Build Observable Systems - <AUTHOR> https://honeycomb.io/blog/2017/06/build-observable-systems/ <comment><USER2> TL;DR: use probabilistic logging (x% chance of logging, with x chosen by dev for each log statement) instead of importance levels (ERROR, WARN, INFO, etc) to keep common events from flooding log files. Is that it?

edit: misclick

<comment><USER3> No. This is just an ad for why you'd use their service, disguised as a blog post.

<comment><AUTHOR> WHY NOT BOTH? (OP here. I figured the prominent company branding was sufficient disclaimer that yes, we do have a product to sell; but we built the product because we see a better way of doing things, rather than vice versa.)

 _TL;DR: use probabilistic logging (x% chance of logging, with x chosen by dev for each log statement) instead of importance levels (ERROR, WARN, INFO, etc) to keep common events from flooding log files. Is that it?_

Basically. But if your volume is high enough to have this problem, you're probably past the point where humans reading logs is a reasonable use of time, so you need machines to help humans consume the logs (e.g. to produce summary statistics and graphs).

So as well as probabilistic logging, annotate the logs you do emit with the probability of emission. That way the machines consuming the logs can continue to account for the logs that were dropped.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask YC: What is the best solution for managing user email lists? - <AUTHOR>

Ok so I have a list of 10k email addresses from users signing up to our site.  What is the best way to manage sending them all an email newsletter - any good list managers out there people recommend? <comment><USER2> Constant Contact is the one I use and offer to my clients. The main reason is I personally get a higher delivery rate (instead of getting caught in spam filters) and their email creator wizard is awesome. Try out their 60-day free trial: <http://email.volcanicmarketing.com>

Other solutions out there are:

* iContact <http://www.icontact.com> \- Their customer service sucked when I tried them out.

* Campaign Monitor <http://www.campaignmonitor.com> \- I've heard good things about their reports but their delivery rates have not been as great as Constant Contact in my email campaigns.

* Exact Target <http://www.exacttarget.com> \- Great for enterprise companies. They will cost at least $10k/year

* Vertical Response <http://www.VerticalResponse.com>

* SilverPOP <http://www.silverpop.com> Another enterprise solution with a big cost.

<comment><USER3> Campaign Monitor and their companion product MailBuild <http://www.mailbuild.com> have worked great for me. MailBuild in particular is a fantastic web app and I have not had any issues with delivery rates. Both products also have an API.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks guys much appreciated - the key thing has got to be getting through the spam filter

<comment><USER2> If your list is permission-based, try out Constant Contact. If it's not permission-based, you won't like Constant Contact so go with a different company.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Ok am going to try using groupspaces ...

</comment><comment><USER4> mailman? I think that accepts the unsubscribe emails too...</comment>


Carve your own spoon (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/feb/06/carve-your-own-spoon <comment><USER2> Fab, I remember this fella from years ago. There's a series of four videos on YouTube featuring him explaining and demonstrating his craft:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I9L1aF6kiM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I9L1aF6kiM)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT1RkaaKYOo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT1RkaaKYOo)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufhCDe1r_-c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufhCDe1r_-c)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLv4lErCupQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLv4lErCupQ)

</comment><comment><USER3> I've been messing around with carving for a few years and can strongly recommend it as a break from the digital world. Other names to watch for on the YouTube: Paul Sellers, Ben Orford, and (especially) Anna Casserly.

Here's a big collection of carved things, spoons and otherwise: [https://www.pinterest.com/kentbrew/carving/](https://www.pinterest.com/kentbrew/carving/)

</comment><comment><USER4> It is a pretty great hobby, in that carving spoons is simple enough that my 8 year old son picked it up, but with enough depth to the skills that you can spend years mastering the details. And even the simple ones made by a beginner are functional in the kitchen.

</comment><comment><USER5> Still around in 2017, it seems:

[https://barnthespoon.com/](https://barnthespoon.com/)

</comment><comment><USER6> An article on carving spoons and not a single photo of such a spoon? That seems a bit thoughtless.

</comment><comment><USER7> Am I weird because this sounds really appealing to me for some reason? Didn't do any wood work since sløjd in school :D

</comment><comment><USER8> There is no spoon.</comment>


Hotmail still the top result for keyword 'email'  - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/search?q=email

<comment><USER2> Are you sure your results aren't being personalized?

Here's mine in an incognito window:

[https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1156750/screenshots/screenshot_2011...](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1156750/screenshots/screenshot_2011-05-16_1_dEzv.png)

(Spoiler: GMail is first, Yahoo is second, Hotmail is third.)</comment>


Ask HN: Non-CRU sources for a global temperature record? - <AUTHOR>

As most of us know by now, the CRU was a major source of global temperature records including the famous "hockey stick" promoted by the IPCC and the media. However, their results have now become untrustworthy; their data is lost/deleted, they attempt to manipulate the scientific process, and their code is atrocious.<p>In various comment threads on this topic, comments have suggested the existence of paleoclimate records independent of the CRU's work. Can someone who knows more about this field than I do give me a pointer to these independent records? <comment><USER2> Nasa has one <http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/>

But then there may be problems with that as well but they at least seem to be playing fairly. <http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0811-nasa_snafu.html>

There is also the National climatic data center <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> See point five, here:

[http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate...](http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate- change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/)

He also has the sources and data available, see the links at the bottom.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, 3 of those sources for the hockey stick are from the CRU (Mann 1998 and 2003 and Briffa), but I'll take a look at the Amman and Wahl reconstruction.

Thanks.</comment></comment>


The One-Name Email, a Silicon Valley Status Symbol, Is Wreaking Havoc - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/cher-elvis-bono-one-name-is-silicon-valleys-status-symbol-1528475180 <comment><USER2> _This_ is something the WSJ decides to write an article on? Man, journalistic standards have really gone down-hill, haven't they? What's next, an article about the merits of white vs yellow paint for the stripes designating spots in the parking lot?

<comment><USER3> I assume that this is the "we need about X thousands words of filler content" kind of article. I could be wrong of course but the opening paragraph didn't really make me want to pay to see the rest :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have a very easy name and email address. I get wrong emails every week. Often have gotten emails with links to reset passwords for bank accounts, some medical record sites in some hospital systems, etc. Every week without fail.

I'm glad I have the email address. I hold myself to good moral values so I try to reach out to correct these errors if possible. It would suck for me if someone else had my email address and is not an ethical person.

<comment><USER5> What's your email address?

<comment><USER4> email@example.com

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is just silly.

<comment><USER7> I seriously don't understand why people continue to pay for a WSJ subscription.

Their balance sheet is a bloated nightmare, and I get more insight from downvoted comments on HN

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have cpr@{me,mac}.com and get 2-5 emails a day with CPR completion certificates or card scans. Have no idea how to redirect them or turn them off...

</comment><comment><USER9> Yes, this is sort of a fluffy feature piece. But I would hope that all the people complaining realize that doing nothing other than multi-month investigative journalism on Theranos isn't a profitable model. This is an easy story to crank out. Drowsy people on morning plane flights read it. Not everything is or can be serious investigative and analytic jornalism.

</comment><comment><USER9> Heh. I have a first-name-only university alum email address that I grabbed pretty early on. I can't say I've received anything too inappropriate for a while but I did find myself trying to get myself off one or two board email lists and redirecting people trying to contact a professor for a while.

<comment><USER10> At one university I was at, I had an email address which was my four initials plus two digits. But I kept receiving emails intended for a lecturer with the same first name in the same department. I was getting emails about papers, conferences, and students asking for career advice.

He actually has a completely different email address to the one I had, but I guess people just looked us up in the directory (which, at the time, was publicly searchable) and didn't realise there could be more than one person with the same first name in the same department.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> My main email only has 8 characters, guess 7 is the shortest a mere mortal can get these days. Often I don't earn awe for this, but confusion if it is really valid.

</comment><comment><USER12> What mindless drivel...

</comment><comment><USER13> This is behind a paywall for me, but from what I saw, that seems like it might be for the best...

<comment><USER14> Prepend paywalled articles with "archive.is/" to see them.

[http://archive.is/https://www.wsj.com/articles/cher-elvis- bo...](http://archive.is/https://www.wsj.com/articles/cher-elvis-bono-one- name-is-silicon-valleys-status-symbol-1528475180)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Can't read the article (paywall) but I've found this to be a funny dynamic in my own family. I share a name with my dad. He was "there first", yet I own the Gmail address. He hates this, but even if I wanted to, it's my address of record for hundreds of services, and changing it now would be virtually impossible.

I wonder what the equivalent will be with my kids.

</comment><comment><USER16> Gotta pay or signin to read this article on one-name email addresses. Hmmm, I'll pass.

<comment><USER17> search for title on google, click link. Not worth the hassle for this fluff piece though ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Managing SV startup seems to be very similar to running kindergarden.

But maybe we those "rockstar" employees simply show us that the human brain power is not unlimited:

In order to fit awesome coding skills in you have to sacrifice the part of the brain responsible for emotional stability, or even common sense? :)</comment>


Ask HN: What would happen if we prevented the creation of billionaires? - <AUTHOR> What would be the fallout, under the hypothetical assumption that we manage to outlaw having a net worth above a billion minus one (or any scientifically determined stopping point for net worth)? I think the narrative of inequality is very much wealth driven, though there are other forms as well. Would it have a major impact on the way the world works? Would we instead have much more millionaires, with very little impact on the bottom of the pyramid?<p>The poorest section should have the maximum utility from additional income. However, is there any form of benefit the society can derive from individuals controlling wealth at scale? <comment><USER2> Excepting a few philanthropists, they would leave whichever nation that passed such a law, bringing their influence and power to a nation that doesn't, and / or funnel all the excess wealth into overturning or subverting it, of course. I mean, wouldn't you?

Even if the ban were universal, money at that scale is power. Alternative social or economic constructs would form to allow the ex-billionaire to continue to wield that power, e.g. some form of trust or corporation that the ultra-wealthy don't own but does their bidding or some form of clan or dynastic structure where family members and trusted retainers each hold part of the wealth but coordinate their actions.

<comment><AUTHOR> This. However, it should reduce power being wielded by people with money alone and incentivize wealth being spread more evenly. If some one has to spread their moolah to the their twice or thrice removed cousins, I would still consider an erosion of power and a better distribution of wealth than before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Some of the tools we use everyday were created by people _after_ they made their first billion dollars. iPhone and Microsoft Office, for example.

People will always create things, but if you have more money than you know what to do with, and your mind is not worried about working to put a roof over your head, then your mind is free to imagine and build the next _world- changing_ thing.

Capping the income would then also put a cap on innovation. This is not necessarily bad; many people think we could have enjoyed a few more decades before the creation of the smartphone.

<comment><AUTHOR> I wonder whether the innovation will really be capped in a real sense. Lets say if Apple does not introduce the iPhone, would some one not eventually still come up with a similar product? I (personally) consider that opportunity is a rarer commodity than innovativeness, and that most innovations will come about, albeit a little later.

<comment><USER3> _> I (personally) consider that opportunity is a rarer commodity than innovativeness_

I agree. I think to create _world-changing_ things, 3 things are needed:

1\. Innovativeness or creativity.

2\. Lack of neccessity to work to put a roof over your head, which frees the imagination.

3\. Enough money to make it actually happen. This is the opportunity.

Many of us have #1, some also have #2. But 1 or 2 are not enough. You need all 3. Billionaires _can_ have all 3.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's an interesting thought experiment. We would expect to see an increased market for financial hedging close to the limit. It would be worth paying a great deal of money to ensure that almost a billion remained available without endangering either cash or highly valued company ownership. Imagine spending $40 billion over your life to guarantee always having almost a billion. The financial industry would grow enormously.

There would be other second order effects preventing the law from functioning well, and preventing successful people from becoming trapped in such a capricious state, but I'm seeing those aside.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've a bigger issue with the inheritance of this money. You look at the news globally and so much is driven by those who have inherited it yet seen to think it's been achieved thru their own hard work

This is where the Carnegie's, Buffetts and Gates are right about being custodian of wealth. It also adds a generational reset on great fortunes

</comment><comment><USER6> Empirical evidence: They would denounce citizenship and move to other countries. This happened in France with a wealth tax, which caused high net worth individuals to move to other countries (like Gérard Depardieu). You can see the same thing in other places of Europe, where citizens flock into Monaco, Jersey etc. The US is no different, plenty moved to Singapore, Cambodia, Monaco, Jersey and other places. The same is true for Chinese nationals and others.

Wealth can be used to influence political power, which can be used for good or bad (In the past billionaire Pablo Escobar was overthrowing the Colombian government, funding terror group FARC etc.). So it depends on what the billionaire wants, not democratic process.

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't understand this obsession with billionaires lately. Why exactly stop there? Why not millionaires? Or people with 100k? You are still in the top x% of the world. Or does that hit too close at home?

</comment><comment><USER8> Yes.

The US\UK model of capitalism has 2 properties that combine to make Billionaires both necessary and sustainable: they are very capital intensive AND they are consumer based societies.

Modern economies need big piles of capital. Somehow you have to get (say) 50bn USD together every time you want a new semiconductor fab facility or Facebook. Someone has to pay for that.

Historically, that money was raised from the middle class: if 20m people have $2500 each in the bank, the bank can pool that and a $50bn pile and lend it to make new businesses.

Those days started to end with consumerism: instead of sitting on a small bank balance, the average American\Brit(\Aussie) is in debt. So that means there were loads of opportunities out there going unfunded. So people who did have piles of cash could now reliably get big returns from lending. They could lend to capital intensive new businesses AND to companies like credit card providers for average Americans to use to fund pure consumption.

That's why you've seen these historically high rates of return on capital for the last 40 years. That's what caused billionaires in the first place AND what sustains their existence. That's why the US\UK have so many, while countries with strong savings cultures (Germany or Japan) have so few. It is also why you "need" billionaires: someone has to fund the average person spending more than they earn and fund new businesses (and to a lesser extent government debt). We could kill all the billionaires tomorrow, spend their cash for the new few months, then suddenly your credit card company would cancel your card as there was no one to fund you buying things and not paying for them, your employer would have to restructure as the interest on it's debt shot up as no one was lending etc.

A billionaire is just someone with a 100m AND 30 years of 8% RoI. They're the natural consequence of under supply of capital and high demand for products.

Wealth inequality is very much a function of individual over-consumption on a mass scale. If you want fewer billionaires, spend less than you earn and put the rest of the money into investments (a bank account or a shares\bond account). Vote for higher taxes and less spending to get the government doing the same thing. Billionaires are flourishing because they basically they hold a monopoly on the capital supply and the rest of us demand ever more capital.

<comment><USER9> You don't need domestic billionaires though, foreign ones can do as well. For example, there are trillions of petrodollars that go through City/Wall Street and fund various initiatives around the world.

<comment><USER8> You're completely correct.

I think the Petro-billionaires are a good example of this actually. Their petro income has dwindled over the last 12 months as prices have collapsed. Even the Saudis can't keep up with their expenses. So soon, petro-billionaires will just be billionaires. What happens then? Will they get poorer because they have no actual skill at investing? or will the market keep giving them high rates of return for nothing more than renting out their capital during a capital shortage?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A lot of the billionaires do spend it on worthwhile things. Elon works on transportation and energy. Bill Gates tackles climate change, wiping out polio, sanitation, revolutionizing nuclear energy. These guys take huge risks on multi-million dollar projects that no other people would do.

Then you have Warren Buffett, who buys stocks that plummet from hype, probably preventing or dampening recessions.

On the other end you do have the monopolists who use their wealth to choke competitors, and Trump, who got lucky a couple times, but otherwise make the world a worse place.

For the most part, billionaires rarely do nothing with their money. They get there by being willing to take big risks, being good at taking risks, and they do things that no billion-dollar CEO would be willing to do. I'd say a huge reason USA is so rich is because of the spirit of taking risks. If you get rid of billionaires, you lose that.

From a practical angle, how would you outlaw that? It's not like a billion dollars in gold or cash lying around somewhere. Much of it is in stocks that go up and down.

What if they put $100 million into a failcoin, which drives up the value of that failcoin? What if they put half a billion into buying ancient Roman busts? What if they invest $1 million into a startup, and then "donate" $100 million into it?

I doubt a FAANG founder would just sell his shares if there was such a legal reason, because it's still a cash cow. It's easier for them to just milk it to hit a quota then throw away the milk.

</comment><comment><USER11> Andrew Carnegie's thoughts (1889):

[https://www.carnegie.org/about/our- history/gospelofwealth/](https://www.carnegie.org/about/our- history/gospelofwealth/)

TL;DR keep billionaires, but since they've obviously beat the easy-mode personal accumulation game, they ought to play the harder-mode societal benefit game.

</comment><comment><USER12> No need to prevent, just tax more. Then what would happen is that the government would have more money to offer life quality to the people that worked for that billionaire get that rich.

<comment><AUTHOR> Would taxing be more efficient from a wealth redistribution standpoint than a hard cap? Not a rhetorical question.

<comment><USER12> I think it is more fair to equalize power and avoid people being capable of manipulate too much of the society with their money. If the tax is progressive at some point you will have a hard cap of 100% tax.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Obviously in today's world people with potential to earn more would move away to jurisdiction that has no restrictions.

Vote with your feet.

</comment><comment><USER14> In response to your question, about exactly where to come down on billionaires, I'm not sure but there are some great points on here, and for the folks questioning why so many techies question having billionaires and lean more toward socialism, here are my views. And I'd love to hear yours, pro or against.

If you're in the US or Europe, you live in countries that are capitalist, but that have a huge helping of socialism so that we can take care of our citizens.

At the turn of the 20th century, we had more "real" capitalism with the social safety net. The result is that J.P. Morgan literally worked his starving employees to death, which was called "morganization." Andrew Carnegie was able to get away with having union demonstrators shot to death by the Pinkerton police, and there certainly weren't criminal charges filed against him. Rockefeller found his oil deposits had an explosive component called gasoline, and he had no idea what to do with it; so his company's scientists created the internal combustion engine we still drive today.

From FDR's reforms including 'social' security to the FDIC to protect our bank deposits, we enjoy the benefits of the socialist aspect, and it is not a dirty word here.

We used to not have the socialism of free public education for our children, and the addition vastly improved society including economic mobility. Today, one doesn't have to be a land owner enjoying hand-me-down wealth to have economic opportunities. Even law had to deal with this, with the passage of negligence laws, and preventing inter-generational wealth. (See the rule against perpetutities [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rule_against_perpetuities](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rule_against_perpetuities), the question you're always told to skip on the Bar exam.)

Unbridled capitalism without the social component is not a place most people would want to dwell in. On the other hand, the socialist component, yang to the ying of capitalism, and I am a capitalist myself, has been an enormous feature of civil society.

In short, if you like the life that you have, and you live in the democracies, you live in and enjoy socialism as much as capitalism.

As someone older than I guess the average age of most hackers, the fact that these techy folks have these views, question whether we should even have billionaires, and 'socialism' is not a dirty word for them, makes me think makes we will have a brighter future.

</comment><comment><USER15> Ask yourself why most of the world is poor and bad at creating things, and what that correlation is to where the billionaires live.

What's with the anti-capitalism and socialist mentality of techy people? In theory this board is generally "smarter" and yet they lack original thinking and common sense.

<comment><USER14> Respectfully, I have the opposite view and left my comment at the top.</comment></comment>


Tech companies lobbying for CISA are abandoning their users' privacy - <AUTHOR> https://www.youbetrayedus.org/ <comment><USER2> I can't believe anyone is surprised by this. Windows 10 came out of the gate completely weaponized in a way no Operating System ever was before (I was a Windows user, can't speak to the level of data-mining on the mobile OSes). So much work was put into all aspects of data-collection that it screamed class- action even to a layperson like myself.

Microsoft never states if their (unnamed, unnumbered) trusted 3rd-parties can also share data.

Microsoft does not release the names or the number of third-parties involved. They can be foreign, governmental, outsourced developers.

There is no language covering the release of this data to "non-trusted" parties.

Microsoft does not distinguish between personal and business data. This, additionally, puts businesses that are required, by law, to protect client/patient information (Law, Medicine, Finance) at further risk.

Microsoft does not distinguish between the (illegal) search/seizure and distribution of personal/business data. It does little to distinguish between adults and children. Captured data (including video) of those under 18 in legally questionable situations, redistributed to (unnamed and presumably large number of "trusted" third parties) may and should place Microsoft as distributors violating various child abuse laws.

Military and Politician data captured can (and should) be viewed as acts of espionage/treason by the US Government.

Their data-collecting scheme had immediate and obvious legal ramifications. I couldn't figure out why OUR government wasn't more responsive to this threat. It's becoming increasing clear that there has been lots of back-door collusion between the tech giants and our own government.

This bill is a testament to that.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, the Win10 dragnet has inspired me to switch to Linux moving forward. I hope that it has done the same for others.

<comment><USER2> It did the same for me. I had been on Linux for about 6 months (because of some issues with Win7) waiting for the Win10 release. A new laptop was in my future.

A week after the Win10 release (still seeing red because of the privacy issues), picked up an older laptop (wanted something super Linux-friendly) with legacy BIOS and haven't been this happy with an OS in over a decade.

My biggest worry now is that Open Source Software with strong privacy rights policy might be pressured by government/politicians, commercial entities and general public apathy to engage in the same kind of illegal data-mining for so-called "national security" reasons.

At the rate we're going, it's inevitable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is incredibly bad. The amount of personal information large companies like these have on everyone is scary enough on its own, but now they're getting blanket governmental immunity to share it with not only other private companies, but also several government agencies? I think of myself as relatively pessimistic, but I did not expect something _this_ insane for some reason. If this is as straightforward as that site portrays it, or worse, than I'm kind of speechless.

Edit: It looks like the NSA/Law Enforcement wouldn't even need due process since the companies are just giving away the private data. [https://www.faxbigbrother.com/#whatiscisa](https://www.faxbigbrother.com/#whatiscisa)

<comment><USER5> Is government compelling these companies to hand over data? Or is it voluntary?

If government forced me to hand over data on users, I wouldn't want to be held liable for that. So, I'm not sure why people are complaining to companies about it? Do they expect companies to break laws?

People forget that government is always the highest power of the land. You are forced to do what government decides it wants to do.

Take your issues up with government, not me.

<comment><USER6> Participation in this program is voluntary. Section 8 of the bill prohibits this act from being construed to permit the federal government to require an entity to provide information to the federal government. Here's the money quote:

(i) No Liability For Non-Participation.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to subject any entity to liability for choosing not to engage in the voluntary activities authorized in this Act.

Reading through the bill, it seems like this is a well-intentioned attempt to promote data sharing between corporations and security agencies in the event of a widespread cyberattack. There are definite use cases for a law like this. For example, if both Lockheed Martin and Boeing are hit by a cyberattack, under this bill they are allowed to coordinate and mitigate the attack using data from both parties. But the enormous flaw in this bill is that there are only vague restrictions on the type of data allowed to be shared. These restrictions are so vague that an unscrupulous company could send all their customers' private data to the government under the context of this law.

The US needs reform on its cybersecurity defense and this bill is a step towards change. But with the potential for abuse this bill is a huge step backwards. Hopefully there are other ways to improve US cybersecurity defense without compromising civil liberties.

You can find a copy of the bill, including a short summary of each section, at the link below:

[https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate- bill/754](https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/754)

<comment><USER5> OK WTF? So why is this a problem?

Doesn't this just mean companies don't have to hand-off private data to government?

Isn't that the exact opposite thing people are complaining about?

<comment><USER7> They companies don't have to, but they decide to do it anyway. That's why people complained.

Did you even read the original link, or anything anyone posted in the thread so far?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Out of interest, EFF wrote about CISA when the bill was introduced last year:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/zombie-bill-comes- back...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/zombie-bill-comes-back-look- senates-cybersecurity-information-sharing-act-2014)

</comment><comment><USER9> A few years ago there was an IAMA on Reddit with an MS employee and he blatantly said that MS was funding anti-privacy propaganda so that their user base will be more complacent with their increasing privacy violations. I think this was when the cloud was still a new buzz word and Microsoft was coming out with Office 365 and in this case he justified it by saying that all these new bright technologies of the future depended on the users willingly giving away their privacy and so MS and Google were funding these marketing campaigns to prepare users for it.

So even if you look at it from a purely tech perspective, it is not in these tech giant's interest to safe guard your privacy nor do they want you to think that your privacy should be safe guarded.

And of course everybody is always drooling to data mine these user bases and who knows, sell the data to insurance companies maybe. I'm sure they will find some loophole to allow this.

<comment><USER3> Then there's the "PRIVACY IS DEAD" billboards which are plastered onto city busses in NYC. No business or advertisement mentioned, just "PRIVACY IS DEAD". Almost like it was trying to wriggle into the subliminal.

I think it's been fairly obvious for the past few years that privacy is being suppressed by malicious groups who have plans for user data. There's been really no resistance, except from niche groups who are encrypting everything-- but if it's only niche, it doesn't matter.

<comment><USER10> Got any links?

Google image search of "PRIVACY IS DEAD" \+ bus didn't turn up anything. Then I dropped the quotes and replaced dead with NSA, and got a bunch of bis pics with THANK YOU EDWARD SNOWDEN, so I don't think Google is part of this conspiracy.

<comment><USER11> They are ads for Mr. Robot: [https://www.google.com/search?q=privacy+is+a+myth+mr+robot&t...](https://www.google.com/search?q=privacy+is+a+myth+mr+robot&tbm=isch)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I like the petition, I dislike the lack of sources. Please put sources for your claims, if they "began _publicly_ lobbying Congress to pass the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA)" then you sure have a source. Put it there! I guess this is the letter in question:

[http://www.bsa.org/~/media/Files/Policy/data/09142015CongLea...](http://www.bsa.org/~/media/Files/Policy/data/09142015CongLeadershipDataAgendaLetter.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER13> How do you boycott all those bastards at the same time? The last halfway viable option seems to be to build up alternative services outside U.S. jurisdiction. The shifting of revenue streams will be the only language those CISA fans understand.

<comment><USER14> > How do you boycott all those bastards at the same time?

Use free-as-in-speech and open technology. Then, you can know what it's doing and modify it if you don't like it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> One branch of the government authorizes another to force corporations to hand over all the private communications and information of a large number of citizens, and all foreigners; the majority of the public of that country agrees. Are the companies which are continually compelled to cooperate at fault for seeking to minimize the financial repercussions of this situation? How have these companies betrayed anyone?

The politicians, voters, bureaucrats, and judges involved in these actions have committed a horrible abuse of their fellow citizens, and (depending on your views on moral obligations to foreigners) an even larger number of other people. The companies they are forcing to cooperate have not betrayed the people any more than a taxpayer does when they (are coerced to) pay taxes that fund these programs.

<comment><USER16> I do not agree to lift blame off of companies. They have social responsibilities like everyone else. They are also high on the power hierarchy.

<comment><USER5> Companies have to operate within the parameters of the law.

I don't get this. Are people expecting companies to break the law? Is this data hand-off voluntary?

<comment><USER17> > Companies have to operate within the parameters of the law.

This does not seem to apply in the context where companies are lobbying for / supporting _new_ laws.

<comment><USER5> I don't see anything in the bill that would allow a company to actually break their EULA with you.

<comment><USER18> For the millionth time, _an EULA is not a contract_. A business can try to force a contract of adhesion on you (that is, a contract you do not have the opportunity to negotiate, but until the elements of a contract are satisfied, it's just one party blowing hot air at the other.

Even if there _was_ a contract involved, clauses of the contract can be judged to be unconscionable if they are obviously trying to take advantage of the other party in an unusual or misleading way, or if they try to extend the scope of the contract.

<comment><USER5> You're going to be really depressed when you find out EULAs are contracts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you work at one of these companies, and chances are some of fellow HN users are, please think how you would like the future to be - not only in terms of your product but also in terms of policy, freedom and privacy.

Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER18> So the surveillance-as-a-business-model people are getting their Letter of Marque.

</comment><comment><USER20> I hate this fucking planet.

</comment><comment><USER21> "The following companies just betrayed billions of people." According to that picture Google is still my friend. :)

<comment><USER22> I'm actually one of the few people who seems to be scared of google, and probably rightly so- so far it's just been paranoia that "they have all this data" on me and so many others.

yet continually they seem to be actually fighting for privacy.

I admire that, but they're still an insanely large target, and, even if they don't share that information now- you can bet they're tracking/logging it... it's their business model.

<comment><USER21> All that data may be profitable in the future in some weird way we cannot even imagine at the moment. They have the resources to store and use it. Maybe even abuse it if they can find out some happy legal way to do so.

The grey zone between privacy and public keeps morphing. Problem is what kind of data/information should be public and what should not be public. And in what form? In what timeframe? Some information could be very benificial for one (company, person, government, institution, etc.) , but have horrible consequences for others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Time to start surfing on the dark net.

PS: TOR will be so happy.

<comment><USER24> I can almost guarantee that the people that maintain TOR won't be happy to see something like this, since their lives are spent maintaining a tool that can give people anonymity.

<comment><USER20> The more people that use Tor the more effective it becomes.

More users = more noise = more anonymity.

<comment><USER25> Except that there's only so much bandwidth to go around. It's not that simple. More users (who don't run nodes themselves) means the same bandwidth among more users = slower for everyone = less usable for people who actually need it.

<comment><USER26> Unlike exit nodes, most relays are underutilized, as far as I know. (I run a couple)

So if commonly used .onion domains start springing up, exit nodes won't feel any crunch. :-)

Imagine reddit082350235.onion, for example...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I had wondered, if companies are ordered by the Government to hand over the data and have little to no recourse to prevent it, are they then liable?

No doubt a number of people tried to challenge the companies liability in these matters after the Snowden leaks and I'm wondering if anything interesting eventuate from it.

<comment><USER27> > _are they then liable?_

Of course they are.

<comment><USER8> Legally, I mean. What's the precedent?

<comment><USER28> Internationally, maybe other countries will see this as a threat against their citizens who share information with these companies (because it is), and therefore accuse of treason to the local subsidiaries of those companies, and/or ban their products and websites.

But maybe I'm just optimistic and all play ball, nevertheless the world hate against the US will keep raising and being rightfully justified until one day the heat may be too much.

<comment><USER29> >the world hate against the US will keep raising

And some day in the future there might be a single European candidate that may run on an anti-US platform. Or maybe not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> When talking about 'users', is their a (legal) difference between US and non- US citizens here?

<comment><USER22> Foreign persons have no rights in the eyes of US law in regards to privacy.

<comment><USER31> However EU nationals have rights under EU law, and data protection "safe harbour" rules require that information of EU nationals that's exported from the EU should be protected.

I believe the Microsoft case in Ireland is about this question.

Edit: see also curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf

"The Advocate General considers furthermore that the access enjoyed by the United States intelligence services to the transferred data constitutes an interference with the right to respect for private life and the right to protection of personal data, which are guaranteed by the Charter. Likewise, the inability of citizens of the EU to be heard on the question of the surveillance and interception of their data in the United States amounts, in the Advocate General's view, to an interference with the right of EU citizens of the to an effective remedy, protected by the Charter."

=> therefore the "safe harbour" allowing the export of private data from the EU to US servers can and should be suspended.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Black hodie, check

Mirrorshades, check

Hackers living in the margins of an orwellian society, check

And all I wanted was a flying car.

</comment><comment><USER33> I found this thread on the front page (#1 spot). I read all the comments and when I checked the front page again, it was nowhere to be seen. At the moment of this comment it has 270 points in 1 hour...

WTF?

<comment><USER34> Apparently it has been marked as a duplicate of a story with a very much less informative title, IMHO.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10263812](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10263812)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I just want to thank Google and Facebook for not being part of this. "Don't be Evil" still means something for some of you, history will remember.

</comment><comment><USER35> This law is necessary to protect companies when they submit data when they report breaches to the government. Without it, companies aren't going to stick their necks out by letting people know they were hacked. That's what this law is about.

</comment><comment><USER36> It's nothing surprising. I hope we are all aware the controlling few are slowly but surely putting their agenda of total control to action. I've seen an attitude of some Rockefeler fellow in the movie Zeitgeist, who stated when asked what is their (rich people that control the world) goal, why do they grab more even though their families have more money that we could guess: "Well, out final goal, is to implant a chip i every human being. That chip will be radio controlled. And when we don't like that person anymore, we push the button and the person die." Now, this may sound cruel, but I agree with this guy. The smart, rich and capable people should have this kind of "swift justice contoll" of other people because most of people that I know, waste their lives. When you give an average person the freedom and power, most of them will not know what to do with it, and they would end up in corruption of the soul. They would turn bad, looking for hedonistics. Maybe, my country is just above average filled with "I don't know how to productively use my God given blesdings and learned skills" kind of people. Cheers I.H.

<comment><USER19> "Mow, this may sound cruel, but I agree with this guy. The smart, rich and capable people should have this kind of "swift justice contoll" of other people because most of people that I know, waste their lives."

I know that personal attacks are not allowed in comments, but what on earth were you thinking when you wrote this comment?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> This looks like the same story as [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10261397](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10261397), so we're going to provisionally treat it as a duplicate. If that's wrong, we can restore it.

Edit: Ok, we'll restore it, but with a less inflammatory title that is taken from the article's top paragraph. If someone suggests a better title we can change it again.

<comment><USER38> I don't think this is the right choice when the titles are so different.

I did not read "Why we are leaving Heroku" because someone's gripes with a host I don't use is low-priority. Its effectively invisible to me. I am however interested in the broader story that impacts dozens of companies, changes to US law and the nature of privacy itself - so I read this one and it was clearly gathering more interest.

How about retitling the other story and merging the discussions?

<comment><USER37> Whether it's a duplicate is not a question of the titles but of the story's content. Two stories from the same site advocating for exactly the same cause are pretty clearly dupes by the usual HN standard. But since people seem to feel strongly about this one, we'll override that and restore it.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN:Opensource android projects to read - <AUTHOR>

I have made 2-3 very small android apps, but now I am looking create something on a bigger scale. Which opensource android apps do you recommend to get a better understanding of how complex apps are designed. <comment><USER2> [https://github.com/JakeWharton/u2020](https://github.com/JakeWharton/u2020)

[https://github.com/SimonVT/cathode](https://github.com/SimonVT/cathode)

[https://github.com/fastestforward/gauges- android](https://github.com/fastestforward/gauges-android)

[https://github.com/pyricau/shipfaster](https://github.com/pyricau/shipfaster)

[https://github.com/romainguy/road-trip](https://github.com/romainguy/road- trip)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> List of open-source Android apps

[http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2124002](http://forum.xda- developers.com/showthread.php?t=2124002)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, but that is a very long list. Any specific apps that you'd recommend?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This might be a good start [https://github.com/aliHafizji/Cheddar- Android](https://github.com/aliHafizji/Cheddar-Android)</comment>


Apply HN: Eat My Dust - Home testing for dangerous materials - <AUTHOR> Problem: Is our home free of poisons and toxins? Idea: At home testing for dangerous materials; customers fill a vial with vacuum dust and mail it to us. Our lab will test for lead, asbestos, or other containments that may be lurking in your home. We'll also test your water for lead, mercury, pharmaceuticals, and other toxins. Customers can then work to improve their environment and test on a regular basis. Market: Anyone who lives under a roof and cares about their family's health.<p>About Us: Husband (data engineer) and wife (bioinformatist).  I've worked in startups and big companies solving data problems, my wife has built LIMS (lab information management systems) for pharma and bio-tech companies. We live in the SF Bay area, and we're always concerned about the safety of our environment for ourselves and daughter, but haven't been able to validate that our home is safe to live in. <comment><USER2> * If I had this idea here's how I'd approach to validating it.

      Solve the problem for yourself

Google and you'll find that there is [mold inspection], [lead inspection], water tests, and both professional and direct-to-consumer versions of the above.

I would get a professional mold inspector, and compare the results to direct- to-consumer lab tests like [http://www.amazon.com/MyMoldDetective-MMD100-Mold- Test-Kit/d...](http://www.amazon.com/MyMoldDetective-MMD100-Mold-Test- Kit/dp/B00E3QV82Q)

Same for other tests.

I'd expect this to take maybe 20 hours of billable time doing research and logistics, $2-3k for inspections and tests, and 1 month of calendar time.

      Research the market

Look at keyword search volumes. For example, using free version of [https://www.semrush.com/](https://www.semrush.com/) we get

      Keyword Volume
      mold inspection       4,400
      mold test kit	        8,100
      lead inspection         260
      lead paint test kit	1,900

Figure 4 billable hours doing that

* If I were considering investing into such company the questions I'd ask myself would be:

      * would this area be a passion for the founders
      * is this a good market
      * can the founders execute on this idea

Based on the info presented and my priors my answers would be:

      * No
      * Yes
      * No

So what I would say would be:

"This is a good idea and the market. I think it's a little to early for you to raise money. Consider solving the problem for yourself and better understanding existing solutions. I'd love to chat again once you are further ahead."

</comment><comment><USER3> What do you offer over this?

[http://www.amazon.com/WaterSafe-Water-Test-Kit- Lead/dp/B000Q...](http://www.amazon.com/WaterSafe-Water-Test-Kit- Lead/dp/B000Q6QWZA)

What kind of guarantees can you deliver that you're not yet another company without accountability- this is important stuff, and accountability for correctness is kind of a big deal.

The array of brands offering home test kits on amazon is incredible. I don't know _any_ of them, and I don't know their reliability; nor do I know enough about this space to select the correct one. How do you differentiate yourself?

<comment><USER4> This seems to test water rather than dust.

<comment><USER5> 3M sells these lead test swabs for surfaces: [http://amzn.com/B009NQNL0I](http://amzn.com/B009NQNL0I)

Once again, not exactly "analyzing your dust" but I think this is the current consumer-grade solution to the problem of "are there dangerous levels of lead in my wall paint/ceramics/etc?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd look into/think about: what happens when the kit does not detect something that then causes harm to someone.

Is that likely? Could it happen? What might happen legally?

I'd likely consider buying something like that, though, if it were cheap.

Something that would be positive: testing for 'unknown unknowns' \- people are becoming more conscious of things like radon, but if this test were likely to pick up a wide range of random stuff, it'd be more useful.

<comment><USER7> If it's an unknown, how do you test for it?

<comment><USER6> I mean that it's something most people might not think to test for, not truly unknown.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I would use this service regularly. I would recommend it to everyone, and I would be deeply interested in the results. I am a woodworker and do a fair amount of work with found materials. If simple toxin tests were available I would love to be able to regularly run test on material dust that I work with (MDF, hardwoods, other sheet good material).

I also live in SF, in an older home. I would love to know what kind of stuff comes out of our aging carpets - how much of the dust that I vacuum up _is_ the carpet. what is the average makeup of the dust over time, i.e. is the dust changing to include more mold? Less? are my cleaning routines helping?

I have a mold allergy, detecting mold spores would be really good. Existing tests are not great, and not user friendly.

Companies like Zillow might also be good recommendation engines, since most people buying a house probably want to know the answer to these questions.

</comment><comment><USER9> This sounds like a great idea, here are some thoughts about it that you could use to fine tune the pitch

1\. For people who use some kind of a cleaning service, the cleaners usually bring their own vacuum cleaner. In this case the owner might be unable to send you the dust. Would be interesting to look into what fraction of your target audience falls under this category.

2\. Would be nice if the service took the vacuum model number and sent out a box with a vacuum bag every n months, where the user could take their used vacuum bag put it in the box and mail it back, and use the new bag in the vacuum.

3\. Could this be refactored into some kind of device that one could fit into the vacuum? This way there would be no headache of mailing bags out.

4\. Whats the legality of sending out bags containing potential amounts of asbestos / toxins etc?

<comment><USER10> > 1\. For people who use some kind of a cleaning service, the cleaners usually > bring their own vacuum cleaner. In this case the owner might be unable to > send you the dust. Would be interesting to look into what fraction of your > target audience falls under this category.

This could actually be a feature. Sell to the CLEANING services, have them offer your service as an add-on package so that people who have their apartments cleaned (e.g. people with disposable income) can find out what exactly is being cleaned up and what additional measures may be needed.

<comment><USER9> That could work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The problem with home environment testing is the expense of implementing the mitigations. That doesn't mean this business idea isn't great, but a nice twist to the website would be to acknowledge this hard reality up front.

You could have a graphic of a home, all kinds of UI inputs:

* SQ FT

* Geographic location

* Flooring type

* etc...

Then a list of potential problems. The user starts to enable the problems they may have, and a Turbo Tax money ticker starts rolling. Then they adjust sliders for mitigation options. More money counter ticking.

If the cost if too high, sure I might not even order the test. But the sale would be consultative from the beginning, rather than the typical alarming approach.

</comment><comment><USER12> What experience do you have building out a lab? Can you make this work by sending the samples to an outside lab until you have traction?

How much do you know about this industry? Are there regulations you need to meet? Who are the established big players, why aren't they doing this?

How are you going to do this better than anyone else?

How will you find customers?

<comment><AUTHOR> @nuna has extensive lab experience and just as importantly, managing the vast amounts of data that labs produce...initially we would partner with a lab until there is a need to do it in house

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> How would you compete with things like [http://www.amazon.com/Asbestos-Test- Includes-Postage-Fees/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Asbestos-Test-Includes- Postage-Fees/dp/B008J3ZK8M) and [http://www.homedepot.com/p/LABTECH-H2O-OK- Plus-Complete-Wate...](http://www.homedepot.com/p/LABTECH-H2O-OK-Plus- Complete-Water-Analysis-Kit-LT5015-1/205540501)

<comment><USER7> I assume that OP's service would test for more than just one thing.

<comment><USER13> From the Home Depot description:

The H2O OK Plus Complete Water Analysis Kit is the most complete way to ensure your drinking water is safe and free of 13 water conditions and contaminants including bacteria, pesticides and lead, a total of 23 tests. This complete, easy to use kit provides all containers needed. It gives the user instant results. Included 2 tests each for total chlorine, total hardness, iron, pH, total alkalinity, copper, nitrates and nitrites; 1-test each for lead, total coliform bacteria and pesticides with detailed instructions to test for iron bacteria and hydrogen sulfide

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> You might consider leveraging the data science component to help target the testing. For example, based on location, house age, construction type (basement/slab/etc.), run the numbers and balance the risk of exposure against the cost of a test. Then recommend "For your house, lead in the ground soil and asbestos in the shingles are the highest risk."

See, for example, this (unfortunately now defunct) radon risk website: [http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/00/01/radon.html](http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/00/01/radon.html)

Data science might also help you recommend where to sample.

Trouble with all this, of course, is collecting enough data to start making useful recommendations.

</comment><comment><USER15> Excellent idea. You sold me by the second or third sentence.

Ignore anything you read from anyone else here: put it up and start making sales. Today.

Go go go go go.

<comment><USER16> I second this - I would buy this today if I could.

<comment><USER17> This would likely sell even if it had no practical utility. The actual product is a neutral-party validation of someone's life choices.

Did I make a huge and expensive mistake in deciding to buy this house? Here's $50. Be honest.

No. Your house is not going to kill you, your kids, or your pets, within 99.6% certainty.

Awesome. Best $50 I ever spent.

<comment><AUTHOR> I would never want to build a product or service just to collect people's money with false claims. This idea would have to be highly valuable and affordable for many people in order to be successful.

<comment><USER17> That's just it. They _are not_ false claims. You're doing actual testing for actual home health hazards.

But the sort of person who would buy your testing service is also the sort of person that does not buy houses that typically have such hazards in them. You are mostly going to be validating subjective emotional impressions with objective empirical evidence. It's a very powerful feeling to have someone else prove without a doubt that your gut feeling was correct.

For a small minority, you will actually be identifying real household dangers, so it's a win-win business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I love this idea and really want you to find a way to succeed, but certain aspects of this idea have risks you need to weigh.

I can only comment on lead, because I've had home lead testing done by a professional. The worry I have with lead is that encouraging vacuuming for sample collection could conceivably cause lead contamination to spread. We were told by our tester that if we attempted to clean problem areas ourselves, to only use water and disposable rags to avoid spreading lead dust.

Our lead tester used an XRF analyzer (these devices are expensive), which uses X-rays and requires no dust sampling. He could simply point it anywhere and see precisely where all the lead was.

I wonder if it would be feasible to include a packet of special wipes instead of a single dust vial. Then users could individually wipe and label by room, and ship each wipe in a separate, sealed, labeled, plastic envelope. This could solve any dust contamination issues, but I suppose it's possibly harder to test for contaminants from a wipe than a vial.

</comment><comment><USER19> Will a single vial of vacuum dust be representative of a whole dwelling? Will you be able to detect mold spores and other airborne contaminants which cause respiratory problems? It might be tough to get a good sample vacuum dust into a small vial in homes where the majority of vacuum canister contents consists of pet hair.

<comment><USER20> To expand on this, are there good models for translating concentrations of toxic substances in vacuum cleaner dust into actual exposure of people who live or work in those spaces? It seems like it would be a lot easier to get people scared (or alternately complacent) than to offer lay-persons useful information.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I would buy this right now if you had it. Hurry up please :-)

</comment><comment><USER22> When we moved into a new house we noticed the air ducts were spewing out strange particles. I called around to see if there is an agency that could test if it's dangerous and the short answer was "we'd only test if we know what we're looking for". If you price this reasonably ($100 or less) and are able to test for a range of substances, I would buy your product in a heartbeat. Don't listen to the nay-sayers, launch a test kit with a list of things you're checking for and see how the market responds. You can try the home buyers / home owners / parents markets, as well as restaurants, hospitals, you name it.

</comment><comment><USER23> Also shouldn't home inspections when purchasing warn about asbestos and others similar risks? I suppose many people rent and the landlords may know or not care.

This seems like a service business and not necessarily a startup. But on second thought, maybe there's a hardware device that could test everything wherever you went: air and water. Perhaps even you could scrape a chip of paint into it. Now that's something I would strongly consider buying. You could take it when traveling to ensure there are pollutants in your water. As a (hopefully) future parent, I worry about my kids being exposed to even minute amounts of lead.

</comment><comment><USER24> I love this idea! What would be the turn-around time? I.e., I sign up, you send me a vial, I send it back, you test it, I get results -- from start to finish, how long do you think it will take?

Also, do you have a potential cost in mind?

</comment><comment><USER25> Is this one of those incidentaloma things or are a lot of people actually living very toxic lives?

When you did tests on 100 people's houses, were they surprised by the results enough to pay you for more data?

There's enough fear around this kind of thing, but is there actually anything to fear once you look at the lay of the land of people's homes? (Similar to vitamin analogy... very few first worlders have vitamin deficiency, but there's entire vitamin aisles at the store)

</comment><comment><USER26> I live in a area where Lead based paint is an assumption, and radon is a massive issue. The cost of getting work done is tremendous so I'd rather do it myself.

How can this help me know what work I can DIY and what work is safer to hire out to someone who is an expert. Sure I can pay someone 2x as much to work on my kitchen but what is the relative risk to my health due to lead paint. It'd be nice if I could start a project and have sampling on a daily basis similar to what rad techs or a metric of information on how much lead is in the air as I'm working.

</comment><comment><USER27> What if it gives positive? Do you help me in finding a solution?

<comment><USER28> A follow up to this, what stance will you be taking on following up with a positive test? My experience has been, there is a lot of conflicting information out there. Would you suggest removing the problem? Sealing? Ignore the problem? What can be done by the home owner and what can be done by a professional?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is a great idea. I would definitely try it out.

I'm pretty sure all parents have this concern especially when the doctor asks whether our place have lead and have no idea how to answer them. This is especially the case in the Bay Area where houses are old and is within the time frame of lead paint.

Several concerns here though. How hard is it to test for these things and how much would you charge the customer? Usually lab work are expensive and might not be within the price range.

</comment><comment><USER30> A friend that went through the R/GA Techstars '15 batch with my startup is solving a related problem of home air quality monitoring.

You may find their approach interesting or if nothing else it's similar validation.

Awair (previously Bitfinder) - [https://getawair.com/](https://getawair.com/)

</comment><comment><USER31> I have actually been looking for something like this, but I am more concerned about mould. Would that show up in a test like this? Our washroom has mould growing which we keep fighting back with bleach, but I would love to know what kind it is and if it is dangerous. Could this work for such a use case?

The tests that I did find were bloody expensive (300$+) and had to be done one per room. Too much for us.

<comment><USER8> FWIW, borax will likely help you combat mold regrowth more effectively than bleach. Another trick here is to constantly use borax on laundry like towels which tend to carry mold from being hung up wet. Finally, add a strong borax solution to a carpet cleaner/washer and do all the carpets in your house. This has REALLY helped me deal with mold in our house. Since starting this regime, old coffee grounds in the compost bin that used to grow mold in a day or so no longer grow mold, even after a week (this was a test, not a typical situation for my house).

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> For buildings that are younger, say sixty years old or less, I'm way more concerned with water quality and air quality coming in from outside that is guaranteed to have pollutants.

When I lived in SF in an 1930s building I ordered a lead testing kit for the water and thankfully found none.

</comment><comment><USER32> >haven't been able to validate that our home is safe to live in.

Why should anyone believe that you'll just figure all this out later after you're given money? You haven't even been motivated enough to solve this problem manually for yourself yet.

<comment><AUTHOR> this isn't a software hack that I can prototype in a weekend, validating that this idea is feasible and has a market would take resources

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I think it's a great idea. Not just for homes but other sites as well.

</comment><comment><USER34> It would be valuable to establish a track record for a home that might be sold in the future, or perhaps during the sales process a home could be sampled by a certified home inspector.

<comment><USER35> My guess is in general the Real Estate market doesn't want this. What happens if it tests positive for something? Do you start tearing down all the walls until you find the issue? Suddenly the house is unsellable and a huge money pit for the seller or new buyer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I would use a service to test food, supplements and prescription drugs (especially generics). I'd be interested in quantity of active ingredients, as well as any contaminants.

</comment><comment><USER37> The technical and product side sound like a good idea, in general.

How will you acquire customers for this, in a marketing sense?

</comment><comment><USER38> What will you do differently than existing test labs that accept samples from the public?

</comment><comment><USER39> How would the dust testing results help in the formulation of an action plan?

<comment><AUTHOR> One way would be to refer the customer to a specialist for removal of whatever agent is found.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> > fill a vile

Did you mean: fill a vial?

<comment><USER40> Wow, pretty negative to downvote for what is a genuine, helpfully meant, correction to a likely misspelling - that obscures the OP's meaning. And yes, I've seen the HN guidelines. Just because someone wrote them doesn't make them right.

<comment><USER41> We fixed the typo above.

Please don't go on about getting downvoted in HN comments—and especially not in Apply HN threads, where you're basically scribbling on someone's application.

<comment><USER40> > We fixed the typo above.

After I pointed it out, right?

Which means you agreed with my observation on the spelling.

I don't expect or want thanks, but negativity ...

<comment><USER41> The spelling correction was fine, if minor; all this other stuff is badly off topic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Almost looks like Theranos is branching out (pivot?:-).</comment>


Eight Out Of China's Top Nine Government Officials Are Scientists - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2011/05/17/eight-out-of-chinas-top-nine-government-officials-are-scientists/ <comment><USER3> But, but, but... they're not democratic! If only they'd put more power in the hands of the common man, they too could enjoy such luminous choices for statesmen as McCain vs. Obama, Bush II vs. Kerry, Bush II vs Gore, Dole vs. Clinton, Bush I vs. Clinton...

...we gotta keep saber rattling that our way is better than theirs. Boo China, boo.

Edit: To the downvoter - okay, I'm joking around. But which of these premises do you disagree with?

1\. The United States has more electoral politics in choosing its leaders than China.

2\. The last 20 years of leadership in China show a much more nuanced understanding of policy and statesmanship than American leadership, where charisma and mass appeal tends to be more important than "hard credentials."

3\. There might be a cause-and-effect relationship between point 1 and point 2.

Disagree with any of those? Yeah I'm joking around, but it's worth thinking about, no? Or maybe it's upsetting to think about... that I sympathize with...

<comment><USER4> Communist governments have usually attracted intellectuals to higher levels of power -- the results so far haven't been uplifting.

I don't think that a comparison of the US system vs. China is going to produce a clear "winner", only a list of pros/cons whose weighting will be shaped by your perceptions and bias.

The explosive growth of China hides most of the warts of the system. When you have economic growth so fast that new, uninhabited cities get built, there's obviously some excess and policy issues at play.

The US is an imperial power, and the conduct of policy and statesmanship changes in that role. While the President is the front-man and sets the agenda, the work is done and policy is made by anonymous officials in the sprawling bureaucracy. And I betcha if you analyzed a Chinese and American bureaucrat, you would find that they look, act and think alike.

<comment><USER3> Nuanced comment here, good analysis. I agree with a lot, but two nitpicks about the first point -

1\. I'd say Communist _movements_ attract intellectuals. Communist governments usually do not employ those intellectuals for very long after taking power.

2\. Despite the name and symbols, I don't think China is actually Communist any more. I don't know what to call them. If they remain a world power and continue to thrive, I'd bet quite a lot that a new word will be coined for their precise political/economic/geographical/military mix - there's quite literally no comps in history for what they're doing right now.

<comment><USER5> For number 2. you could argue that they are mercantilist. Most of the enterprises are state backed, much like the Dutch or British East India companies. So the state takes a pretty big role in determining which companies will succeed.

<comment><USER6> You could argue that the Chinese state as a whole is in fact a large corporation.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need(s)."

A leaders best ability is to lead. Hence, you would end up with intellectuals, scientists, economists and others who have a strong grasp of complex theories and systems. Opposed to having actors and political pretty boys leading.

Marx's saying goes even further with the corporate metaphor. The lower the 'worker' in the 'corporation' the less they get 'paid'/'need'. How is there any real difference with how Walmart views its minimum wage workers to how China views its farmers or sweatshop workers? From the top they're all just pawns to make a profit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> While this is no doubt going to be unpopular here on HackerNews, I'm going to posit the following: This is almost as bad as have 8 of 9 people being Creationists.

Better than 90% of a council making decisions for the whole country being of the same persuasion is prone to severe group think. Scientists (or rather, engineers, if you RTFA) aren't immune to this any more than any of us are.

If you look at the best run businesses, they are often composed of people with variable backgrounds - people that approach problems from different perspectives. This has two major benefits: First, it allows you to gain from solutions that come from as many types of thought processes as possible and more importantly, it prevents you from blindly following dogma - if you can't convince somebody that doesn't follow your thought patterns of the viability or necessity of a particular idea, it probably shouldn't be perused.

One child policies that have resulted in a generation of males without females is pretty much exactly the type of policy I'd expect from a group of engineers.

<comment><USER8> The one child policy was not created by this cadre of leadership. The male/female imbalance also happens in India, which does not have such a policy.

<comment><USER7> While India does in fact have a similar imbalance, I invite you to look at the problem in the context of this image:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sex_ratio_below_15_per_cou...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sex_ratio_below_15_per_country_smooth.png)

Also: (order the chart descending by either at birth or <15)

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

The numbers are actually much stronger than I thought they would be.

<comment><USER8> Why are you picking out the data that best supports your thesis? 15–64 shows India and China at exactly the same ratio, even though India has no 1 child policy at all. The gender imbalance problem does not come from the 1 child policy. Don't pick and choose data to fit what you think, look at all of it.

<comment><USER7> The one child policy was only enacted in 1978. It stands to reason then that the 15-64 bracket isn't fully representing the effects of the policy.

The only brackets that properly account for impact of the policy are the more recent ones.

<comment><USER8> Just look at it backwards. Even before the 1 child policy, both china and india have had a gender imbalance favouring males. After the 1 child policy in china alone, both india and china had a strong growth in gender imbalance, with china being only somewhat stronger. Your "control" without the 1 child policy also exhibited the same strong growth. A scientist would reasonably conclude that the 1 child policy seems to have little relevance to the issue, considering that another comparable country behaved in exactly the same manner without have such a policy in place.

<comment><USER7> Both China and India share pretty much exactly the same imbalance until the last two age-cohorts as you suggest, but while both increase, China's does so substantially more. This can't be ignored as being "exactly the same manner". To do so is being scientifically irresponsible.

My take is that both cultures have very prominent views on the preference for male children. You can see this even in the large Chinese and Indian communities here in North America. What has most likely happened is that the one child policy has simply enabled those cultural preferences in China much more than the exist in India.

It's also interesting that India itself has at several times flirted with restrictive population polices, including forced sterilization at right around the same time as China introduced their family planning program.

While that doesn't suggest that the one child policies are the _only_ cause, I think there is enough evidence there to suggest they are a factor.

Nonetheless, all of this wasn't actually a real focus of my original point at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a good article, but it does miss one incredibly important piece of the puzzle - the possibility that US citizens have an economically rational aversion to PhDs in science and engineering. A recent RAND study supports this point of view:

<http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html>

I think it's critical to make science and engineering a desirable career path for young americans, but simply "making it cool" isn't the way to go - <USER2> could (as the article points out) actually be destructive in that it would cause harm to students who responded to the pr campaign only to find long training times and poor career prospects relative to their friends who did law, dentistry, medicine, mba, etc.

<comment><USER10> That's funny... Americans don't have an economically rational aversion to becoming movie stars in much the same way.

<comment><USER9> yeah, that is an amusing observation. of course, President Obama and various talking heads don't fret about the shortage of Americans in film school.

The serious question is whether we should launch a PR campaign to encourage young people to make decisions that may lead (at least according to RAND) to long training times with poor pay and career prospects _relative_ to other paths typically available to the "best and brightest".

<comment><USER11> If the issue is public policy, then the goal should be public good, not individual good.

It's very possible that the best and brightest could live in greater comfort as criminals than scientists, but even if that were the case, any rational government would encourage them to be scientists since that would be better for the country.

Edit: Seriously? Care to explain your reasoning, downmodders? Why would a government encourage decisions that are destructive to society?

<comment><USER9> That's not at all a bad point. There are some activities that economists view aS rent collecting (or even wealth destroying) that are lucrative for the individual. Scientists and engineers are generally seen as the opposite of this (unless it's financial engineering). Almost every government actively tries to poach engineers from abroad...

Still, I recommend you read the rand study. They discuss ways to make sci/eng more appealing rather than launching a pr campaign to merely make it appear more appealing. The second could end up creating an even greater aversion to this career path.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you were educated in a communist country at any time from 50s to 80s you would pretty much by default be either a scientist, an engineer, an architect or a doctor. Most likely an engineer.

It's like trying to predict the behavior of a Model-T buyer based on their color preference.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'll point out its a rookie mistake to compare what is basically the executive branch of China's government to America's representative branch. It's apples to oranges.

Looking at the executive branch, the United States has:

State, Hillary Clinton, Lawyer

Treasury, Timothy Geithner, International Economics

Defense, Robert Gates, PhD History

Justice, Eric Holder, Lawyer

Interior, Ken Salazar, Lawyer

Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, Lawyer

Commerce, Gary Locke, Lawyer

Labor, Hilda Solis, MPA

Health Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, MPA

Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan, MPA, Masters in Architecture

Transportation, Ray Lahood, B.S. Education and Sociology.

Department of Energy, Stephen Chu, Ph.D. Physics

Veterans Affairs, Eric Shinseki, Masters in English

Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, Lawyer

Vice President, Joe Biden, Lawyer

Chief of Staff, William Daley, Lawyer

Director OMB, Jacob Lew, Lawyer

Administrator EPA, Lisa Jackson, Chemical Engineering

Trade Rep, Ron Kirk, Lawyer

UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, Doctorate in Philosophy

Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Austan Goolsbee, Ph. D Economics

Better to draw your comparisons with this, than with congress.

</comment><comment><USER14> Not to nitpick, but they're engineers. The previous President, Jiang Zemin, was also an electrical engineer - before that generation, most leaders were educated by their experiences (i.e. the Long March) and not formally schooled.

It is interesting that not only are there cultural differences in the ways Chinese and western leaders approach problems, but also there's the "engineering" approach vs. the "legal" or "social sciences" approach more often seen in western nations.

<comment><USER15> The distinction between a scientist and an engineer is important here. In the dark days of modern China, mathematicians and scientists were regarded with as much suspicion as poets and philosophers. Engineering was one of the most intellectual professions you could have without being regarded as the enemy. (As for lawyers: there's not a lot of point in being a legal expert anywhere rule by fiat is common.)

The problem with the "engineering" approach is that it treats stability as an axiomatic good. It's quite hard to incorporate the rights of weird religious groups, troublesome journalists and out-and-out revolutionaries into such a world-view.

<comment><USER16> A lot of that stability approach can be traced back through much of the history of the Han, to the point that I'd argue the engineering background isn't the source of the stabilizing pressure, but rather a facet of the Han culture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Eight Out Of Nine American Bloggers Cannot Distinguish Between The Concept of A "Scientist" (As In Someone Who Devises Reproducible Experiments To Test Ideas To Determine Whether They Are Right Or Wrong, And Rejects The Wrong Ones) And Anyone In A Technical Profession.

<comment><USER18> ...and did you know that 78% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Chinese government is dominated by engineers for the same reason that US government is dominated by lawyers, Japanese government is dominated by businessmen and French government is dominated by doctors and teachers. These are the most easily accessible prestige positions in the given country.

</comment><comment><USER20> A relevant article from 2009 contrasting prevalence of American lawyer politicians vs. Chinese engineer politicians vs. French civil servants and so on.

<http://www.economist.com/node/13496638?story_id=13496638>

</comment><comment><USER21> One thing ;-) Author of this text wrote: "You have to be pretty popular to get elected, so should we conclude that Chinese people in general look up to and admire their scientists?" But those in China's government wasn't elected in popular vote and for sure not in election like those in US or other western countries. So it isn't in this way that Chines people in general look up to and admire scientists, but Communists Party of China look up to and admire scientists.

But in general I agree, it looks that China and Korea are much more in science than in humanities.

<comment><USER22> interesting observation. It seems to me that the previous generation of leaders had an aspiration that the new leaders were better prepared than them. I imagine the old leaders had an admiration for science and engineering even though they were not really knowledgeable about it; they probably selected and groomed the new leaders with this in mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> There's an emphasis on science, but it's not an Enlightenment style love of the scientific method that drives this phenomenon.

Why not come at it from a different angle - what good would it be to be a philosopher in China? How far would you get? Or what about lawyers, in a country that has a pretty unhealthy disregard for legal process?

No, the reason scientists and engineers form that majority is because it's how you get ahead in Chinese society. China doesn't want (or tolerate) artistic and liberal sensitivities - it wants economic development and industry.

</comment><comment><USER24> Also Yulia Tymoshenko, rightful heir to the throne of Ukraine, is a cyberneticist. It seems to be a regular trend in former Communist countries, that political leaders have a technical background.

<comment><USER25> Not really. For one, China is still a totalitarian (communist is really wrongly used here) country. And also my impression is that Tymoshenko is more of an isolated case - my guess would be that most of the current post- totalitarian leaders are either former officers (Putin, Borissov, Basescu), humanitarian/law majors (Komorowski, Parvanov, Orban, Gasparovic) or economists (Havel).

Unfortunately most of them come from the first category :/

<comment><USER26> I don't know much about the other ones, but Havel most assuredly is not an economist. He has a cultural background and is an author of a number of theater pieces. His successor at the post of Czech president (Klaus) is an economist, so maybe that's where the confusion comes from.

Just as a matter of interest - the current Czech prime minister, who, at least in theory, has more power than the president, has graduated in physics, and has actually worked in research for some time. Angela Merkel (coming from Eastern Germany) has also a scientific background (in physics and chemistry).

But otherwise, it seems you are right about the fact that there is no such rule about post-totalitarian leaders being educated in engineering or sciences in general.

<comment><USER25> I stand corrected - just read that Havel has studied economcs for only two years before dropping out and that's probably the reason I have remembered him (wrongly) as an economist - I must have read it somewhere and it has probably stuck in my mind.

Btw, the rest of the Eastern European countries can learn a lot of things from the Czechs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Perhaps this should cause some reflection on the following question: why do scientists seem to be disproportionately inclined to serve authoritarian regimes?

My guess is that scientists believe that people like themselves -- people whose ability in one field they imagine transfers to many others -- should control the world, and those that they consider their intellectual inferiors should shut up and surrender control to cognitive ubermenschen.

Unfortunately, that idea hasn't worked out too well in the past.

</comment><comment><USER28> _Oh, we forgot about our head of the class: China. Astonishingly, since 1980 China has not won a single scientific Nobel Prize. Keep in mind, this is a country of 1.3 billion people._

If China is ruled by engineers, then it is ruled by groups that understand the economic implications of the rocket equation and how this can be overcome using existing technology. Moving off-world is going to be the next huge watershed in human history and economic growth, much as the age of exploration and colonization of North America by Europeans was the last one.

Making the leap past Type I on the Kardashev scale won't necessarily involve Nobel Prize winning breakthroughs in science.

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

Instead, it will involve massive brute engineering and the political will to devote the resources to bootstrap it. The Chinese "Civilization State", ruled by engineers, is in a unique position to marshall those resources and be in the vanguard of what will be an economic and historic explosion of development.

[http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/u-s-needs-to-deepen-its- unde...](http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/u-s-needs-to-deepen-its- understanding-149449.aspx)

I've seen this coming for almost a decade. If trends continue, China will not only be the next dominant power, but Chinese Civilization in the inner solar system will be to the last half of the 21st century what North America was to the 20th.

</comment><comment><USER29> Having trained as a hydraulic engineer doesn't make Hu Jintao a scientist, it makes him an engineer. There's a difference.

</comment><comment><USER30> They are not scientists, they are administrators with science and engineering degrees.

</comment><comment><USER31> The linked article is titled "Eight Out Of China's Top Nine Government Officials Are _Scientists_" but...

The article it references states "...eight of the top nine political posts are held by _engineers_." but unfortunately does not name them.

</comment><comment><USER32> About a decade ago, when I was studying the history of mathematics, I noticed that in 1776, the world's greatest mathematician (Leonhard Euler) was in St. Petersburg, Russia, just when many of the world's greatest political scientists were either in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (the signers of the Declaration of Independence) or in various parts of Britain (e.g, Edmund Burke and Adam Smith). To this day, the Russian-speaking world exceeds the English- speaking world in the quality of its primary and secondary mathematics instruction, and it is perhaps no accident that the first of the Clay Millennium Prize problems

<http://www.claymath.org/millennium/>

was solved by a mathematician who was educated in Russia. But also to this day, the United States and Britain enjoy an astonishing degree of political and economic freedom and rule of law

<http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=594>

and gain many of their best mathematicians and mathematics educators as immigrants from non-English-speaking countries. It is too early to say whether a lot of engineering-trained persons in government is mostly a feature or mostly a bug. I wish China well in going the direction of Taiwan (another place long ruled by technocrats) in developing the rule of law and an open political system with many guarantees of personal liberty. But it is by no means an invariant characteristic of human societies that those with the best math and science minds thrive best over the long term.

P.S. You did see below the fold on the submitted article, didn't you, what the blog author thinks China can count on just from the fact of the educational background of its leaders? Not much, just from that fact.

P.P.S. to respond to first reply: It's my understanding that the government of the Federal Republic of Germany consciously DE-emphasized technical education after World War II in favor of more emphasis on humanities and social science in the primary and secondary school curriculum. I thought it would trigger a mention of Godwin's Law

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law>

if I brought this up at first, but I've read that many observers of prewar Germany under the Third Reich looked at the quality of the scientists there (very high indeed) and thought that Germany would be hard to beat in the war. It is well known to people who read interesting histories of World War II, such as mathematician T.W. Körner's book The Pleasures of Counting,

[http://www.amazon.com/Pleasures-Counting-T- W-K%C3%B6rner/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Pleasures-Counting-T- W-K%C3%B6rner/dp/0521568234)

that there was a battle of scientists versus scientists in the war to find smart methods for fighting the other side. Ultimately, despite the great advantage that German's prewar primary and secondary schools and universities and civil service system gave Germany in building up a supply of smart technocrats, the Nazis' disregard of personal liberty drove away many of Germany's best scientists (notably, many Jewish scientists) and added talent to the Allied side.

<comment><USER33> Interesting. Where do you put Germans in all this?

<comment><USER34> It's not often mentioned today, but in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries the Germanic states were a massive source of high-skilled emigrants. In the 18th and somewhat the 19th centuries as professors and colonists to Russia and the USA, after WWI a large number of German engineers were employed in the USSR (most of them were expelled in 1937), and many more emigrated to the USA. The next large wave took place after WWII.

<comment><USER28> Just as Werner Von Braun's character in "The Right Stuff" said: "NO, our Germans are Better!"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> there is a difference between a scientist and someone with an engineering degree

</comment><comment><USER20> And for some reason, many high-profile, that is, thwarted or captured, terrorists are engineers: [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB- IdeaLab-t.h...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB- IdeaLab-t.html?scp=1&sq=Berreby&st=cse)

</comment><comment><USER36> The author first points out that science and engineering Ph.D.'s are disproportionately Asian, and that many return to their mother nations after education. That's true. He then points out that national success is built on the back of technology and science. Also true. But by ending with a back- patting, reassuring comparison with Japan and the claim that Americans have that truly essential quality, "entrepreneurial spirit" and innovation, and Asian nations don't, he makes a claim that reeks of hubris and will likely be quickly proved untrue. Science is the gas pedal, innovation is the fuel-- but without the pedal your full tank of gas isn't going to take your car anywhere. Confidence without substance is empty. My 2 cents

</comment><comment><USER37> So politicians in China aren't bozos, but the politicians in the US are? Oh please. The top 9 government officials are no more intellectual than many of those in Obama's cabinet.

Economic growth is not the only measure of success. In fact, it is one of many.

</comment><comment><USER38> Bear in mind that a strong part of this is the fact that these guys are trying to use economic planning. In between all these Americans complaining (fairly) about their country's legal power culture, this is an important distinction. Most Western governments aren't economic planners, so technocracy is less interesting/appealing.

</comment><comment><USER39> The article dances around the main reason the PISA scores don't say much about innovation, but doesn't say it: For innovation it's the top 5-10% that counts not the average.

I wouldn't be surprised if a study that compared the best 5% of students worldwide showed the US in a very different place, much higher in the rankings.

</comment><comment><USER40> They may be because when they were growing up studying science was their ticket to wealth,respect, and power. Arguments, disagreements, and self correction are pillars of scientific minds. Autocratic society in which a small disagreement can result is you vanishing, cannot possible nurture scientific minds.

</comment><comment><USER41> My reading of the Chinese classics - or rather their authors - is that, historically, the single greatest ambition of China's intellectuals was to advise rulers on better governance. Which didn't seem to me a particularly productive or healthy relationship between the intellectual and political classes.

<comment><USER42> everybody just wants power, nerds and jocks alike

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Countries should be led by economists, not scientists/engineers.

The Chinese economy is one giant mess. Too many imbalances, over-investments and bubbles. The spectacular 10% GDP growth rate was possible mainly because of bullying i.e., artificial depreciation of yuan giving unfair advantage to Chinese exporters.

</comment><comment><USER44> Are they scientists or engineers? As far as I know scientists do research, write papers, file for patents etc. etc. and Engineers build stuff. How many papers have the published?

Also, being a scientist does not mean that you will be a good administrator or politician. Politics is better left to politicians.

</comment><comment><USER45> well that's just great.

how many layers do you have to unpeel from our government before you find anybody that isn't a lawyer.

<comment><USER20> Different national political cultures, apparently.

<http://www.economist.com/node/13496638?story_id=13496638>

<comment><USER28> _WHEN Barack Obama met Hu Jintao, his Chinese counterpart, at the G20 summit in London, it was an encounter not just between two presidents, but also between two professions and mindsets. A lawyer, trained to argue from first principles and haggle over words, was speaking to an engineer, who knew how to build physical structures and keep them intact._

The Chinese should build a Space Pier, in the form of a massive ramp with a huge accelerator on it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> This is a direct result of elections. People chose those who are more like themselves.

In China, the political elite also choose those who are similar in outlook. If the original ones were engineers, so to will the new rising stars be engineers.

</comment><comment><USER47> I wonder how many people actually read the article before commenting

</comment><comment><USER48> "Remember him from Black Mesa? Your old administrator?"

</comment><comment><USER29> Having

</comment><comment><USER49> Scientists in the mold of capitalists and totalitarians? Disgusting.</comment>