Buzz Aldrin Is Not All That Impressed With Walking on the Moon - <AUTHOR> http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2010/06/buzz-aldrin-is-not-all-that-impressed-with-walking-on-the-moon.html

<comment><USER2> First visible comment: "I would love to see it to bad Obama, gutted our awesome space program to give illegal aliens free health care."

Can we just burn down the internet yet?

<comment><USER3> Tranlsation: "We're better than them"

Conclusion: polarizing, divisive, conversation discouraging pot-stirring. Downvoted.

<comment><USER4> Why say 'better'? That's a value judgement.

Better informed and more logical is good enough for me, and somewhat hard to dispute.

<comment><USER3> Because I think the OP is making a value judgment.

You don't want to "burn down the internet" if you merely think some people on it are less well informed than you are, only if you think they are lesser people who don't deserve it, or to protect yourself / your group identity from "them".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't imagine the eventual Mars settlers will want to pretend and be under the control of the (US|Chinese|British|etc) governments, at least once there's a significant number of them. Wouldn't they want to form their own nation there? It'd be interesting to see how a society progresses when it's virtually under no threat of war or foreign hostilities at all... It'd also be a great way to reduce existential risk.

Some political ramblings, feel free to stop reading.. I lost some respect for Obama when he extrapolated numerous things well beyond his possible term limits, the space program specifically. I want to see him try and do more exciting things while in office. Though I believe the limited budget is starting to make NASA be more innovative again.

<comment><USER6> Political autonomy is fine, but remember this is not going to be like colonization on Earth where an ordinary citizen could actually just buy passage on a boat to America themselves. Getting the "chosen few" to Mars is going to require that ordinary taxpayers, who will never get to go themselves, make sacrifices. Is it worth it? Well I personally think it is, but that's up to the voters. However for the colonists to then turn around and say "screw you, suckers" is unreasonable.

<comment><USER7> Not sure it was just that easy for anyone to hop on a European ship back in the day and setup a new country.

He is talking decades after the first humans arrive. By that time commercial flights and colonization to mars may be possible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hopefully today's generation learns who the Toy Story character was inspired by:

Buzz Aldrin: To Mars and Beyond!

</comment><comment><USER9> After all these years, he's still trying to make Michael Collins feel better about that whole moon-walking thing.

</comment><comment><USER10> As Buzz points out, one of the biggest problem with the current space plans is the "we'll go there, and be back in time for tea" attitude. I.e. the requirement that anyone going to the Moon, Mars etc. be able to return.

We should be aiming for colonizing space with one-way trips and subsequent supply drops. The colonies should aim to become as self-sustainable as possible using robotic factories to mine and produce what they need on- location.

</comment><comment><USER11> He's right about the Moon landing being a stunt. But the Mars settlement will also be a stunt. Curing aging--that'd be historic. Creating a drug that will make us all happy and compassionate would be historic. Creating a "first world" country in the middle of an ocean where everyone in the world is welcome, as long as they obey the law and create wealth.

Space travel for our civilization is like a poor person putting gold-planted rims on his shitty car. Evolutionary theory has explanations for this sort of behavior.

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

<comment><USER12> > Space travel for our civilization is like a poor person putting gold-planted > rims on his shitty car.

Well, that's one (wrong) way of putting it. I suspect you may be trolling, but here's some reasons that we might /want/ to pursue space travel:

1) Right now, all of humanity's eggs live in one basket -- literally. One large asteroid strike, sufficiently virulent pandemic, nuclear war, etc, would wipe out our species. Planting a self-sustaining colony on a non-Earth body fixes that.

2) A self-sustaining orbital technology (necessary for a colony) would allow us to build enough solar power satellites to give everyone on Earth enough clean, cheap energy for the next thousand years.

3) Putting a large chunk of our manufacturing on the Moon or in orbit would allow us to reduce the environmental impact of industry.

By the way..."a drug that would make us all happy and compassionate"? Huxley called it "soma", and I would not want to live in the Brave New World.

<comment><USER11> Huxley is sci-fi and not reality, and so are your reasons. If you want to avoid a pandemic, invest heavily in biotech. If you want clean energy, invest in nuclear plants and more efficient energy storage and such. If you want to avoid a nuclear war, invest in infrastructure that will allow the world's poor to create wealth and raise their standard of living and not want to kill anybody.

By instead dumping all those billions into space exploration, you are actively raising the chance of something terrible happening here on Earth, this "basket" whose destruction you consider so nonchalantly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Human colony on Mars? No returns? Does he know what average Mars temperature is? Hint: Winter in Antarctica is a hot resort in comparison with Mars.

<comment><USER14> It's not like they will be walking around in shorts and t-shirts.

Frankly, I think there is some good reasons for a mars base. It's a shorter distance to the asteroid belt where mining could become a profitable idea.

At the very least, aiming for mars colonization would give us something to strive for and develop technology for. The stuff that came out of the moon program is still incredible today. We need big ideas. Somehow back in the 60s and 70s, big stuff managed to get built. We should return to that style of doing things. In my city, Montreal, they can't even replace a damn interchange built in the 60s which is failing apart. One project, compared to about 5 similar scale projects built back then. Instead we get some odd trash disposal system (read wired this month).

<comment><USER15> It's not so much that it's a shorter <i>distance</i> to the Belt as that the gravity well of Mars is so much shallower than Earth's - making Mars a cheap place to grow food for distribution in the Belt. The surface of Mars is roughly the size of Earth's land area, so there's lots of room for farming. OK, not so many volatiles - but put up some greenhouses and you're good to go.

<comment><USER13> It's much-much easier to grow food in Antarctica, than on Mars.

<comment><USER15> And much-much more expensive to get it off the planet. Also, six out of every twelve months, you're wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm not all that bothered about establishing a presence outside of Earth, myself. That said, I love Buzz Aldrin.

</comment><comment><USER17> i want to share this all-things-space industry/NASA YouTube channel that i've been enjoying for a while:

<http://www.youtube.com/spaceflightnow>

</comment><comment><USER18> I'd be happy to be mars settler... but where I should start?

<comment><USER8> on the summit of Olympus Mons

it would be all downhill from there :)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Programming Quotes API - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/skolakoda/programming-quotes-api <comment><USER2> Demo url does t seem to be working or not allowed on browsers?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup, it is just an empty page, I will fix it now.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Tetrisly – The Biggest Components Library - <AUTHOR> https://tetrisly.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> I would like to show you Tetrisly, probably the biggest and smartest Sketch components library.

How it could be helpful for you:

\- You can use it to build Interface Starter Kit for React/Vue components repository.

\- You don't have good skills in design but you need easy customizable components in Sketch app.

We are going to implement our component library in React/Vue soon.

Maybe you have other ideas how Tetrisly could help devs?</comment>


Bitcoin is the Wikileaks of Monetary Policy - <AUTHOR> http://launch.is/blog/l020-is-bitcoin-the-wikileaks-of-monetary-policy.html Followup from the really smart Rob Tercek on my bitcoin primer. <comment><USER2> This is the most intelligent assessment of bitcoin I've ever read yet!</comment>


AprilFools.css - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/wesbos/aprilFools.css

<comment><USER2> I could imagine using the blur one with subtle, seemingly erratic movements on a 30s loop. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> haha thats exactly what it does :) Just long enough for you to question your own sanity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> These will be great to use in the office. Thanks for sharing.

</comment><comment><USER4> Any idea how to make this work for Safari folk as well?

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks like safari has something similar: [http://www.commercetuned.co.uk/accessibility/user-style- shee...](http://www.commercetuned.co.uk/accessibility/user-style-sheets.php)

A user stylesheet plugin would work as well

<comment><USER4> I'm trying to write a "performance enhancement" script to send around to my fellow workers - hoping to just bash my way in. :)</comment></comment></comment>


There's No Good Reason to Trust Blockchain Technology - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/theres-no-good-reason-to-trust-blockchain-technology/ <comment><USER3> I hate blockchain so much and I can't even exactly say why. Not because of the technology itself. I care about it as much as any other technology. I think it's because of the sleazy non-tech people that suddenly turned into "experts" raising money for their BC startup, people organizing meetups, becoming "consultants" and of course the whole crypto craze... I really wish it will die soon.

<comment><USER4> I also hate blockchain but I can say exactly why. Someone came up with a hard problem and created an overly complex and inefficient solution to it. So I have two issues with it. 1) I don't buy that the original problem it sought to solve, which I believe is currency related, but let's say it's trust in a distributed system where trust does not exist. I don't believe that is an actual problem that should be solved with a general solution like blockchain. 2) the solution doesn't scale well and is overly complex. It is overkill. I think that much simpler solutions would be sufficient and should be purpose built. I also wish it would die soon.

<comment><USER5> > I don't believe that is an actual problem that should be solved with a > general solution like blockchain

AFAIK this _was_ a well-known problem for digital currencies. I think it was "eCash" that went the furthest ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecash) ), with "blind signatures" to prevent transactions being linked to the same user, but couldn't solve the centralised trust problem.

BitCoin's "solution" is to share a ledger, pick the longest in case of forks, prevent spam using Hashcash and keep the hashcash barrier high by turning mining into a lottery.

This is a pretty cool hack, since it addresses not only technical security concerns, but also economic and social aspects. Yet I see it as a pathological, brute-force edge-case: technically a solution, but less "this problem is now solved" and more "ha, I hadn't thought of that; we'll need to specify the problem better".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you're a technical person, you don't need to trust Blockchain technology; you can verify that it works on your own. If you're not a technical person, you can find independent technical experts to verify it for you.

Much of the value of a cryptocurrency can be attributed to the fact that it's difficult to coordinate a large number of people to agree on changes. Also, because most blockchains are public ledgers; it's impossible to manipulate them behind the scenes without raising alarms.

On the other hand, fiat money is constantly being secretly manipulated. There is very little transparency and much of the new fiat money which flows into the system has to pass through big financial firms/gatekeepers who get their cut of the new money supply. Big finance firms have had many decades to figure out how to game the fiat system and there is no doubt that they've been successful at it.

Cryptocurrencies have the potential to greatly improve the financial system by making it simpler, fairer and more transparent. When anyone will be able to launch their own cryptocurrency, we will have a chance to free ourselves from the coercive influences of debt, venture capital and corporations.

<comment><USER7> "If you're a technical person, you don't need to trust Blockchain technology; you can verify that it works on your own. If you're not a technical person, you can find independent technical experts to verify it for you."

That holds for Proof-of-work based currencies... It seems like it's trickier than that for proof-of-stake, as these have to be trustful systems.

<comment><USER8> Because exit scams are a thing, it may be difficult to prove that a proof of stake blockchain will always be trustworthy, but it should be possible to verify that historic proof of stake records are accurate. I'd expect we will see some independent auditing tools of this type for monitoring PoS blockchains.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Another classic in this genre, though more focused on world impact, is Charlie Stross's "Why I want Bitcoin to die in a fire" (2013)

[http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/12/why-i- wa...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/12/why-i-want-bitcoin- to-die-in-a.html)

I may not be quite as strident as either of these takes, but I agree that the proponents are significantly overselling on a variety of axes... (while also believing that distributed append-only systems with consensus mechanisms can sometimes have value)

<comment><USER10> I don't see why you think this article is a case against Bitcoin. The article is saying "I don't want Bitcoin to exist", but nearly everything else is listing you reasons to invest in it (even if you dislike the reasons, it's like buying stocks in a company who will be bailed out, even though you don't agree with the bailout).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> 1\. yes there is a trust flow when you join a network:

* you need to trust the paper behind the consensus mechanism

* you need to trust the people who have implemented the client, and trust them to maintain it

* you need to trust the TLS connection you use when you download the client. Meaning the whole CA system

* you need to trust your own machine, when running the client

* you need to trust the first peers you connect to when you join the network

* after you're connected to enough peers, you can usually feel safer. But you'll still have some out-of-band comparison to do between your chain and other people's chains.

2\. supply-chain with blockchain = scam to me. I'd be interested in hearing about a real use-case, but when you're trying to bridge the gap between reality and the blockchain, then it usually doesn't work well.

3\. Here is my mental model of consensus and why it can be useful: we have protocols that work well when everyone is honest. They mostly break when malicious peers start appearing. Consensus is the cryptography field of study that attempts to solve this issue. You need a good chunk of people to be honest when you run such a protocol in a "public" setting. We recently discovered, with bitcoin, that financial incentives work well. So now we have:

* financial incentives can help us make public consensus protocols work

* research brought us good consensus mechanisms that we can use in more private settings

The technology works well when you think of banking. Many banks want to cooperate in the way they exchange money between them, but they don't necessarily trust each other, or their security. So they form a protocol using a consensus mechanism.

Now, a cryptocurrency is exactly the same thing, but in a way where anyone can connect directly to the backbone of these banks' infrastructure. You will necessarily have plenty of issues stemming from that: what if you lose your money, get it stolen, what if the exchange you use get hacked, etc. But the benefits are still pretty awesome: you are not going through a bank, you are directly connected to the system.

Just my 2 cents.

<comment><USER12> One of the main points of the article is that the government and the legal system is an effective mechanism of trust. If you're worried someone will squelch on their end of the deal, you write up a contract and thereby get to sue them if they fail to do so.

This is usually where the bitcoin adherents start referring to corruption and the ilk to explain why government can't be trusted. But Schneier has the rebuttal: we know damned well from experience that you can't write bug-free, secure code. Bitcoin requires hidden trust in the programmers of the software, and in the community to move forward on decisions, and history has borne out that this trust is misplaced.

Blockchain isn't trustless, it just replaces trust in a system that is designed to efficiently enforce sanctions against those who violate trust with a system where every participant is responsible for policing trust individually.

<comment><USER11> I think it's nice that people can make a choice. I can definitely see how people from different background, communities or countries might have more trust in a decentralized system.

Personally I put most of my money in my bank, because this is who I trust. I tend to trust European banks more than American banks as well because I've heard horror stories here of people being impersonated and banks refusing to refund such scams.

Ideally, if everyone's bank would work on a decentralized network (that works, is bug-free, scales, has high-throughput, etc.), banking throughout the world would be a simpler experience. Decentralized and centralized at the right places.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > What blockchain does is shift some of the trust in people and institutions > to trust in technology. You need to trust the cryptography, the protocols, > the software, the computers and the network. And you need to trust them > absolutely, because they're often single points of failure.

This is wrong. You do not need to trust them, because you can verify their correctness yourself. You cannot similarly inspect the rectitude of your local bank manager's moral compass.

I find it very odd that someone like Schneier wouldn't recognize this obvious truth. Is there "no reason to trust AES" because you have to trust the implementation? What kind of silly argument is that?

<comment><USER14> >You do not need to trust them, because you can verify their correctness yourself.

 _I_ certainly cannot verify their correctness myself, and I'm a professional programmer! I don't touch cryptography with a thirteen-and-a-half foot pole. Most people wouldn't even know where to start. Only a tiny minority has the skills to singlehandedly verify the economic theory, cryptography, and implementation of a cryptocurrency.

Pretty much all the time, you're trusting _other people_ to have caught bugs and malicious code for you. Many independent reviewers are far more trustworthy than a normal company (which is why I avoid proprietary software), but that doesn't mean you aren't taking someone else's word that the software works as advertised.

<comment><USER15> Piling on to your comment: even the experts get it wrong. Even if you are the most knowledgeable person in the world, you are going to miss things. Nobody can "verify the correctness", it's not technically possible.

<comment><USER13> Of course, but that's not the point. The point is that you have the opportunity to check it yourself, even if you choose not to avail yourself of that opportunity. And just by that opportunity being available to people, it keeps people honest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The author has demonstrated a very amateurish understanding and greatly conflated Bitcoin technology with blockchain technology in general, drawing the reader to make the same poor conclusions as the author.

Just a quick example

> "The second element is the consensus algorithm, which is a way to ensure all > the copies of the ledger are the same. This is generally called mining;" \- > except that is only applicable for (proof of work POW) consensus and does > not apply to proof of stake (POS) and delegated proof of stack (DPOS) which > several of the top blockchain projects are currently using (even Ethereum is > moving to POS). Both of which are far more environmentally friendly and use > asset ownership (stake) as the mechanism for consensus, which is much more > reliable (in a trust sense).

Gosh there is so much that is conflated here. The article can be completely deconstructed but I just don't have the time. It's unfortunate this is coming from Wired. Tsk. Tsk.

<comment><USER17> > except that is only applicable for (proof of work POW) consensus and does > not apply to proof of stake (POS) and delegated proof of stack (DPOS) which > several of the top blockchain projects are currently using (even Ethereum is > moving to POS).

For POS, you have to trust the rich people and you have to trust that the disincentives to cheating actually work the way they're supposed to. Neither of these have very compelling arguments right now. The fact that Etherium thinks POS is ready is utterly unconvincing — Ethereum also thought that Solidity and its VM design was ready, and that has withstood the test of time very well.

<comment><USER16> That is why I'm more of a fan of DPOS and (EOS) where I can take part in a voting mechanism to establish a set of trust worthy nodes who will validate the network.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Maybe with Bitcoin I have to trust the software a little bit, but at least if it turns out to be faulty, I can switch to another app.

That's much harder to do with governments controlling fiat money. Or with banks. What is a person supposed to do, who is denied financial transactions by the established financial service providers (paypal, credit cards,...)? There have now been several cases where paypal and others have tried to silence people by cancelling their accounts. What can you do, in the traditional banking world?

And many complaints are not about things Bitcoin actually promises to do. It doesn't promise to make exchanges safe.

The environmental impact is a concern. Miner power perhaps not so much. For example mining hardware coming from one company doesn't seem that bad - <USER2> can simply verify the transactions the miners find before sending them out to the network.

<comment><USER19> Isn't that the central problem with something like Bitcoin and currencies that can be (read: have to be) mined, though? You gain units of the currency for underpinning the integrity of the system. The average person will never be able to build up a mining system to compete with the likes of China and India where they're mining Bitcoin in farms that potentially devalue the currency every single second.

Edit: For clarity, yes, I understand that there is a finite amount of Bitcoin that can be mined. I'm talking about the value of what's constantly being mined. The US would never use Bitcoin as a currency when other countries already have more of it than we do.

<comment><USER18> What do you mean by "farms that potentially devalue the currency every single second"?

<comment><USER19> Any currency is only as valuable as the goods or services that they can be exchanged for. The value of money comes from its inherent scarcity as, in the case of fiat currency, only a government or federal agency can issue more of it. With Bitcoin, farms are generating more of the currency all the time. If I generate a ton of Bitcoin but never spend it or use it in exchange for goods and services, I'm simply devaluing the currency that's already out there by making it less rare and, by extension, less valuable.

This may be a misplaced example but I think Star Trek is a decent analogy. Money becomes worthless once replicators are invented in that universe because you can just make more of whatever you need. If China can just mine more Bitcoin than the average citizen of any other country, then China starts to determine what the value of that currency is. It's one of the main reasons why I don't think Bitcoin will ever replace fiat currency. It's already being exploited.

<comment><USER18> If you mine a Bitcoin and don't spend it, you are making the remaining Bitcoins more valuable (in theory). You have reduced the overall supply.

With Bitcoin, the maximum number of Bitcoins that will ever exist is fixed.

It doesn't really matter who mines them. Of course at the moment, indeed, new Bitcoins are mined all the time, but the timeline for the future is clear.

Whether it is a good thing, I don't know. There are a lot of weird aspects about it.

As for China - sure, some miners will accumulate a lot of BTC. But they can only affect the price by selling or not selling it. If they wouldn't mine the BTC, somebody else would. It doesn't really give them that much more power, except for monetary power.

It's probably true that right now there are several people or entities who could crash the Bitcoin price by simply selling off all their BTC. That's not very reassuring.

On the other hand, such a crash could also be a chance to distribute BTC more evenly. It would actually be in the interest of the rich BTC people, too, as it would lead to more adaption and hence more value and stability.

Distribution is a hard problem.

There are several problems with crypto, but they are also interesting, and smart people are trying to solve them. At least it is fun, even if it is unclear if it will be worthwhile in the end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> >What blockchain does is shift some of the trust in people and institutions to trust in technology. You need to trust the cryptography, the protocols, the software, the computers and the network. And you need to trust them absolutely, because they're often single points of failure.

So it is still people and institutions except abstracted into pieces that are more transparent than pre-existing options.

Also it is always hilarious to see the rehashed arguments over and over. First being that necessity of a blockchain is a requirement for successful implementation, and second the complete negation of systems where it actually is a necessity.

</comment><comment><USER21> _" Private blockchains are completely uninteresting. (By this, I mean systems that use the blockchain data structure but don't have the above three elements.) ... Consensus protocols have been studied in distributed systems for more than 60 years. Append-only data structures have been similarly well covered."_

I don't entire agree with this. Yes, distributed systems and various consensus protocols have been studied for many years, but the cryptocurrency boom boosted public interest and applicational development in a way that would not have happened without it.

Private blockchain can have many benefits compared to centralized models. It's not necessarily better and it's more of a trade-off, but it does present solutions that's not otherwise possible. For example, in a distributed system, we can use IoT devices as lightweight nodes for quick validations. This can give security to off-site locations with limited computation power and/or connectivity.

In addition, there's now many consensus protocols that tries to solve or amend the three elements the author mentioned. For example, Stellar-Lumen's implementation of Federated Byzantine Agreement creates the concept of reputation on top of trust. The ledger network is public, and is essentially a directed graph of trusts. Anyone can join but other nodes pre-existing on the network may not necessarily trust your validations, so this at least amends the first element the author mentioned.

In conclusion, blockchain technologies are over quoted for their finance applications. To quote a YouTube video I watched, look at blockchain technologies as the operating system, and cryptocurrency as one particular app on the operating system, like your browser. It surely is over hyped but shouldn't be hated upon solely due to the public's mistaking interest.

<comment><USER22> Private blockchains are interesting because it causes separate business to share code and data formats. There is a better interface for integrating. Plus you still get the rule of law.

<comment><USER11> Good point. It also forces them to be accountable, and facilitates regulation from third parties. Something that should be welcomed when you look at how opaque banks are trying to be sometimes.

<comment><USER22> A really interesting part of this process in helping decision makers within companies that working together and sharing a ledger can actually improve the bottom line. I have a friend who does these types of deals for HyperLedger at IBM. It's even more challenging than The Challenger Sale, because it's multiple and requires coordination.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Author fails to mention that people for sure not only don't trust banks but also governments. the whole argument that trust is not needed because institutions fails in all failed states that author happens not to live in. I remind you the "chancellor on bring of second bailout". that's the value proposition. Lastly, author can't spell Ethereum

</comment><comment><USER24> > These four elements work together to enable trust. Take banking, for > example. Financial institutions, merchants, and individuals are all > concerned with their reputations, which prevents theft and fraud. The laws > and regulations surrounding every aspect of banking keep everyone in line, > including backstops that limit risks in the case of fraud. And there are > lots of security systems in place, from anti-counterfeiting technologies to > internet-security technologies.

The problem isn't that banks and the government don't trust each other, it's that the _people_ don't trust the banks and governments (see: crisis with the Bank of Cyprus).

If there's one thing I trust, it's that a bitcoin that I 'own' will stay mine (barring oversight on my own part). I have less trust that money in the bank will stay my own.

</comment><comment><USER25> As of today, blockchain doesn't deserve much trust. Agreed. But it's the early days of blockchain and the experimenting, particularly with certain applications such as crypto currencies, will continue for a few years or even decades. However, if Blockchain projects try hard not to make the same mistakes as today's broken digital platforms, we might be able to trust in a trustless world... here is my post from yesterday on the topic: [https://www.ankerventures.com/blog/trustless-new- world](https://www.ankerventures.com/blog/trustless-new-world)

</comment><comment><USER23> YC is very Blockchain friendly, Wozniak likes it,Larry Page is mining Ethereum, Jack will bring Bitcoin micropayments to Twitter, inventor of javascript runs a crypto browser now and Reddit CEO loves it too. I wonder why the top comment here is someone that hates bitcoin with all his power. A psychology study will surely be interesting about why some techies hate it so much really.

</comment><comment><USER26> I've stopped loving, hating, trusting or distrusting it: My client wants to auction thousands of cars with 7 competitors. He wants parts of it on blockchain. If that's the way he can create trust within this group of competitors, so be it. Is it marketing? Maybe. But we've built it and it actually works.

<comment><USER27> Got a link? Sounds interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I chuckled when I saw the embedded tweet from Vint Cerf:

[https://twitter.com/vgcerf/status/1019987651301081089](https://twitter.com/vgcerf/status/1019987651301081089)

</comment><comment><USER29> This extends to: There's no good reason to trust computers... (including Apple)... there are exploits, negligence and malice left and right

</comment><comment><USER30> 1) Schneier evidently doesn't understand alternative consensus algos to mining. That's OK; they're hard to understand. Even permissioned chains apparently hard to understand.

2) Schneier doesn't understand that some people choose to trust the cryptocurrency community more than the banking/government community. If he looked at the first block of bitcoin aka "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" he'd understand why this seems reasonable to many.

<comment><USER31> I think it's folly to assert that the only reason someone disagrees with you is that they "don't understand".

I hope you get a chance to see Schneier directly challenged on those topics.

<comment><USER30> Well, he seems to think consensus = mining; I got news for you -that's not even remotely true! He also seems to think permissioned chains are worthless; hyperledger fabric seems to have a whole lot of investment for a worthless thing. And things like EOS which blend voting/stake with permissioning seem to work reasonably well, even if an EC2 crash would probably take them down.

I'm no blockchain maximalist, and I understand the disgust at the hype around it, but it is an important tech, and Schneier obviously has done no real thinking on the subject. He doesn't even make a distinction between "coins" and ... blockchains. They're not the same!

This is only his misunderstanding of the technical aspects. As I said above, he also misunderstands the social aspects. Some people really trust the crypto community more than they trust banks/governments. It's at least a reasonable hedge, particularly in light of the events described in the bitcoin genesis block.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> That's kind of the whole point of it - is that you don't need to trust it.

<comment><USER22> The point the author is making is that the "you don't need to trust it" is fundamentally misplaced. You do need to trust the institutions, and builders of, much in the same way you need to trust any business you choose to interact with them. The issue of public blockchain is that I now need to trust code and technology in a system where the events are no longer reversible. We know that code and technology is not perfect. This shifting where the trust is placed, without the recourse of law by peers, is why public blockchain may not make it beyond the great experiment. Now add the incentives and protections for malice... what's a reasonable person to trust in public blockchain

<comment><USER33> Lots of technological systems have non-reversible consequences. For instance hard drives and airplanes for example. Schneier is essentially identifying an inherent trade-off between trusting the correctness of a technological device vs trusting in an institution. This is a trade-off happens all over the place:

1\. Many people don't encrypt their email (trust technology) and instead trust gmail and associated intelligence agencies to act in their best interest.

2\. Many people encrypt their HTTP connections rather than trusting ISPs and internet providers.

An important difference between encrypting HTTP connections and encrypting email is that one is far more convenient than the other. However encrypting your email does make sense in certain situations and so does Bitcoin.

<comment><USER22> Why public Bitcoin over a bank's own blockchain solution?

<comment><USER33> Does a bank's own blockchain require trusting that bank? If so then you probably don't need a blockchain since you already have assumed a trusted third party.

If you are aiming to reduce your institutional trust assumptions to me the question is why not use Bitcoin?

<comment><USER22> That's sort of my point. I actually don't care about the technology underneath. I care about the monetary system and its adherence (and recourse) to the rules of law that humans have generally agreed upon. Like, if you steal, the societal system will correct the wrong as much as they can.

It's an open question as to whether public blockchains can provide for this trust and requirement.

<comment><USER19> I think that blockchains can provide more trust than the current system because the ledger is publicly visible. The societal system still kicks in to remediate the effects of a mistake but the blockchain is an additional tool used to provide the evidence and support for such a reversal. For me, personally, I think the best solution is a form of blockchain run by a state/federal agency. You're putting trust in an institution, yes, but the underlying technology helps support that trust.

<comment><USER22> I don't really want all of my personal actions on a publicly visible system. Consider Facebook's internal data or the Chinese Social Credit system available to the public.

I do like the idea of an internet where every action is traceable to a human, via public keys or sovereign identity.

How you'd retain and verify is an unknown for me.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

<comment><USER2> The tabloid media is rampantly out of control in the UK. Huge headlines embellishing on outliers are contributing to these vast misconceptions of reality.</comment>


Explaining My Live Music and Realtime Visuals Rig - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esL4tjtwaac <comment><AUTHOR> Hi, some of you were interested in my mechanical modular last year and this is a larger scale video that shows it how it fits into everything else I'm trying to do.

I hope that some people on here will enjoy for the sheer technical complexity while others will enjoy the monkey to whom I am explaining it...

<comment><USER2> Great stuff!

Btw how did you make the diagram?

<comment><AUTHOR> Just threw it up here if you want to poke around [https://github.com/michaelforrest/live-visuals- explainer](https://github.com/michaelforrest/live-visuals-explainer)</comment></comment></comment>


United Kingdom: The Anomaly In Google's Revenue - <AUTHOR> http://statspotting.com/googles-revenue-numbers-the-anomaly-called-uk/

<comment><USER2> Maybe brits are just more lazy than people from other countries and just click on ads to find what they want.

Or maybe british advertisers are crazy and pay insane prices for adwords.

Or maybe a mix of both. Who knows, but frankly, the brits are getting raped by Google through the hemorrhaging of $1bn per quarter taken out of the domestic economy. It is obscene for a company, any company, to reap the benefits of a developed economy and not pay any taxation to support the education, welfare and security of the economy they profit from.

</comment><comment><USER3> Probably not that surprising given that Ireland is a tax haven for most large U.S. corps' presence in all of Europe. If I sign up for AdWords or AdSense now, I'm dealing with Google Ltd, even though I am not in the U.K.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure I understand that point correctly. The Republic of Ireland isn't part of the United Kingdom.

<comment><USER3> Yes, but when people refer to the U.K. as a region, they usually mean the U.K. (i.e. including Northern Ireland) and the Republic of Ireland. Ireland is seldom its own region.

There is no mention of the Republic of Ireland in their earnings report, yet their European headquarters are in Dublin. "U.K." in the report means the U.K. and Ireland.

<comment><USER5> Really? Where have you seen this? And what evidence do you have that Google's report isn't including Ireland in its "Rest of World" figures?

To include an entire country under the heading of another neighbouring country without making that explicit is a _mistake_ , not an _assumption_ , doubly so when Google have quite large (and distinct) corporate presences in both Ireland and the UK. It wouldn't be too far from Starbucks listing all Canadian and Mexican profits under "United States" when there's a perfectly normal term to describe the geographic region ("North America"), just as there is with the British Isles.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


U.S. children read, but not well or often: report - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/12/us-usa-reading-idUSKBN0DS04L20140512 <comment><USER2> Recently, I stopped over a friends house. And, I was surprised to see a group of 7 or so 9-11 year olds all watching their computers or devices. At first I thought they were having a lan party, playing a game. So, I asked them what they were doing, and they said they were watching youtube videos. I observed them for a while and watched as they'd go back and forth between each other, sharing different links then sitting in silence, watching. Then, they'd get together and talk about it. I'm not sure what they were looking up, but they were all engrossed, sharing in some sort of learning experience.

I'm not sure if this is good or bad (who can really say?). But, I see it in my son, who is 9. I get frustrated that he's not reading at the level I was, when I was his age. And, we certainly have lots of books around the house and encourage good reading habits. However, he likes his videos and audio.

Didn't Marshall McLuhan predict this back in the 60s? The 'book' as we know it has only been around for a few hundred years. And, certainly it's been quite important to our progress and exchange of information. But, information has been communicated for thousands of years, in different means, with success. I'm fairly optimistic that new generations will rely on different types of communication to exchange ideas and to learn. Books will not be irrelevant, but books (and reading) are being replaced, in importance. What will happen when we re-evaluate all of our knowledge outside the context of the 'Gutenberg mind'?

<comment><USER3> > I'm not sure if this is good or bad (who can really say?).

Actually, there are many people who can say whether it's good or bad.

> Didn't Marshall McLuhan predict this back in the 60s? The 'book' as we know > it has only been around for a few hundred years. And, certainly it's been > quite important to our progress and exchange of information. But, > information has been communicated for thousands of years, in different > means, with success. I'm fairly optimistic that new generations will rely on > different types of communication to exchange ideas and to learn. Books will > not be irrelevant, but books (and reading) are being replaced, in > importance. What will happen when we re-evaluate all of our knowledge > outside the context of the 'Gutenberg mind'?

I suggest you pick up a copy of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shallows:_What_the_Internet...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shallows:_What_the_Internet_Is_Doing_to_Our_Brains) to broaden your outlook.

<comment><USER2> What I mean is: who can predict the future?

The 'book' had certainly impacted the structure of Human thinking, and McLuhan suggested that this resulted in things that weren't necessarily 'good' (maybe some good? some bad?). Likewise, new technologies will again change the structure of Human thinking. But, we can't presume to know how this will turn out.

<comment><USER4> Exactly, nobody can. When we were drawing in horse crap - a car was a life saver. Now everyone complain it's killing us with cancer and drawing us in the future melted ice caps. Nobody can tell what impact it will have on human brains in 100 years... I deff know that watching cartoons all day is bad. And a lot of parents do just that - here is an iPad, just shut up and let me be. But if it used for study... Who knows?!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's not just kids. About 6 months ago, I started reading "Constellation Games," a really fun and clever sci-fi novel. Yet it now sits on my desk about 2/3 complete. I didn't lose interest or anything -- I simply find it increasingly difficult to set aside time for pleasure reading, for a variety of reasons. Even though I enjoy long form reading, it's now something I have to schedule and force myself to do.

I'm not sure whether I'm actually reading less in total (I don't believe so), or simply whether reading novels has been displaced by reading, say, HN and blogs. If _I_ find it difficult these days, I can't imagine how difficult it might be for kids with (presumably) much shorter attention spans.

<comment><USER6> We are reading more crap. I read tons of blogs, HN, reddit, and useless stuff every day. Seems important, but not. We are overloaded with shallow information. When I was young and there was no internet, getting access to information, especially one with depth was a delight. It opened up a new world, where your imagination went to work. Today, there are very few things that wow and have my mind racing as it did when I was much younger. The same applies to kids today, with TV/Internet they have somehow seen it all, even if it's just at the surface level, so very few get drawn to dig in deeper.

<comment><USER7> I find my active creativity is _much_ higher when reading well thought out print material like the New Yorker, fiction OR non-fiction book. My mind races with new creations and combinations. This rarely happens with online material which favors the NOW instead of the good. One cannot subsist off of newspapers and blogs along, they are deficient in all the nutrients the mind needs.

The thoughts are shallow and hurried with repetitive easy to digest truisms. A single sentence expanded to fill an entire article.

Reading something deeply takes work. Writing it even more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Subtext:

"About 46 percent of white children are considered "proficient" in reading, compared with 18 percent of black children and 20 percent of Hispanic kids.

Those gaps remained relatively unchanged over the past 20 years, according to the report."

I.e., it's likely that the change in the average is driven by a change in the proportions of the components, not a shift in the by-component means.

</comment><comment><USER9> Doesn't the following quote from the article contradict the title's assertion that kids are not reading as well?

"Despite the large percentage of children with below-basic reading skills, reading scores among young children have improved since the 1970s, according to one test that measures reading ability.

The reading scores among 17-year-olds, however, remained relatively unchanged since the 1970s."

<comment><USER7> This should have been communicated in some sort of chart.

Maybe children are progressing at a slow rate in their earlier years but making it to the same plateau as 17 year olds? Our reading proficiency might have been more of a step function / trapezoid, arrived early and then grew slowly, vs constant slower growth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Am I the only one that finds it ironic that this article is in the "one sentence per paragraph" form that I tend to associate with _bad writing_ (or perhaps writing aimed at people who don't read long form)? I imagine the journalists are somewhat to blame for this. I'm looking at you, Buzzfeed.

<comment><USER11> No.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> According to Jim Trelease's book, "The Read-Outloud Handbook", one of the most important things to with your kid is to read to them every night.[1] The book, from what my recollection, discusses how students in other countries, such as Finland, perform better overall because their parents tend to read to them every night.

Even someone like Warren Buffet focuses on reading - spending "80 percent" of his workday ready.[2]

1\. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Trelease#The_Read- Aloud_Han...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Trelease#The_Read- Aloud_Handbook) 2\. [http://theweek.com/article/index/248655/the-warren- buffett-f...](http://theweek.com/article/index/248655/the-warren-buffett- formula-how-you-can-get-smarter)

</comment><comment><USER13> Even if YOU don't have children, this is a big deal—this essentially means a highly-illiterate work force for the future. As an educator, I can read with students in a classroom, have them read aloud, and even assign reading outside of class (which they generally don't do, mind you), but it doesn't help if adults and parents aren't making an effort to encourage by example.

If I'm a kid who wants to be a web developer one day, and I decide to follow Paul Irish on Twitter, you had better bet your buttered biscuits it makes an impact when Paul is doing nothing but tweeting links to industry articles left and right. This goes beyond the simple need of just having mommy read you a bedtime story...

<comment><USER14> It would be worrying if reading ability was actually getting worse, but the article mentions that this is not the case.

> Reading scores among young children have improved since the 1970s.

> The reading scores among 17-year-olds, however, remained relatively > unchanged since the 1970s.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The New York Times article on this study had a comment suggesting that kids "text" but don't read. I thought it funny that the author thinks that kids only write text messages, but don't ever read them!

Actually, this Reuters article touches on this:

"Rideout cautioned that there may be difference in how people encounter text and the included studies may not take into account stories read online or on social media."

And therein lies the problem with the study. Kids probably do more reading- online, on social media, text messages and in video games.

Granted, the quality of writing encountered is likely substantially lower (certainly a subjective claim), I think kids are probably reading a lot more than this study suggests.

</comment><comment><USER16> "Rideout cautioned that there may be difference in how people encounter text and the included studies may not take into account stories read online or on social media."

IOW, the study is completely invalid, but we'll report it anyways.

</comment><comment><USER17> _The reading scores among 17-year-olds, however, remained relatively unchanged since the 1970s._

Interesting. At least they catch up.

Isn't this just another casualty of the war on public education and teaching for these stupid common core tests?

<comment><USER18> Another quote: "... reading scores among young children have improved since the 1970s, according to one test that measures reading ability. ..."

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I do not see the problem. I have never read books for pleasure. Most of the books I own are technical or reference material that have practical applications. Why would I want to read for pleasure? I did not find anything interesting about The Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, or To Kill a Mockingbird which were standard readings when I went to school. Maybe I do not have the imaginative capacity like those people that "get lost" in books.

<comment><USER20> Story-telling is important for society.

It teaches us how people might react to situations we are not immediately familiar with, and how to empathise with people (characters) who have a different viewpoint than our own.

And, it teaches us how to communicate our own stories effectively (as you have done here, in fact).

So, I find it strange that you have never enjoyed reading fiction books. It is not necessary to read fiction to gain any particular skill, but reading fiction helps you gain a wealth of skills.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storytelling#Storytelling_and_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storytelling#Storytelling_and_learning)

<comment><USER21> It's true that story-telling is important for society, but I also find this view a bit... utilitarian.

Story-telling and reading are important because they are enriching, pleasurable activities; among the best there are, in fact. That they also make you a better person is a welcome bonus.

<comment><USER22> It's really depressing that people are citing studies to justify reading novels.

That's a story for the ages...

<comment><USER23> At the age of Fitbit, Soylent, 4-hour work week, etc, and particularly on HN, it seems you have to have some sort of reward or definite end-goal to partake in any activity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Does the HN title accurately reflect the article? Was this a wordlwide study? The title of the article is "U.S. children read, but not well or often: report"

</comment><comment><USER25> its cuz of txtng

Not just texting, but it seems like any communication online is excused from having to follow any sort of rules. People try to justify it in a sense of 'This is just how kids speak these days', but would any other field allow a grotesque destruction of itself?

What's the lol-speak equivalent in math, science, or art?

<comment><USER26> "What's the lol-speak equivalent in math, science, or art?"

We should be proud no one mentioned Religion yet. Whoops.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'd really like to see a study of how many words are read by the average person today vs. 30 years ago. Reading fewer novels may, but doesn't necessarily, imply less reading overall.

</comment><comment><USER28> In related news the sky is blue.</comment>


Grub with YC alumni - <AUTHOR> http://www.grubwithus.com/ycombinator

<comment><USER2> I have been to 9 grubwithus dinners so far and loved every one of them.. this is a really awesome concept!! Eventually they should come up with 'Grubwithus Now' where people can join impromptu organized meals with a bunch of random strangers whenever they want to, instead of having to plan the thing in advance.

</comment><comment><USER3> Pardon my ignorance, but will there be a 'alumni to attendee' ratio maintained? Is there any guarantee if alumni will show up? If yes who and how many?

<comment><USER4> This page was sent out to a bunch of YC founders before posting it here. Just scanning the list I see at least two YC alumni (and usually three or more) at every meal except for La Fiesta, where it's apparently just me so far!

<comment><USER3> LA seems to have none. I did a manual google search for each attendee (after going through individual profiles) and no one seems to be a YC alum. (I could be wrong, just looked quickly through 10 people)

They should just have a separate list for YC alum attending, kind of like you have for speakers at an event.

<comment><USER5> The first meal in LA has Hamilton Chen from Paperlinks and Nikhil Pandit from Graffiti Geo (sold to Loopt). The second meal has Joey and Yotam from Earbits and..me

<comment><USER6> Hamilton is awesome. I don't know Nikhil, but I can say that dinner with Hamilton will be full of great insights on people, products, business, and your ideas. He's an awesome guy, and I'd be grabbing this meal if I was down in LA!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The second meal in Chicago (at Dearborn st.) has no vegan options at all. I know the value is mostly from the social experience but even so having nothing that one can eat at the dinner deters someone like me from attending.

Does Grubwithus take requests to include vegan / vegetarian options?

<comment><USER5> I'm vegetarian so I know your pain. We try to have veggie dishes whenever possible, but that restaurant is a barbecue joint...sorry. I'll see if there's anything they can make though.

<comment><USER7> Thanks. No worries for this case, though. I just got into the one at La Madia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Grubbing the La Fiesta meal at Mountain View! <http://t.co/fxM4Oziz>

</comment><comment><USER9> Didn't I read a story once about how GWU got in trouble for something like this?

<comment><USER5> Yup =) We've kissed and made amends...

<comment><USER10> Are you guys going to add anymore YC GWU meals in LA?</comment></comment></comment>


PARC Project CCNX - <AUTHOR> http://www.ccnx.org/content/welcome

<comment><USER2> The notion of a content addressable network, where content is defined broadly enough to encompass services, is profoundly important. Some of us have pushed towards for years and it is nice to see some PARC weight behind it.

For an example of the profundity, consider that all location-addressed content is intrinsically ephemeral. When the ownership or maintenance practices of the location change, the content can change or disappear. With content addressability (in a uniform, stable, global way) we begin to have the possibility of authentic digital artifacts, addressable on the net by ordinary people in familiar ways (like following a link).

Or as another example of the profundity, consider the political, social, and economic power of ICANN - the ultimate sovereigns over the ownership of location names. Content addressability provides an alternative to submission to those or any other humpty dumpty when naming things for others to find on the 'net.

<comment><AUTHOR> You mention "authentic digital artifacts". To me this is the most important thing missing in the web. How you address it is 2nd. However, I am not sure CCNX is the right path to go. While the need is there, their implementation doesn't make sense.

Something as fundamental should be ubiquitous and dead simple to use, without mentioning any code, programs, daemons or nodes to end users.

Also, they are very poor in sending a message. I don't have an hour to watch their video presentation just to figure it out what it is. (unfortunately I had to)

<comment><USER3> If anyone is working on this, I would be thrilled to hear more.</comment></comment></comment>


Just 29k Western Monarch butterflies are left in California - <AUTHOR> https://www.kqed.org/science/1956190/just-29000-western-monarch-butterflies-are-left-in-california-thats-down-from-millions <comment><USER2> Maybe worth noting: we've lost about half of Earth's wildlife in the past 40 years. [1]

[1] [https://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/wwf-report- reve...](https://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/wwf-report-reveals- staggering-extent-of-human-impact-on-planet)

<comment><USER3> This is one of the reasons I think we'll soon be talking about more than 'just' climate change, as the problem is much bigger still: we are committing planet-wide ecocide.

Also maybe more focus on root causes will follow: that we are still promoting unbridled consumerism, and that inequality created an upper class that is trying to maintain the status quo. More focus on the latter is already happening.

<comment><USER4> We're in a position with a lot of power, but this is obscured from us. When we trace the strings which run from ecocide to ourselves, it is easy to see what changes we need to make.

<comment><USER3> While this is true, and I agree, this insight has been obvious for at least the last 40 years. Seeing the change is unfortunately very different than bringing the change. I am afraid most people need the emergency at their own doorstep before they are truly willing to act and make sacrifices to their way of living.

<comment><USER4> Have you stopped buying plastic?

Have you stopped buying the myriad "cleaning" products which pollute your home and create pollution in the process of being produced?

Have you stopped buying disposable clothing and plastic trinkets?

If you are still buying these things, you are complicit in this ecocide. And now you know it, too.

Once you stop yourself, you can tell others, too.

Without making changes in your own actions, there's little you can ask of anyone else.

This is a change that will come one individual convincing another individual, one at a time, to stop contributing to the problem.

No one else will do it for us: politicians don't give a fuck, corporations don't give a fuck, regulators don't give a fuck, military doesn't give a fuck, even "scientists" are mostly in the same camp of not giving a fuck, for the most part.

We are the only ones who give a fuck, because it's our close relatives, and soon, us, who are being exterminated.

And we are feeding and building our own extermination machine.

<comment><USER5> We are facing a tragedy of the commons, and individual action does _not_ solve that. This holds true for overfishing, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, you name it. The change we need is pigovian taxes, which factor negative externalities into the price of the activity causing it, instead of letting them be amortised by society. Consumer-shaming is not how we solve a tragedy of the commons.

If half the world stops burning fossil fuels tomorrow, the other half will enjoy cheaper oil and double their emissions the next day. Tax pollutants.

<comment><USER6> Exactly! We need to stop acting like people will wake-up one day and change all of their habits. You want to change behaviors? Make it so expensive to engage in those behaviors that they're no longer economically viable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Meanwhile, 3 days ago: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/second- man...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/second-man-with- ties-to-mexicos-largest-monarch-butterfly-reserve-found- dead/2020/02/02/d655c3b4-460b-11ea-91ab-ce439aa5c7c1_story.html)

<comment><USER8> must the environmentalist arm themselves?

<comment><USER7> In Mexico? A lot of them do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm part of a group that is developing RNAi-based pesticides [1]. One of the biggest advantages of such a technology (even relative to organic pesticides like Bt toxin) is the ability to target pests in a highly specific manner and avoid non-target organisms such as monarch butterflies and honey bees. There are likely many factors influencing insect population declines, but hopefully this and similar technologies as part of an integrated pest management strategy will offer a lot of benefit.

[1] [https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/pesticides- biocides/conf...](https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/pesticides- biocides/conference-on-rnai-based-pesticides.htm)

<comment><USER10> removing one species typically has a chain effect.

EDIT: are you also investigating these chain effects?

<comment><USER9> Stopping say thrips or aphids eating a horticultural crop somehow removes a species, which then usually has a chain effect? Can you show me some scientific literature where this is typically the case?

Personally I don't research these 'chain effects' in depth as it's well outside my area of expertise. There are however many research groups and government agencies looking at ecological impacts of crop protection measures. Some of their presentations are in the link I provided. As scientists, we collaborate on these kinds of things.

<comment><USER10> when it comes to aphids, their predators like ladybugs would be affected. aphids are not a problem they are a symptom of a problem [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGlqnkE1Id0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGlqnkE1Id0)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > _habitat loss, the use of pesticides, disease and the changing climate have > all likely contributed to the decline of western monarchs_

We can dance around proximal causes all we want, but all environmental roads lead to overpopulation.

Most people associate acting on population with China forcing abortions or tearing down homes, or racist eugenics policies or forced sterilizations.

That's why when I talk about overpopulation, I talk about success cases like Thailand. Or how Mexico's soap operas helped lower that nation's birth rate. These cases brought prosperity, stability, and abundance.

When they say we need more people to create more minds to solve bigger problems, I point out the geniuses have already been born and they said the population was too high. Besides, what was the world population that produced Beethoven and Shakespeare. Einstein was born to a population below 2 billion. Buddha and Jesus lived below 1 billion.

The greatest technologies to solve our environmental problems aren't solar powered planes, thorium, and rocket ships. It's IUD, vasectomies, and other tools of family planning, along with educating everyone about it.

<comment><USER12> > That's why when I talk about overpopulation, I talk about success cases like > Thailand. Or how Mexico's soap operas helped lower that nation's birth rate. > These cases brought prosperity, stability, and abundance.

Can you elaborate on these and/or provide links?

At first thought it seems absurd that telenovelas could significantly impact the birthrate.

<comment><USER11> My introduction came from Alan Weisman's book Countdown. I did a couple podcast episodes on it: [https://shows.acast.com/leadership-and-the- environment/episo...](https://shows.acast.com/leadership-and-the- environment/episodes/250-why-talk-about-birthrate-and-population-so-much) and [https://shows.acast.com/leadership-and-the- environment/episo...](https://shows.acast.com/leadership-and-the- environment/episodes/248-countdown-a-book-i-recommend-by-alan-weisman).

Here's a New York Times article on Mexican soap operas and family planning [https://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/05/world/soap-opera-in- mexic...](https://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/05/world/soap-opera-in-mexico- dramatizing-birth-control.html)

This article covers soap operas around the world and family planning [http://utminers.utep.edu/asinghal/Articles%20and%20Chapters/...](http://utminers.utep.edu/asinghal/Articles%20and%20Chapters/JA%20Singhal%20Rogers%201989%20Educating%20Through%20Television_R.pdf).

Search results with more [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mexico+family+planning+soap+opera&...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mexico+family+planning+soap+opera&atb=v173-1&ia=web).

<comment><USER12> Thank you for the links, it sounded like you might have more expansive thoughts out there and that's what I was after.

I appreciate it!

<comment><USER11> We're in this together.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If you can, visit the Monarch Grove at Natural Bridges State Beach in Santa Cruz. Even though the numbers are down significantly, it is still visibly better than last year, and it's wonderful to stand amidst the Eucalyptus trees and see the butterflies swarming.

<comment><USER14> Standing in the midst of the butterflies at Natural Bridges some time in the early 90s is truly one of the wonders of my life.

That day, there were easily more than 29k just in that one grove. By staying still long enough, I was covered in butterflies as they flittered about looking for a place to be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I remember first visiting Santa Cruz in the 90s and being disappointed to be early for what was still expected to be a magnificent season.

Earlier this winter I was splitting an old log pile and disturbed three hibernating monarchs. I felt like a real jerk for waking them up. I hope they survived, and learned to be more careful disturbing the more obvious hibernation sites in the garden.

I wish my connection with nature had come earlier in life.

</comment><comment><USER16> While the "plant milkweed" is nice advice, I seem to remember that you have to plant a very _specific_ species of milkweed. If you plant the wrong milkweed, you wind up killing the butterflies because they don't have enough energy for their migration.

<comment><USER17> Not an expert, but some digging in on this indicates there is one species folks advice against (topical milkweed); otherwise the advice is a species native to your region.

Some sites out there can help you pick a milkweed for your region. [[https://blog.nwf.org/2015/02/twelve-native-milkweeds-for- mon...](https://blog.nwf.org/2015/02/twelve-native-milkweeds-for-monarchs/)] and [[https://monarchjointventure.org/images/uploads/documents/Mil...](https://monarchjointventure.org/images/uploads/documents/MilkweedFactSheetFINAL.pdf)]

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I used to mock organic food and it's proponents, there's absolutely no nutritional benefits, but watching the sixth major extinction[0] on Earth unfold, caused by us, it's hard to justify the widespread use of pesticides.

We have a responsibility as the sentient beings here to protect all these things, they nourish us, they keep ecosystems and everything we need to survive in balance, small they may be, yet hold so much importance to the only known living planet in the galaxy. Life is really simple to nurture and hopefully we don't fuck it up.

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

<comment><USER19> organic food won't help with extinction. if we switched to organic food we would have to plow down the remaining rain forest to feed the same number of people we do now

<comment><USER20> Or we could reduce our meat consumption. Americans eat nearly 100kg of meat per person per year. Twice as much as the Chinese and still nearly 50% more than Europeans. Not to mention the average Indian who eats less than 4kg per year.

<comment><USER21> A push towards cured meats could help with this... my meat consumption last week was a 4oz pack of prosciutto. Way more tasty than a hunk of beef, and if I continue at that rate for a year I'd consume less than 6kg overall. And it's not like I'd get sick of prosciutto, there are all sorts of cured meats with interesting and unique flavor profiles to choose from.

<comment><USER22> I'm not gonna go searching, but quite certain cured meats are strongly linked to high cancer risks.

<comment><USER23> That doesn't make the assertion wrong, though, even if a bit ghoulish.

<comment><USER22> Hah! Excellent point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > population has declined by over 99 percent

> This year's estimate [...] stands at about 29,000 monarchs, __just above > __last year's all-time low

> Federal officials are __considering __listing monarch butterflies for > protection under the Endangered Species Act

Very disappointing that the feds are moving so slowly.

</comment><comment><USER25> I recall, as a kid, having probably more than 30k monarchs for past my house every year. My kids were lucky to see a handful. :(

</comment><comment><USER26> Well... you know... housing in California is expensive.</comment>


The extortionists at Yelp - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2010/03/15/the-extortionists-at-yelp/ <comment><USER2> The title of this blog post is sensationalistic. As described by the author himself, Yelp's actions seem completely justified. A burst of 15 positive reviews from new users in a short period would make a user like me suspicious.

And assuming that the 15 reviews garnered an average score of 4.5 stars, it would have placed the business in the top 3-5 ranked business in all of Bedford, MA (its hometown). If Yelp allowed such rankings, it'd be a slippery slope into spamville.

<comment><USER3> I agree that the title is sensationalistic. That being said, I think it's a poor product decision on the part of Yelp. Showing and then removing reviews is a lot more suspicious than not showing them at all for a period of time (until a user has made a second review, or some other criterion), or showing them but not counting their rating toward the overall business rating (until the criterion are met).

<comment><USER4> Not showing the review would put users off. Users need instant feedback. "I wrote something -- it got posted in a second" If they had to wait a day or two, they would not use the site. The second idea of showing reviews but not counting the rating is better, but then after a while it seem these reviews should be garbage collected, which is apparently what happened.

On the vendor's side, telling your users to post good reviews for discounts or for promotions is a bit like spamming I think. There is no good way to 100% detect spam like this, so there is always going to be controversy.

Also, hopefully Yelp has enough lawyers if it operates in a country with loose libel/slander laws.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've personally spoken to a restaurant owner that told me that a Yelp salesperson told him that negative reviews would be removed if he signed up.

Nothing they do will really surprise me anymore.

<comment><USER6> I once did some market research for a project in which I tried to get in contact with a Yelp sales rep for a real business. After waiting a full month, they finally called me. It was the most unprofessional sales call I've ever encountered. Girl was making jokes with her friends in the background, couldn't explain to me what they give you for $400/mo, kept trying to get off the call. Sounded like a bored intern, told me to 'uh call back or something' when I wanted to buy the plan. I could tell she sure as hell wasn't a trained salesperson.

I also talked to Citysearch. Called me back within 24hrs, had a ton of talking points, offered to come to my office the next day with a presentation, gave me her personal cell number. World of difference and professionalism.

I almost got the sense that the Yelp girl didn't know how to sell Yelp's plan without offering to cure bad reviews. Since there weren't any there, she didn't know how to sell it...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Relevant link: [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/yelp-sued-for- alleg...](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/yelp-sued-for-alleged- extortion/) Comments claim that first positive comments were removed, then promotional calls were made for a subscription. No hard proof, but same pattern repeated by several people.

</comment><comment><USER8> If its an algorithm that makes the choices - why would businesses get phone calls asking for money to put them back up?

They've only really addressed half the story.

Kind of upsets me too, I have friends that work at Yelp.

<comment><USER9> He's merely speculating based on the WIRED article, he hasn't actually gotten the call. I see nothing wrong with removing some reviews that appeared algorithmically fraudulent, so Greenspun isn't really adding any evidence against Yelp.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If this is a widely practiced tactic and not just a few renegade sales reps, then it's going to get ugly. Someone is going to record these phone calls and release them. Whether it's legal to do that or not, it won't matter. Once they're on the net everyone will hear them and they will be permanent.

<comment><USER11> And Yelp will just claim they were by interns or renegade sales people and carry on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Should Yelp just tell people how it decides what is spam?

This would alleviate some of its reputation problems but, then adversaries would know exactly how to game the system.

</comment><comment><USER13> As described, there's no actual extortion going on, just a bunch of positive reviews disappearing off of a page, and a bunch of hearsay. Is this sarcasm? Trolling?

<comment><USER14> I think Phillip Greenspun has probably earned enough reputation in the hacker community that we can assume he isn't trolling, especially considering the update he posted. The fact that a bunch of legitimate positive reviews vanished shortly after they were posted certainly looks suspicious from the point of view of a business.

Yelp's sales calls are known to include offers to restore hidden positive reviews and hide negative ones in exchange for a fee. That sounds an awful lot like extortion to me. Furthermore, as a user, I know I can't trust the information that appears on Yelp.</comment></comment>


Developing a viable cannabis breathalyzer - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2018/08/04/634992695/the-pot-breathalyzer-is-here-maybe <comment><USER2> I would like to know how this works. THC is an oil or resin. For it to appear in your breath it has to be a vapor unless it is rolling out of your mouth as smoke. What is the vapor pressure of THC?

<comment><USER3> Here's an interesting tidbit:

The tricky thing about THC, however, is that it is a large and complex molecule unlike ethanol, the main compound in alcohol, which is relatively small and simple. According to Tom Bruno, a NIST research chemist and co- author of the new paper, the vapor pressure of the THC compound is "very, very low," which makes it difficult to measure.

Bruno, along with fellow NIST researcher and lead author Tara Lovestead, found a way to skirt around this issue by measuring THC vapor pressure with a vapor- capturing technique called PLOT-cryo. It works by trapping vapors in a solid substance that coats the inside of a small tube. Because the tube is so small, Bruno said, the process is very efficient.

"You don't have to collect a lot to get an analyzable result," he remarked.

The PLOT-cryo device works like a very sensitive nose. It can sniff out different compounds from the air, and has been previously used to identify explosives as well as decaying flesh.

[https://www.seeker.com/health/new-thc-finding-paves-the- way-...](https://www.seeker.com/health/new-thc-finding-paves-the-way-toward- an-effective-marijuana-breathalyzer)

<comment><USER2> Thank you that was interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why use less reliable proxies like breathalizers to gauge impairment when we now have the technology to measure it far more directly: convert traffic cop cars into mobile virtual reality driving simulators.

Put a gaming laptop in the trunk, and the DWI suspect behind the wheel with a VR headset on and let them drive through a couple of minutes of reasonably challenging simulated traffic. Let software come up with an objective score and store the simulated session as evidence if they fail.

Not only does this more directly measure impairment, it catches any cause of it, not just a particular substance. Virtual driving impairment will correlate with real driving impairment far better than parts per million of a molecule in the bloodstream.

<comment><USER5> It's an interesting idea, but the critical issue with it is that it's not illegal to be bad at driving. That could change, but that's how it is now.

<comment><USER6> If someone drives as if they are drunk, all the time, then I don't think they should have a license as they are clearly a danger to public health. On a similar note, the driving test for a license could include a run in the simulator to both test driving skills and establish a baseline for the test. Then the impairment could be measured as relative to that baseline.

I think it's a good idea.

<comment><USER7> > If someone drives as if they are drunk, all the time

This doesn't test "all the time". It only tests at one point in time.

States have entire sets of due process for removing someone's license due to medical reasons, etc. It's not on the spot based on a video game running from a laptop in an officer's trunk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It couldn't be any worse than "specially trained officers" who are able to detect whether someone is high by thier mannerisms and arrest people who aren't using anything.

[https://www.11alive.com/article/news/investigations/the- drug...](https://www.11alive.com/article/news/investigations/the-drug- whisperer-drivers-arrested-while-stone-cold-sober/85-437061710)

<comment><USER9> That article is completely terrifying.

* I am much too much of a control freak to ever ever try drugs; no moral issue, just not for me.

* I have a drink of something on social occasion maybe once or twice a year, maybe not. Never got behind the wheel with even a sip of alcohol that day, let alone a glass, let alone anything approaching legal limit.

But I'm a klutz and I'm an introvert and I get nervous easily and I have _NO_ idea what kind of "signs" my body would display in stressful situation with a police officer at night (my body an my brain have an uneasy working relationship - we mostly put up with each other:).

It is very literally my nightmare scenario to be accused by a police officer of intoxication where none exists. As much as I 100% support them, I'm probably more afraid of roadside checks than an actually inebriated person.

<comment><USER10> I was charged with a DWI a year ago. The case is still going through the court system.

I was pulled over for speeding, going 36 in 35. Yes I am serious, one mile over. But this wasn't surprising to me, I am a young Hispanic man so this is a normal occurrence for me.

First thing the officer said was "boy you look nervous". As most adults pulled over by police feel. I handed my license and insurance over. The license had my old address the insurance had my most recent. He asked? "Is this your address", "yes", "why is the address different?", "because I moved a couple of months ago and have not had time to drop by the DMV", "Step out of the car sir"

I refused the field sobriety test but offered a breathalyzer. I blew a .034, that's less than half the legal limit.

He asked more questions, I answered but was short and untalkative.

He ended up arresting me. I asked him, why if I blew half the legal. He gave me three reasons. One; I was speeding and that I must be intoxicated to not notice the speed signs, two; I was uncooperative and nervous and that's a sign of drug or alcohol use, and lastly I forgot my address so I was obviously impaired.

The latest offer from the prosecutor was moving my charge down to reckless driving with 1 year of probation. My lawyer says I can probably get it dismissed.

It has been the worst experience of my life. Thank god I have enough money to hire one of the best lawyers in town, for $7k btw.

<comment><USER11> I must be missing something here. What are you actually charged with? DUI? How can that stand in court at all if the breathalyzer obviously proves you were under the limit?

<comment><USER12> In most US states, the 'legal limit' as detected with a breathalyzer is just a threshold that results in automatically being charged with a DUI/DWI if you exceed it. Blowing under the threshold doesn't provide you any kind of legal protection against being charged with a DUI/DWI.

<comment><USER13> So, in short, you should never blow, as that's never going to help you in any way?

<comment> evil-olive In most states, refusing a breathalyzer test can cause suspension of your license, even if you are completely sober:

[https://dui.findlaw.com/dui-arrests/can-i-refuse-a- breathaly...](https://dui.findlaw.com/dui-arrests/can-i-refuse-a-breathalyzer- test-.html)

Sadly, as with many things in our criminal justice system, the answer ends up being "hope that you're not prosecuted by mistake, and that you have enough money for a lawyer if you are".</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Marvel Comics and Characters Search Engine - <AUTHOR> http://imarvel.co <comment><USER2> I did a search of Oddball and Madcap as characters and came up with nothing.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oddball_(comics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oddball_\(comics\))

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madcap_(comics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madcap_\(comics\))

I'm certain that they exist in the Marvel universe.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's interesting, I will take a look if Marvel API has those characters or I can try to import it manually, thank you for your feedback

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Cool. I'd like to see ways to order them. There are many volumes of many universes created over the past several decades. Some way to sort them chronologically, or by character incarnation, would be really helpful for people who want to organize their interest

</comment><comment><USER4> Cool app, it looks really good. How was it working with the Marvel API? Did you try the comicvine API? [http://www.comicvine.com/api/](http://www.comicvine.com/api/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, I appreciate that. I will definitely check out comicvine API.

<comment><AUTHOR> Missed your question. Working with Marvel API was not bad. They have really good interface for testing endpoints so they make it easy to create and test objects. Accessing large sets of data where you have hundreds of issues would timeout sometimes, so you just have to rerun it number of times. Its a new API but so far they have done pretty good job. Overall I liked working with Marvel API.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Awesome, UX feedback:

1\. Hitting back button should hide the overlay. 2\. The left side of the overlay needs to scroll as the screen scrolls, otherwise you're not able to see the picture you hover over in the gallery.

<comment><AUTHOR> Back button fixed on web only, mobile unfortunately has to be this way at least for now. Its technically single page app, so I'm just manipulating hash URL value, that is why back button is not trivial. Good point on the image, I will add it to my todo list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Have you talked to a lawyer regarding possible IP Problems?

<comment><USER7> Not OP but Marvel makes an API available for all this so most of it's likely within bounds:

[http://developer.marvel.com/](http://developer.marvel.com/)

They may have a problem with the use of "Marvel" in the domain name though.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, the terms & conditions say you can't have "Marvel" in your name:

"You may not create derivatives of Marvel Property, or use the 'Marvel' name or any other Marvel Marks in the title of your App without Marvel's prior written approval."

They might let you if you ask, though. It's not like it's a commercial app.

I think it's good that you added links back to the Marvel website, and attributed the data to Marvel, following their guidelines: [http://developer.marvel.com/documentation/attribution](http://developer.marvel.com/documentation/attribution)

Some developers overlook the boring API documentation and rules.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have reciprocal links going back to marvel.com, there are no ads and I did receive a feedback from an individual on Marvel dev team that he liked the app. So I'm assuming they are cool with it.

<comment><USER8> > assuming they are cool with it

That reception is probably not uniform among Marvel, especially since they have to mount an affirmative defense against trademark infringement. But just don't get too popular and it will never matter. ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll try not too :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It looks like Fin Fang Foom has obliterated the Marvel index for his appearance in the 1974 Astonishing Tales.

Acid mist exhalations are `murder` on indices.

</comment><comment><USER10> I have trouble with Chrome's back button and every character I type into the search box.

<comment><AUTHOR> I will fix browser back button, thank you for your feedback.</comment></comment>