Competive Gaming, high-end user experience or bragging rights spec based enthusiasts.

My benchmark would be the XBox One X, which is perfectly capable of 4k 60 fps gaming with HDR and Atmos, try to get that stable running with any PC, good luck. That's 400 for the console and in total under 2000 if you need to get an additional OLED-TV and Atmos-enabled-speakerset, which are not exclusively gaming budget.

The only shortcoming there is the absence of fast current generation NVMe mass storage and RTX-enabled GPU.

Reasonable high end PC gaming is possible well below $2000 or even $1000, even $500 will get you decent performance for even casual competetive gameplay.

The priceyness of gaming rigs setups comes from the insane demand of getting an edge at 4k 120+fps in FPS-shooters. That bracket can't be conviced by any streaming services physical limitations for the next 10 year or so at least.

<comment><USER5> >try to get that stable running with any PC

Easy. It will obviously be more much expensive than a console, but it's perfectly doable if you have the budget for it

<comment><USER4> I have the budget, but not the time. Unless by budget you mean paying you own household QA technician. Dolby Atmos over HDMI and HDR does not rhyme with NVIDIA drivers, or very few of them, which then again tends to breaks my VR.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/ao4c0u/anyone_with_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/ao4c0u/anyone_with_working_dolby_atmos_what_nvidia/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> John is like many of the people Ive met that have no problem conveying a lot of dense information quickly and easily and avoiding speech patterns that are overly technical and difficult to understand. Some of the most intelligent people I know are able to do that. That is a very underrated skill that I wish I had. I forever stumble on words when Im explaining something complicated/technical. Its like a cognitive dissonance that I am fighting between saying technical jargon and dumb-ing down to layman's terms. Im sure being on the other end of that it is perceived as condescending or just that I dont know what Im talking about.

<comment><USER7> One issue I have is that I can't bullshit people. I had a friend who I was trying to explain things to, and often I made it too complicated. Another friend explained it to her satisfaction, but I thought the particular explanation given was deceiving. And yet she didn't care. I think it is possible to be honest and yet simplify things to whatever level, but I'd rather fail at explaining than give a false explanation.

<comment><USER8> I find it's good to let people know that 'it's actually a bit more complicated than this, but...'

<comment><USER9> To illustrate this I like to use the analogy of very basic physics.

Even someone who never took calculus can usually grasp the concept of first learning ideal velocity and acceleration, then adding details like friction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's really great how he pushed so hard to open source the previous generation of each game when releasing a new one. It's hard to tell how much that pushed the industry forward, but I'm sure a _lot_ of people became better C programmers as a result.

The "smell in VR" kits in this interview were interesting. I hadn't realized so much progress had been made on that front (or that it would take so much to make it as convincing as visual input).

<comment><USER11> > but I'm sure a lot of people became better C programmers as a result.

A lot of people also became professional [level] designers because of his works - Doom was innotivative, among the many things, in the fact that it was designed from the ground up for extension (modding).

<comment><USER12> Indeed, and Valve hired a bunch of people from the Doom/Quake modding scene for Half-Life 1.

<comment><USER13> Valve's engine was also based off and licensed from Quake's.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> He talks about AGI at [https://youtu.be/udlMSe5-zP8?t=2776](https://youtu.be/udlMSe5-zP8?t=2776)

I wonder if all the really smart people who think AGI is around the corner know something I don't. Well, clearly they know a lot of things that I don't, but I wonder if there's some decisive piece of information I'm missing. I'm a "strict materialist" too, but that doesn't mean I think we can build a brain or a sun or a planet or etc within X years, it just means that I think it's _technically possible_ to build those things.

I don't see how we get from "neural net that's really good at identifying objects" to "general intelligence". The emphasis on computational power also makes no sense to me. If we had infinite compute _today_ , what steps would you take to build AGI? Does anyone have any good ideas about that?

Sometimes I wonder if AGI (and the concept of a "technological singularity") isn't just "intelligent design for people with north of 140 IQ". Maybe really smart people tend to develop a blindspot for really hard problems (because they've solved so many of them so effectively).

<comment><USER15> The problem here seems to be that you think the state of the art resembles "being really good at identifying objects". This makes it clear that you are not keeping up with the frontier. I recommend looking up DeepMind's 2019 papers, they are easily discoverable.

When you read them, you will probably update in the direction of "AGI soon". It's possible that you won't see what the big deal is, I suppose. I personally see what Carmack and others see, a feasible path to generality, and even some specific promising precursors to generality.

It also helps to be familiar with the most current cognitive neuroscience papers, but that's asking a lot.

<comment><USER16> What are some of the highlights from DeepMind that gives you optimism for a path to AGI? I am not seeing it, personally.

<comment><USER17> Is there anything in the structure of the brain that makes you think "of course this is an AGI"? For me, the answer is no. That's why I think progress on narrow AI and AGI is going to be unpredictable. Nobody will see the arrival of an AGI until it's here.

<comment><USER18> Some also think that nobody will see the arrival of an AGI even after it's here, because after arrival there will be no one left to see.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> For those of you skipping to the heavily programming heavy parts I'd heartily suggest listening to the whole thing. There's a lot in there about life, balance, working conditions in gaming, the need for sleep, martial arts, etc. Lots of topics are discussed. It's a great episode.

<comment><USER20> And twin-turbo'ing a Testarossa to 1009 hp AT THE WHEELS

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> For those interested in the development of Doom (And Wolf3D, Keen, ..), or the story of iD software in general, I quite recommend reading "Masters of Doom".

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/222146.Masters_of_Doom?f...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/222146.Masters_of_Doom?from_search=true)

Coincidentally, I just started re-reading it last week. It's quite a fun book :)

<comment><USER22> Very fun book indeed, the audiobook is also very good. (narrated by Wil Wheaton) [https://www.audible.com/pd/Masters-of-Doom- Audiobook/B008K8B...](https://www.audible.com/pd/Masters-of-Doom- Audiobook/B008K8BQG6)

<comment><USER23> I find Will Wheaton's audiobook narration very annoying.

Stopped reading Red Shirts because of his childish voice acting.

<comment><USER22> I can definitely see him becoming annoying for some contexts, but for this book I found his exciting enthusiasm perfect, reminded me of that early university/student energy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> John Carmack is the perfect ultra nerd for this format. He's so good at communicating complex ideas, to the point that even less-informed people will enjoy this podcast. Dude's a hero.

</comment><comment><USER25> If you've ever watched a QuakeCon talk, this is pretty much what you'd expect.

The one thing of note that I disagree with is his opinion on general AI. I think that could take centuries, and that it's kind of like trying to predict when some unsolved math problem will be solved.

<comment><USER26> There is no real evidence that computers can be programmed to intelligently invent and act on their own thought processes. All notable AI techniques to date specify in exhausting detail the thought processes that the AI should execute in carefully constructed algorithms. We're getting closer to the point where we can tell the computer to "think and act like a human" and in more and more domains it succeeds. But we're as far as ever from "think for yourself".

<comment><USER27> Any intelligent process has to emerge from the action of non-intelligent components.

Your argument is the same as saying that a hurricane could never form because air molecules do not contain wind, and water molecules do not contain rain.

<comment><USER28> I'm skeptical of any argument which hinges on the word "emerge" or "emergent". Consider: "consciousness is an emergent property of brains" vs "consciousness is a magical property of brains".

<comment><USER27> Does 'macroscopic property' make you feel better? Like heat, or entropy or any of the many properties in nature that are a consequence of the combined actions of their constituent material.

Any other explanation would have to rely on the property being explained existing all the way down to electrons and quarks.

Atoms aren't a liquid, but room temperature water is. At some point, the property of being a liquid emerges through the combined behavior of collections of atoms.

We know that people are intelligent, we know that atoms are not. At some point, the property of being intelligent must arise from the combined action of their constituent parts. We have theories about how that happens, but no way to reproduce it as of yet using computers — it may not be possible. But there is no reason in principle that just because computers are comprised of non intelligent components, that they cannot give rise to an intelligent system. Humans are one example where such a thing has happened— I don't think anyone would suggest that neurons have intelligence and even if you believed that, one certainly can't believe that electrons and quarks do.

Of course one could posit a non physical entity or force which somehow exists in people and does not in machines which gives rise to intelligence, but to say the least that requires a great deal more evidence than we currently have for that before I would accept that as an explanation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Carmack makes good point about VR in the beginning. For people who live in tight spaces VR can be way to do conventional things like watch films and YouTube. This kind of conventional use could be what bootstraps VR markets.

VR headset tech is in a weird situation where none of them is really good enough, but when you test the best in the market it destroys the enjoyment you get from previous generation. I tested 20 minutes $6000 Vario VR-1 where the market is professional use and now anything consumer grade feels like total crap.

<comment><USER29> I'm not betting my whole stack on it, but I would bet some on the idea that an imminent breakthrough/killer-app for consumer VR will be exercise. Could be VR gyms. Could be home use.

Take a current-gen oculus/etc. Add a heart rate monitor, foot tracking, maybe weighted controllers... you have some excellent workout potential. If price can get to <$300, they will sell

A lot of the top games atm (beat saber, superhot, boxvr) are pretty exercise- ey. Combining gamified fun/addictiveness, in-home convenience & all the advantages of digitization (eg adjust speed in response to heart rate)... I reckon it will be effective. We're not far from it.

An exercise-centric home VR console and/or VR gyms...

<comment><USER30> The killer app for VR is going to be escapism. There is going to be a future where you're going to purchase experiences from companies. There will be an underground, sex will be huge, travel, alter egos, just like in sci-fi movies. Just wait until VR is like The Beam/Matrix, where you actually feel and sense everything happening. People will be jacked in for most of their life. I envision this being particularly popular for people nearing the end of their lives, or disabled & crippled.

<comment><USER31> I don't want VR to simulate things I can actually do. I want VR to simulate things I can never do.

A bunch of people "walking though a forest" while on treadmills in microapartments sounds dystopian.

<comment><USER30> When you're old, feeble, handicapped, or unfortunately unattractive, these are all things you can never do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> 0-_-0 For those interested in all of Carmack's clever hacks in the Wolfenstein and Doom source code that made it possible to run these games on PCs of the day, the Game Engine Black Books are a great read (they are also free):

[http://fabiensanglard.net/gebb/index.html](http://fabiensanglard.net/gebb/index.html)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> For those who don't have time to watch/listen to the whole podcast ( _you should though_ ), you can get the highlights on Joe Rogan's other channel, JRE Clips:

[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnxGkOGNMqQEUMvroOWps6Q/vid...](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnxGkOGNMqQEUMvroOWps6Q/videos)

</comment><comment><USER32> Nice to see Team Fortress (Quake 1 mod) get a shout out. 23 years later, we've still got a team developing and playing it. [https://www.fortressone.org/](https://www.fortressone.org/)

<comment><USER33> I hadn't heard about this project, thanks for sharing!!! QWTF was one of my first competitive games and I loved making custom maps for it.

<comment><USER34> Map making for Quake has come a long way with Trenchbroom. We're always looking for more maps - join the discord and say hello!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> John Carmack is one of the most eloquent programmers I have heard.

<comment><USER36> yeah, but he could take a breath every once in a while

<comment><USER35> He programmed his nostrils to breathe in parallel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Interesting perspective on work-life balance, certainly contrary to the usual discussion online on these issues [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udlMSe5-zP8&t=1h27m10s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udlMSe5-zP8&t=1h27m10s)

</comment><comment><USER38> The legend himself. Waiting for this one for a few days.

</comment><comment> ur-whale Not directly related, but everytime John's name pops up, it always reminds me of one of his quotes:

         "Damn spooky analog crap." -- John Carmack

<comment><USER39> Any context for this quote ? Google didn't find anything behind people using it in their email signature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Do they spend much time talking about Armadillo and/or rocketry? I'm curious to hear Carmack talk about those topics but I'm not sure I want to wade through 2 1/2 hours of Rogan if he doesn't delve into rocketry.

<comment><USER41> Starts right about here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udlMSe5-zP8&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udlMSe5-zP8&feature=youtu.be&t=7856)

2:10:56

<comment><USER42> This part through the end is pretty incredible! He's a nonstop stream of intellect.

<comment><USER41> The entire podcast is like this, highly recommend the entire episode.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Really enjoyed that one!!! Fascinating to hear his story of how he pushed to open source games... and how they started with allowing modding, then custom scripting support, then open source. "The business folks didn't like it" :-)

</comment><comment> seph-reed What if attaching digital inputs to our neurons and self hacking is the major leap that will bring AGI out?

</comment><comment><USER44> Everyone is already a phone head. Can't say I am looking forward to everyone being a VR head.

</comment><comment><USER45> I liked so much the video. Pretty interesting.

</comment><comment><USER46> People hate on Joe Rogan but I think he is an excellent host, the podcast has people from all perspectives on and he manages not to offend any of them, most come on subsequent episodes. I'll take a Rogan interview over some opinionated bullshit clip from CNN/MSNBC/FOX.

<comment><USER47> People hate on him _because_ he's an excellent host, and his lack of "outrage" on controversial topics goes against the fiber of their beings.

<comment><USER48> What you call a "lack of outrage on controversial topics" would be more accurately called "unwillingness to seriously challenge the terrible ideas he gives a platform to"

<comment><USER49> His job is not to challenge his guest's ideas, it is precisely to give them a platform. Weak people are afraid of ideas and thus dislike this very notion.

<comment><USER50> Agreed. I don't want to see hosts challenging their guests' ideas. I appreciate Sean Carrol's physics podcasts for exactly the same reason: he doesn't always agree with his guest's interpretation of quantum mechanics or understanding of consciousness, but he does not argue with them - he helps them present their best case.

If you want to see guests arguing with their hosts, well that's a form of entertainment you can get on cable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Why was this flagged and deleted yesterday. Anyway def awesome well worth watching

</comment><comment><USER10> How is it that this post is ranked 77 with 52 points in 3 hours and only one comment???

Meanwhile "Exploring Weight Agnostic Neural Networks" is at #2 with the same age and only 46 points...

If people are flagging something like this that's so directly in the sweet spot of "interesting to hackers" and non-flamewar inducing as this, then I hope the mods aren't asleep at the wheel!

<comment><USER52> There are probably a lot of Joe Rogan reflexive downvoters because _gasp_ he had some less-than-Carmackian guests on his show.

<comment><USER10> HN doesn't have down votes for stories AFIK. People are probably abusing the flag feature over 2nd degree associations that don't come up _at all_ in this video.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is a very old HTML+CSS+JavaScript website that still works today? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> [https://thoughtcatalog.com/jeremy-london/2018/09/oldest- webs...](https://thoughtcatalog.com/jeremy-london/2018/09/oldest-websites-on- the-internet/)

<comment><AUTHOR> I looked through these, but it seems none of them makes use of Javascript.

<comment><USER3> FogCam does [https://www.fogcam.org/](https://www.fogcam.org/) That site is from 1994</comment></comment></comment>


Twitter invests $70M in Soundcloud - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/business/media/twitter-invests-70-million-in-soundcloud-music-service.html <comment><AUTHOR> With this and the purchasing of rights to NFL games, I like Twitter's media strategy. Think they need more of this, though not sure how much cash they have so gotta see the ROI before going too crazy with this spending spree.</comment>


New New Twitter: Major Privacy Invasion - <AUTHOR> http://mikecanex.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/new-new-twitter-major-privacy-invasion/

<comment><USER2> I'm not exactly sure what the issue is. This isn't (as far as I know) information that wasn't available before. It's just that it's now aggregated in an easier to reach location...</comment>


Ask HN: Using open source platforms for web app development - <AUTHOR>

For the past couple months, I've been researching and testing platforms such as Drupal and Joomla.  These content management systems are very flexible, and seem like an easy way to develop a web app of sorts.  Do you think its wise to use open source coding to try and build and market a branded service?  In todays market, it is important to keep in mind how easily a competitor could duplicate your offerings.  This would seem inevitable with these sort of platforms. <comment><USER2> I don't think how easily someone can duplicate your site is a reason for concern. If they can duplicate it in a weekend, you probably don't have much of IP value. If the proprietary system makes it easier to develop, then it may be of some value. If it makes it harder to develop, then you have shot yourself in the foot twice.

Someone trying to reverse engineer your site probably wouldn't use anything of yours. They would start fresh with their own set of tools.

I am pretty much biased towards open source, because it's cheaper, evolves faster, and you can mix and match.

</comment><comment><USER3> Choosing a closed source development platform specifically for web app development generally isn't going to increase the difficulty involved in reverse engineering all or part of your feature set so it makes sense to go with a framework that is well supported and works well with your infrastructure & current workflow.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you can purchase a proprietary solution, so can the competitor. In terms of competition, I think you're better off focusing on end product value rather than obfuscation. Obfuscation may make it more difficult to duplicate your effort, but it also may make further effort more difficult, hurting the product in the long run. Adding value not only give more for competition to duplicate, but also allows you to charge more and garner more customers.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think there's a good general rule when it comes to this "build v buy" decision, no matter if the price of the software you're considering to buy is 0 or 10 million:

The thing that is at the core of your product you must build yourself. Otherwise you're always going to be hampered in your effort to make it excellent. The problem is not that others can copy it, the problem is that your product is going to be shit, regardless of whether or not it is copied.

Everything that is not at the center of your product you must buy, as building it will only distract from what you actually need to do.

I know this is very general, but I don't know much about you or your ideas. I'll still try make this more concrete:

If your product is software or a service that depends on the quality of software, then don't touch CMSs. Build from scratch (not including the operating system)!

If you are a teacher or a tax advisor who creates great content for his clients, just set up and customise your joomla and publish your stuff there. Don't bother to build software!</comment>


Calculating Startup Costs; Obama's Small-Biz PItch - <AUTHOR> http://blog.inc.com/archives/2009/10/calculating_sta.html?partner=rss <comment><USER2> Skip it - this is just an intro</comment>


6th graders have to deal with a friend's feed of him watching rape porn - <AUTHOR> https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/12/12/when-6th-graders-can-access-rape-porn-on-their-smartphones-school-becomes-toxic <comment><AUTHOR> ## Heatache

In a real way, this article shows how 6th grade life is into the "6 degrees of separation from seeing evil"

In light of these hopefully overblown and hyperbolic headlines I am crushed for parents who lack the skills or knowhow to protect their young minds; I so hope that the article is hyperbole, but if the article contains a modicum of truth, I feel like I have a burden to help advocate for sensible parental advice to other parents.

## Call to Action

After getting the list started, it seems like there are two categorical solutions: technical + non-technical strategies. I would love your help to compile these things so I can tell them to anyone who will listen.

### Technical

1\. I have a the home router set to turn off the internet to the kids at night

2\. Use DNS Filtering (eg: `openDNS`) on the home WiFi

3\. Copy the DNS settings to the child's device

4\. Require Access to your children's social accounts and spot check it a few times so as to seem like there might be a check at any time.

5\. Use Parental Controls when sensible

### Non Technical

1\. Be very upfront (but age appropriate) with your kids

2\. Proactive communication about sexual education

3: Delay access to a phone as long as is reasonable

## What Else?

I now put it out to the community - What are other effective strategies/methods you have used?</comment>


Couchdrop – Secure cloud upload server - <AUTHOR> https://couchdrop.io <comment><USER2> Not bad, trying it out for some use cases it could fit quite well. Cheers!

Good:

* Temporary credentials, that can be added e.g. per machine basis (very useful!)

* Very simple Dropbox integration

Bad:

* No way to upload to a subdirectory (but in dropbox root), it should be really like other Dropbox apps, that goes to a separate Apps/ dir.

* No way to separate uploads into directories either, eg. `scp filename user@host:somewhere/` will actually create a "somewhere" file, instead of "filename". `scp filename user@host:somewhere/filename` will upload nothing.

Ugly:

* I'm logged in as "Signed in as michael.lawson", not sure what is going on, account info leaking across accounts, or it's just a placeholder text set up left over from somewhere?

* Using `ssh-dss` server host key, have to explicitly enable in my ssh settings with HostKeyAlgorithms (see [http://www.openssh.com/legacy.html](http://www.openssh.com/legacy.html))

* Password authentication with SSH, so either run it interactively, or use `sshpass` to do upload in a script non-interactively.

<comment><USER3> michael.lawson looks like someone who forgot you clean up code and who wrote the program (footnote of page): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12109739](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12109739)

<comment><USER4> Oh man, he's going to be internet-famous in a few days if that doesn't get fixed. Next time he applies for a software job, the technical interviewer will be like "Micheal Lawson? The Micheal Lawson?! <insert new meme>"

<comment><USER4> Nous sommes tous Micheal Lawson

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The first 'default' tentative failed:

      $ scp g13578.png <user>@ssh.couchdrop.io:
      Unable to negotiate with 188.8.131.52 port 22: no matching host key type found.
      Their offer: ssh-dss

The second works with a small fix:

      $ scp -oHostKeyAlgorithms=+ssh-dss g13578.png <user>@ssh.couchdrop.io:
      Password authentication
      Password: xxx

but I don't understand why I'm logged as michael.lawson!?!

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure why that is, but michael.lawson is the author of the tool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> How again do I increase security by adding a middleman server to the process that I don't even know? How do I know what happens to my files exactly? How do I know I can trust you guys with my files?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Sourcecode has just been released to github. [https://github.com/bluewhale/couchdrop](https://github.com/bluewhale/couchdrop)

</comment><comment><USER8> Website not usable on iOS. For any company or organisation, never mind a technology focused operation, this really should not be the case.

<comment><USER9> Curious why you don't direct that at the company responsible for iOS?

<comment><USER10> Seriously? Was it Netscape's fault when someone built a site that only worked in IE?

<comment><USER9> When you use an OS that is well known for rendering html/css issues I can't see why you would be surprised and not direct that to Apple.

<comment><USER10> Why not both? I assume some rendering issues can occur, but I expect competent developers to deliver some degree of usability across mainstream browsers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Clever idea. I'd be a bit hesitant to hand account credentials over to a service like this, but there are people who are more comfortable with that than I. One nitpick about the landing page, though:

> This means you can upload your files direct to your desktop from devices > that do not support Dropbox or Amazon AWS storage and its secure.

Services like this really ought to have proper spelling and grammar on the landing page. This is a run-on sentence. It also uses "its" where "it's" should be used. It doesn't matter to me (I have no use for something like this), but it's likely going to put some people off.

I'd suggest just changing it to "securely upload", and get rid of the end of the line entirely.

</comment><comment><USER12> is this actually working already? signed up, logged in and it says signed in as michael.lawson on the upper right.

<comment><USER13> Same, I cant add any DB account.

Is it possible to mount and list files using fuse or sshfs ? or is it just write only ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Good idea, I need it. but michael.lawson on top ???? Many security issues involve. Better make it open source.

</comment><comment><USER15> This looks like a really good idea! The only thing is that I'd rather not give it full Dropbox access.

</comment><comment><USER16> You can attach a Dropbox or a Google Drive folder to your server and then access them via SCP?

<comment><USER17> It looks like it only works with AWS and Dropbox. For Google Drive you'll need another encryption tool like Syncdocs [http://syncdocs.com](http://syncdocs.com)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> sorry but when should I use this?

</comment><comment><USER19> Wouldn't a completely stateless read/only server be a lot more secure?

</comment><comment><USER20> anyone know what the privacy policy on this? i am guessing they(clouchdrop) can read/write your dropbox/s3?

</comment><comment><USER21> I don't know. I was not blown away. I don't know why it is 'robotic' all it is doing is sliding one way or another. You could make something out of MDF on wheels and move it by hand easily. Much less effort and complexity.

<comment><USER22> Wrong thread?</comment></comment>


Generation Jobless: Students Pick Easier Majors Despite Less Pay - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203733504577026212798573518.html

<comment><USER2> Hmm. I am a 20 years old college dropout, who gone to college for only two semester. Poor study management skill lead me to drop a science class and then some in the middle of my last semester. I use the free time in between to build up my coding skill using my freed up willpower. Due to my scheluding error, I miss the exam for my English, which I was previously enjoying good grade in. I failed to qualify for the next semester of college.

Though fruitful networking and association during my teen years, I manages to get a job programming and moved myself to another state. I make crap wage, which is to be expected for a twenty year old.

Nonetheless, I managed to save myself in less than six month a few thousand dollars in addition to a few thousands I already have from a small investment that somehow paid off. I am in a far better position, financially than most people of my age, probably.

Moral of the story? I am not quite sure. I choose the right field that I am interested in. Of course, my profession does not impose such a heavy burden educational requirement or have high capital cost.

If I aspired to be a doctor or an engineer, I am quite certain I will be a crushed person, in which my life will be short and brutish.</comment>


Chrome (Canary) Now Only Shows Domain Info (Instead of Full URL) - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/CarlSednaoui/status/456158531746426880 <comment><USER2> Well... I see the next Firefox "feature" that will need to be disabled.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> You can still access the full URL by clicking on the domain name. Here's an example: [http://imgur.com/eOLruTn,9VvjbEJ#1](http://imgur.com/eOLruTn,9VvjbEJ#1)

</comment><comment><USER3> Will there be an option to turn this off?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, there's an option called "Enable origin chip in Omnibox" which you can set to disabled.

This option is available via the Chrome flags: chrome://flags/

<comment><USER3> Thank you sir! I think it does look nice but I don't think I want that functionality.</comment></comment></comment>


Programming Strategies and Mood and how they affect your decisions - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@latoza/programming-strategically-aab8ed572cfb <comment><AUTHOR> What are programming strategies, how can we leverage them to be better developers? what kinds of things impact the strategies we choose? When you're angry, do you code differently than when you're happy? Follow the link to read more!</comment>


How Can You Tell a False Memory From a True One? - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2013/09/elizabeth_loftus_interview_false_memory_research_on_eyewitnesses_child_abuse.html

<comment><USER2> tl;dr:

AG: Is there any way to distinguish a false memory from a real one? EL: Without independent corroboration, little can be done to tell a false memory from a true one.

AG: Could brain imaging one day be used to do this? EL: I collaborated on a brain imaging study in 2010, and the overwhelming conclusion we reached is that the neural patterns were very similar for true and false memories. We are a long way away from being able to look at somebody's brain activity and reliably classify an authentic memory versus one that arose through some other process.

<comment><USER3> I think the biggest giveaway from this article isn't how do you tell a false memory from the real one (because you can't), but the fact that you can have false memories at all. You can be 100% sure that something happened and at the same time be 100% wrong. This happened to me at least once and raises your humility - you never can be 100% right about something. Memory is malleable and it can play tricks on you.

<comment><USER4> One of my favorite facts is that you can be completely wrong about your current conscious experience, nevermind your memories. A few neat papers on this have been written by Eric Shwitzgebel ( [http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/](http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/) ) such as _Why Did We Think That We Dreamed in Black and White?_ and _How Well Do We Know Our Own Conscious Experience? The Case of Human Echolocation_ , or even scarier: _Knowing Your Own Beliefs_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This should be pretty obvious. In basic terms, it would be extremely inefficient for the brain to store everything "directly." Meaning all memories are "reconstructions" to some extent and therefore inherently flighty given the dynamism of the brain. Said differently, it would be weird if the brain _didn 't_ take advantage of the very high-level abstractions we use in our day-to-day for the purpose of efficient memory storage.

Anecdotally, one time I re-played in my head an entire movie after I watched it (Astro Boy!) as an experimental exercise, and it was clear that as I was 'recalling' it, the line between "reconstruction" and "direct memory" was extremely blurry, and I could feel my own eagerness to fill in details that may or may not have occurred.

</comment><comment><USER6> I can't tell if I read the article or not.

</comment><comment><USER7> Hmm... At least for normal people memories of events that haven't happened in real life [but happened in sleep, video games, films, books; or just been imagined] are certainly distinguishable from memories of events that did happen in the real world. Even without external references. There's some metadata present that marks these memories as 'not recorded in the real world'. And even aside from that metadata, continuity and memory quality normally gives pretty damn good clues. No need to ask for 'independent corroboration'. <striked>And, if the opposite was true, you wouldn't be able to distinguish a memory from your last night dreams from a memory of a previous day. As simple as that.</striked>

 _Edit_ : rm anecdotal evidence.

<comment><USER8> Must every article of this nature on HN be accompanied by an idiotic comment that refutes science with anecdote? I'm getting righteously tired of it.

<comment><USER7> Can you be more specific, what particular parts of my comment are you finding to be idiotic?

I do have formal background in machine learning, computer science and had taken classes in neuroscience. I am a PhD dropout and I did original research in computer vision. I have every right to comment on articles written by specialists on 'false memories'.

<comment><USER8> I don't really understand why you bring up machine learning and computer science, since this is a completely different field. Classes in neuroscience would apply, but that's not all that impressive.

What I find to be idiotic is how trivial you make your contradiction, without any facts to back it up, adding computerish language to pander to the HN crowd ("metadata", really?), when it's extremely well established that people, with disturbing frequency, remember things that simply did not happen.

It's fine to disagree, but this sort of straightforward contradiction adds little to the conversation. It's the internet equivalent of Monty Python's argument clinic.

<comment><USER7> Just check some real, no bullshit, modern research like this: [https://sites.google.com/site/gallantlabucb/publications/nis...](https://sites.google.com/site/gallantlabucb/publications/nishimoto- et-al-2011)

Who do you think are these researchers? More ML or more neuroscience?

///These disciplines are very relevant to understanding how memories are stored. More relevant than neuroscience in fact. Say, if you'd study modern computer vision, you will have some understanding about mechanisms in the works of human visual subsystem; about how humans memorize, recognize and associate images and image sequences. You will not have that understanding, if you'd study modern (basic) neuroscience.

<comment><USER8> You _might_ have some _ideas_ about how the brain _might_ work from studying machine learning. But for the most part, it's going to be like learning about how fish swim by building a submarine.

<comment><USER7> Nope :) You _might_ have some _ideas_ about how the brain _might_ work from bullshitters, like that 'false memory specialist' who gave interview to slate.

And you actually might learn some real stuff from people like these guys from UC Berkeley, who can recover video sequences by identifying an ML model with the visual cortex an then proceeding further and recovering unseen video sequences from fMRI of V4 area of neocortex.

... Now I only wish I could find a forum where a link to a research publication like this:

* [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031698](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031698) [Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies]

Would not have an order of magnitude less interest than a link to a slate article like this:

* [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349590](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349590) [ How Can You Tell a False Memory From a True One?]

<comment><USER8> I don't understand what reconstructing visual experiences from the brain using scanning equipment has to do with the mechanisms of memory or the possibility of remembering things that didn't occur. They're completely different things.

The mechanisms of memory are not, as far as I know, well understood. However, it's well established that people can and routinely do remember things that did not occur. The why and how may be speculative, but the fact that it happens is not.

<comment><USER7> If you want to understand why this example is so relevant, try to understand what _exactly_ step-by-step they did to recover these images.

Here is the link again: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031698](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031698) [Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies]

Hint: how can you explain that sometimes, the recovered image contains an object completely different from that seen by a subject of the experiment? [say, tree instead of a man]

Hint: can similar experiment be done with the part of the pre-frontal cortex responsible for associating visual memories with the condition in which these memories were formed? [imagined, dreamed, seen]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Then finally you go into therapy and crack through the repression barrier and out comes this pristine memory. But there really is no credible scientific support for that notion."

I personally had a repressed memory and it was uncovered in therapy. I am lucky that my mom is still alive and was able to verify the memories.

It's obvious to me from the snark in her tone like the word "pristine" and the rest of the article that she is a shill for defense attorneys.

<comment><USER10> I think you and she disagree about what a "repressed memory" is. Maybe what you call "a repressed memory" she'd call conveniently forgotten. I think what she takes issue with is the idea that "in order to go on in life, you had to wall off this memory, because it would be too painful to live with." That you remembered a memory in therapy does not mean that you necessarily walled it off previously because it was too painful to live with. Or maybe you did, but she says there is not yet "credible scientific support." Maybe the research just hasn't been done yet.

Seems like her attitude towards "repressed memory" is an overly literal reaction against colloquially popular definitions of repressed memories. Perhaps her attitude is for the best because by not believing in the notion of repressed memories we prevent ourselves from having them? Still, isn't that some form of repression?!

<comment><USER9> "in order to go on in life, you had to wall off this memory, because it would be too painful to live with."

That was my experience. There were some embarrassing and traumatic events when I was a child. Throughout the rest of my childhood there were frequent reminders of the events. If I brought the events up later to my parent's they wouldn't acknowledge them, and they strongly discourage me from discussing it. These were significant events that led to my parent's divorce and I repressed them. When I recalled them later it was very emotional.

With regards to research and scientific proof... I don't know how you would prove it. How can others verify my experience. It's not easily repeatable. Even if it were repeatable... how could you prove something like that in an ethical way without traumatizing people.</comment></comment></comment>


Black Keys Respond to Steve Miller Rant - <AUTHOR> http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/black-keys-we-regret-inducting-steve-miller-after-rock-hall-insults-20160413 <comment><AUTHOR> Auerbach:

> _It 's almost like he doesn't have respect for the younger generations and > how hard it is in the business today. When he made his first record, he did > it at Olympic Studios with Glyn Johns. Pat and I made our first record in a > basement with broken gear._

Ouch. Needless to say, I probably agree with him on this one. He does touch on the concept of gratitude, which I think is really a good thing in music and did seem outside of Steve Miller's original rant.

However, on this point:

> _But we were there, unpaid, on our own free will, to come celebrate his > achievements and spread the joy of rock & roll. To inspire kids to pick up > guitars. To play music. And it felt like we were doing the opposite._

Maybe, but a reality check is completely appropriate in this environment of instant gratification. A lot of the music industry seems to prey on people being naive. Miller's rant definitely did away with some of the artificial gloss in my opinion.

</comment><comment><USER2> The only smart guys were Ozzy, Axel Rose, and the Sex Pistols.

They basically told the RR Hall of Fame to fuck off.

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is for bands like the Black Keys or Justin Bieber..Steve Miller should have had enough sense to tell them to eat shit...</comment>


Disney: Bob Iger bets the company (and Hollywood's future) on streaming - <AUTHOR> https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/bob-iger-bets-company-hollywood-s-future-streaming-1247663 <comment><USER2> While his position is [partly] accurate, it's not exactly revelatory. People, notably internet pirates, were saying this 20 years ago.

People are going to get fed up if they've got to pay for dozens of streaming services to get all the shows that they want. On top of that, a lot of these platforms are still shoving ads in our faces. If streaming manages to become worse than cable, people might just spend less time watching all that crap... which is a good thing anyway.

<comment><USER3> > People are going to get fed up if they've got to pay for dozens of streaming > services to get all the shows that they wa

I agree. You start paying $70 for internet, $15 to Netflix, $15 to Disney, $10 to Hulu and really you're back to where you were with cable. I think having a couple offerings in the universe is great for competition reasons, but I will not spend the equivalent of a cable bill to get most of what I want to watch from mutually exclusive services.

I'm not saying I'll pirate the shows I can't get, but it certainly makes a good case for that.

<comment><USER4> I think we are close to seeing the "true cost" for TV show production and distribution. I have a feeling that before the Internet, advertisers couldn't measure the return on their investment, and so were paying too much for TV ads, making TV cheap for the end user. In addition, people were forced to buy channels they didn't watch, subsidizing them for people that did. Now we are close to paying the true cost. I think that's better for the companies involved and for the consumer; the only incentive is to produce TV that they want to watch. You don't like it, you stop paying them, they go out of business. That is the most fair of all business models.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Amazon, Apple, Disney, HBO Max, Hulu, Peacock, ..., oh, and Netflix. How many monthly memberships are people going to want to pay for, especially when there is already a huge library of free content on YouTube? Interesting times...

<comment><USER6> This is strictly worse than cable.

Streaming in the 2010s was a breath of fresh air. You could find everything on one platform, watch it at your leisure, and pay way less than cable.

Now we're going to have to pay more _AND_ switch between nine different apps with broken UIs.

This is god awful. All of this because of greed and a lack of regulation.

We need to campaign for limited copyright (20 years), and build services like Spotify that have everything and merely pay the rights holders.

Disney needs to be broken up. They own 90% of American pop culture. They're going to begin protection racketing theaters and dumbing down everything to appease the masses (and foreign governments).

God, I hate what the Internet is becoming.

<comment><USER7> Yet another post on HN about a company that needs to be broken up because they are big in some made up market. Now are we going to define a monopoly as the "Pop Culture" market.

Would you also like the government to "build a market" so that everyone can have all the software they want and have the government decide what a fair amount for software is?

<comment><USER8> > Would you also like the government to "build a market" so that everyone can > have all the software they want

Yes, of course I would like the democratically elected government to run the economy in a sane way.

> and have the government decide what a fair amount for software is?

No, that would be absurd. The fair amount for software is equal to its marginal cost which is zero.

<comment><USER7> So how should we pay for software developers? Should software as service products that have hosting cost also be free?

<comment><USER8> > So how should we pay for software developers?

Taxes, of course. That's how we fund things where individually charging people does not make sense.

> Should software as service products that have hosting cost also be free?

Generally not, why?

<comment><USER7> So now we are going to charge higher taxes to subsidize software developers.

Are we also going to have a centralized "5 Year Plan" for the economy? How has this worked for China and Russia. They realized decades ago that this didn't work.

<comment><USER8> > So now we are going to charge higher taxes to subsidize software developers.

What's wrong with "subsidizing", aka paying, software developers?

> Are we also going to have a centralized "5 Year Plan" for the economy? How > has this worked for China and Russia. They realized decades ago that this > didn't work.

The lack of creativity on a website supposedly populated by engineers keeps astounding me. Hell, you don't even need creativity to be aware that public broadcasters exist.

Or to recognize that computing and communication technology has somewhat improved in the past 30 years. Considering that the planners of the eastern block had to greatly simplify their plans and still weren't able to finish their calculations within 5 years, the state capitalist economy worked remarkably well.

<comment><USER7> Public broadcasting isn't exactly producing great content. Do you really want broadcasting to be controlled by the government? What happens when the "other party" is in power?

China didn't "work" until they started allowing private ownership and profit.

<comment><USER8> > Public broadcasting isn't exactly producing great content.

I frankly don't know if our experiences differ that much or if your mind is clouded by ideology.

> Do you really want broadcasting to be controlled by the government?

Of course not, that would be even worse than private broadcasting is.

> What happens when the "other party" is in power?

I don't understand the question. Which "other party" do you mean? There are many.

> China didn't "work" until they started allowing private ownership and > profit.

China didn't have an economy at all? That's news to me. Maoism must be even more stupid than I thought.

<comment><USER7> If the "public" is funding broadcasting and the elected officials are holding the purse strings, do you really think they are going to be overly critical of the government?

China had an economy but resources weren't properly allocated and people were starving in one region while the other region was producing things that no one needed.

<comment><USER8> > If the "public" is funding broadcasting [...] do you really think they are > going to be overly critical of the government?

This is not a hypothetical question, public broadcasters do exist and do criticize their governments. Will your next question be if public healthcare can work better than what the USA is doing?

> If the "public" is funding broadcasting and the elected officials are > holding the purse strings

Then whoever drafted that law didn't do their job which would have included researching how public broadcasters around the world are organized. Or they're British and think limiting the power of Parliament is for Europeans, Colonials and other wimps anyway.

> China had an economy but resources weren't properly allocated and people > were starving in one region while the other region was producing things that > no one needed.

Thanks for telling me things that I already know. I didn't write "Considering that the planners of the eastern block had to greatly simplify their plans and still weren't able to finish their calculations within 5 years," for decoration.

<comment><USER7> And a quick Google search....

[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-33654279](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-33654279)

<comment><USER8> Carry on?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm surprised by how little content will be offered for the price point that will increase shortly. The Simpsons and a new star wars show plus 500 movie titles. Max 50 titles by 2024.

People may pick it up to try it but if there is nothing to keep them watching many will drop them.

Surprised they are only spending a billion in new content per year and spending 150 million for 10 star wars episodes.

Surprised they are going in-house for the most part. The level of quality they are demanding is high. High movie ticket prices use to cover those costs and generate record profits. Under this new model they will start losing money until they reach peak subscriber if those targets are slower than expected that will put pressure to reduce the amount of new content and live off of their back catalogue.

<comment><USER10> Maybe people with kids will pick it up? Which, granted, it's a pretty big market, but even so I think you are correct on your assessment when it comes to the very few titles they'll have available.

And to be honest I don't know how much they'll be able to milk the Star Wars brand, it starts looking very, very stale. Even Pixar has started losing a big part of its attractiveness since it has been acquired by Disney, which I didn't think possible at the time of the acquisition.

<comment><USER11> My daughter just started getting into Winnie the Pooh shorts and movies, which we're happy to let her watch and rewatch and rewatch, mostly because they don't annoy us. I have no doubt we'll be buying in to disney+ for her to have access to higher quality cartoons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> >including all 30 seasons of The Simpsons;

Never thought I'd see the day when a Disney service would air the Simpsons. The idea of the simpsons airing on the disney channel back in the day would have been ridiculous. Seems so strange to go from being considered one of the most notorious shows around to being carried by Disney. The very antithesis of what it was when it started. Not sure what that says more about though, Disney or the Simpsons.

<comment><USER13> The Simpsons was never really that controversial was it? It's fairly family- friendly. Didn't have any bad language, almost zero sexuality, zero nudity, any violence is very cartoon, its satire is pretty gentle, plot-lines are usually wholesome in the end.

<comment><USER14> It totally was controversial in the beginning. It was considered worse than South Park or Family Guy are today. George H.W. Bush (the father) even made a statement that the American family should be "more like The Waltons and less like The Simpsons." ("The Waltons" was a series about a wholesome family in Virginia surviving the Great Depression)

<comment><USER13> > George H.W. Bush (the father) even made a statement that the American family > should be "more like The Waltons and less like The Simpsons."

Yeah... I get that the plot is that the family in the show are chaotic.

But that doesn't mean that the show itself is controversial, does it? It's not advocating for being like the Simpsons are.

<comment><USER14> I guess what people like Bush didn't like about it was that Homer was seen as stupid (and traditionally the father figure on shows was wise and could give good advice to his children) and that Bart was a troublemaker.

<comment><USER13> Father figures have been buffoons and families have been chaotic on TV for decades - the Flintstones back in the 60s for example.

<comment><USER15> What parents didn't like about it was it dealt with grown up themes, had grown up jokes, and covered grown up problems, but it was a cartoon, one of the first of it's kind on regular tv aimed at adults. It was a show for adults. Just because the show was probably clean enough to air on tv doesn't mean kids should be watching it.

On top of that all the characters are mildly annoying when their catch phrases are repeated ad nauseam by little kids.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think Disney+ will be more successful than anyone can imagine. I don't know how Netflix will survive when the competition of Disney+ and HBO Max will have 95% of the best tv shows and movies.

<comment><USER7> Netflix's issue is not the quality of content - it's their business model. They are borrowing billions to create content with the only way to recoup the cost is mostly by subscription revenue. Their initial rationale was that they were building a content library that would have value. But, they admitted during the last conference call that subscriber growth was slow expectations because they didn't have any new big releases. No one is going to are about "House of Cards" in five years.

Compare that to Disney's library. People still care about Disney's animated movies from the 30s and even adults are nostalgic about the 90s X-men animated TV show and the original Star Wars from the 70s.

Besides, Disney makes billions from their content from theatrical releases, video on demand, network and cable TV, theme parks, toy sales, etc.

<comment><USER17> I think what you're describing is squarely in the realm of content quality. They're spending large amounts of money and getting content that's largely junk, and even when it's good, it's buried under so much junk that it's hard to find. HBO spends 1/7th of what they do and has better shows. Netflix has spent billions trying to get one Game of Thrones and failed miserably.

That's what's killing subscriber growth. Lack of quality content. HBO has about the same number of subscribers, at a 50% higher subscription cost. The revenue is there to be had for someone with good enough content.

Despite spending $10b a year, Netflix's biggest shows are still ones it licenses (Friends, The Office, etc.) and they're losing them one by one. They've shown that for whatever reason, quality content isn't a problem you can solve by spending alone.

<comment><USER18> No one can predict what will be a hit ahead of time. There are only 2 reliable ways to have a library of hits:

1\. Produce a ton of stuff, over a long period of time, and some of it will turn out to be good.

2\. Buy someone else's content library.

Disney has done both.

<comment><USER17> I don't think that's correct. I mean nobody can predict it with 100% accuracy. but as I pointed out, Netflix spends 10 times the amount HBO does on content and gets less from it.

HBO is batting at least .700, and Netflix is not even batting .100. That's not randomness. I don't know nearly enough about the industry to know why.

but what I do know is that Netflix has probably spent more money on content in The last two years then HBO has spent in its entire history, and HBO's library is significantly more valuable.

I was in the valley during the time the music industry was being gangbanges by technology and I have a good guess as to why. Tech people often make the mistake of thinking non-tech people are stupid. Pure speculation on my part, but I would guess that Netflix thought they could solve the problem by throwing money and technology at it, and the people who have been making good content for 20 years were just better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I really used to be the biggest Netflix fan but their OC is really lacking. And they do very little OC action outside their cartoons.

Really glad I bought in early on Disney+ and they are building something so big at a cheaper price point.

Even before this report I was excited by the whole network, and really excited for their OC.

</comment><comment><USER20> isn't that inevitable? physical media has be dying for a decade now. streaming was something that was assumed to be on the horizon since early days of the consumer internet.

</comment><comment><USER21> I think something like Steam store would work better for movies, series, even live events. People will hoard.

</comment><comment><USER22> > For those films that are released in theaters, Disney doesn't plan on > changing any windows to bring them sooner to Disney+, which means there will > be around a seven-month wait for titles like the upcoming Frozen 2 and Star > Wars: The Rise of Skywalker to hit the service (Toy Story 4 should become > available in early 2020)

Betting the company. Thank god Iger found some time off from his book tour.

</comment><comment><USER23> "Entertainment Company Releases Content on Well-Established Medium"

If they keep this up people might suspect that they want people to watch that content and pay for it. Maybe next the Hollywood Reporter will break the story on how they "bet it all" on theatrical releases, network television, VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray and other things that people pay to watch.

Bob Iger definitely knows how to buy good press. Hollywood Reporter is owned by Guggenheim partners and has deep ties with Disney, including acting as an advisor to the Disney-Fox acquisition.

<comment><USER7> It's not easy for a company to give up short term profits like licensing content to other providers, start a money losing service that may take years to make up the difference. Business have failed to adapt to changing technology for decades. That is the entire thesis of the "Innovator's Dilemma". He could have not taken the risk, retired with millions and let the next CEO figure it out.

<comment><USER24> While late is better than never, Disney is too little too late.

I'm not saying they will fail. Of established players they are the strongest and making the boldest moves so they have a chance at being a no 2.

But they launch when Netflix has 150 million subscribers. They almost saturated the US market and are quickly devouring international.

Taking market share from a dominant competitor is almost impossible.

If Bob Iger wasn't asleep at the wheel, just like the rest of the industry, Disney would have launched a competitor when Netflix had 10 million US-only customers.

They had a chance then but not now, competing against Netflix's 150 million subscribers and asymmetrical warfare from Amazon.

<comment><USER7> Disney's definition of success and Netflix's definition of success is completely different. Disney doesn't have to depend on subscription revenue to fund its streaming content. It's already made money on most of its content by the time it gets to Disney+. It's just an additional revenue stream.

Netflix lives or dies by being able to create or license content at one price and sell it via subscription revenue at a higher price - it has never been able to do that. It gets it more debt every year trying to keep up.

In the words of Steve Jobs related to Dropbox. Streaming services are now a feature not a product.

<comment><USER25> Except we are still expected to pay for each one as if they were a product... the only one that is really treated like a feature is amazon prime streaming... it is one part of being a prime member.

All the others are sold as stand alone products you have to individually pay for.

<comment><USER7> In the case of Dropbox - the alternative OneDrive is a feature. For the price of Dropbox's 1TB of storage, you can get a complete O365 subscription for six users and a combined 6TB of storage.

But it's almost impossible to have a sustainable business when your larger competitors can price your "product" at just above break even as a bundled offering and a platform play.

<comment><USER25> I understand what your point is, I am saying that only amazon currently does that with its streaming service.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Wow, such a visionary in 2019.

</comment><comment><USER27> Dear Disney. Instead of streaming, why not build a nationwide Disney network? 3-6 Subchannels of Disney 24/7\. I'll watch that with my kids, ads and all. But were not paying for your streaming stuff.

<comment><USER28> What? You'd show ads to your kids? And would watch on Disney's schedule, not on demand? You can do your thing, but that sounds like exactly the opposite of what I want.</comment></comment>


Anonymous shuts down Facebook.com - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/AnonymousOwn3r

<comment><USER2> off topic: it seems that putting a link improves the buoyancy of the posts, doesn´t it?.

</comment><comment><USER3> Twitter account claiming to represent Anonymous claims to shut down Facebook.</comment>