Why We'll Have Evidence of Aliens–If They Exist–By 2035 - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/blog/why-well-have-evidence-of-aliensif-they-existby-2035 <comment><USER2> FYI: The title sounds like clickbait, but is actually explained in the article. As technology improves further in the next few years, we'll be able to scan so many more stars simultaneously that a possible discovery would be have to be made (if they exist).

Overall an interesting article by Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute.

<comment><USER3> I've never understood claims like this. For all we know, the universe could be infinite. Yes, that would mean the universe contains an infinite amount of energy and that we'd find dopplegangers of ourselves if we travel far enough, but we can't be sure it's not true. We can't even be more or less confident in one hypothesis vs another.

Articles like this would be more persuasive if they had qualifiers like "Within our observable universe."

<comment><USER4> A lot of people don't realize just how much bigger the universe might be than "the observable universe".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Not quite true. If Aliens exist AND they had radio technology in use [distance from us in lightyears] years ago we will find them by 2035.

Aliens 200 light years away will not detect life on earth for 100 years or so yet (depending on if they are listening and how sensitive their radios are). If they immediately send a reply it will be 200 more years before we can get their reply.

Note that 200 light years is insignificant even on the scale of our galaxy, much less the universe.

What this means is even if we detect aliens that doesn't mean they still exist, we could well detect them, learn about them and then watch as die (war, plague, or any other doomsday scenario) before we can get our "we are here" message to them. That is we might find aliens that do not exist anymore! The universe is large enough that this would not surprise me (though it might be my great-great-great grandchild who discover they have been dead for thousands of years).

Or maybe we will not find any, and then in 2036 discover the first radio transmission of some aliens only a few light years away.

<comment><USER6> Well, yeah, no shit. We're obviously just looking at the "observable universe", which means light-as-it-is-arriving-now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> My amature take on intelligent alien life is that humans as a technological society have developed extremely quickly, if other intelligent species exist and have a focus on technics, then I think it's safe to assume they've developed with as much speed. Continuing with that assumption, it seems extremely unlikely to me that other technological civilizations are at the same point in the timeline as we are, or slightly further ahead. I would imagine them to be massively further ahead. As such, they would surely know about us, but haven't made contact. Why not? I think this is a very important question to ask in the search for other advanced cultures.

<comment><USER5> All our current physics says that the speed of light is a real limit to travel, and to get close to that requires far more energy that a society is likely to have. I can well believe that aliens if they exist may conclude leaving their solar system is not worth the cost. Sure they could do it, but many will die when their spaceship on the way. Even robot spaceships are unlikely to make it very far (on the scale of the galaxy) before suffering a critical failure.

Thus I can well believe that aliens have colonized the other habitable planets in their solar system and failed at all attempts to do anything more. They might have got one robot to a different star, but that is it.

Of course this assumes they are there before us by a significant amount. Maybe humans are first to reach our level - it is an arrogant idea but we cannot completely discard it until proven wrong.

<comment><USER8> _Even robot spaceships are unlikely to make it very far (on the scale of the galaxy) before suffering a critical failure._

That seems like a limited vision of the possibilities of spaceships. Remember that we're now traveling through space ourselves, and barring self-inflicted problems, we're not in great danger of suffering critical failure.

<comment><USER9> Given enough time an asteroid impact presents the possibility of non self inflicted critical failure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> From reading the article, I don't believe the statement "We'll Have Evidence of Aliens–If They Exist–By 2035." An alien civilization broadcasting via radio at the same moment we're looking could be very unlikely.

[Edit] Who's to say that we're going to broadcast via radio for thousands or millions of years? What if, in 300 years, we discover a much better system? Then we can reasonably assume that a 400 year radio burst is the sign of a species developing intelligence. We can also reasonably assume that SETI chose a poor indicator in their search.

<comment><USER11> Which is why they are also thinking about signals like neutrinos and gravity waves (which are much harder to produce but much better suited to interstellar distances).

While it's never possible to say "everything has been discovered/invented" we know a great deal about the types of particles and waves that can exist at realistic energy levels for use in communication systems because those energy scales have been so well studied. The odds that there is "new physics" to be discovered at a scale that will supplant radio waves for broadcast communications on a terrestrial scale are pretty low.

<comment><USER12> "neutrinos and gravity waves (which are much harder to produce but much better suited to interstellar distances)."

No, they aren't. Both are freakishly difficult to detect, and we have no reason at this point to expect that to ever change. And gravity waves are actually terrible for interstellar distances because it is completely unclear how you would produce a source of gravity waves powerful enough to transmit across interstellar distances, and also transmit in a _beam_. If you can't transmit in a beam, you're stuck with very unfavorable dropoffs as distance increases.

It is also unclear why, having built the utterly massive complexes for transmission or detection of gravity waves, or the massive complexes required for high-probability neutrino reception (transmission in their case is a bit simpler, though collimating the beam is rough) it would not simply be easier to use electromagnetic waves, which are by comparison _so easy_ that if we _had_ a receiver in another star system we could transmit to them _today_.

Barring some major revelation in physics, aliens will use electromagnetic waves because everything else is literally (and I mean that in its original correct sense) dozens of orders of magnitude worse. Smart aliens do not demonstrate how much smarter they are than us by using engineering solutions dozens of orders magnitude inferior to what we could build today. However, as my previous text implies and as other commenters have already pointed out, the problem there is that efficiency is obtained at that scale with beams, not broad transmission. The galaxy could be hopping with point-to-point links and they would be much harder for us to notice.

(They wouldn't be impossible, because there would be some scattering on the interstellar medium. But they'd be much more difficult than if we were directly the target.)

<comment><USER11> We're in agreement that gravity waves and neutrinos are harder to produce and detect.

They are better for long interstellar distance communications because their weakly interacting nature and difficult to produce nature means there is no dispersion relationship to worry about, no absorbtion/attenuation issues to worry about, and no noise sources to worry about. The galaxy is a surprisingly difficult medium to send radio waves through if you want them to be received at great distances (difficult medium, not impossible medium). That's one of the things that led early SETI thinkers like Barney Oliver to propose using the spectral Water Hole[0] as a search target.

Gravity waves and neutrinos are harder to produce and detect but the galaxy itself is much less likely to interfere with their propagation if you can produce and detect them. Also, communications uses of gravity waves would presumably be at much higher frequencies so the detector sizes would be much smaller (the size of an interferometer or Weber bar detector is a function of the center detection frequency of the device... sensitivity is largely independent of the size, other than the choice of center detection frequency).

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_hole_(radio)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_hole_\(radio\))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> These methods focus on finding extraterrestrials with an equivalent or greater technological advancement to our own. How would you find an alien civilization with a 17th-century Earth level of technological development? We were not emitting radio signals or using light pulses to communicate, nor were we flying around in antimatter-powered rockets.

<comment><USER14> In the main, I think we'd simply have no chance of detecting such civilisations. In the next couple of decades, however, advanced space telescopes with starshade coronagraphs could be able to start doing spectroscopy on exoplanet atmospheres.[1] This would definitely reveal (some kinds of) biologically-active atmospheres, although it wouldn't necessarily to be able to tell the difference between a complex biosphere with a low-tech civilisation, and a uni-cellular algae soup.

I suppose there's an outside chance that such a telescope could detect combustion compounds that are difficult to explain geologically or biologically, and that might be used to hypothesise a civilisation. Something like lead smelting might leave a pretty distinct signature, for example. But that would just lead to a hypothesis, not proof, and I imagine it'd be pretty contentious.

Longer-term, it should be possible to create arbitrarily large space-based optical interferometers[2], to the point where one would be capable of imaging cities and agricultural activity on exoplanets. That'd settle matters (Unless it's under water or impenetrable cloud decks, and then you're just out of luck). But that level of resolution is probably a couple of centuries and/or one singularity away from happening, so don't hold your breath.

1: [http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest- blogs/2017/20170623-sta...](http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest- blogs/2017/20170623-starshade-helping-space-telescopes.html)

2: [https://www.noao.edu/meetings/interferometry/workshop- files/...](https://www.noao.edu/meetings/interferometry/workshop- files/Carpenter-Space-comp.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Yawn.

All such proclamations, predictions, and earnestness about the Drake Equation is limited, absolutely, by the boundaries of what we currently believe is possible.

To be specific, it has always seemed to me hubris of the first order to presume that we know the principles underlying a more advanced civilization's communications (or, maybe, travel).

We aren't aware of mechanisms more efficient, fast, whatever, than e.g. radiowaves, or, polarized lasers, or [insert latest notion]'.

But what the authors of these things seem to never take seriously is what we don't know, is almost certain to be a lot more significant than what we do.

There is a chart in my office lounge showing the advancement of human symbolic reasoning and technology from pre-history, through 15 years ago.

What is striking to me is that in a few brief thousand years, utterly insignificant evolutionarily speaking, we have gone from first formulating written language and mathematics, to e.g. Cassini, rovers, and LIGO.

Ever if the pace of advancement were plateaued (and it isn't) it is baffling to me that someone would think, oh, we've got the basic constraints now in hand; it's just an exercise of application at this point, to e.g. detect other civilizations.

That doesn't even begin to get into the Liu Cixin style game theory issues...

Anyway. Lack of evidence merely means we're not looking in the right way, IMO.

</comment><comment><USER16> The author of this article is focusing only on SETI-based methods of finding extraterrestrial life. The most promising IMO, and one that I don't see talked about much, is the James Webb Telescope's ability to measure contents of the atmospheres of exoplanets. From what I understand O2 is only known to be created by metabolic processes of living organisms.

Also one thing that's curious to me is the math here assumes these millions of civilizations all exist now or have set up systems to broadcast these beams forever whether or not they go extinct. So if we make the following assumptions:

These civilizations only last a couple hundred years after they create these powerful directional radio wave beams (which if we use ourselves as an example seems to be a reasonable assumption)

One civilizations dies and another sequentially starts broadcasting radio waves (most favorable option)

It takes 2 billion years to create life

Galaxy is about 13 billion years old

There's been about 2M advanced civilizations in the Milky Way

That means there's a 3.6% chance there's a civilizations broadcasting right now. This goes up if some last longer than 200 years, and if some create machines that can broadcast either indefinitely or for a long time. Within 1 magnitude of relative certainty is pretty good I guess.

</comment><comment><USER17> The short version is: "Hypothesis: there are millions of alien civilizations, by 2035 we will have sampled enough possible stars to achieve statistical significance, and either there are no aliens or we'll see a positive result."

Which I agree with (and I also agree with folks who point out that at some point being found may be a bad thing which would encourage hiding).

Like many people I know, I assume there must be other civilizations out there. However it is fun to ask the question, "What if we are unique in all the galaxy?" (really it would be the light cone associated with what we can perceive) What sort of responsibility would it put on humans to get their act together and keep from dying out if we knew we were unique?

</comment><comment><USER18> Dr. Shostak quoted 2015-2025, in 2008, as the expected dates to discover alien life: [http://www.saukvalley.com/articles/2008/02/12/news/national/...](http://www.saukvalley.com/articles/2008/02/12/news/national/doc47b1e094681c3055532104.txt)

Just under 10 years later, he quotes 2035.

Not saying he's wrong.

<comment><USER6> What's it called when a research event is always 20 years away?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> A key decision for any sentient species would be whether to broadcast one's existence or snoop around quietly first.

<comment><USER20> This reminds me of a trilogy called Remembrance of Earth's Past by Liu Cixin. He creates a sort of analogy in the second novel, saying civilizations in space should be like hunters in a dark forest (The book is called The Dark Forest). He hypothesizes that you should sneak around quietly, looking to kill others, lest you be killed yourself. I won't say more - it's a great read.

<comment><USER21> A great summary of the Dark Forest theory without giving away too much of the plot. This trilogy is one of the best books/stories I've ever read.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> According to my tinfoil hat, if we plugin sensible defaults to the drake equation, the aliens should have been broadcasting something around 21,000 light years ago for us to get something in 2035.

</comment><comment><USER23> What if "typical" technological civilizations only go through a very brief period of broadcasting detectable TV signals and then they wire up the entire planet with leak-free fiber optic cables? Then all we can count on is intentional transmissions that say "find us here"?

<comment><USER24> Presumably, they would still need a way to communicate with remote (unwireable) entities? We find quite a lot of use for devices in orbit. It's hard to imagine that use disappearing, especially as we move towards mining resources in our local solar neighborhood.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> So if we _don 't_ find evidence of aliens by 2035, we should assume they don't exist? Cynically, I'm pretty sure that's not how this will play out...

<comment><USER26> > We can never prove that aliens are not out there, only that they are.

No, he's just saying if we don't find them by 2035 he owes the Internet coffee. Pretty excited, though I'm hoping I can substitute tea.

<comment><USER25> But the contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original statement. "If aliens exist, we'll have evidence by 2035" is logically equivalent to "If we don't have evidence by 2035, aliens don't exist".

But it won't be taken that way.

Now, I'm overstating the attention-grabbing headline to reflect a greater degree of certainty than Shostak genuinely believes. But he's stating it with more certainty than he genuinely believes, at least in the headline. If he _really_ believed the headline, he'd say, "If we don't find them by 2035, I will believe that they don't exist" instead of "I will buy everyone coffee".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This seems to be the very definition of hubris.

</comment><comment><USER28> Science can't tell me how to lose weight, but SETI can find intelligent life or the absence of it? Maybe the scientists at SETI are better, or maybe searching for intelligent life is an easier problem?

Didn't Carl Sagan already find the answer by doing math?

<comment><USER29> Science knows the mechanics of losing weight. Monitor and restrict calories. For example, lots of people do this successfully with their pets.</comment></comment>


Complaint filed against Irish subsidiaries of Apple, Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/media-and-marketing/complaint-filed-against-irish-subsidiaries-of-apple-facebook-1.1443217 <comment><USER2> Article also mentioned Microsoft, Skype, and Yahoo will be targeted in other countries but there was nothing about Google or Youtube. However, found this on techcrunch:

"Google and YouTube have not been included in this first round of evf complaints being as they have a different corporate structure that does not include European subsidiaries. However it notes they do have datacenters in European countries, which will give evf a route to filing Prism-related data protection complaints against both at a later date."

Forcing these companies to give data has weakened their competitiveness globally.

<comment><USER3> I am curious to see if the business case against the NSA's power will have an effect. Right now I think things favor the bureaucracy. But if Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. make a broad push against it, we could see legislative changes which protect them.

A likely scenario is something which indemnifies them against any losses incurred as a result of foreign suits related to privacy breaches, so long as they're in accordance with US law.

<comment><USER4> There is some precedent for how things might unfold in the kerfuffles that have resulted from the U.S. government's attempts to enforce its trade sanctions against countries like Cuba, Iran, and North Korea.

Under the Helms-Burton Act [0], the United States expanded its embargo on trade with Cuba to authorize sanctions against foreign firms that trade with Cuba. Mexico and the European Union responded [1] by forbidding their companies from complying with the U.S. law. This left those firms in the impossible situation of violating either U.S. or domestic law no matter what they did. After abortive attempts to negotiate a solution, nothing was done to resolve the situation, so Mexican and E.U. firms that trade with Cuba are still in a tricky situation.

As another example, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, a bureau of the Treasury Department tasked with enforcing U.S. embargoes, for decades operated under the interpretation that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations were not subject to limits on trade under U.S. sanctions laws so long as no U.S. persons were involved in conducting the banned trade.† But this past February, to strengthen U.S. sanctions against Iran, President Obama issued an executive order [2] that for the first time extended the U.S. government's claimed legal jurisdiction to encompass the actions of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations:

      All property and interests in property that are in the
      United States, that hereafter come within the United States,
      or that are or hereafter come within the possession or
      control of any United States person, INCLUDING ANY FOREIGN
      BRANCH, of the following persons are blocked and may not be
      transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt
      in ... [my emphasis]

Prior to that executive order, there was no indication that the U.S. government, even in matters of national security, claimed that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations must comply with U.S. law. Under that longstanding interpretation, I would not have been surprised to see companies like Google make an effort to store foreign users' data in foreign data- centers owned and operated by foreign subsidiaries. That way, the data would not be subject to seizure under FISA (or whatever other authorization the NSA claims), and Google could comply with foreign privacy laws and U.S. law at the same time.

But now, it seems, that may be out the window. It may well be that the U.S. government claims jurisdiction over data held by foreign subsidiaries of U.S. tech companies, in which case those companies will truly be between a rock and a hard place. Unlike the situation with Helms-Burton, however, things will surely come to a head; these major corporations have extensive operations both in the United States and in the E.U., where domestic privacy laws would outlaw compliance with U.S. laws requiring that they turn over data to the NSA.

So this should be fun. ...

† — In this matter and others, the U.S. government claims jurisdiction over U.S. persons—citizens, greencard-holders, and companies incorporated in the United States—no matter where they are in the world.

0\. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms%E2%80%93Burton_Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms%E2%80%93Burton_Act)

1\. [http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-96-732_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-96-732_en.htm)

2\. [http://www.treasury.gov/resource- center/sanctions/Programs/D...](http://www.treasury.gov/resource- center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/2012iranthreat_eo.pdf) [PDF]

<comment><USER5> _companies like Google make an effort to store foreign users ' data in foreign data-centers owned and operated by foreign subsidiaries._

Can confirm that while working on the EU rollout for Office 365 a few years ago, this was certainly the case. EU customer data had to stay in Ireland, and there were even rules/debates about how much of the 'metadata' (i.e. to answer "does this user exist?") that could come back to the US.

At the time the reasoning was for EU Privacy Directive and not explicitly based on US law or precedents, but I bet a few realized the alignment and ensured the engineers stayed on this path.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The lawsuit targets the Irish subsidiary because that's where the money is. If they move they will probably pay higher taxes. Quite clever!

 _> The group's complaint draws on the precedent set in 2006, which found that a mass transfer of data to the US authorities was illegal under EU law... The Swift case was closed when the company moved its data centre from Belgium to Switzerland._

<comment><USER7> (a) It's not a lawsuit, but a complaint to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, which is like a type of court. The DPC can force companies to reveal what they hold on people, and can require them to do (or not do) a thing if it breaks Irish data protection law.

(b) Facebook Ireland Ltd (an Irish company) was targetted, not because it's "where the money is", but because if you sign up to Facebook and you're not in the USA or Canada, then you have a legal relationship with Facebook Ireland Ltd, and fall under Irish data protection law.

(cf. section 19 of [https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms](https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms) )

<comment><USER8> >The DPC can force [Irish] companies to reveal what they hold on people, and can require them to do (or not do) a thing if it breaks Irish data protection law.

>if you sign up to Facebook and you're not in the USA or Canada, then you have a legal relationship with Facebook Ireland Ltd, and fall under Irish data protection law.

Facebook can choose to change this, but they won't because they benefit from the double Irish; because that's "where the money is."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This brings up an interesting issue with multinationals... How do you react when you receive compulsory orders in one country of operation that violates laws of another?

<comment><USER10> There's a solution to that. Do not store data from a customer from one country, in another region. Actually, the biggest european hosting company, OVH, is doing just that in order to launch in North America, and protect its European, Canadian, and USA customers: [http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&pre...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.ovh.com%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D71852&act=url)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Well this is going to be interesting. And don't forget guys this is the EU we're talking about not US. It is a lot more difficult for companies to make changes in their favor since every country has its on system and it's own ways. Just the amount of paper pushers in Europe is exponentially higher. Makes "convincing" any one of them less effective due to their limited power.

<comment><USER12> Not really. The thing is, people in Europe want privacy, and will go to great lengths to retain it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's going to come down to what kind of business the Irish company carries out on behalf of the parent company or whether the Irish company is the parent. There are so many ways the relationship could be set up and figuring it all out could take a loooong time. First they have to work that out before they can determine whether they are responsible for following EU law and what laws they are obliged to follow. The Irish company may not have anything to do with data which would pretty much let them off the hook I'm guessing.

<comment><USER7> Well anyone who signs up to Facebook who's not in USA or Canada is technically signing an agreement with Facebook Ireland Ltd. So, the Irish company is responsible for the data of hundreds of millions of Facebook users.

(cf. section 19 of [https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms](https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms) )

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Let me see if I understand this correctly. It's OK for the state to have 120 cameras on each street corner watching your every move (see London), but it's not OK to share your Facebook posts?

Disclaimer: I'm very much against any invasion of privacy, and am only being facetious to point out the obvious, which is that people should stand up for their rights when it becomes obvious, not just when it becomes sensational news

<comment><USER15> The vast majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are privately owned and have no connection to the state.

The 4 million+ cameras in the UK statistic which has been floating around for about 10 years now was extrapolated from two streets in Wandsworth and was only ever really media bait. If you believed all these statistics the number of cameras in the UK would have dropped by more than half (over the past 10 years), since the last large scale estimate was under 2 million.

<comment><USER14> Sure, but what if I place a camera on each side of your property (outside the property line) of your house, pointing to the edge of your property, then use your tax dollars to pay employees to watch you on the cameras every time you leave your property? Would you enjoy that? If not, why would you put up with it? It's your state, not the government's state. The government are your employees, not your owners, so you have to decide which rights you want, not just which rights can still be defended by existing laws.

<comment><USER15> I'm not sure if you're serious here. The UK government doesn't own the vast majority of the cameras in the UK which make up this 'huge' number. The vast majority of CCTV cameras in the UK are not connected to a grand network. The majority of cameras are in small shops / stores and are used to provide evidence for shoplifting or other types of theft. It's the owners choice as to whether they are there or not.

The UK government doesn't employ vast numbers of people to watch the live output of the minority of CCTV cameras they do own. The state owned CCTV is almost never used in a proactive sense. You can probably safely commit most crimes in full view of a CCTV camera in the UK. If someone reports you or you leave obvious evidence of the crime the CCTV tapes will be reviewed.

There is a massive difference between the man power requirements of analysing video footage compared to analysis of text.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Britain launches $625m Eat Out scheme to boost spending at restaurants and pubs - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-vouchers/eat-out-to-help-out-uk-offers-diners-some-tasty-morsels-idUSKBN2492A8 <comment><USER2> > For the month of August, the scheme will entitle diners to a 50% discount of > up to 10 pounds per head on their meal, finance minister Rishi Sunak said.</comment>


Bloomberg Terminal fingerprint scanner and light sensor - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/support/b-unit/ <comment><USER2> Seems like an extremely over-engineered solution compared to s smartcard & reader (note that many business-grade laptops have built-in readers).</comment>


It's Time to Ditch the Concept of '100-Year Floods' - <AUTHOR> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-time-to-ditch-the-concept-of-100-year-floods/ <comment><USER2> Why does the government need to place restrictions on where people build? If I build a house without flood insurance and it gets washed away, it's my loss - why does the government care?

Perhaps there are costs associated with emergency aid during a crisis. But then the solution is to force people to buy 'crisis cover' from private insurance companies. When a crisis occurs, the government collects the payout from the insurance companies.

<comment><USER3> Politics does not work that way. People all across the political spectrum demand to be bailed out when their risks go bad, and it is pointless to adopt an ideology that ignores this reality. Then there is the issue of people whose prudent choices were nullified by rampant development upstream.

> But then the solution is to force people to buy 'crisis cover' from private > insurance companies.

I see you are not opposed to government intervention, you just want it in a different form.

<comment><USER2> > I see you are not opposed to government intervention, you just want it in a > different form.

That's right - I want it in a reduced, more efficient form.

Personally I don't think the government should bail out property damage of people whose risks go bad and who don't have insurance. But I can accept that maybe this is the minority opinion - but even in this case it's still more efficient for people to be forced to buy private insurance rather than have the government say 'you must pay us $X flood risk premium' or 'you cannot build here'. Private insurance companies (with money on the line) will more accurately assess flood risks than a government official (who has no financial interest in the accuracy of his assessment).

<comment><USER3> We have been down this route with flood insurance, so we know what happens - the electorate pressures the legislature to make insurance available at below- market rates, which it does by interfering in the market. As the notably conservative states along the Gulf coast have not done anything to make the situation truly market-driven, it is unrealistic to think of this as a solution.

Maybe if the legislature did not have to respond to the populace... is that the more efficient form of government you prefer?

<comment><USER2> There are plenty of examples in history where the majority opinion changes, even with regard to deep, long-held ideas. In any case it's reasonable to support a policy on principle, even if it's unlikely to be implemented.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The reason Obama's flood legislation got repealed is because they conflated climate change with flooding, for which the evidence seems to not exist, if I understand the experts correctly.

[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7462/full/nature1...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7462/full/nature12310.html)

> A feature of the changes has been a tendency for many regions of low > variability to experience increases, which might contribute to the > perception of increased climate volatility. The normalization of temperature > anomalies creates the impression of larger relative overall increases, but > our use of absolute values, which we argue is a more appropriate approach, > reveals little change. > __Many climate models predict that total > variability will ultimately decrease under high greenhouse gas > concentrations __, possibly associated with reductions in sea-ice cover. > __Our findings contradict the view that a warming world will automatically > be one of more overall climatic variation. __

...

"General statements about __extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media __," climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (and co-founder of the award winning climate science blog RealClimate.), "It's this popular perception that global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even though if anyone thinks about that for 10 seconds they realize that's nonsense."

...

U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] report on extreme weather in 2011.

> Global warming, in general, will mean higher temperatures. This causes more > heat waves — more extreme weather. But it also causes fewer cold waves — > less extreme weather. Many more people die from excessive cold than > excessive heat, so fewer people will die from cold and heat in the future. > By mid-century, researchers estimated in 2006, that means about __1.4 > million fewer deaths per year __. In the continental United States, heat > waves in the past decade exceeded the norm by 10 percent, but the number of > cold waves fell 75 percent.

From the Washington Post [https://archive.is/O3lJZ](https://archive.is/O3lJZ) :

> Damage from flooding in the United States has declined from 0.2 percent of > gross domestic product in 1940 to less than 0.05 percent today. And U.S. > hurricanes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage > since at least 1900.

<comment><USER3> Your prominent use of an argument about fewer deaths from cold weather to justify the rolling-back of measures to reduce the impact of flooding is perhaps the most absurd part of this risible piece of denialism.

<comment><USER4> They aren't my arguments. It is not about "fewer deaths from cold weather" but fewer deaths from extreme weather, the opposite claim of the OP and many media outlets of "accepted science" of climate change. It is not even a denialist position but the position of the IPPC, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies etc.

My argument is using "climate change" as the reason one wants to protect from flooding is a logical fallacy.

Obama's order mentioned in the OP wasn't "impact of flooding legislation" but "response to climate change legislation" and contained more than flood defences.

Legislation to defend from changes to weather the climate change scientists say will not only not happen but reduce.

<comment><USER3> It was your choice to use this particular argument in your post, where it is an amusing non-sequitur, regardless of whether it has any relevance in any other context.

<comment><USER4> It is directly related. Temperature extremes drive weather events, such as hurricanes and therefore flooding.

Less extremes = less flooding = less death

<comment><USER3> Thank you for this fascinating look into how climate-change deniers fool themselves, beyond simply ignoring evidence they don't like.

In your original claim (which is not the same as the one in your last post), you go from the specific issue (flooding) to a general one (extreme weather), introduce a point that may be relevant for one aspect of extreme weather but which has nothing to do with flooding (reduced deaths due to cold), and then switch back to the specific issue as if it somehow thereby became subject to the irrelevant argument.

In your latest post, you have dropped this line of argument for one that gets no support from the IPCC report quote that you used in your original claim. It says there will be fewer extreme cold events, but also that there will be more high temperature events: we know the latter are more conducive to flooding. The quoted paragraph takes no position supporting the claim that there will be fewer temperature extremes overall, let alone that it will therefore led to fewer flooding events specifically (another case where you go from the general to the specific with no justification.) You appear to have mistaken an argument about the number of deaths overall for an argument about the number of extreme events overall, and then, in turn, mistaking that for an argument about the number and intensity of floods.

In addition, your latest post is simple ignore-the-evidence denialism. In a single sentence, you dismiss decades of painstaking, quantitative, peer- reviewed research that leads to the expectation that the number of intense North Atlantic hurricanes (i.e. specifically those that are by far the biggest problem for the US) is very likely to increase. And sea-level rise is an established, measured fact (and one that contributes to the damage of coastal flooding), despite what all those latter-day King Cnuts [1] on the hill say.

Finally, I find your attitude, that we should do nothing about flooding because to do so would challenge your delusions about climate change (and apparently also your opinion of Obama), to be distasteful, especially considering the distress it has just caused in and around Houston.

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

<comment><USER4> Enjoy

[https://scontent- lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/21272815_1015...](https://scontent- lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/21272815_10155973144383968_2429428809021619842_o.png?oh=aa35014e9ab50f8cb29ada40d92694a2&oe=5A29A8DA)

You keep calling me a denialist, yet I am saying "climate change won't have the effects the media says, even though the IPCC says different"

If I was a denialist I would be saying "there is no change"

see the difference ?

<comment><USER3> In your previous posts, you were not saying what you now say you were saying, because of the faulty logic you employed, and the conclusions you drew from employing it. In fact, even your latest, considerably watered-down statement is ambiguous at best, unless you did really mean to say that the IPCC says that climate change _will_ have the effects that the media says.

One of your original claims was that it is right to roll back flood regulations simply because they were justified (in part) as a response to climate change. Putting aside the obvious point that it makes sense to plan for the future, that is moot anyway, because recent events in Houston, NY/NJ and New Orleans have demonstrated that there is a flooding problem right now, with the climate we have now. Your position puts ideology, and preserving the facade of an illusion, over pragmatism.

All but the most dogmatic of climate change deniers have moved away from denying that it is happening at all, to denying that it will have negative consequences, or denying the evidence is good enough to predict anything, or... Eventually, the only thing left for them to deny will be that anything can be done about it, and by then they might finally be right, thanks in part to their efforts.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ubuntu: Rolling release rumours wrong - <AUTHOR> http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Ubuntu-Rolling-release-rumours-wrong-1142040.html

<comment><USER3> Too bad. PPAs are still too esoteric for normal use and waiting 6 months for the latest versions which often include important usability and bug fixes is way too long a time. I know some people think apt-get is the holy grail of Linux software, and I agree it does have its pluses, but personally I think it's just a hack for the shockingly bad state of Linux software installation, which is also, I think, part of the rationale for 6-month releases.

<comment><USER4> What do you think would be a better installation method than apt?

I use PPAs for Firefox nightlies and wine. It's very easy to set up - <USER2> copy-and-paste from the website into Synaptic, and then it updates automatically.

<comment><USER3> Well that's kind of the point--there isn't a better way in Linux, but that doesn't mean there isn't a better way to do it in general. Apt was designed I think mainly as a workaround for Linux dependency hell, with the side effect of it being convenient to install things. But the tradeoff is that all software updates rely on a single central location--Canonical's servers (besides PPAs). What if they go out of business, or the servers go down for some reason one day? The second you step outside of the Apt walled garden you're right back to the wild jungle of Linux dependency hell that makes it nigh-impossible to install anything without hair-pulling compilation sessions, in my experience.

And yes, PPAs have inched closer to user-friendliness with recent releases, but they're not to the point where a non-terminal user can easily comprehend the concept and then install their own.

Bringing this all back to the point--rolling releases--it's too difficult for many to install PPAs, and even so, PPAs don't always exist for core components that frequently have high-visibility regressions or bugs in new Ubuntu releases. For example, in Maverick hibernate for my laptop is broken. It freezes when it tries to hibernate. Where do I even start looking for a PPA that solves this problem? I don't--instead, I hold my breath for 6 months and don't use hibernate. That's not an acceptable solution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I guess the QA infrastructure isn't up to the task for rolling OS releases. But it would make a lot of sense to separate the release cycles of the actual OS and applications it supplies. With Maemo this has worked pretty well:

[http://bergie.iki.fi/blog/application_quality_assurance_in_l...](http://bergie.iki.fi/blog/application_quality_assurance_in_linux_distributions/)

(hmm, something wrong with the server. Here's the Google Cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://bergie.iki.fi/blog/application_quality_assurance_in_linux_distributions/))

<comment><USER6> > With Maemo this has worked pretty well

Seriously? Have you seen the comments on maemo's bugzilla saying "it's marked as fixed, when is it going to be released" -> "we don't publish the release dates beforehand" -> "but it still doesn't work for me, it's not fixed"... etc.

No, I do not believe it works well. The main / extras split is unavoidable for any new smartphone with apps repository. Maemo has a lot of problems because of not doing more frequent rolling updates - I'd actually blame not being able to type a small letter at the beginning of a sentence, for ~ _half a year_ as a result of crap release cycle.

<comment><USER5> The issues you mention mostly deal with the platform itself, and that has obviously been affected by the switch of focus from Maemo to MeeGo.

Agreed that the platform could benefit from rolling releases as well, but at least the current approach allows that for applications. Something that most Linux distributions don't do.</comment></comment></comment>


Adventures with cgo: Part 2- Locks and other things that go bump in the night - <AUTHOR> https://blog.wallaroolabs.com/2018/04/adventures-with-cgo-part-2--locks-and-other-things-that-go-bump-in-the-night/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi y'all. I'm the author of the post and will be keeping an eye on the comments this evening. Happy to answer questions as best as I can.

Part 1 is available at [https://blog.wallaroolabs.com/2018/04/adventures-with- cgo-pa...](https://blog.wallaroolabs.com/2018/04/adventures-with-cgo-part-1-- the-pointering/)</comment>


How a Blind Doctor's Code Helped Thousands Read Again (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/how-a-blind-doctors-moon-code-helped-thousands-read-again <comment><USER2> I'll have to try it. Braille is not intuitive and my guitar string calloused fingertips aren't great at discerning the dots.</comment>


Microsoft just gave Bitcoin a huge endorsement - <AUTHOR> http://www.leoncullens.nl/post/2014/01/24/Microsoft-approves-major-update-for-WP8-Kraken-app-that-adds-bitcoin-trading.aspx

<comment><USER2> I guess there are other apps that allow Bitcoin trading on WP8.

Here is one that I found with a quick search [http://www.windowsphone.com/en- in/store/app/bitcoin-can/57fc...](http://www.windowsphone.com/en- in/store/app/bitcoin-can/57fcf4d6-497a-4663-8da3-93cb26c83b11)</comment>


Would College Students Retain More If Professors Dialed Back the Pace? - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2018/02/01/581864513/ <comment><USER2> This article is untethered from the mammoth amounts of research that's been done specifically on how people learn. The answer to this question doesn't lie in anecdotes about various professors' "philosophy", in fact that kind of approach is a huge barrier to actually improving the learning that occurs on college campuses. This is an opinion article, so I understand it's not thorough reporting, but the author should familiarize herself with the literature.

A book like [https://www.amazon.com/Make-Stick-Science-Successful- Learnin...](https://www.amazon.com/Make-Stick-Science-Successful- Learning/dp/0674729013) is accessible and provides a good survey of what we know about how the brain learns and remembers things, and how it relates to existing practices.

<comment><USER3> This.

For instance, we all probably had to go through math classes where the professor writes so fast that it's a hand cramping race just to even scribble together enough notes to follow each gigantic derivation later for learning purposes. Nobody in that class is retaining any of that.

The kid who aces that class, is almost invariably someone who likes to to play with the equations in their free time at their own pace, so they get a feel for what process they need to employ toward a solution rather than brute forcing it. (When applicable, sometimes brute force is the only tactic.)

Math classes in general really, desperately need to slow down and let students grasp higher-order concepts. The number crunching method is stressful, and all it does is massively discourage bright people who may be geniuses in their field but flee University because the school made Calculus their "breakout" class.

Anecdote. When I went to University, I had a professor who graduated MIT tell the class that he'd realized how much pressure we were under in our Calculus class trying to keep up, that this was deeply unfair, and that he was erasing our last test score because they were unreflective of the performance that he knew we were capable of if we had any time for his class. Calculus was a core requirement, his class was elective, so almost every student had been forced to ignore his class, and we were amazingly lucky that he was good enough to sympathize.

This man used to work at Bell Labs and swam 200 laps a day to keep fit. And he was telling us we had it rough. I saw people cry out of gratitude.

<comment><USER4> Anecdata: I didn't grasp any of algebra until 10th grade. From about 7th to 10th grade chemistry class, I was just winging it. Sure, 10x=30, I could get x. But any of the trig or the parabolas, not a chance. It wasn't until chemistry, when I actually had to use algebra to get the molarity, moles, grams, etc, that I was able to grasp it. I remember sitting in class after the bell let out, on my desk, just doing the molarity equations over and over. It was one of the largest smiles of my life. I finally _got it_.

So, math happens when it happens. Maybe, yeah, I was a little retarded from the rest of my peers in grasping this idea of algebra. But I did get it eventually, when I needed to use it, finally. Saying that math is 'hard' isn't the best way of going about it. Everyone is different and learns differently and at different times. Some may not be able to get 3rd year Calc until they are 30, some get it at 15.

I tapped out of formal math classes at number-theory at ~22. Diff-eqs, Lagrangians, General Relativity, all fine with me, but number theory was a whole different level of pedantry I was not about to dive into.

<comment><USER5> _It wasn 't until chemistry, when I actually had to use algebra to get the molarity, moles, grams, etc, that I was able to grasp it._

There was this study that found this kind of difference in application. People were given a logic problem phrased abstractly. Then other people were given the same logic problem, but phrased in terms of catching someone cheating at something. It was like people's IQ's suddenly greatly increased.

I also remember an anecdote about this father coaching his kid through the multiplication tables, which the kid didn't like and had trouble with. They were riding in the car quizzing the kid, who was not doing well, but then the kid asked to do the 7's, which he rattled off with aplomb. Turns out, the kid really liked football. (US football)

<comment><USER4> Nice ones!

I think application is important, but the diversity of what a child will care about is crazy large. You can't reach them all. My SO is a teacher (of chemistry, ironically) and some kids get the material and some just don't. It's not a lack of trying, it's just that they don't get it. As such, the frustration of the child comes out and makes things worse. Good family lives are _very_ important throughout their lives and help, but some kids just aren't going to get certain subjects. We're all different people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm not sure that slowing things down would necessarily work well in science or math fields, but I can name what I think would: focus on _doing_ rather than _reciting_. The best calculus courses twin it with basic physics, showing not only how the material is used in-context, but its aesthetic qualities and what it sets the stage for.

<comment><USER7> I agree strongly.

As an example of a major doing things correctly, in my opinion, is MIT's aerospace engineering with their "unified engiineering" course that covers the basics in a highly integrated fashion.

My experience in a different engineering program was that I learned some sophomore math freshman year (because I had placed out of "freshman calculus"), then didn't use it at all until junior year when I had forgotten it. And then things tried to be integrated senior year when we had a senior design project that tied all our random classes together. I turned out alright, but I think an integrated approach would be much more fruitful.

All that said, I do think there is some value in having the purely mathematical ability to look at an equation, classify it as a certain type, and then know how to solve it. Not every problem you face in life will be an application that existed when you were in college.

<comment><USER8> My uni (Wisconsin), in the engineering program, apply some old philosophy of a ratio of time in class to time in lab. It's something like 50/50 or 40/60, I think a lot of students prefer it that way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think the point of undergrad is to have as much exposure to relevant material in the field, so later in their professional life if something relevant comes up they'll at least remember that they learned about it and know where to look. Also, if the students find one particular thing interesting and want to learn more about it, that's what grad school is for.

I don't remember the details of every algorithm I learned in college, but if a need arise, I know what my options are and the details are usually one Google search away.

<comment><USER10> Also, the organization of the massive amount of information available out there into a nicely sequential curriculum is understated when talking about the benefits of college.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Yes. They might also get more sleep and sleep is pretty important for cognitive functions. The fact that sleep deprivation is a normal on campuses and even in hs is a travesty.

Not sucking at scheduling would also do wonders.

Also, some space to interact with the topic the way I want. Tell me whats needed by the end of the semester and let me study for it my way.

<comment><USER12> > Also, some space to interact with the topic the way I want. Tell me whats > needed by the end of the semester and let me study for it my way.

As a professor, I so wish we could do this more. But realistically, it seems that we just can't afford to let students fail who aren't yet equipped to learn that way. But I do try to allow for this while still staying within the bounds of fairness, for example, giving students a grade based just on exam scores when that would be a higher grade, so they can blow off homeworks that other students really need credit for to shore up their grade.

<comment><USER11> > let students fail who aren't yet equipped to learn that way

This is a failure of the system tho. It's my understanding that e.g. in Czech Republic failing actually isn't a big deal as you can retake the exam (same material, different actual exam) shortly after the first one. This can make a huge difference.

I can go into more detail. I realize that things probably won't change but small changes can have big impact.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Yes.

This goes to basic misunderstandings of the goals of education. At the collegiate level, the goal (opinion statement) of education is creating deep understanding, higher level thinking, and life-long metacognitive and learning skills. While this may incidentally occur via a philosophical model of pedagogy that is driven by transmitting information, that approach is massively inefficient.

Giving more information is not the same as creating better understanding. Creating better understanding requires time and practice. The phrase of art in educational research is Deliberate Distributed Practice...DDP.

But you have to structure courses around it. The best method known is backwards design. Backwards design involves clearly identifying learning goals in advance and then backing out from that the appropriate content, pedagogical approaches, and assessment measures to achieve those goals. These things must by systematized and cannot be simply flipped on by teaching a faculty member basic elements of using active learning in the classroom. That won't work because such faculty members still hold a view of education as transmitting content, which is an entirely different paradigm in which lecturing actually makes rational sense.

<comment><USER14> _At the collegiate level, the goal (opinion statement) of education is creating deep understanding, higher level thinking, and life-long metacognitive and learning skills._

Nominally, yes. In reality? No. The reality of higher education is to act as a preliminary screen for employers. Few people who apply to well known schools get in. Fewer still survive to complete their degree. Many switch programs (to a less competitive field), drop out, or even commit suicide.

I wish universities were as committed to education as they say they are. But we wouldn't have people failing right out of school if that were the case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> As an undergrad, what's honestly needed is a variety of pace. I don't mind sprinting through a topic, but I can't do it for a whole class all semester. Students become complacent if you slow down permanently, but also fail to absorb information if you constantly push.

Run the blitzkrieg, but give me a week every once in a while to catch up and consolidate the knowledge.

<comment><USER4> Ar you in a quarter or semester system? I've found semester systems to much better for STEM classes, while quarter systems are better for humanities, at least for me.

<comment><USER15> Semester -- I would agree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Taking things slow is good _under certain circumstances_. You have to ask yourself whether or not the content of the class is disjointed from the rest of the curriculum for most of the students that are taking it. A computer science student will be constantly using basic programming skills, giving it time to crystallize into long-term memory; introductory programming classes can be rushed and still effective, as long as the content is constantly reused. The same goes for many other skillsets. In my anecdotal experience, learning things slowly is most effective when studying content that doesn't have a convenient connection to a current understanding, or even no connection at all.

The biggest problem with this approach is that general education requirements in modern education strongly disincentivizes taking things slow. Most universities I know of bog students down in 2 or more semesters of classes entirely irrelevant to their field of study. Although taking another 2+ semesters of relevant study would definitely improve understanding, very few students are going to eat thousands of dollars going out of their way to make up getting shafted by gen-ed classes.

<comment><USER17> Computer science is probably not the best example. That's one subject where 99% of learning happens by doing the problem sets.

I even had one teacher who told us he never went to class, so he didn't expect us to, but that showing up would make the problem sets easier. In classes like that, the lectures basically act as a starting point, and establish the scope of the problem sets. If you didn't attend the lecture, you can still do the problem set, but you'll probably end up over complicating it because you missed the many hints of how to approach it that were in the lectures.

<comment><USER16> I would argue that computer science is a bad example because blue collar programming, systems administration, etc. largely doesn't require a college education at all, for the reasons you mentioned. Short of research and study concerning the mathematical limits of computers, hardware, and software, much of the computer work that is largely better served by a period of work experience than that same period in university.

The point that I was (and doing a poor job of) trying to make is that concepts that will be constantly reviewed anyway probably won't benefit from an inordinate amount of time being dedicated to them, as the "working memory, long-term memory" issue mentioned in the article doesn't fit such situations.

<comment><USER18> Even "white collar" programming doesn't require a CS degree. Several of the most innovative, careful, and productive programmers I have ever met were English or Philosophy majors (arguably we should hire more of those in the software industry).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I deliberately selected a college where I knew I would be pushed hard. And I was. The first year was pretty hard, as I thought I could wing everything like in high school. By my junior year, things got a lot better. I was learning more at a faster pace, and it was good.

It depends on what you want. I didn't want to waste time in college. I wanted to get all I could out of the 4 years.

As for sleep deprivation, sure that happened, but it was my choice. There were too many fun things to do! I was never bored in college.

<comment><USER20> > I deliberately selected a college where I knew I would be pushed hard.

Learning a lot in a short period of time is strongly coupled with coping strategies and discipline due to time pressure and the high requirements. After this process you probably have gained some insights about yourself and further, confidence to have capabilities to read and learn through whatever comes your way. At least to a certain degree.

> It depends on what you want. I didn't want to waste time in college. I > wanted to get all I could out of the 4 years.

However, I think there's still a lot of space for improvement. Especially towards technical or math expertise. A lot of students even lack of the bare basics just a few months after the exams are over. And even more importantly, problem solving skills and critical thinking are, at least in my experience, neglected. One of the main reasons therefore is the lack of time. Thinking and solving a problem _yourself_ instead of looking up the solution or being able to reproduce a solution at your exams are two different things. With the former being the critical point at which universities currently fail the most.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've taught some undergrad courses, and unfortunately in practice this is a bit of an upstream problem. The pace of main line non-remedial courses is often set by the scope of course objectives, which in many cases are tied to accreditation. For higher-level more specialized courses, there is at least more freedom.

Basically, even something that seems like a simple shake-up in education often would require a top-down redesign when considering actual implementation. Higher education is highly conservative and bureaucratic in its processes.

</comment><comment><USER22> People tend to forget information that is not useful to them. The age old problem with school curriculum is so much of it doesn't apply to day to day or even professional know-how. Getting students to retain more information is pointless if there is no value in retaining the information beyond final exams.

The better pursuit is for schools to work on constantly realigning their curriculum towards what is necessary for modern life and employment. Drop the overpriced, poorly executed general education classes and stop hindering students from learning more about what they're interested in.

<comment><USER23> > Drop the overpriced, poorly executed general education classes and stop > hindering students from learning more about what they're interested in.

I remember more from my first-year philosophy/communications/ethics classes then I do from half of my CS curriculum. I didn't have much of a classics education, but presumably, the value of it is not in learning the classics (Nobody actually gives two rat's asses about the the themes of the Illiad), but in learning how be analytical.

The purpose of general education classes is to turn us into better people, and the purpose of specialization classes is to make us employable. I think Silicon Valley could use a lot more of the former.

<comment><USER24> It's deeply ironic. We accept "teaching the classics teaches people how to be analytical" as a shibboleth to which we apply no scrutiny or analysis. Is there evidence showing that teaching classics helps with analysis more than say teaching math, logical reasoning, statistics? I strongly suspect that we would get better results if we replaced instruction on Greek myths with courses on Bayesian reasoning.

<comment><USER25> Also ironic: "shibboleth" seems to be the new favorite buzzword of the HN shibboleth.

<comment><USER26> Anyone who has studied the Middle Eastern classics knows "shibboleth"

<comment><USER25> I know the term, I was saying it seems to be used much more frequently around here than in any of my other circles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The biggest issue for me was that it was hit or miss if my professors were going to actually teach or if they were going to power through powerpoint slides for 50 minutes. Mostly research heavy professors that are just doing classes because of contractual obligations.

The best professors I had did not read exclusively off of the projector.

</comment><comment><USER28> Slowing things down implies selectivity. If you have time to talk about fewer topcis, you'd better be quite sure they're more important than the ones you've omitted. It's a high-risk endeavor for the instructor. What if you pick the wrong topics? You have to have a lot of confidence in your judgement to teach a slow class. Much safer to cram as many topics as possible into the semester.

</comment><comment><USER29> The whole "that which doesn't kill you makes you stronger" and "in order to learn about how much there is you don't know and thereby develop a lifetime love of learning you should drink from a firehose for approximately four years" set of arguments is probably just producing a lot of semi burned out college grads IMO.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'd like to see computer science taught at a slower pace, especially in the beginning.

I know, I know, standards. And they do matter! But when I was a grad student at Berkeley (not in CS, I just knew someone taking the course), I saw what undergrads go through in their second course in CS (data structures and algorithms), and egads.

I see this as particularly worrisome in CS, because I consider the course to be a bit like teaching Spanish to people who grew up hearing Spanish but answering their parents in English. Yes, technically they are taking an intro course on grammar and writing, and maybe even speaking, but there's a gulf of difference between someone like that and someone who is genuinely new to Spanish (or perhaps has grown up in a monolingual environment).

The reason this is insidious, in my opinion, is that places like Berkeley take smart young people who would be good CS majors, puts them in an "impacted" major that is deliberately trying to shed students, and knocks them out by teaching Data Structures and Algorithms at a brutal pace. I think this is irresponsible, especially in an environment where 1) industry is braying about a shortage of talent, and 2) there are serious questions about low representation from certain demographic groups.

How about you teach data structures form the book, the first time around? Here's a linked list, here's how you code one. Now, let's code a binary tree. Now a hash map. Finally, let's try a graph. Ok, let's redo those an a more interesting context. If you're new to the language we're using, we'll give you the option of taking some time to learn it.

I don't want to lower standards long run, and I'm all for CS remaining a very rigorous major, but I think we lose real talent but running the major this way.

There's also a possibility that Berkeley is atypical, in that it is a program that draws strong students, but unlike an ivy or Stanford, has a lot of undergrads and is trying to weed them out. That may be a rare combination that gave me an unusual impression of what happens to CS majors.

Still, I hear there is a high attrition rate in CS even at elite privates that have more support. I've probably said this enough times, but I'll repeat it once more - I am not in favor of lowering standards too far, just taking it a little slower. I think many students lost to the major would meet these higher standards with a bit more time in the beginning.

</comment><comment><USER31> Is the ability to memorize as important in an always connected world? A broad overview means that you at least know what to search for when it is time to study something in depth.

</comment><comment><USER32> I retained the most when the prof actually enjoyed teaching. I retained the least when I was forced look at 80 powerpoint slides within 90 minutes.

</comment><comment><USER33> Universities try to shoot for 90% correctness/retention for students. In almost every post-college career, that number is 70% or even less in order to be a successful employee. Being correct about facts 90% of the time is less valuable than having a better overview about more topics. I think schools should speed up in information rate but decrease the required retention for excelling. The most useful classes I had for my career were the ones taught at 900mph where I thought I understood nothing, yet I learned the most from them.

</comment><comment><USER34> You don't learn from reading, you learn from doing; i.e. working problems. Even then it usually takes doing something 3 times for it to sink in.

The point of the fast pace is to weed people out. At least that is my take from engineering courses.

<comment><USER35> Why do they want to weed people out?

<comment><USER3> Colleges have become a confidence game where people exchange money for membership in an exclusive club. That's not say colleges SHOULD be this way, but the reality differs from the old rhetoric.

As Peter Thiel often says, why aren't all classes at Ivy League schools simulcast on YouTube if they're so great? We have the technology, it would be a boon to all humankind. But they make money off their exclusivity. (If the teacher contact compels you, why not at least make the lectures available to all and people can pay for the tutoring, you can probably keep enrollment up that way).

<comment><USER36> > why aren't all classes at Ivy League schools simulcast on YouTube if they're > so great?

Some are. See Coursera, Udacity, MIT OpenCourseWare, etc. There are now potrals organizing open university courses, and there are quite a lot of them out there.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tig: text-mode interface for Git - <AUTHOR> http://jonas.nitro.dk/tig/ <comment><USER2> Pretty neat. Another terminal/GUI interface is Magit, the emacs mode for git.

Stuff like this is nice because it does let one directly manipulate objects within a git repository easily with a few keystrokes, rather than having to type 'git exchange-frobnozz --quark-handler=positronium' constantly (or having a million aliases, each of which is useful right up until it needs to be modified slightly).

The disadvantage, of course, is that one really should still know how to use git competently at the command line for the 15% of tasks such wrappers aren't good at.

<comment><AUTHOR> I recently switched from vim to emacs (mostly cause I want to mess around with LISPs and emacs LISP support is good e.g. CIDER) and I've had my eye on Magit from the get go, haven't had the time to mess around with it yet but definitely looking forward to do that.

>The disadvantage, of course, is that one really should still know how to use git competently at the command line for the 15% of tasks such wrappers aren't good at.

I definitely agree with this. I always learn the core technology before learning any convenience layer/wrapper/abstraction e.g. {(git, Magit), (CSS, -Insert Grid Framework-)}.

<comment><USER3> IMHO, Magit is easy to pick up and well worth the modest time investment. I have found the new release to be pretty speedy and making the commit directly from within Emacs is very handy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I use this tool quite a bit. It's pretty nice, especially when SSHing into remote systems that don't have any UI available, but you need to do work with git repositories.

It's the best text-based tool I've seen for quickly visualizing git histories and diffs for each commit.

<comment><USER5> I like it a bit more colourfull and have more space for the commit notes than for the author's name:

      ~/.tigrc

      set git-colors = no
      set show-changes = yes
      set commit-order = topo
      set refresh-mode = auto
      set main-view = \
        date:default \
        author:abbreviated \
        id:yes,color \
        commit-title:graph=yes,refs=yes

<comment><USER6> Very cool, I've been using tig all this time and never even bothered to realize it was customizable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The one thing tig is really good for imo is the interactive log view with branch information etc.; it also loads asynchronously, so e.g. the Emacs repository will still take quite a while to load for all commits, but it's usable in the meantime.

<comment><USER8> Agree strongly. I find all the functionality unrelated to log exploration to be extraneous at best, and dangerous at worst, when a simple key press can actually make unexpected changes.

I'm perfectly comfortable on the command line for all the tasks except log exploration, where I find the interactive elements to be indispensable to prevent constant copying and pasting between log/diff/blame/show.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> One of the nice things about tig is its configurability. I have this in my ~/.tigrc, which helps a lot with my workflow:

        bind main R !git rebase -i %(commit)
        bind main M !git merge --ff-only %(commit)

<comment><USER10> I added that R binding a couple of months ago, and it is magical. I hated having to git log, copy the sha, and then 'git rebase -i [paste]' every time. I've mostly switched over to magit, but this is one thing I still use tig for.

<comment><USER11> For me, rebasing usually concerns roughly the last N commits, which is why I don't bother running `git rebase -i HEAD~N` and ignore and commits I don't want to modify.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Atlassian had a great blog post about tig that convinced me to start using it:

\- [https://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/05/git- tig/](https://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/05/git-tig/)

</comment><comment><USER13> Maybe it is a problem of me, but can't really get to use a visual front-end or framework (like gitflow) for git.

It almost always feels (inferior|complicated|bloated) compared to vanilla command line usage.

<comment><USER14> A visual tree view of how commits relate to various branches are always useful, doubly so when you can browse the diffs for the commits "point-and- click" (or arrow-keys, in this case)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> It would be nice to have pictures of the thing on the homepage... or anywhere linked. I had to find the atlassian link to even know what it looked like.

[EDIT] - I missed the folder called screenshots on the front page that has screenshots in it.

Also Magit, if you use emacs.

<comment><USER16> See [http://jonas.nitro.dk/tig/screenshots/](http://jonas.nitro.dk/tig/screenshots/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I use tig daily, it's so much faster to select the files/chunks/lines to add to the staging area than with the command line.

<comment><USER18> Staging view is quite useful and I spend a lot of time there too. Also, maybe because I haven't tried enough of the alternatives, I think tig does the best job of visualizing the commit graph.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you use vim, fugitive is a pleasant and powerful wrapper for git.

<comment><USER20> To further expand on your comment, Tim Pope's Fugitive plugin is an almost exact replica of OP's tig program.

Fugitive allows you to perform almost all of these actions while still in Vim; I'd say it's almost a must-have for anyone who uses Vim and Git.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Use this often, it's great and neat.

</comment><comment><USER22> I rely heavily on tig. highly recommended</comment>


Sxmo: Simple X Mobile – A Pinephone UI that is simple and suckless - <AUTHOR> https://sr.ht/~mil/Sxmo/ <comment><USER2> Looks like a cool project! However, I think that relying on hardware buttons as one of the main input sources is a bad idea. They are just not reliable and not engineered for continuous frequent use.

I miss the buttons, but there just not enough of them on the phone.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have a (big) box of old mobile devices which could easily run Linux as well as a Raspberry Pi. I really should do something with them.

That said, Pinephone's site has some amusing text: "the PinePhone runs mainline Linux as well as anything else you'll get it to run." LOL. It'll run anything that it runs. OK then!

<comment><USER4> It's not as nonsensical as it sounds: being an open hardware (iirc, with 2 exceptions) and software device, no one is locked out of doing/running anything they want to. So rather than the typical 'if you can jailbreak and then figure out how (good luck with that!), maybe you can do it' it is instead 'if you know how to write/port it and work with our well understood hardware, you absolutely can do it.'

A good example even on 'open' Android devices: you are typically stuck with a particular binary blob for the GPU drivers pretty much forever because there is no publicly available documentation for the hardware and therefore no open source GPU drivers are likely to ever exist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> These type of experimental interfaces what would make me to consider ordering one! Would love to try now

<comment><USER5> Done, now I'm waiting for my pre-order to arrive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It seems like UI navigation from the volume up/down buttons is not intuitive, is this on purpose?

<comment><USER7> Capacitive touch screens are literally the most flexible and expressive interaction patterns invented to date. I can't for the life of me figure out why you would hamstring yourself by using the 2 or 3 hardware buttons as a primary input method

<comment><USER8> One reason might be accessibility: for some people, it's a lot easier to hit a hardware button than a tap-target on a touch screen. You can feel around for the edges of the button, you get clear force-feedback when it's pressed, and you don't have to worry about accidentally hitting something else nearby.

<comment><USER9> It would be quite easy to improve both the "accessibility" and the practical UX of capacitive touch screens by establishing a norm where every potentially- destructive action (anything that cannot be "undone" with ease) can be made to require a 'slide to confirm' gesture. This workflow is already used by community-made "recovery" environments for touch devices, but it would be nice if it was adopted more widely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> i3 on a phone may not be the most sexy experience, but I still want it!

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h Sxmo is actually using dwm

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sony Vaio laptops used to have a 'jog dial': a combination dial and button (basically the same as a mouse scrollwheel/button). This provided a very convenient method of navigation, and this looks like a perfect use case for it!

<comment><USER12> This was also present on early Sony phones (1998-ish)

Top left corner here [https://youtu.be/htzwTVNfsRI](https://youtu.be/htzwTVNfsRI)

<comment><USER13> And a bit later (2002-2007) the Sony Ericsson smartphone series based on Symbian: the P800, P900, P910, P990 and P1.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Can't wait to play with this once my pinephone finally arrives.

</comment><comment><USER15> Is it just me or does the name read more like sucks more? Suxmo?

<comment><USER14> Or Sexmo ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> What's performance like?

<comment><USER17> [http://media.lrdu.org/sxmo_pinephone_demos/](http://media.lrdu.org/sxmo_pinephone_demos/)

<comment><USER18> Seems way more responsive than Ubports in those videos! I'm going to go try this on my Pinephone, am excited :P

</comment></comment></comment><comment> connor-brooks This is so cool! Great work :D</comment>


Ask HN: How to Split Revenue in a Startup? - <AUTHOR> What is your approach to determine the ratio to split the revenue of your projects. If you gonna build a product with a non technical guy together, it feels for me sometimes strange just to divide evenly <comment><USER2> Not enough information but maybe this can help: If the "non technical guy" ends up marketing and bringing in all or most of the paying customers, or handling all the bureaucracy, or managing staff, etc, then he might think the same about the "technical guy".

</comment><comment><USER3> Are you both starting the project at the same time? If so, 50/50 is fair, neither of you has added any value up to this point.

If you've already built out the product and are just now bringing in a non- technical person you can possibly negotiate a better percentage for yourself. Even better if you've already brought in some revenue.

</comment><comment><USER4> Go to the next highest fraction then? E.g. if it's just you and one other person give them a third, you and two others give them each a quarter, etc.

(Just an idea, I'm 100% an armchair quarterback here.)

</comment><comment><USER5> 50/50

If it feels strange. Hire that guy, pay his salary and split 100/0.</comment>