A Day in the Life of a Freelance Journalist - <AUTHOR> http://natethayer.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/a-day-in-the-life-of-a-freelance-journalist-2013/ <comment><USER3> It's basic supply and demand. There's a glut of skilled writers willing to work for free and a dearth of people willing to pay for journalism, either through subscriptions or advertising. There's an idea that this is the cynical exploitation of journalists by publishers, but that simply wouldn't be possible if demand for writing outstripped supply.

Personally, I think we'll come to accept the idea that, for the most part, writing is a leisure activity and not a profession. It's not unreasonable to imagine that the profitability of writing and publishing was just a temporary blip, as a result of a peculiar set of technological and economic conditions.

Photography is the clear forerunner. Many newspapers have trained their journalists in photography and have them double up; Others are doing most of their photography through interns or very poorly-paid student freelancers. The microstock phenomenon has collapsed the value of stock images, to the point that only a small number of highly efficient studios are making good money from stock. There are just too many amateurs happy to shoot for free or for just their expenses, and they're producing images of perfectly satisfactory quality.

The real villains are educational institutions, who wilfully deceive students as to the job prospects for creative careers. There are essentially no jobs whatsoever in the studio recording industry, but many thousands of graduates with degrees in related subjects. There's an implicit deceit on the part of educators, who simply "neglect" to mention that they're training students for jobs that haven't existed for twenty years. The demand for creative workers is static or in decline, while enrolment rates for related courses continues to increase steeply.

<comment><USER4> As a journalist, I may be biased, but I disagree.

There is a glut of low quality journalism, but high quality journalism is still expensive and time consuming to produce. Doing research, finding new angles, interviewing people -- these are what take time, not simply putting words on paper (though doing that well still takes time and more expertise than most people realize).

This trend towards free journalism is driving down standards to the point where 'journalism' is often now just re-hashing work with little fact checking. This could lead to real problems as it's been the journalism industry that traditionally has been the watchdog for the people. They've investigated and exposed nefarious activity in just about every sphere.

More and more, I see skilled journalists leaving the profession to work in PR. The people who were checking up on businesses and politicians are now being paid by them to stop new amateur journalists finding out what's going on.

<comment><USER5> In your opinion as a journalist, what do you consider to be sources for high quality journalism?

<comment><USER6> My startup Scoopinion does try to find the high quality journalism, this is how we do it: Take a set of sites that 1) Have an editor and or are established blogs. 2) Publish content that you can show to your mother 3)

Then we have a community of readers with "Scrobbling" browser add-on that measures reading speed and read through percentage. Whenever they read, they implicitly rate the article with their behavior. Later the articles are recommended to people who read same sources, topics and journalists. This has worked pretty well, at least what we hear from our users. If someone has better definitions of quality journalism, would love to hear those.

<comment><USER7> I really like it! Definitely works out well although it seems British- and maybe Australian-centric. Is that just based on who is using the Scoopinion now?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a despicable trend. This devaluing of labor is happening in many fields. The offer is always the same: exposure, it's good for your career.

The Huffington Post was built on this business model. Most of the writers weren't paid at all but of course Arianna cashed in to the tune of $315 million.

The comedian and podcaster Duncan Trussell was invited to do a set at SXSW, for free and without even airfare being provided. Their only offer was to let him sleep on a volunteer's couch.

His response was hilarious:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ6eMG-dfas>

And also and importantly SXSW enjoys a large, free labor force in the form of volunteers.

Millenials really have gotten a raw deal. Many can't afford rent or savings, they are rarely offered cash as compensation for jobs their parents were happily paid for.

These practices are worse than those of textile sweatshops.

<comment><USER9> > This is a despicable trend.

> These practices are worse than those of textile sweatshops.

I think this is a pretty harmful way of portraying the issue. Don't use up all your shocking words on something like this. Sweatshop practices and child labor are truly despicable and deserve more attention. People being less willing to pay a premium for a certain product or skill in a free market? Not so much. If it is actually a product or skill that merits the money in a changing market, and if the specific one being offered is of good quality, in the long run it will harm the one unwilling to pay. If it is not, it will harm the one offering the product or skill. There is nothing evil happening on either end of this.

<comment><USER8> > There is nothing evil happening on either end of this.

I am speaking in pure material terms. I am not injecting morality.

This is a despicable trend because we are seeing emergent, widespread immiseration in advanced, developed countries.

The quality of our journalism is suffering, and journalism is a bulwark against corruption in a democracy. Corruption is bad not because it is immoral but because it leads to waste, which reduces our material well being. David Simon, the creator of The Wire has spoken about how important local papers were in catching corruption at the city and state level of government.

I said that this is worse than sweatshops because at least in a sweatshop the workers earn subsistence wages.

> If it is actually a product or skill that merits the money in a changing > market, and if the specific one being offered is of good quality, in the > long run it will harm the one unwilling to pay.

The product and skills are valuable. There is a demand for them. What we are witnessing is deflation. The demand is strong, the ability for the creators to be credited is what has broken down.

I will not just be a passive observer in all of this. The end game to this scenario is obvious. We are looking down the barrel of a new feudalism, and I do not want a period of reduced living standards and stagnation.

An entire generation has had it's prospects diminished, and the trend is only accelerating.

Perhaps all that is needed here for the market to correct this is for consumers to be educated. This is a new trend, and I would like to draw people's attention to it.

Do you still feel warm, fuzzy and excited when you buy a ticket to SXSW? When you know the festival organizers, bars, restaurants and hotels are all making money, the only people not making money are the performers and the volunteers that draw the crowds and make everything run?

In the absence of knowledge about how SXSW works the organizers are able to exploit the performers. I am not going to keep their secret for them.

I'm boycotting SXSW until their labor practices change. Who's with me?

<comment><USER10> > I will not just be a passive observer in all of this.

What journalism outlets do you pay money to subscribe to?

<comment><USER8> I think you are trolling but I gave it a hard look anyway. My cable subscription helps fund several TV news operations and I buy the paper edition of the NY Times frequently.

That is not enough, and point taken. If you have any recommendations for a high quality subscription only journalism operation please tell me.

Where I have changed considerably though is with video entertainment.

In my younger days I used to use bittorrent, and megavideo et al... and rarely pay for movies/tv shows.

Jaron Lanier changed my mind about all of this. I now pay for a lot of movies/tv with my Netflix/Amazon Prime subscription and by renting/buying on iTunes and Amazon.

I even went so far as to create an app to facilitate this. My problem with not pirating movies is that the catalog of these online services are incomplete. You have to search a few, and sometimes a particular title is not available at all.

I built <http://streamjoy.tv> as an abstraction layer above Netflix, iTunes, and Amazon. Search in one place, compare availability and price.

That is how I am putting my coding skills behind my economic philosophy.

When the machines do most of our jobs, my hope is we can still find meaningful, gainful employment in creative projects. In the current economic context the creators need a mechanism to be compensated.

<comment><USER10> Good on you, that is a good looking site and it fills a niche for people like you and I who pay for content. I really hope there can be a tip system (bitcoin, ripple, paypal, dwolla) that can be a click at the end of a good article. I could imagine dropping $0.25 on 4 good articles a day.

Like TV, video, music, books, if you give the people an extremely convenient way to pay for your content, a good number of them will.

Little known fact, my gf is a journalist, an editor, at a certain publication named after a body of water, who may or may not be in her second week on the job and already embroiled in a bit of controversy. :-o

<comment><USER8> Well, thank you. I like the site too.

I really hope that everything works out well for your gf, and the Atlantic. I called trading exposure for work a despicable trend because it's happening in so many fields. Its unfair to place all the blame on the Atlantic.

People should go easy on The Atlantic. This new phenomenon needs more society- wide awareness and technologies for micro-payments.

My understanding is that regulations have stymied micro-payments. If that is the case legislation should be adopted to correct this.

Journalism is extremely tough, and has much more of my sympathy. I have total disdain for operations like SXSW that are very profitable and still stiff their talent.

EDIT:

After posting this I thought about how your gf may or may not be embroiled in this controversy. I think the issue of free work/immiseration of the creative class would make a good piece. The Atlantic could acknowledge that it has succumbed to economic (and perhaps social) pressure, do some human interest pieces on people that have been effected, people that have found ways to be viable despite the economic changes, and maybe regulatory reforms that might make micro-payments feasible.

I could see a continuing series on this topic being well received. This issue made it to the top of HN today, I think that validates the market.

<comment><USER10> I told her she should write about it (I just created this account, she doesn't know I'm commenting on it here) ...

If she had asked him for an interview on the topic (for free obviously) this would've been a non-issue. But she thought she would give him a byline, not knowing of his fame.

He became famous for interviewing pol pot when she was about a year old, and although he is well known in south east asia circles, he's not exactly a household name. The article is freely available now (if you care to read about basketball in NK), she just wanted to offer a wider audience with near zero extra work on his part. With the offer of $100 for a future online effort.

So she asked and got put on blast.

It's interesting how that works. It was a weird way to wake up this morning though.

TO YOUR POINT ON MICROPAYMENTS:

Yes, I think there is a per transaction fee for credit cards. Bitcoin couldn't work flat out because it only supports 350,000 total transactions a day and piddly little tips would eventually crush the blockchain. I think paypal could do it if you just tipped out of your paypal balance. Dwolla.com _does_ do it... but no one has an account.

I have to say I agree with the people who argue people should be doing a lot of this for the love, but love doesn't pay the bills. I really like Stewart Lee's take on it here:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udqMA4YRQCk>

Long listen, but he advocates for a lot of government funding for the arts. Likewise a lot of in the trenches journalism is sponsored by small orgs (pro publica, xyz foundations, etc) The Atlantic, Foreign Policy, etc just chip in a bit extra to publish some of that work.

This specific case was about already written, already available content.

If this was huffpo they would've just thrown quotes around it and put it up with a little link.

/rant

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Thanks to the Internet, there is a huge glut of awful, cliched writing that leaves you no smarter than you were before you started reading. Journalism school calls this "pumping out copy", and it's something you used to be able to build a career on.

There is a _frightening dearth_ of well-produced content from a variety of perspectives that seeks to _measurably increase understanding_ as opposed to hit a word limit and generate pageviews.

People talk about this all the time — the first question people ask me when I tell them I have a journalism degree is "what news sources do you recommend?", because the vast majority of what's out there and popular is _complete garbage_ , and everyone knows it, and there still, in 2013, isn't a good way to verify sources or tell good journalism from propaganda.

I believe people will pay for compelling content that leaves them better- informed, that they have a good reason to _trust_ , and I believe we can use technology to go far beyond what's been possible up to this point with static, narrative storytelling. We're still terrible at providing _context_ , _perspective_ , and _verifiability_ , all things the Internet has made possible, but nobody has done well yet.

Nobody should pay for what, for instance, the Associated Press produces. Robots will replace them one day and that day can't come soon enough. There is very little value in what they do.

But there _is_ value in content that leaves you smarter than when you started. The methods of producing it haven't caught up with the baseline of knowledge the Internet makes possible for everyone, or the stunningly beautiful display of information that's possible on the modern Web.

It hurts to see the skills gap up close - journalists in the grad program at Stanford are still totally defeated by data mining, web design (a skill they all know well for print), data visualization, non-linear storytelling, multimedia production, and the kinds of things I believe will elevate journalism in the 21st century, and nobody's paying well enough to poach the people who do have those skills.

So what do we do?

<comment><USER12> > journalists in the grad program at Stanford are still totally defeated by > data mining, web design (a skill they all know well for print), data > visualization, non-linear storytelling, multimedia production,

> So what do we do?

You get journalists together with other people to do the other stuff.

Journalists shouldn't be noodling around choosing fonts and colors or drawing charts - they should be gathering information and talking to people and writing best quality articles.

<comment><USER11> >Noodling around choosing fonts and colors or drawing charts

Yeah, 'noodling around', like this guy: <http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/war.casualties/index.html>

Design done well increases understanding. Data visualization done well increases understanding. They are _integral_ to high-quality journalism, not a decoration to place around it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've been thinking about the supply-demand problem lately as it applies to journalism. How is it different than other industries with willing pools of suppliers, but people are still paid well?

There are many willing, raw-talented writers out there, and I also know that high quality journalism requires a lot of work and dedication, so the number of truly excellent writers is small. Likewise, there are many willing professional basketball players, and only a very select few make it. But when they do, they are extremely well compensated, despite a large pool of willing players. What's the difference between basketball and journalism?

There is still a very strong demand for high quality basketball among the public. Additionally, in this case, higher quality is relatively easy for anyone to judge: you have better teams if they win more than other teams. In a supply/demand context, many will play, but very few can do it well enough to beat other professional teams so the real supply is actually small, so the players' price is actually very high.

Comparing this with journalism, I wonder if there has been a decline in a) demand for or b) ability to appreciate _high quality_ journalism or essayism. The demand for journalism is probably still reasonably high, but the public may be indiscriminate. This expands the real supply for writing from those few truly-excellent ones to a larger pool of mediocre writers.

So if we lament the decay of journalism, we might wonder why we're not really demanding it.

\----

I anticipate comments suggesting I am out of touch with the coming journalistic transformation. I read and enjoy many blogs, even those put out by magazines like the Economist, The Atlantic, the New Yorker, etc. But I recently began reading the print versions of these magazines again and I was astounded at what I had been missing: articles where I couldn't predict the next paragraphs based on the headlines; articles that answered my objections in the next paragraph; articles which clearly had taken a month to write. I know there's nothing about print vis-a-vis html, but when you've worked for a month on an essay instead of 10 hours on a blog post, it shows.

I also anticipate comments suggesting I am an elitist. In this sense, I am: taste exists. I won't claim that only the truly-excellent should write. But I think they should be appreciated, and more importantly, _aspired to_. I worry that talented-but-not-yet-truly-excellent writers will think: I can work for years to become _truly good_ at something no one will appreciate or I can just blog my heart out at crappy journalism and make a living now.

<comment><USER11> I think there's probably more of a demand for high-quality journalism now than there's ever been, but I definitely think people's ability to appreciate it isn't there. Plenty of people would _like_ to be able to read a 5,000 word essay, but simply can't.

And that's why I think focusing on the written word itself as _the_ vehicle for high-quality journalism is a mistake. I don't think that's the only way to do it.

<comment><USER14> Another possibility: the demand for high quality journalism is as high, or higher, than it's ever been. But the demand for tabloid journalism is also higher than ever.

It's easier than ever to graze on low quality, tabloid journalism -- "linkbait," if you will. Sensational headlines and puff pieces have always existed, and has always helped sell both tabloids and even more respected publications. But the web and social media make it easier to indulge in this sort of thing, and once you've clicked on one bit of linkbait -- or even a serious news story -- you're presented with a list of additional linkbaity stories.

Given the high demand, and low cost to produce, it's little wonder we see more and more churnalism and linkbait.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Both my sister and her husband are professional journalists at one of Britain's broadsheets and they have a very tough job of it. My sister was a freelance journalist for a couple of years looking for piece after piece before finally getting a job.

We have a lot of discussions about payment for content and how journalists should be compensated for their work and why they deserve to be compensated well.

A professional journalist works very hard indeed, they have to produce content on demand very quickly and to put aside their pride when sub-editors mash and reshape it to what (they believe) the editor asked for. Journalists have to create pieces out of events which are of little or no real interest and to do so without flinching. It's a hard job.

The job of a freelance journalist is just as tough and in some ways even tougher as the majority of it is selling and pitching. I was astonished when my sister told me how often she was sending out pitch ideas to editors and how she would engage multiple editors daily and of course be rejected by most of them. Professional journalists whether freelance or retained earn their keep and the majority of them (certainly the ones who haven't reached the confines of seniority) work extremely hard.

However in all of this there is something that my sister and I disagree on. In fact we've decided not to speak about it much because it's an understandably emotional subject for her and one that I feel very strongly about. And that is the topic of whether someone has a given right to receive compensation for their work.

I find it very difficult to empathise with the sentiment that anyone's work has a god-given value. Software is sometimes valuable in isolation as code, on a disk but most often it's not. Years ago you could produce software and sell it on cassettes, now many of our most successful companies are ones which provide a more scalable, hosted five-nines uptime service for free than many ever even charged for.

It frustrates me that writers should sit down and complain that nobody is prepared to pay them for their work. Many other industrial workers and even knowledge workers have found their skills devalued by the passage of time and have had to deal with it.

Unlike all those other industries which got crushed under the wheels of time though we still fundamentally need writers. We want good writers, we need informed writers and good writing is still not in unlimited supply. The survival skill writers need is not penmanship it's entrepreneurship. This may be unpalatable but it's also unavoidable.

<comment><USER16> I sense that, for a long time, the world of journalism has told itself that it is a fundamental pillar of democratic society. While true, the implication is that society owes it something. You might even extrapolate that a journalist doing an investigation that did not result in a published story, has still added value because they have kept the authorities in check.

However, the funding for this type of work only really existed as a quirk of the technology that newspapers used and now that the public has the opportunity to only pay for the stories they're interested in; I think society will need more constitutional rights regarding access to government data and a crowd-sourced monitoring effort to prevent corruption.

I, like you, don't feel a moral imperative to pay someone for putting in a days work regardless of what they produce at the end of it. I would donate to political campaigns regarding constitutional rights to open data though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've noticed an apparent decline in the quality of Atlantic recently. Maybe this has something to do with it. When you go from putting high-quality writers on retainer for $125,000 a year to trying to get them to work for free, naturally quality suffers.

<comment><USER10> That offer was a decade ago, not a few years ago.

You could just not renew your subscription I suppose.

<comment><USER17> I already stopped subscribing. About three years ago. Probably around the time they started paying $100 an article.

<comment><USER10> Which came first, that's the question, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I really wish the comments hear were a little more thought out. There's an emotional reaction lashing out at The Bastards who stole the cheese. The reality is that there isn't a villain. There are some fundamental changes in the industry that have affected the amount of money and its flow. It's not malicious. It's incidental.

The move online broke newspapers' business models, especially the dominant 'journalism as a delivery mechanism for ads' model. Turns out it was fragile.

It also may have changed consumer demand, I think. ADD online readers can be attracted just as easily with reprinted headlines & fluff and their pageviews are worth just as little.

The internet also changed supply. A lot of content is being produced for free. They are doing it for fun, they are doing it for "exposure."

I have nothing against journalists. I respect the profession. I think it's important. All this adds up to a worse deal for them then before. There is no anti-journalist conspiracy now any more than there was a pro journalist conspiracy before.

</comment><comment><USER17> What good is exposure if it just exposes you to more people who will want you to work for free?

<comment><USER19> If you already have something to promote, like a self-published ebook on North Korea, and they let you put a few lines and an Amazon link at the end, then it might be worth it.

Assuming: 30,000 page views, 2-5% conversion rate, $4.99 price (Amazon takes 30%, so $3.49 profit)

You could make $2095 - $5239.

<comment><USER20> I know you're just spitballing here, but 30k page views is probably pretty low and a 2-5% conversion rate is definitely _extremely_ high.

<comment><USER19> I'm not sure what kind of traffic most Atlantic articles get. I used Gawker as a reference for guesstimating pageviews. A lot of their self-reported pageviews in the sidebar are around 30k or under.

You're right, 2-5% is high. But I do think an article that leads into a pitch for a topical e-book would convert well with Atlantic traffic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It baffles me how journalism hopes to survive the disruption that the Internet brings with stunts like this, and the odd pay wall.

I'm doing a bit of work with journalists at the moment, and while I think many of the individuals would like to innovate, many of the structures and institutions that exist do not seem willing, they insist in framing the issue as "how can we get someone else to pay for us to keep operating as we are now".

I long to see journalism freed from the constraints that a daily print run onto dead tree once imposed on it, and re-imagined in an always evolving, interactive and yes, paid for, model. Just don't make me buy a load of content I'm not interested in, and don't try and charge me for a floor full of people who're re-hashing syndicated stories or writing fluff pieces.

</comment><comment><USER21> How is this different than, say, music? There are incredibly gifted composers and musicians in the world today, but the general public seldom hears their work. They are either independently wealthy, or more likely work at a cafe or, if they are truly lucky, have some sort of low-level academic gig.

The general population has terrible taste in music, so talent is no longer appreciated. Why should journalism be any different?

</comment><comment><USER22> I don't see it as simply an issue of supply and demand. It also has to do with the ethics of publishers who stretch fair use to its boundaries and beyond.

The money quote for me in the article is: _I am sure you can do what is the common practice these days and just have one of your interns rewrite the story as it was published elsewhere, but hopefully stating that is how the information was acquired._

That seems to be what most of journalism is about these days. You have sites like a Business Insider whose forte is bright and colorful presentation of work copied from other sites.

</comment><comment><USER23> I got a similar offer from "hackin9". One small difference: the contact already had the article that i should have written planned for the next issue even before she answered my e-mail in which i explained that my landlord sadly doesn't want to be paid in "exposure". Contact ended abruptly

</comment><comment><USER24> This will influence how I will view future articles from The Atlantic. I liked a number of them, but this is likely not an isolated incident, and from now on I will always wonder how the article was produced.

<comment><USER25> You should also read up on the disputes they have had with Reddit about how they promoted their content; earned them an official site-wide ban, if I recall correctly..

<comment><USER26> That's not shocking. Most people who head up these corporations made it up the corporate ladder because of, not in spite of, an incredible lack of tact.

<comment><USER27> The Atlantic is owned by David Bradley (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_G._Bradley>), and it isn't a particularly large corporation. It can't have that many employees, given that only 400,000 people subscribe to the magazine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The only reason that people are willing to do it for free is because they believe the "exposure" myth and think that it will lead to paid work.

What they don't realize is that in aggregate, their willingness to do it for free jeopardizes their ability to do it for money in the future. It's a nice little game theory problem. A single defector from the "only work for money" strategy probably benefits; the rookie journalist gets his foot in the door, gets the "exposure" and the industry connections, and so yields an advantage over his peers.

But once all his peers defect from the paid strategy, the whole thing comes crashing down. None of them achieve any advantage over any other. They just drive the median compensation down towards zero.

The claim that there's an abundance of high quality journalism is hogwash. There isn't. There's a glut of no-talent regurgitators. Most of them have poor knowledge of the subject matter, don't bother checking facts, don't do any original research, and generally offer little of value.

<comment><USER29> But in your game, not everyone wins when the equilibrium is held intact. It keeps journalism expensive which is bad for publishers and readers. All things considered the pros might outweigh the cons, but you're suggesting it's a lose-lose game which it is most certainly not. Instead it's classic supply/demand: the only reason the equilibrium crumbles so easily is because there's too much people wanting to be journalists in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> For those who practice SEO, there is a bit of irony here.

I suspect a couple of do-follow links from The Atlantic placed within the text of the article would be relatively valuable from an SEO perspective...

The market value of "acquiring" those links from a highly reputable site is likely far in excess of $100 / article; SEO considerations have disrupted value creation in the lower end of the content market. An article is often worth more for its links than readership / advertising. This was something that popped out of a study I did a while back:

[http://www.marginhound.com/revenue-model-study-for-small- web...](http://www.marginhound.com/revenue-model-study-for-small-websites/)

<comment><USER20> I used to write for a tiny outfit that scraped together a few thousand dollars a month in revenue and paid me ~$50 for 1000 word articles.

They were approached almost daily being offered low $xxx figures to publish articles with backlinks for SEO purposes (which they refused). And this was a site with a few hundred pages of content and less than 100k uniques a month.

On that kind of scale, a backlink from the Atlantic would presumably be worth thousands of dollars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Most of my entire professional career has been in traditional journalism. However, I'm new/young enough that I've almost taken it for granted that money-for-services is ancillary to exposure. Recently, a large media company asked if they could use one of my photos for a commercial campaign...and I almost said, "Sure, just take it" because it was a photo I've listed as Creative Commons. But then I thought, well, they're big media and asked to see their rate sheet...I about jumped when I saw they'd offer $1,000 for just a year's usage...for a photo that I took years ago and that I've been sharing online for free

</comment><comment><USER31> Vote with your clicks; don't visit sites like The Atlantic and Huffington Post.

</comment><comment><USER10> Actually story this post is about: 3 tweets 5 facebook likes.

This story: 2K tweets 3K facebook likes.

Seems like people are about 1000 times more interested in behind the scenes of freelancing than his research into NK basketball.

</comment><comment><USER32> I've been looking for someone to write interesting, in-depth articles on local business. For money. I've yet to find anyone who a) wants to do it, and b) can do it.

I've tried a few things - even contacting people who I know are doing unpaid 'internships' writing crappy press-release pieces. Very few even responded, and of those that did, even fewer had any grasp of investigating something.

I gave up looking, and just do the writing myself - even though the opportunity cost is massive.

</comment><comment><USER10> (tried to post this on his site, but it is awaiting moderation)

I guess it always hurts to find out the going rate for your writing is $0. How much did the venerable NK News pay him I wonder.

A 6 figure offer a few years ago? Sadly 2003 (when that Atlantic editor died) is not a few years back, it's a decade ago. Journalism has changed and the freely accessible article on NK News would've gained slightly more traction on the Atlantic with less typing than he spent on this blog post.

</comment><comment><USER33> I liked this one commentor as well, "she did NOT have the budget 4 Dat, and did I know anyone who would do it for FREE?"

I get this a lot from technical recruiters. "Your hourly rate is too high, but do you know anyone else?" Dude, my friends are all pros and we all come at a high price. And I'm certainly not going to do your job for you tracking them down. GTFO.

Or when people in malls try to hand me flyers, "I'm not throwing your garbage away for you."

</comment><comment><USER34> As a journalist myself, this is extremely depressing (although unsurprising). It's also why I'm working hard to expand my portfolio of skills.

</comment><comment><USER35> I think Nate Thayer seems to have over-reacted to the situation. The news requested by the global editor was commodity news; it wasn't exclusive content.

The problem with commodity news is not one of quality but of quantity. Much like any other commodity product, news is driven by volume. Unfortunately, demand has far outstripped the supply. In the absence of clear differentiators, organizations rely on SEO tactics, content marketing and social media tools as new distribution channels for news.

Most technology-oriented solutions, however, put a different tack to the problem. They approach it from the efficiency perspective. Acquiring news (or, reporting and writing news) is an expensive activity. In fact, were it not for journalists' famously low salaries, the returns on investment for news acquisition would be unsustainable.

</comment><comment><USER17> A good friend of mine was earning a decent salary as a tech blogger for CNET. In 2009, they let him go, and now he is barely making ends meet with some sort of deal with another site where he earns commission based on page views. I think it's a general trend.

</comment><comment><USER36> I went to J-school. I have the benefit of holding a degree from one of the most prestigious schools in the world.

I've been out of school for six years and have yet to find a single job, in spite of the half-dozen successful internships with various mega-media corporations.

*A single media job.

</comment><comment><USER37> Is this what's really happening at such major publications?

I'm starting my own online publication, and even though we're pre-revenue I'm STILL paying our writers.

Why? Because I truly believe in craft and content. Good, fresh, original content should definitely be compensated for.

<comment><USER20> I'm curious, would you describe your project a little?

<comment><USER37> Surely! InsertQuarterly.com, we believe gamers are growing up and gaming 'content' in general is feeling a little outdated. We're going to publish original, fresh content from writers in the industry who are passionate about what they do. We're just trying to focus on content (the stuff that matters). Experience doesn't really matter to us, all we care about is if you have something awesome, amazing, insightful, or fresh to share :)

<comment><USER23> good luck, i think there is enough room for a decent gaming site (RPS is living proof). Just don't get sucked into "we need to give xx percent", that normally ruins the site.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> To be fair, the editor has only been on the job a month. [http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/the-atlantic-hires- thr...](http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/the-atlantic-hires-three-makes- editorial-changes_b75517)

</comment><comment><USER39> I wonder how many relatively wealthy HN users who are outraged about this are going to rush out and pay money to Nate Thayer for this very article.

Boycotting _The Atlantic_ is easy (and free). Paying journalists for quality content isn't.

<comment><USER40> Well he can put an Adsense ad on his blog and we'll do exactly that, whether we read/enjoy it or not.

That's how most journalism works and has worked. The content is free to consume, assuming you'll accept the advertising. Journalism/writing was always the carrot, but the ads the stick.

So what's changed. Two things:

1\. There's so much more writing/journalism/creative arts in general being produced that the valuation of these entities has declined

(coupled with)

2\. The Internet producing a culture that's less obsessed with quality, correctness and robustness.

Which has led to new consumption patterns: we want a lot more in smaller chunks and it's worth less to us (in aggregate).

<comment><USER39> _"Well he can put an Adsense ad on his blog and we'll do exactly that, whether we read/enjoy it or not. That's how most journalism works and has worked."_

So, in other words you don't want to pay for it. You want someone else to pay for it.

<comment><USER40> Yes, that is how most news & information is - and has been - <USER2> subsidized for centuries.

It doesn't help that supply has far exceeded demand, but there is still a convertible value to content.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> It's not just journalism.

At least one major conference organizer / publisher is really skinny on speaker expenses to the extent it costs speakers money to go talk at their conferences.

</comment><comment><USER42> No wonder mass media is of such poor quality if original, reported articles consumed by up to 13M readers pays $100. Guess that's supply and demand (?)

<comment><USER43> According to the post, it also pays $125K / year for a full-time job with the requirement to deliver _6 articles_. Doesn't sound very bad.

<comment><USER44> That was atleast 9 years ago. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kelly_(editor)>

<comment><USER10> Exactly. Ad revenue of newspapers slipped over 50% during that time. The whole market got eaten up and destroyed, worse than the music industry could've ever dreamed.

There is still a great bunch of journalism out there, like Vice (who actually did the original reporting) and then there are folks like this guy who wishes for days of yore. The Atlantic puts out plenty of great content from great writers who get little cash for their efforts.

The market changed drastically on this guy and he hopes he can get more PR from this free blog post than a free byline on theatlantic.com

Good luck to him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> The Atlantic have released at statement (of sorts) about this: [https://www.magnetmail.net/actions/email_web_version.cfm?rec...](https://www.magnetmail.net/actions/email_web_version.cfm?recipient_id=699462885&message_id=2523507&user_id=NJG_Atlan&group_id=0&jobid=13303265)

</comment><comment><USER46> Maybe journalists need to be rebranded into "intelligence gatherers." Not many people will pay for stories. They will pay for useful intel that isn't shared with a wide audience. "They" being governments, corporations, investors.

</comment><comment><USER47> Wasn't this debated to death a few years ago regarding the Huffington Post?

</comment><comment><USER48> Every entrepreneur should understand the value flow before proceeding with a start-up, unless you're comfortable blowing-up investors like so many start- ups! If you don't know who your customer is and WHY they will use (pay) for your service, you have big problems ahead of you.

1) Bloganda (internet) has beaten the publishing houses for promulgating corporate (group) memes.

2) Specialized internet platforms (ebay, CL, cars.com, autotrader.com, MLS listings) match buyers and sellers more efficiently than print publications, so that's where the money flows to now. As a consequence, prev(f)ailing publishing houses can't afford to pay above market-value money for low/no- demand content. Articles are the product of the writer and the information content is what people value. A good name (brand) is a derivative (effect) of regularly supplying the information desires of a non-trivial quantity of information consumers (subscribers/readers).

3) The editorial structure of the prev(f)ailing publishing industry doesn't scale outside of local/regional markets. The internet is global, right?

I've written an article about the economics of the prev(f)ailing publishing industry, why it is a hopeless structure and where I believe the ball is moving. HN hell-banned the site in week one post-beta launch, so I can't post the url here. If you're interested you can search for:

"will people pay for news"

</comment><comment><USER49> Seriously, what is this doing on _Hacker_ News? I'm sure there's a subreddit for this.

<comment><USER50> I found it very interesting, as it talks about how journalism has changed in the age of the internet.

A good hacker should have a good grasp of how the world works, and how it changes over time.

<comment><USER49> How does this help me in any way whatsoever at being a better hacker? Except don't become a freelance journalist 2013, like that ever crossed my mind.

Might as well just rename the site to Random News and post stuff from every field there is.

<comment><USER51> You're right, hackers don't produce intellectual property, and they never have issues with people not valuing it. If you think being able to sling code or design a webpage makes you immune from this trend, then maybe you don't have enough imagination to get the most out of this site.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Banks race to beat the patent trolls and Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-11/disrupting-banks-go-see-what-they-re-doing-at-the-patent-office <comment><USER2> _Bank of America has won the most patents among U.S. banks in recent years, with an active portfolio of more than 3,000._

I really have a problem with the kind of terminology used around obtaining a patent. You'll often see things like the above, "won a patent" or "awarded a patent". Late night infomercials seem to prefer saying that something is good/worth having because it was "awarded a patent". As if it is some kind race (despite that the way the patent system is structured, it often actually is a race, _sigh_ ), with two, or more, parties going head to head and there's some objective measurement that we'd all agree on that legitimizes the point count and the final outcome, like it's the Superbowl or the World Series. These 3,000 patents that BoA has aren't populated with stuff that someone else was also trying to patent at the same time, 99% of software patents are for things that no one else thinks about patenting (because they didn't think of them because they are highly specific to a business and are just obtained to pad the portfolio; or because others think they are too trivial or non-unique enough to patent (the situations the TFA describes as the banks being in traditionally). The terms "won" and "awarded" implies some level of worthiness beyond just being the first to speak.

No one would claim you'd "won" your drivers license because you went in, filled out some paperwork the right way, and was able to satisfy some minimal testing requirements (both knowledge and skill/experience). And obtaining a patent is almost exactly that same case.

<comment><AUTHOR> Take a look at one of their recent patent application. A cursory look shows that it's a "computer system" for transferring money to someone who does not have a bank account. I'm not an expert in claim analysis, but looks obvious.

[http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H...](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220160027016%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20160027016&RS=DN/20160027016)

<comment><USER2> Well, that's partly my point. It's obvious to just about everyone else, including those who submitted the application, so no one else is actually going to patent this. Because no one is going to submit a patent application, especially if you're building of a patent portfolio for defensive purposes it's all speculative and secretive during the phase when you're searching for things to patent.

So they actually haven't "won" anything. The "won" and "awarded" terminology, at least in the vernacular and the way these terms are exploited for talking about obtaining patents, implies some kind of objective assessment of worthiness. There's nothing worthy in obviousness.

The test of obviousness is set by the patent examiners, which is not a high bar to reach. The reasons patent examiners are not able to meaningful (dis)qualify patent applications on obviousness is frequently discussed (incentives that encourage issuing rather than rejecting; overwork at the patent office; unqualified, not versed in the art, of the area being examined). So in effect, the patent application is "awarded" a patent for "winning" the task of gaming the patent system. These terms attribute meaning to a meaningless process.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> One more reason patents feel like a waste of everyones time. Limiting consumer choice by claiming ownership to payment methods is only going to slow down progress. I wish they would compete on actual experience and features rather than rights to the market.

<comment><USER4> Patents maybe made sense a century ago with much fewer people and companies on the planet. Oh, and no internet. Today it's just a detriment to human progress.

<comment><USER5> I agree. Every article like this just makes me hate the current patent system more. What a waste of human resources to document every little business process and generate tons of paperwork just to build up a portfolio to fight off patent trolls. I don't know if a moratorium on new patents is what we need, but something needs to change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is excellent news. Banks will spend time and money on hiring consultants and lawyers to patent meaningless buzzwords. If for some bizarre reason the U.S. doesn't reform patents by the time these patents are granted (a long process) they will be devoid of any value except protection.

I actually think some within these banks hate the patent system as much as startups but are obligated to due this as a matter of professional security. It is just game theory 101, most institutions would be better off without dumping resources into lawyers, litigation and goodwill writedown, but if just one other institution does, they could potentially all be skewered.

I am working at a tiny fintech company and we are trying to do business with "banks". Which I found out pretty much immeadiately, are in much worse shape than I believed.

They all have these fiserv and digital insight systems, CRMs , front end providers, state regulation, federal regulation, lead generation, analytics software, 3rd party clearing software.

A fucking mess.

Radius Bank is one that looks particularly cool and similar to Simple or something, an online bank. The fact is that, to the extent banking stays within the current monetary system, small vertically integrated technology driven companies will be able to provide more, adapt faster and just dominate.

Which is why I am not worried about the patent scenario. If a big bank wants to patent blockchain, and then hire consultants to hire a CTO to hire a team to build it they will discover 5 years from now that not only is it hard to do, but it is tough to sue a decentralized network.

</comment><comment><USER7> If this causes the financial industry to back patent reform, it would be a good thing. If it causes the financial industry to acquire many patents and become vested in the current system, it will slow patent reform and give yet more power to Wall Street.

</comment><comment><USER8> It seems to me that it is just a matter of time-scale. If patent lifetimes were made shorter to match internet-time it would make a lot of sense. Five or ten years advantage is worth a lot in internet time.</comment>


As predicted, more branch prediction processor attacks are discovered - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/03/its-not-just-spectre-researchers-reveal-more-branch-prediction-attacks/ <comment><USER2> Dupe [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16685270](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16685270)

Even thought I wonder why noone commented yet on it...

<comment><AUTHOR> Indeed. Do things like this happen often?</comment></comment>


Red Hat Launches OpenShift on Google Cloud - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/article/red-hat-launches-openshift-on-google-cloud/ <comment><USER2> Great. Will they give free tier of 3 cartridges ?</comment>


America's First Direct Mail Campaign - <AUTHOR> https://postalmuseum.si.edu/node/1912 <comment><AUTHOR> "In 1835, the American Anti-Slavery Society (AAS) took their campaign to a new level with what could be called the first use of a direct mail campaign."

Direct mail being in its infancy, they did not think to use a targeted list to a sympathetic audience, and were generally considered to have been early spammers.

"The administration's hostility toward the AAS campaign (including federal postal officials' refusal to chastise southern postmasters for their not delivering legal mail) and a series of state laws created to criminalize sending such "inflammatory" and "seditious" materials into southern states brought an end to the Society's mail campaign."

</comment><comment><USER2> It's amazing how often "states' rights" comes up historically with regard to slavery and black civil rights, but almost never in any other context. It's almost like it was just a convenient legal tool to protect white supremacy, and once it failed they'd break the law, up to and including murder and treason to protect it.

And after the war they used it again to bring it back and protect white supremacy from then until today.

People who argue for morally contemptible positions often couch them in process arguments, which they will then argue against when turned against them — such as when northern states, for example, didn't want to return fugitive slaves.

Don't let people change the subject when they want to argue for the continuation of a grotesque and immoral practice because of some abstract legal principle.

If the principle of "states' rights" permits slavery and segregation and apartheid, then that's a condemnation of the concept of states' rights. Either it needs to be formulated in such a way that it doesn't permit atrocities to continue, or it needs to be jettisoned.

</comment><comment><USER3> > That night a group called the "Lynch Men" broke into the post office and > stole those mail bags. The next night, the group led a "celebration" of > almost 2,000 spectators in cheering the burning that mail

It would be amazing if the same could be done with today's junk mail.</comment>


Why Water Is Wet - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/25/water/ingenious-richard-saykally <comment> dj-wonk There are interesting parts to the article, but the headline doesn't do it justice.

> "Daddy? Why is water wet?" And the proper answer is: strong tetrahedral > hydrogen bonding, which they then related to their teachers for years > afterward whenever the subject of water came, they'd say, "Strong > tetrahedral hydrogen bonding!" But that's the correct answer. That's what > makes water wet.

I've got a simpler answer. The Apple dictionary defines the word "wet" as "covered or saturated with water or another liquid". By that definition, if someone were to ask, "Why is water wet?" the response would simply be "because it is water".

Another way to ask the question is "What about water gives it interesting properties?"

By the title, I was hoping to see some interesting definition of "wet" in the article but did not. It might as well ask "Why is water water?"

I'd also be interested in a unpacking how "wetness" works in terms of lower principles, across different liquids. To what degree do all liquids behave like water? Why or why not?

<comment><USER2> The word "wet" is a technical term. If you spray a water repellent like Scotchgard on your clothes, they will become hydrophobic, and water won't cling to the cloth, nor penetrate its surface. In other words, hydrophobic materials are hard to wet. Waxy surfaces are also hard to wet. See "wetting" on wikipedia (not to be confused with nocturnal enuresis ;-).

Wetting is a verb. Maybe the title should have read "Daddy? Why does water wet?" That might have resolved the confusion, at the risk of angering grammatical pedants.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Here is something I've wondered about for a few years: Can we actually _feel_ wetness or only the temperature difference of wet vs dry? In other words, if the water, air and skin temp were the same, could you feel what part of your hand was in water?

<comment><USER4> I forget what they are called, but I have heard of places that immerse you in total darkness and total silence and have you float in water that is the same as your skins temperature so that you feel like you are floating in nothingness. I never went but want to try it sometime. So I cannot say if it works or not but at least according to these places you would not feel the water. I wish I could remember what they were called. We have one here in Atlanta.

EDIT: found it based on SCHiM's comment: [http://flo2s.com/floating/what-is-a- float-tank/](http://flo2s.com/floating/what-is-a-float-tank/)

<comment><USER5> I've always heard them called sensory deprivation chambers.

<comment><USER6> That's the name I knew them by (mostly from watching Altered States), but apparently they're now called isolation tanks: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolation_tank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolation_tank)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Strangely, my answer would have been "weakly tetrahedral hydrogen bonding" when water has a regular tetrahedral lattice, it's ice. It's when there are disruptions to the lattice that things are more interesting.

<comment><USER8> The professor disagrees with you:

"When water freezes into ordinary ice, which is the kind that makes the ice cubes that float in our highballs, this happens at what we would call zero degrees centigrade, at atmospheric pressure. When water freezes into ice it creates a very open structure. That form of ice comprises arrays of six membered rings that are stacked on top of one another to make channels and most of that ice is actually empty space."

<comment><USER9> How is that disagreement?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Best answer I ever heard was "because it's sticky".

<comment><USER2> Nice idea, but I doesn't really do justice to wetting, I think. First of all, water doesn't stick to everything: some materials are hydrophobic, and as Saykally points out, it's that dual ability to attract some parts of molecules and repel others that makes water necessary for life on Earth. That's how cell membranes form spontaneously: long skinny lipid molecules gather into sheets with their hydrophilic ends facing out towards water and their hydrophobic ends facing inward.

Second, all viscous fluids are sticky, in the sense that their flow is slowed where they touch stationary surfaces. This boundary phenomenon is responsible for the Coanda effect. Have you ever touched a spoon to the stream of water coming out of the kitchen tap, and watched the water change course _towards_ the spoon?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> An interesting class of question. Wet, solid, warm. Basically any regular yet fuzzy sensation we have.

Last question, why is blue blue.</comment>


Why you shouldn't buy a Mac - <AUTHOR> http://main.makeuseoflimited.netdna-cdn.com/tech-fun/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/whynottobuyamac.png

<comment><USER2> You can criticize the Mac Pro for being exceptionally overpriced, or you can criticize macs in general for being difficult to upgrade, but criticizing the Mac Pro for being overpriced and then throwing in that it's also "difficult to upgrade" is just silly. The main advantage of the Mac Pro over other macs is that it _isn't_ difficult to upgrade.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, it's like you're making a completely new argument that no one has ever made before. If you own a Mac you know that you personally can somehow justify the extra cost. I'll add in that your computer is not going to be obsolete in as long as a Windows computer will, because I've experienced it. Macbook that my brother has from 4 years ago runs far better than the Windows laptop I had before that did after 4 years.

Yes you can install Mac OS X on your PC, but it's a pain and it doesn't work on every single computer. I'm not sure why you posted this in the first place because you're providing common knowledge.

Go to Dell or Samsung or Sony's website and configure their high end desktop and you'll find that upgrading the Hard drive or memory or graphics card will cause you to be over charged as well.

</comment><comment><USER4> Meh, lots of people prefer Macs for whatever reason and if you use your computer a lot, it's worth spending a bit more for something you enjoy using.

That said, my current monitor is a great example of the "Apple Tax". It's a 27" IPS monitor (2560x1440) with the exact same spec as the Apple Cinema Display. Why the same spec? Because the screen in it is _exactly_ the same. It cost me £450, whereas the Cinema Display costs around £900.

Granted, the cinema display has better audio and a nicer case - is it worth £450 extra? I'm sure some would say so however I like to point this out to people when they claim that Apple products are worth the extra money due to the quality of the screen, etc. There is some truth in that, yet the Apple logo on the back definitely adds quite a bit.

</comment><comment><USER5> Should've titled it "why you shouldn't buy a mac pro".

<comment><USER6> Exactly. Apple doesn't care much about desktops, and they really don't care about traditional tower PC. The Mac Pro exists to milk users who are locked in to the high end Mac ecosystem. For everyone else an iMac, mini, or MacBook Pro is a much better value.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I love the fit and finish of my Macbook Pro and OSX. I also recently bought a Thinkpad W520 and it's just not the same with the hardware and the OS. I can't ignore the ugliness of the bootup screen, the clunky sound the DVD drive makes when the laptop wakes up, the intrusive Lenovo software that reminds me to install some anti-virus software, the ugliness of the shutdown process and many parts of Windows 7 (I loved windows XP). I wouldn't be able to pay more on the PC side to eliminate these if I wanted to.

I don't buy Apple monitors though. They do seem overpriced.

</comment><comment><USER8> Unless, of course, you want to buy a Mac. In which case you should.

</comment><comment><USER9> We use Mac mini thingies for iOS development (hooked up to a decent third party monitor) - but agree that otherwise the cost of Apple hardware is pretty difficult to justify.

<comment><USER10> I don't know, I think that other than the SSD price a 27" iMac is a solid buy. Add aftermarket RAM, of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Yet another ideology-driven misleading post. If it were honest, the analysis would have been done with a MacBook Air or a MacBook Pro.

</comment><comment><USER12> A, the Mac is expensive myth. Including such insights that buying HD, memory etc upgrades from the manufacturer is pricier that getting them off the street. [You don't say].

Well, there have been tons of comparisons of similarly speced machines ON THE TOP END OF THE MARKET and the Macs come as cheap or cheaper. And the competition has had a hard time keeping up with the iPad/iPhone pricing.

For some reason people compare just the cpu model or the memory. Well, you think the machine aluminum body doesn't cost to design, buy and manufacture too? The tight innards design doesn't cost? The lightness doesn't come at a cost? That thunderbolt port? That blinking light when it goes to sleep? That someone though of adding hidden magnets instead of protruding latches to keep the lid closed? That the DVD drive is internal come for free you think? The glass touchpad with the multitouch surface that's not crappy like 90% of touchpads out there? And tons of other seemingly hidden details that their impact you notice all the time.

Compare a MBP to a Sony VAIO, not the cheapest plastic dell or a copycat design with shitty materials and QA.

Plus, here's why you'll do well to buy a Mac from someone I assume has no hidden agenda on the matter:

"Point me to a better laptop [than the Macbook Air]. Trust me, I tried. They don't exist. It's sad. They are all big and clunky." (Someone suggesting Lenovo) "no, Lenovo doesn't. I have the Lenovo X1. It's bigger, plasticky, and has worse battery life."

Linus Torvalds, on his Google+ page.

<comment><USER4> I agree with your comments, but check the part in my comment about the cinema display. There is truth in both arguments, basically.

Edit: also, my £350 lenovo (with upgraded battery) gets about 10-15 hours battery life, depending on use. I'm unaware of any Mac getting that. My friends have said they get around 2-4 hours.

<comment><USER12> MBP from 2010+ are supposed to get 10+ hours battery life. That's from the specs Apple publishes, and they are known to be on the conservative side by independent reviews.

15 hours though, no, but I guess this is a tradeoff either for a lighter body or a more bright screen (or both).

Also, your Lenovo get's that with an aftermarket battery, if I understand correctly, right?

<comment><USER4> I've heard the opposite that they only get the full battery life prediction if you literally do nothing with them, i.e. just leave them idle (most companies do this though - give the maximum battery life). The battery I have in my Lenovo was bought with the laptop, you could just upgrade it during the checkout process.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Gödel's Proof of God's Existence - <AUTHOR> http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.4526 <comment><USER2>
        – The basic modal logic K is sufficient for proving T1, C and T2.
        – Modal logic S5 is not needed for proving T3; the logic KB is sufficient.
        – Without the first conjunct φ(x) in D2 the set of axioms and definitions
          would be inconsistent.
        – For proving theorem T1, only the left to right direction of axiom A1 is needed.
          However, the backward direction of A1 is required for proving T2.

So, does god exist or not? Can anyone proficient in symbolic logic translate this for us?

As someone who's read the first 2/3 of GEB at least twice, I'm planning to reorganise my entire worldview around this.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, seriously, what's the verdict? And where's the formalization itself? Show me the code, I have a whole worldview I need to re-evaluate here.

Edit: Seems like this is the code - [https://github.com/FormalTheology/GoedelGod](https://github.com/FormalTheology/GoedelGod)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This feels like begging the question.

Start with a selective, loaded definition of "god" that seems to amount to "A god is a being who must exist."

God is all that is good; not existing is not good, therefore god must exist.

QED.

<comment><USER5> > selective, loaded definition of "god"

Well, you can't really win here. It's either a hand-wavey definition you could never formally prove, or a rigid, 'loaded' definition.

That said, the basis of the proof does seem to be that 'if god exists, then he must exist', which is not really groundbreaking.

<comment><USER6> > That said, the basis of the proof does seem to be that 'if god exists, then > he must exist', which is not really groundbreaking.

Actually, its "if god must exist, he exists".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is one version of the ontological proof, which has a long history. For an overview:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument)

</comment><comment><USER8> The proof's axioms deal with what kinds of things have the property of being 'positive' (A1-A5). But lacking a separate definition of what positive means, we really have no choice but to view these 5 axioms as an implicit description of 'positivity' and wonder what mathematical models realize these axioms.

One thing to note from the axioms is that for every property either that property or the negation of that property (but not both) has the label of 'positive'. This is already pretty strong, because it's making claims the about the 'positivity' of properties that are completely unrelated to the rest of the argument. It's almost just a labeling game: given p and -p, you must label exactly one as 'positive'. Is the property of being red positive? Saying no is equivalent (according to these axioms) to saying that the property of not being red is positive.

You can pick one model for the axioms where being red is 'positive', and then the God that's shown to exist will be red. You can pick another where being not red is 'positive', and then the proof implies that God will not be red. It's not a logical contradiction because they're different models, but it certainly makes one wonder what the proof is talking about when it mentions 'positivity'. I have a suspicion that the axioms themselves generate an inconsistency and hence they could generate proofs for any statement.

Anyways, this paper is about formal theorem provers, not theology, so hats off to the researchers implementing higher-order logic.

</comment><comment><USER9> _A God-like being possesses all positive properties

A5 Necessary existence is a positive property_

Oh, yeah, that's not circular at all...

<comment><USER10> > He does not extensively discuss what positive properties are, but instead he > states a few reasonable (but debatable) axioms that they should satisfy. > Various slightly different versions of axioms and definitions have been > considered by Godel and by several philosophers who commented on his proof.

Such is the world of philosophy. Remember that some of the greatest scientists and mathematicians lived when all of it was just _philosophy_. Philosophy is a training exercise to think imaginatively and some of our best science stems from an imaginative spark. It's like saying that people professional athletes running around a field (philosophy) is pointless because they are not running in a race for gold (science) at that specific point in time.

This is by all means _not_ scientific, precisely because you can't address that specific subject matter scientifically:

1\. God exists if he makes himself/herself visibly and measurably known and is observed and measured by a human being and the observations are confirmed by peers within the scientific community. 2\. God does not exist if a human is present to see the end of the universe (or variant there-of) and he has not been yet observed (assuming he/she is tied to the existence of the universe) and the lack of observation is confirmed by peers within the scientific community.

We simply don't know until either (1) or (2) is satisfied, therefore this is _exactly_ the type of stuff philosophy is good at. It's not saying "can we prove it" it's saying "let's think about creative ways to prove it if we can get a little lax about the scientific method." Were "getting lax about the scientific method" means that "proof" can be derived from either common sense or logical arguments.

<comment><USER11> > Remember that some of the greatest scientists and mathematicians lived when > all of it was just philosophy.

Not really. Galileo and Newton turned philosophy into science by doing experiments, and scientists never looked back. Science differs from philosophy by being steered -- defined -- by empirical evidence, and by falsifiability, the idea that any idea must be testable against reality and must be discarded if the test fails.

That's certainly not philosophy.

> It's not saying "can we prove it" it's saying "let's think about creative > ways to prove it if we can get a little lax about the scientific method."

There's no middle ground such as you're suggesting here. There's no overlap between science and philosophy. They are distinct ways of processing ideas. One of them must be compared to reality at every turn.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I didn't know there was software to verify mathematical proofs. Heck, I didn't even know there was a formal syntax for writing them.

<comment><AUTHOR> A prominent example for proofs by computer algorithms is the 4 color theorem:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem)

<comment><USER13> That's not quite the same thing. The 4 colour theorem was proved by boiling it down to several thousand test cases and using a computer program to test those by colouring them. This paper is about using theorem provers to check axioms for consistency and proofs derived from those.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument)

There are obvious (and not so obvious) problems with such an argument even when formalized, some of which are discussed on the Wikipedia page.

</comment><comment><USER15> This would appear to be a more formal version of Thomas Aquinas' Argument from Gradation of Being, borrowing some elements of the Argument from Possibility and Necessity.

Logically proving the existence of God is a very old game. Modern atheists tend to ignore these proofs in favor of attacking superstition and the more obvious theological nonsense.

Which is a shame, because they can be refuted, with interesting consequences for one's worldview. The stance that most powerfully refutes any Ultimate argument for God (of which there are a few good ones) is, imho, Madhyamaka Buddhism, which holds that everything is empty because all phenomena dependently co-arise.

</comment><comment><USER16> If there were a God and he was all powerful, and he wanted you to believe before you knew He existed, it makes sense that you would be unable to prove or disprove His existence.

<comment><USER17> Indeed! if God mad His existence easily knowable, it would take away your free will to have faith.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> How cool.

Made me think of a Uni course on Thomas Aquinas from eons ago. I'll have to go back and check but I think:

"An essence of an individual is a property possessed by it and necessarily implying any of its properties"

could have come from Aquinas' "Being and Essence".

And - forgive me it has been eons - didn't Wittgenstein deal with this time of formulation showing you could in parallel construct its opposite.

</comment><comment><USER19> This was paid for by tax-payer money? Wow Germany. Awesome.

I've only just begun studying Gödel's proof of incompleteness and so I'm not qualified in any way to verify this paper. However it seems to me, as a layman, to be a very large stretch and mostly a tongue-in-cheek exercise of various logic proof verification software.

Or possibly a troll. Hard to tell. :)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> As an atheist, I have mixed feelings about it. I like it as a training in logic, yet I feel it is of no theological value...

<comment><USER20> "God" doesn't necessarily mean one that cares what you ate on Friday.....or if you pushed the elevator buttons on Shabbat.

<comment><USER21> Replace "God" with "burrito" and it's the same thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Now what would be really interesting is some form of comparison between this proof and the conjecture by Brian Greene (and others) that it is highly likely that we are all bit players in a massive computer simulation of a Universe...

<comment><USER11> Yes, but those ideas aren't comparable -- proof or disproof of one doesn't influence the other. They're orthogonal ideas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Everything in this thread is going way over my head. Would someone be kind enough to explain it to me like I'm 5?

<comment><USER11> It's an argument that, if certain logical conditions are met, then the principle of the existence of God is inescapable. Note that I said the _principle_ , not the fact -- the fact was not the matter under discussion.

It's like discussing the concept of an honest politician -- such a thing can obviously be proven to exist in principle, but that doesn't require that it exist in fact, in everyday reality. A good thing, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Gödel is so overrated. How is this actually science? "This work has been supported by the German Research Foundation under grant BE2501/9-1."

<comment><USER25> I believe that a "Formalization, Mechanization and Automation" of any logic proof would enter in the definition of science

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> People who read these tracts need to understand that the goal is not to literally prove that God exists (all superficial appearances to the contrary), only to show that the argument can be made and is logically consistent. The same argument can be made with equal justification about Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, or an honest politician.

All other issues aside, the Holocaust proves that either (a) God doesn't exist, or (b) he's Spinoza's God, the one who can't be bothered about humans and their problems.</comment>


Palimpsest: the guide to a (mostly) paperless life - <AUTHOR> http://www.43folders.com/2007/11/06/palimpsest-guide-mostly-paperless-life

<comment><USER2> Thanks for sharing. This article inspired me to buy the newer model scanner (S1500) and hope to tame some of the paper sprawl in my life.

If it cuts down even 1/3 of it or makes information retrieval (by searching) at all easier, it's well worth $410 from Newegg!</comment>


Dual Screen Laptop - <AUTHOR> http://www.gscreencorp.com/

<comment><USER2> I think this will look wrong-like-flairs at some future time when we're all looking back and thinking about designs that seemed so cool at the time.

The mega laptop is a dead evolutionary path, because it does its two priorities badly. It's not a good portable, and it's not a good desktop because you have fixed eye position and no configuration opportunity.

I expect the design that dominates the future will involve computers with the form factor of a phone. Users will run a lead between this and a unit that multiplexes one to many monitors when they want monitors, and be able to plug in an external keyboard. I wonder how long it is until mac laptops get offered where they're just a dumb housing for an iphone unit?

<comment><USER3> _> The mega laptop is a dead evolutionary path, because it does its two priorities badly. It's not a good portable, and it's not a good desktop because you have fixed eye position and no configuration opportunity._

While this is true, there are more uses for a laptop than mere usage on the road.

I use my laptop as a portable office. I go someplace, unpack and start working. I always have a desk and a power plug. I always plug in an external mouse (I hate touchpads). I have no problem carrying around my current 17" laptop.

Netbooks or other small laptops would be terrible for me. I have a lot of problems with the screen size in pixels as it is. I really don't want less screen estate, or a smaller keyboard, for that matter. (Rather, I'd like a numeric keypad added.)

But maybe I am a niche: people strong enough to carry around a large laptop and wanting a portable office more than a train-/plane-computer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If I wanted (and had the money for) a huge laptop, I'd go for something like Hanselman's huge Lenovo [ [http://www.hanselman.com/blog/MyLenovoChoiceThinkPadW700VsTh...](http://www.hanselman.com/blog/MyLenovoChoiceThinkPadW700VsThinkPadW500Review.aspx) ] I just think having a second, smaller monitor works better than two symmetrical monitors.

</comment><comment><USER5> Don't forget the Lenovo W700 or whatever it is.. The 17" + 10" monster..

<comment><USER6> A couple weeks back we had one of those in the office. It's so humongous it could easily accommodate a second camera and let people chat in 3D.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd love to bust this thing out on an airplane.

<comment><USER6> "I am sorry, sir, but the figures in your spreadsheet for next quarter sales are ludicrous. I also would suggest you change the font for your presentation - Verdana is really out of fashion, and, BTW, that girl that's e-mailing you about that party last month, you should really give her a call. Oh. Almost forgot! You really should not use unchecked pointers that way in your code."

Unless, of course, it's your plane.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Photos of hideous monstrosity @ [http://gizmodo.com/5346996/gscreens- dual+screen-spacebook-co...](http://gizmodo.com/5346996/gscreens-dual+screen- spacebook-coming-soonish)

Hmm, based in Alaska, lots of military references (per [http://gizmodo.com/5346996/gscreens-dual+screen-spacebook- co...](http://gizmodo.com/5346996/gscreens-dual+screen-spacebook-coming- soonish)) I call boondoggle.

Edit: in fairness, it's a triumph of industrial design compared to the thing Lenovo put out earlier this year.

<comment><USER9> The military would love something like this for UAV operators.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "June 2009: In approximately 3-4 weeks we will publish demo-video of our gScreen laptop BETA models on Youtube.com."

Are they defunct?

</comment><comment><USER11> I tried to simulate this by putting a couple laptops next to each other but the flatness of the screens really makes it uncomfortable to work with since as it's a laptop you have to be close to the monitors (to reach the keyboard).

If they managed to make them angle towards your face it would be better.

</comment><comment><USER12> How do you close this thing?

<comment><USER8> the two screens slide out sideways and lock into place, kinda like window panels.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Why?

</comment><comment> onreact-com Is it only me or does this thing look ridiculous? Is it a parody?</comment>


Ask HN: Tips to overcome fear of opening up my personal projects? - <AUTHOR> I have a Github and Bitbucket account, but all my Bitbucket repos are set to private. My Github account has almost nothing on it, because every time I start something and think of pushing to Github, I'm worried that I'll be vulnerable to snap judgements by other people / prospective employers. Think, "Ugh, his C syntax looks like a child's, and he doesn't clean up his whitespace. And look, he clearly doesn't understand how linked lists work. No way I would hire him". I'm at the point where I can barely write code and get by, and feel a bit intimidated when people casually post crypto tools or large C++ web frameworks to HN.<p>Any tips to get around this? I think it's possible to clean up git commit history after it has been pushed to Github, so maybe that is one solution (although I hear that you are not supposed to rebase commits you have pushed to a public server).<p>[25-year old Asian male, in case my demographic provides any info.] <comment><USER2> Don't optimize for self esteem. Optimize for total progress over a given amount of time. If you're afraid that people will judge you an amateur, then use that fear to drive you by posting _everything_ public. Learning is basically an exercise in being embarrassingly wrong about a succession of things over years.

There are harshly critical people online, so what? Make them _work for you_. Most people at a high level are humble and non-judgmental about beginners.

<comment><USER3> I'm one of the harshly critical people who opens issues and sends pull requests on github. This person is correct. If something is bad/ugly, I'm more inclined to suggest a fix (with our without snark) than just say "this guy sucks and deserves to be poor".

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Most people that make things have a fear of exposing it to the world but here's a secret, nobody is going to care. That might sound cold but it's the truth. I can't remember what the top project was on HN last time there was a Show HN post and these people are actively trying to get more eyeballs on their projects. What are the chances someone is going to notice your Github projects if you don't actively try to expose them to the world.

As for being judged by other people and prospective employees. That's another phantom fear. This is again coming from personal experience. I always update my resume to list my latest projects with links to the corresponding Github repos. I've never had any negative reactions. People usually think it's cool and leave it at that. No judgement or even engagement beyond that.

</comment><comment><USER5> Use a handle (such as parennoob) and then you can decide to attach it to your real name after you become used to the idea of your code being public.

</comment><comment><USER6> The many things I wish I had done differently can often be seen from public roads for many years. Most people don't notice or care.

Anyway, a commit history that shows that a person went back and refactored their code all on their own is a positive...on the unlikely assumption anyone is going to care enough to go through your commit history looking at syntax and whitespace.

At the point where a prospective employer is looking at your code, you're well past the point where people are looking for reasons to reject you. Instead, you're at the point where people are rationalizing their formed opinions.

</comment><comment><USER7> Nobody is going to care.

Sometimes I do look at candidates github repos before an interview (if they provide them on their resume). Even when the code is not great, it's still a positive sign because it lets me know they are writing and pushing code, not just talking about it. I don't think I've ever had less of an impression of a candidate from looking at their github, although I've had some confirm my expectations from their resume.

Worst case, let's say I was looking at someone's code, and I thought, as your example, maybe he doesn't understand linked lists.. hmm. I wouldn't dismiss them, I would ask that as an interview question.

If you're still nervous, ask a friend or colleague to give your code a quick code review (email me if you'd like my opinion), and grant them bitbucket access. Ask them if you think the code needs any cleanup before making it public.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'd argue that having things up on your github with minor syntax/whitespace errors is better than having nothing to show.

Also everyone has to start somewhere. Post what your working on now, and as you get better it will be more noticeable since it can be compared to your older stuff. Then you can go back and refactor your old code if needed to show how your skills have evolved.

</comment><comment><USER9> I once asked a similar question on SO:

[http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/150159/fear-o...](http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/150159/fear- of-releasing-a-hobby-project-how-to-overcome)

</comment><comment><USER10> Just write code that creates a massive security hole and your syntax problems will feel like a gentle breeze.</comment>


RockYou exposed more than 32,000,000 passwords - <AUTHOR> http://igigi.baywords.com/rockyou-com-exposed-more-than-32-millions-of-passwords-in-plaintext/

<comment><USER2> _Bangs head against desk_ My favorite part is where they are storing your credentials for other social networking apps (i.e. myspace) in plain text too.</comment>


Gavin Newsom abandons SF-to-LA high-speed rail - <AUTHOR> https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/central-valley-high-speed-rail-merced-bakersfield-13610732.php <comment><USER2> >"Merced, Fresno, Bakersfield and communities in between are more dynamic than people realize. The valley may be known around the world for agriculture but there's another story ready to be told."

It's been seemingly eons since I last drove through Bakersfield, Fresno, and Merced, but it seems that if SF - LA can't make economic sense, not sure how connecting a bunch of agro cities would make more sense.

Yosemite, maybe?

</comment><comment><USER3> What was the big issue here? It seems extremely expensive but I'm not sure how connecting two big and wealthy cities by high speed rail can be an issue or unprofitable.

</comment><comment><USER4> Good on Newsom for spending some political capital this. It was a bad idea, badly executed; the state will be better off for having cancelled it.

<comment><USER5> He's not cancelling it, he's calling for a smaller project on the partially built track from Merced to Bakersfield (there's a fair bit in Fresno County).

As someone who drives greater LA to Sacramento about once a month, based on the traffic levels on the 99, no one is clamouring for this. The fact he didn't want to give the $3b+ back to the Feds is just cutting off his nose to spite his face.</comment></comment>


Charity day: Give away one idea. One that you love for good Karma - <AUTHOR>

1. Simple online tool for craigslist power seller (with no technical expertise) to create templates on the fly. 2. ihatemyjob social network (80% of people hate their job, something can be build around this and I dont mean another linkedin ) 3.Unmatched or Edisharmony.com ( I mean seriously  most marriages last 7 years, maybe harmony is not the way to go ) <comment><USER2> What would unmatched do, exactly?</comment>


Combine Multiple AWS Instances into a 16-GPU Monster Machine - <AUTHOR> http://www.bitfusion.io/2016/03/31/introducing-monster-machines-worlds-largest-cloud-gpu-instances-aws/ <comment><USER2> I've found amazon GPU instances to be really expensive (even the spot prices have been high recently), especially if you need it for longer runs for deep learning. The other issue is that the additional layers of virtualization create bandwidth overhead issues.

I'd like to see something in the cloud thats bare-metal / full access to GPUs (Maybe a good idea to start one). For scaling higher with a very large number of GPUs, you'd need Infiniband but at some point there is going to be a bandwidth tradeoff.

It would be interesting if someone could run some benchmarks of these instances versus a physical server.

<comment><USER3> Somebody should make a startup that allows people to sell access to their computers by the minute. Like spot instances in the cloud ... in people's basements. The true sharing economy.

<comment><USER4> That sounds like a nightmare. You'd have zero uptime guarantees!

<comment><USER5> Does Amazon have any instance uptime guarantees?

<comment><USER6> Yes, >99.95% Monthly Uptime Percentage.

""Monthly Uptime Percentage" is calculated by subtracting from 100% the percentage of minutes during the month in which Amazon EC2 or Amazon EBS, as applicable, was in the state of "Region Unavailable." Monthly Uptime Percentage measurements exclude downtime resulting directly or indirectly from any Amazon EC2 SLA Exclusion (defined below)."

[https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/sla/](https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/sla/)

<comment><USER5> That's a regional outage, they provide no SLA for individual instances:

 _Amazon EC2 SLA Exclusions... (v) that result from failures of individual instances or volumes not attributable to Region Unavailability_

Presumably if you're using a cloud hosted in people's basements, if someone's basement server dies, you'd just pick one from someone else's basement, so this model could provide better availability than AWS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That's some really cool tech. It seems like it's Linux only. Is there windows support planned? That would solve the problem with wanting to run code on the GPU within a Linux VM while the host is windows.

<comment><USER8> Windows support is coming in mid-April, stay tuned!

<comment><USER7> That's great! Reading the documentation it seems there is no support for multiple clients and multiple GPUs (Many-To-Many), is there anything planned on that side?

<comment><USER8> You can absolutely do that. That's actually one of the more interesting configurations: the ability to pool GPU systems.

Just go to the custom link at the bottom of the page, the link is: [https://console.aws.amazon.com/cloudformation/home?region=us...](https://console.aws.amazon.com/cloudformation/home?region=us- east-1#/stacks/new?stackName=BitfusionCluster&templateURL=https:%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fbitfusionio%2Fcfn%2Fbitfusion- boost-cluster.cfn)

There you can select any number of clients and servers. For example: 5 clients and 1 server (many to one), or 5 clients to 5 servers (many to many).

<comment><USER7> Nice. The doc at [https://bitfusionio.readme.io/docs/bitfusion- boost](https://bitfusionio.readme.io/docs/bitfusion-boost) is a bit misleading with the possible configurations. Maybe add one configuration with multiple Boost Clients(CPU) and many Boost Servers(GPU)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> At first I thought this was the same problem as automatically breaking up apps to run in multiple cpus. This problem has been heavily researched with no success.

Is it the fact that GPU code already runs in parallel streams that makes this possible?

<comment><USER8> Yes, your app would have to support multiple GPUs. What's done here is remoting CUDA/OpenCL/etc. calls so that remote GPUs can be accessed from a single instance. When performing device/platform enumeration, all GPUs appear to be directly connected to a single instance -- hence no change to the application required.

<comment><USER10> Sounds like Plan9's concept of "CPU server mounts" has been reborn as "GPU server mounts." Could actually get traction this time, given that existing multi-GPU programs will Just Work.

<comment><USER11> I cant wait for company to provide opencl/cuda mflops as a service instead of giving you vms as a whole, so one could just attach remote engine to any smallish controller vm

<comment><USER12> What you suggest is technically possible by installing our Boost software on any GPU machine, and then accessing that machine from any clients running our Boost software as well. That client does not need to have a GPU. This configuration is supported in AWS today, where for example you can connect one or more t2.large isntance to a g2.8xlarge. All that would have to be done is some metering on the GPU machine to implement the service you suggest :)

We are not limiting our software to AWS so you can built this kind of service on any kind of cluster by installing our software directly from [https://boost.bitfusion.io](https://boost.bitfusion.io) \- I say cluster, because we have played with the idea of thin devices accessing remote GPU instances in the cloud, but over public networks the network performance was a limiting factor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Are there benchmarks/code examples for the Monster Machines?

<comment><USER8> Yes! Whenever you spin up one of our AMIs, there is a README that will guide you through a couple of simple examples. We are about to publish performance results on the monster machines in a few days, so watch out for it. Scaling depends on the compute density of the GPU workload, but in general we've seen pretty good results with 1) Deep learning (caffe) scaling to 16 GPUs (near native scaling with local GPUs, especially deep nets), 2) Raytracing of photo- realistic and complex scenes - near linear scaling with increasing GPUs, and 3) Physical modeling and simulation does very well too.

<comment> semi-extrinsic Have you done any molecular dynamics benchmarks? If so, what kind/what system? I'd be very interested to see those.

If you haven't, I could probably contribute some strong and weak scaling testcases.

<comment><USER8> We've only done cursory evaluation of NAMD scaling. We saw a 7X improvement going from a non-GPU system to remote GPUs located in a different datacenter over shared 10g. We're not sure if that was with a representative dataset (MD is not our skill set), so if you can help us with a case study we'd be excited to work with you. Please do contact me.

<comment> semi-extrinsic I sent you a message with some more info and my email via the contact form at bitfusion.io

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Do you have a support for spot instances?

<comment><USER12> No yet, but it is on our roadmap. We have had several customer inquire about it. Drop us a note on our site and I will ping you when it becomes available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Congrats guys this is a really neat hack, really impressive.

Did you guys think about building it further out to provide a GPU load balancer for multiple frontend machines running Cuda / OpenCL?

<comment><USER8> Hmm, can you elaborate? Do you mean having multiple smaller instances talk to a single GPU instance?

<comment><USER15> I'm talking about time-sharing. It doesn't mater if it's smaller instances sharing a single GPU instance or many instances sharing many GPU instances. Essentially N:M sharing (with some scheduling).

Since the GPU client is now abstracted from the GPU devices by placing the GPUs across the network. It seams like time-sharing should be next logical step.

<comment><USER8> Got it, this is actually already supported. At the very end of the blog post there is a link to create a custom configuration. You can create any N:M configuration, that is any number of clients to servers and therefore the level of performance scaling or GPU pooling.

Check it out: [https://console.aws.amazon.com/cloudformation/home?region=us...](https://console.aws.amazon.com/cloudformation/home?region=us- east-1#/stacks/new?stackName=BitfusionCluster&templateURL=https:%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fbitfusionio%2Fcfn%2Fbitfusion- boost-cluster.cfn)

<comment><USER15> Great, thanks for clearing that up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is really cool; publishing an AMI seems like such a good win for you guys; configuration is done, you get paid as customers use it.

Hopefully you'll see some good uptake.

<comment><AUTHOR> It goes nicely with the "supercomputing to the masses" mission. Especially when the alternative is buying lots of machines and installing all the required software manually.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Congrats Bitfusion Team. This is really exciting!

</comment><comment><USER18> You can do this 10x cheaper at home

</comment><comment><USER19> Congratulations it's awesome to see the AMIs published.

</comment><comment><USER20> When will Bitfusion be available for Google and Microsoft?</comment>


1 Year Since Leaving MIT - <AUTHOR> http://blog.rein.pk/2012/06/leaving-mit-undergrad-1-year-in.html

<comment><USER2> > "Wow! I'm paid so much I can buy a house, like, right now!"

After dropping out of Cooper Union... well shit, I wish I could say that! I liked the post though– I'm a year behind you, and share the same gratitude to my fiancées family (parts of my own are still coming around). Many others taking similar paths are making some pretty impressive stuff, so good luck!

</comment><comment><USER3> Nolan here. I opened this and was reading this when I realized.. I know these guys, I lived with them!

congrats to you and erika, didn't know you were engaged.

</comment><comment><USER4> After dropping out of Aalto University Helsinki, I got a great job with a good salary, a new home town in a new country and I've learned more than in my whole time in university.

Yes, I miss some courses, like machine learning, operating systems and compilers. And yes, I have less time to focus on these areas after working nine to ten hours a day.

</comment><comment><USER5> You're too young to realize how insignificant 1 year is.</comment>