Palliative sedation, an end-of-life practice that is legal everywhere - <AUTHOR> http://www.post-gazette.com/aging-edge/aging-edge-reports/2018/07/05/Palliative-sedation-an-end-of-life-practice-that-is-legal-everywhere/stories/201807050128 <comment><USER2> I disagree with some of the above posters.

This is often confused with, but is not the same thing as, physician aid-in- dying or euthanasia. People _do_ talk about this in hospitals, and it is appropriate treatment for many patients at the end of life if they are suffering.

The ethical principle of double effect makes this permissible in these contexts. If the aim of the treatment with a benzodiazepine or opiate is to reduce suffering, the possibility of hastening death via respiratory suppression shouldn't stop physicians from treating patients with appropriate dosages of these medications to achieve the first aim of relieving or preventing suffering.

Suggesting that this is a "workaround" for euthanasia distracts from the fact that this is not available as a treatment for most, if not almost all, dying patients. It is very different from physician aid-in-dying and is not a replacement for these other forms of end of life care.

<comment><USER3> Is there any way suffering at the end of life can be good? Someone I know chose to forgo this treatment as he died from leukemia, so that his mind would not be dulled at the end. I also heard of another lady who resisted this sort of treatment at the end for the same sort of reason. People may value being fully present during their last moments more than they want to avoid pain.

<comment><USER4> In a morbid vein, you only get to die once. Wouldn't you want to be able to experience it fully?

<comment><USER5> Sure. The gradual physical deterioration and loss of consciousness are OK. But I want to skip the painful parts.

A huge part of enjoying LSD at high dosage was being OK with forgetting who/what I was for a few hours. So maybe dementia will be OK too, as long as I don't stress too much about it. And as long as people around me are also cool.

<comment><USER6> My 81 year old mother has dementia. It is a terrible disease. She has no short-term memory at all and it makes caring for her extremely difficult. Also, as the disease has progressed, she has gotten into crazy hallucinations and almost hurt herself and my father many times. She puts him into all kinds of bizarre situations when out in public by often screaming for help and telling bystanders she is being kidnapped/held against her will, which makes life for my father a living hell since he already hates cops and government authorities, and now he has to talk to them and explain his situation all the damn time. It's...a...living...hell--for her, for him, and for the entire family and she can't die soon enough because death would be far better than having no ability to be productive and able to care for herself.

<comment><USER5> That is an alarming situation.

However, it sounds like their relationship has become confrontational. And it might help to empathize with her. Perhaps she does have cause to feel held against her will.

Some years ago, we realized that an uncle, who was ~85 years old and living alone, wasn't taking good care of himself. He wasn't eating enough, wasn't keeping himself clean, and just dozed on the couch, watching TV. And one of his feet was gangrenous.

So we invited him to live with us, and he agreed. And we saved the foot. However, my wife is very kind and caring. But she has high standards. So there was much conflict. She argued that, because he had Alzheimer's, and because he was living in our home, he didn't get to choose when to get up, when to eat, when to wash, when to shave, etc, etc.

It got to the point that we hired a big guy who basically forced him to do what she wanted him to. It was horrible. But finally, I convinced my wife to cut him some slack. We let him grow a beard. We let him wash at the sink, rather than showering. We let him watch TV all day, if he wanted, and got him a cat to keep him company. And we made sure that he ate enough, and had proper medical care. We retained the big guy, but he became our uncle's closest friend.

So anyway, whenever I hear horror stories from caregivers, about people with dementia or Alzheimer's, I wonder how it looks from the other side. If for no other reason, because that's the side I'm approaching.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> When my mother was dying from pneumonia (after it had destroyed her lungs), she had been on a respirator for several weeks and was only getting worse. She also had been unconscious because she had been "fighting" the machine. She had told us that she never wanted to end up that way, but she did not have an advance directive on record. The family made a decision to pull the plug and her doctor administered a large dose of morphine to ease her passing. She went peacefully. We were all very grateful to the doctor for this.

</comment><comment><USER8> Something I wish was more common is some type of therapy for treating death anxiety. I read somewhere that LSD can reduce the fear of death[0]. I can think of few things I'd like more in life than not being afraid to cease to exist[1] in my deathbed.

I suppose those going through terrible terminal illnesses suffer enough to accept death over the suffering, but I don't see why one should need to experience such extremes to accept the inevitable.

[0] That's a big maybe, don't go around self medicating serious issues based on unsourced comments on unregulated drugs [1] I know religion or philosopy can sometimes fill this gap, but let's remember those who are skeptical or didn't have a lot of time to prepare

<comment><USER9> I had one parent die from brain cancer in 2011, and another was just diagnosed with a terminal brain tumor, so this is on my mind.

Honestly, I don't think this is a problem specifically for the person with the terminal illness. So much of the difficulty comes from everybody else. American culture does not prepare people to face death, either their own or of loved ones. So a lot of my energy goes in to helping other people manage their feelings at a time when I don't have energy to spare. I want _other_ people to take LSD or do Zen retreats or serve at a hospice or whatever they need to do so they can manage _their own_ death anxiety.

Speaking of which, I strongly recommend the "ring theory of grief" article. The gist is that if bad shit is happening to somebody, you help them rather than imposing on them. It sounds obvious, but I promise that it's unfortunately rare. Here's the article: [http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/07/opinion/la- oe-0407-s...](http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/07/opinion/la-oe-0407-silk- ring-theory-20130407)

<comment><USER10> I'm skeptical that any of those things actually "prepare" people to face death in the first place. Feeling like you're "prepared" weeks, months, or years before the final hours of your self or a loved one does not necessarily translate to those final moments when you are actually going through it.

<comment><USER11> It's pretty well documented how terrified western culture is of death relative to others. The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell is an excellent book which goes into insightful detail on this subject.

<comment><USER10> Terrified is the wrong word. Western culture simply understands the reality of the situation. Sure, you can delude an entire society with fairy tales and they will feel better about dying...that's not a virtue though.

<comment><USER12> >Western culture simply understands the reality of the situation.

You mean not waking up again?

I don't see what is so worrying about that?

If one truly believe there's nothing after this life I'd think one should be very calm?

Edit: to be clear, I'm a Christian, - I just happen to be puzzled by why non- religious people are afraid of death (except for worrying about their loved ones and the pain of dying that is.)

<comment><USER9> Well, one obvious reason is that it's the loss of everything. Friends, family, loved ones. Future experience, memory, agency. Everything.

If you thought you'd never wake up again, how comfortably would you go to sleep?

<comment><USER11> >If you thought you'd never wake up again, how comfortably would you go to sleep?

If we have no choice but to go to sleep, why would we want to spend those last moments feeling terribly uncomfortable?

If we face the facts that death is a part of life, and that _we all must die_ , what's the practical value in fretting over that fact? (Aside from being wise not to do stupid things that lead to a stupid death)

<comment><USER9> Excerpting my point out of context like this isn't helpful. I'm responding to the Christian's glib notion that he doesn't understand why atheists worry about dying.

There's no value at all in fretting over death once it's inevitable. There is great value in fretting over possible deaths we can avoid. And regardless, death for atheists is the loss of everything, and loss aversion is a well- studied component of human psychology, so it should be unsurprising even to a Christian that atheists are not particularly jolly about death.

<comment><USER11> Yes, I understand why atheists are so fearful of death, but also see the illogical and impractical nature of it.

>death for atheists is the loss of everything

Atheist logic _should_ lead to the realization that from an individual standpoint, there is no possibility for the experience of this feared loss, _at all_. Immediately before the moment of death, you still have it all. Immediately at the moment of death, you have no conscious ability to experience the loss. Therefore the fear is not logical, it's irrational because your "total loss" is something you can never _experience_.

<comment><USER9> It's "not logical" only from certain poorly considered priors that have very little to do with how humans work. Emotions aren't supposed to be "logical". Emotions are part of the biological machinery that keeps meat-machines alive and active in the world.

<comment><USER11> >Emotions are part of the biological machinery that keeps meat-machines alive and active in the world.

Not all emotions are valuable, some are indeed quite harmful and anti social.

Which brings us back full circle to the original point of this comment chain: that western society is extremely emotional about the subject of death relative to other societies. This tendendency leads to unecessary suffering and the prolonging of life at all costs.

The US has come very far from its founding mantra; "Give me liberty, or give me death!" has seemingly been reversed to "anything but death"

<comment><USER9> How nice of you to bring it back to my exact starting point. It's almost like this whole discussion with you was a waste of my time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I just went through this with my grandmother. She decided she didn't want any more care in the hospital, so they morphined her up to the point that she never woke up again and she essentially starved and dehydrated to death, over about a five day period. The whole thing was disturbing to me.

<comment><USER14> I went through the same a few years ago with hospice. She had emphysema and real trouble breathing. She was mentally checked out after a few days in the hospital and opted for hospice. They started morphine and for a couple of hours she was able to breathe and felt great. She even said maybe she could get out of there - she fully expected to die.

Well after that she passed out, didn't wake up again, and died. Bothers me greatly to this day and I wish I had been there for the whole thing to challenge some of the decisions made that my parents didn't contest.

<comment><USER15> Gotta respect their decision. I mean, I see my father falling apart and if he made the decision idk if I'd contest it. He's not able to really go out, has trouble breathing, etc. Staring at the same 4 walls all day until you die naturally isn't the best way to go out. A little bit of you dies mentally every day going through that until you're just old, depressed, and unable to function. Why put them through that misery if they don't want to essentially rot in a bed or chair.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I watched this in action with my father's death. My mother had a long nursing career and had a talk with the doctor that lasted about 15 minutes (it was 20 years ago), after that a large morphine dose was added to his IV. Within 5 minutes I watched my dad stop breathing. My Dad was in his early sixties, morbidly obese, this condition was aggrevated by his lifelong fear of doctors. Dad needed hip replacements but wouldn't consider it because of his medical phobia. This caused his lack of mobility which caused urinary track infections from his dificulty moving to a toilet chair. He was in the hospital for chronic UTI's when my mom made the decision. He was lucent and not at all ready to die. Mom has passed too and it feels cathartic to say this.

<comment><USER17> So your mom just straight up murdered your dad? Why on earth would the doctor authorize giving him a lethal morphine drip for a UTI?

What was the fallout from the autopsy, etc.? This baffles me

<comment><USER16> In my opinion the medical profession know quite well how to run the system. My mom spent most of her career in a terminal cancer hospital. I was an active opiate addict at the time, so my opinion wasn't solicited.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> A few years ago my 90 year old grandma had a stroke in her sleep and the doctors told us she'd never really have any more quality of life and what's usually done is just pull out the sugar drip and basically wait for her to (for lack of better word) starve to death.

After a day or two with no food or water she'd drift in and out of consciousness. It was amazing how she would even refuse my offer of wetting her lips with a sponge.

During a time I was alone with her, her breathing became so heavy, this rattling sound. I asked a nurse "can't you give her something" and he gave her a shot of morphine and a few min later the breathing stopped and that was that. It was quite a humbling experience.

Another thing that comes to mind is the "Brompton cocktail", a mix of morphine/heroin, cocaine, alcohol and thorazine against the nausea: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brompton_cocktail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brompton_cocktail)

<comment><USER19> When my dad was dying it took 4 days after he became unresponsive. They administered morphine all along but not enough in one dose to be fatal.

The rattling came on day 2-3, then quieted down.

The strange(?) thing was that he lost consciousness and became unresponsive shortly after my brother arrived at the hospital. My brother was the last of the immediate, local family to arrive. My dad acknowledged his presence and in a few minutes was unconscious.

Then on the fourth day he passed shortly after his grandkids arrived from the airport.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This has been a thing-everyone-knows-but-no-one-talks-about in hospitals for a long time.

And honestly, I wish it would stay that way. Because while I support the right of terminal patients to die at the time of their choosing and avoid pointless agony, opponents of euthanasia do have a good point– which is not appreciated nearly often enough– that state-sanctioned euthanasia opens the door for family members to start pressuring people to die when they don't really want to. This is a thing that happens more than anyone wants to admit in areas where it is legal.

Deliberate ambiguity, where euthanasia is allowed but we all pretend it's not, is the best way to square this circle. Doctors have implicitly understood this for a while, hence this practice. Unfortunately, most people hate ambiguity in their laws, which I understand and think is a good priniple in general, but I wish they'd look more carefully and see that the benefits outweigh the costs here.

<comment><USER21> > state-sanctioned euthanasia opens the door for family members to start > pressuring people to die when they don't really want to

Everything I've ever read - or heard - from doctors, is the exact opposite - that family members more often than not want herculean and unintentionally inhumane efforts made to keep a suffering family member alive for just a little bit longer.

<comment><USER22> That may be the usual case but that is not all cases. It does happen that people wish for there parents to die. You see it all over this thread. What no one can say here is that some people also wish for them to die so they can take their payout or stop paying for care.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I was found it odd that I can choose to euthanize my dog but not myself. This is an interesting workaround.

<comment><USER24> Choosing to "euthanize" yourself is something that is so predominately chosen in fits of mental illness that society has probably made the right choice in banning it outright. Further, I think there's a strong argument that _other people_ shouldn't be allowed to add any weight to the idea of killing you...

As someone else brought up, there can be disagreements between family and an individual about when the right time for them to die is in _both_ directions. Even in America this can be observed with things like life support for the very elderly, an intervention that is sometimes necessary for continued life but not considered euthanasia to forego. You won't have to dig very deep to find a doctor that has seen families argue about this.

So, if you say "only I can make the decision," then mental illness becomes a lot more deadly than it has to be. If you say, "other people can weigh in," then what do you do when they want you to die more than you do (and start pressuring you, and you're old, and already depressed...)? This leaves us at our current state, which is "nobody gets to make the decision."

<comment><USER25> > Choosing to "euthanize" yourself is something that is so predominately > chosen in fits of mental illness

No one is proposing to legalize impulsive suicide, and it's ridiculous to equate euthanasia with it.

<comment><USER26> Quite. By the same token, if I took my healthy dog into my vet to have it euthanized, I am sure my vet would refuse to do so, and probably inform the relevant authority.

<comment><USER27> Actually that happens often enough that it has a name: convenience euthanasia. I believe most vets will try to find alternatives before they go through with it, but some physically healthy animals are definitely put down due to behavioral issues.

<comment><USER28> Some vets will do it but not most according to my vet and vet tech friends. (Anecdotes, unfortunately.)

They find even the proper application of euthanasia terribly emotionally draining though. It's being confronted by the feelings of the human family that is the worst for them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I would be thrilled by the possibility of having an implant which requires a timed confirmation (every 6 months or so) and if there is no, it would pour poison in the bloodstream.

I am terrified by the possibility of not being capable to end my life when I want to, either because I am too disabled, or senile to the point of forgetting to do that.

</comment><comment><USER30> I think it should always be left up to the patient, what they wish to do, and doctors should support it. If it gets to that point, I would very much like to spend my last days stoned and comfortable, and die peacefully. But if I have a terminal illness or I am in great pain, I very much want that choice of when to go.

</comment><comment><USER31> End of life decision-making vis-a-vis the doctrine of double effect[0]. This section addresses specifically some of the claims made in the posted article.

[0] [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double- effect/#End](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/#End)

</comment><comment><USER32> Best choice is to follow the wishes of the person who's in the heat of the battle. Be cognizant that those wishes may change as the illness progresses. Do it as being of maximal service to the loved one.

</comment><comment><USER5> > Doctors wrestle with what constitutes unbearable suffering ...

Huh? It's whatever a patient says it is. Otherwise, it's torture.

<comment><USER33> What if the patient cannot speak?

<comment><USER5> Well, it's a tough call if they're totally paralyzed. That's quite the horror, no? Brings to mind Catch 22, and that Metallica song.

But otherwise, there are other ways to communicate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I've been trying to receive "euthanasia" for myself. I suffer gender dysphoria. I think it's a shame how society can discriminate a person with an illness compared to another group with a different illness; when it comes to receiving what is considered a medical treatment for ending pain. The terminology for who qualifies & receives euthanasia is flexible in the jurisdictions that offer it by terminology but people will warp their own perception around who they view should have a right to qualify to die by personal opinions without understanding the pain of another. Society doesn't help some people and euthanasia can be a real solution for the current system until real help evolves; where euthanasia can be less thought about.

<comment><USER35> I am not sure if this will help you, but to bring some perspective, this is very much a rational position on public health. Given that gender dysphoria is not actually a terminal illness it is probably not a good idea to offer euthanasia for it - there is a not-insignificant chance you will fully recover.

Suicide rates are much lower in areas where people have less access to things that can end their life (e.g. [https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and- suicide/](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/)), statistically speaking many people do make it through. By offering euthanasia to people who would otherwise survive, those people will lose their shot at life beyond their condition.

Public health policy has to be driven from the net benefits to all and not at the individual case level.

<comment><USER34> Gender dysphoria is an actual terminal illness depending on the person. Many people end up dead because of it. My ability, desire, or whatever to eat diminished years ago because of it and my health continues to get poor with also lack of sleep. Similar to other illnesses where the body shuts down in the functions of having good health. I've been seeing several doctors for several years and continue to do so with trying to voice my right for euthanasia the past several months. Currently people take a diagnosis and have their opinion glazed over by success stories of people fitting the diagnosis. It's sad when people then refuse to acknowledge the ones who have a different reality with the same diagnosis. I think this happens a lot in the medical community.

<comment><USER36> > Gender dysphoria is an actual terminal illness depending on the person. Many > people end up dead because of it.

That doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable standard for medically-indicated euthanasia. Influenza meets that test more strongly.

I do wish you the best in your future path, however long that may be.

<comment><USER34> To you what would make Gender Dysphoria a candidate for Euthanasia? The illness you listed is the same to some with Gender Dysphoria. I've known people with my illness who have committed suicide and they all communicated it's like living in hell and feeling robbed of life. I think it comes down to your own perception being discriminatory based on your own personal opinion with disregarding pain not experienced of a certain life with an illness that people can't imagine because it's psychological.

<comment><USER36> My personal inclination is that anyone of sound enough mind to carefully consider the topic ought to be able to opt for physician-assisted suicide after a short waiting/consulting period as an essential element of agency over their own life.

That's beside the point in that the current medical practice and legal environment doesn't support that position broadly, so with respect to medical indication, the fact that some people die from a given condition does not seem to be a workable threshold for supporting euthanasia as a treatment.

<comment><USER34> Some people don't die from an illness that is considered a terminal illness and which receives euthanasia in the current medical practice. I can think of a few people who have survived certain types of cancer. Also it really depends on where a person is located right now. I could obtain euthanasia if I were to fly to Switzerland. I haven't considered doing that just yet and I don't necessarily find it the same as receiving the treatment in my birth country. There has already been a case where a person suffering Gender Dysphoria received euthanasia (not my country) and someone obtained euthanasia from traumatic rape throughout childhood (again not my country).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Virtual Fitting Room - <AUTHOR> http://fits.me/

<comment><USER2> This was featured on NPR; they had a 15-minute segment all to themselves, IIRC. First time I heard it I thought it was a solution looking for a problem. The people they're targeting, fashionistas, derive a carnal pleasure from that _act_ of shopping itself. Dressing a robot is akin to injecting nutrients in lieu of feasting on culinary delights.

<comment><USER3> Only fashionistas shop online?

I'd say their big miss right now is not having a "virtual sizing" model for women. As far as I can tell from their site, they've only got a male version.</comment></comment>


What the Great Pandemic Novels Teach Us - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-orhan-pamuk.html <comment><USER2> This is a great piece by Orhan Pamuk. Broad similarities in how authorities and populations react to pandemics. Also interesting to note the Orientalism that colors how the West thinks of new infectious diseases.</comment>


The evolution of a button - <AUTHOR> http://www.gavinelliott.co.uk/2010/08/the-evolution-of-a-button/

<comment><USER2> Wouldn't asking "which button" instead of making them click a button, skew the results? I think it's weird users would choose the giant red unfriendly "DENY" button over the friendly green "Approve" button.

The red button definitely stands out more, but maybe the user would be hesitant to click it because of the negative connotation created by the alarming color and wording.

Apparently the author was as surprised as I am about this in an earlier article [1]. He suggests a red call-to-action button has a 20% higher conversion rate than a green one.

[1] [http://www.gavinelliott.co.uk/2010/07/call-to-action- buttons...](http://www.gavinelliott.co.uk/2010/07/call-to-action-buttons/)</comment>


Ask YC: Can we create a HackerNews/YC group on LinkedIn? - <AUTHOR>

I found a lot of great people in Toronto through OnStartups LinkedIn group and I think it would be great to have one for Hacker News and Y Combinator. Should we let PG do the honors? <comment><USER2> LinkedIn Groups are really broken. There are at least two HN groups on LinkedIn already and you can't link to them. I think the suggested way to join is to be invited by the admin or two click through via the profile of someone in the group already.

<comment><AUTHOR> Found the link "Hacker News" LinkedIn Group: [http://www.linkedin.com/groupInvitation?groupID=86116&sh...](http://www.linkedin.com/groupInvitation?groupID=86116&sharedKey=1730DA1CFE98)

Unfortunately I'm 4 karma points away from the required 20.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> If someone is in the group and can invite me my profile is here: <http://www.linkedin.com/in/danmcgrady>

I agree though, the groups on LinkedIn are half-baked.

</comment><comment><USER3> There already is a YCombinator News Group on Linkedin, unfortunately I can't figure out how to link you to it =/</comment>


Ask HN: Founders who sold their company, what do you do? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER3> Exited with two co-founders when our runway ran out. Sold our IP and assets for a modest amount to our main competitor.

I realised that (as CTO) the main area I couldn't contribute to was 'the business' of running a successful company. So I decided to remedy that, I joined McKinsey and left last year as an Associate Partner. I'm now the VP Engineering at a fast growing tech company (250+ people) and the impact I can have with technology is an order of magnitude greater than before because of the intervening experience

<comment><USER4> Can you explain a little about how your experience at McKinsey has allowed you to have a greater impact? Why did you go back to VP Engineering after having consulting experience? At first though, I would think your technology experience would give you leverage on the business side rather than the other way around.

<comment><USER3> Among many other things the experience gave me:

* Empathy with the folks who's thinking was alien to me previously. I learned through doing their job. I could communicate with them and work in their context in a way that allows me much more leverage and ability to have impact with engineering.

* I learned the semantics and pragmatics of running a large organisation which gave me the lexicon and confidence to be taken seriously doing it (therefore more leverage) and taught me lots of small but important tactical lessons (e.g. how to manage difficult shareholders)

* How to communicate complex technical subjects to people who either don't/can't/won't understand them.

* A HUGE network

I went back because I missed it. I wanted to do consulting as a way of getting better at being an engineering leader, not leaving it forever. I was offered a few things at VC/PE firms, or in typical 'business' roles, but none of them really appealed. Not my passion.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for your insights.

I had never thought of the big 3 as possible route post-sale. Sale is not on the radar atm so back to my daily operational duties in my small yet thriving company :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sold last year (2 founders) to a very focused private equity fund from a weak position - We were bootstrapped and profitable but large competitors entered the space and we were slowly losing the battle.

From financial perspective it was personally a good deal. Now have a 3-year non-compete for a specific field. The new owner is doing well with a larger team, resources and synergies between their other investments.

One aspect that's not very often covered is the psychological side which was very hard for me. Soon after closing and moving forward, I absolutely felt lost, more than ever before - Kind of lost my purpose? No customers to care about, weaker connection with earlier team mates and professional friends from the industry, a lot of free time and no hecticness I used to have.

Started working on something new, validated and built the 1st version of the product, got very light traction but didn't find a profitable model for it. Had investment offers on table to get funded but declined as we were not confident about the business case.

Now investing slowly, doing the things I like more intensively (skiing & climbing) and trying to understand what would the next professional/entrepreneurial step be and what I want in life.

<comment><USER7> How hard is it to build something new while under a non-compete?

I understand you can find new areas to work in, but I imagine you'd think back to previous work and be tempted to make connections to that field, or use some of what you built previously in the new context.

Is it difficult, or is it just a completely separate problem space?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I sold my 10 year old company about a year ago and promoted my #2 to CEO to lead it post acquisition. Aside from the company related responsibilities I still have here's what I've been doing:

-Actively working to strip away the identity/persona I built up over the last decade while leading the company, in order to get back to "who I really am and/or accurately understand who I've become" outside of the context of the company and the role of CEO/Founder.

-Reading SO MUCH. And specifically the book "The Adult Years" has been essential for me in understanding the life stages we all go through and how to manage transition best.

-Going on extreme/esoteric retreats: like climbing a snowy mountain this winter in Poland in just a bathing suit. I'm trying to push myself physically in ways I've never done before.

-Bought a house for the first time and am learning to be a DIY god.

-Supporting my wife's entrepreneurial journey as much as possible (she's the founder of her own successful company).

-Being open again to mentoring/supporting others as much as possible.

-I hope to soon become a Court Appointed Advocate so I can help NYC area kids who are caught up in "the system" in some way shape or form.

-Oh and...lot of financial/estate planning work :)

<comment><USER9> > Going on extreme/esoteric retreats: like climbing a snowy mountain this > winter in Poland in just a bathing suit. I'm trying to push myself > physically in ways I've never done before.

I don't know how tall or remote was this mountain, but a guy I know nearly died (well, technically he was dead for a bit while they reanimated him on the rescue helicopter) running in Polish mountains last winter without a proper clothing.

<comment><USER8> Wow. Um...what was his medical condition?

<comment><USER9> It's hard to tell what really happened, as he has no recollection of the time before the accident. The rescue party, alarmed by his wife, found him laying on the trail, unconscious and in severe hypothermia. The thing is, while he was running in his relatively light running clothes (the whole run was supposed to take only 40 minutes), the weather suddently turned for the worse, with temperature drop and snow fall. Hard to tell if he lost consciousness just because of the cold or if something else was also a factor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Solo founder (with VC), sold after 15 years (last 13 highly profitable).

Good question. Trying to invest carefully, enjoy life and undo the damage entrepreneurship did to my friendships, hobbies... No 40+ hours/week jobs any more, thank you.

<comment><USER11> How do you "Undo" the damage? Really interested in that part.

You dont have to be an entrepreneur to be super busy. Some part of the world expect you to work at at least 80 hours a week. So i guess this is good for everyone to know.

*As you grew older, you came to realise how little money actually means.

<comment><USER10> > _How do you "Undo" the damage? Really interested in that part._

Lost time is lost, but you can get in touch with old friends, apologise to people you ignored because you were busy, find new hobbies, travel... At least that's what I'm trying to do. I also lost 2 close family members during that time and deeply regret not having spent more time with them, but that's just how it is.

> _As you grew older, you came to realise how little money actually means._

I'd still disagree, it means a lot and makes life so much easier. It's just something you tend to take for granted when you have it and other things you don't naturally become more important.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I sold my company last year and the deal came with a standard lock-up period. The company that bought us has a really bright future and I'm excited to be part of their journey so I don't mind.

I'm currently working hard on integrating the product into their portfolio. Since they are using our former company as a stepping stone into a new market it's a lot like running a startup again, just with much more capital and people.

<comment><USER13> Sounds pretty fun! Are you still working as much as before?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> First company I sold... paid off student loans, traveled around for a year.... then started a consultancy..

Second company I sold... invested in a friend's business (she's now my wife), self funded another business (that one failed to find a buyer).... went back to work...

Third company I sold... paid down mortgages, put kids into private schools, fixed up house, self funded another business ( currently a going concern, break even)...

What do I do now? Keep working... started a new businesses and handed off day to day operations to my business partner, and am now taking a new job so I can move to Europe.

What do I plan to do in the future... same thing, keep working, looking for interesting projects, probably start more business.

<comment><USER15> invested in a friend's business (she's now my wife) --> Best ROI lol

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I played professional poker for 3-4 years after selling my first startup in 2007. In hindsight I should have jumped straight back into tech, but I was seriously burned out and the poker monies was good.

<comment><USER17> _> The poker monies was good._

Would you mind sharing round figures? I've always wondered how much pro poker players that don't have endorsements etc. actually manage to scrape away from the game after rake, travel expenses, leaks (pit games), etc.

<comment><USER16> I made 90% of my winnings online, and treated live tournies and cash games as kind of a break from my real job. I was a heads up specialist (we used to be referred in a derogatory sense as "bum-hunters") who could enjoy basically variance-free winnings if you were table selecting well enough. So my winnings were comfortably in the 6 figures each year pre-tax, until Black Friday hit and it all came crashing down.

<comment><USER18> If (like me) you don't know anything about the (online) poker scene, "Black Friday" here is likely a reference to United States v. Scheinberg [1], a federal criminal case against the founders of some major online poker sites.

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

<comment><USER19> out of interest, do the people of the usa generally agree that gambling like this should still be illegal (especially when most other countries allow it?).

i'm in the uk and gambling is allowed.

<comment><USER20> People are going to be all over the map on this one. I see large downsides and minimal upsides to online gambling.

I think it should be illegal in practice because people get into massive downward spirals. Now, that does not mean we need no ban ultra low stakes poker, just the kind of games that cause people to go broke. Aka, someone that loses 200$ a month on poker is not a big deal. Someone that's losing 20,000+$ / month is likely a different story.

I have similar issues with the App Store and feel Apple / Google should limit in app purchases per month.

<comment><USER21> It's trivial for gamblers to get round such a regulation and trivial for bookies to plausibly deny it

<comment><USER20> You can say the same thing about DRM, but even 98% effective is good enough to be very useful. It's the same reason you can't buy lotto tickets with a credit card even if credit cards let you get cash advances that's an extra step that really makes a meaningful difference in people's lives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> We sold to one of the mega tech companies a couple of years ago. I'm still at the company as an engineering manager. I haven't decided what I want to do next and there's still some time until my golden handcuffs expire.

<comment><USER23> If you don't mind to share, how long are your "golden handcuffs"? I'm quite fearful of those....

<comment><USER24> Anecdotally what I typically see is a big chunk of change over 4-5 years and then smaller chunks every year to extend the handcuffs. YMMV

<comment><USER23> It's quite a long time ... I guess many entrepreneurs just want to move on and hate being on the "you are behold to us" part of the acquisition...

<comment><USER25> I can kind of understand both sides. Company I used to work for bought up a small company to expand their product portfolio. I don't know the details, but the acquired company was never really happy with their new life and 2-3 years later almost everybody from that acquisition had left (and taken some of their new colleagues with them) and there was no one left in the company that could really continue the work they'd been doing. Basically 3-4 years later it was as if the acquisition had never taken place

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'll do a throwaway for this. Company had an exit that was about $120m personally for me about 3 years ago. It was a hard slog of about 14 years during which time me and my cofounders got sick of each other, most relationships that I came in with blew up and so on.

It is so very strange to not work. First off, everyone all the time is lightly nagging you to work. I don't want to work! I already did that. Surprisingly it is my retired parents who nag the least since they understand retirement the best. It's everyone else my own age (35) that is weird. People who lightly know you ask 100 questions and you sort of have to lie or carefully select truths when you first meet someone because it goes badly saying what you really think most days. Some variation on "Don't you get bored?" constantly coming up. Answer is - no!

After a few years of this lifestyle I am settled in quite nicely and almost don't remember working except as a distant other life. I work out, I see friends, I go drinking, I get up at 7am, I read Hacker News, I do a hobby here and there. Any time I throw myself into a hobby I typically find it fills 2-3 hours a day that is just about enough time in a day to be busy for me nowadays.

One thing that definitely differentiates is I can travel and do the hobbies of a rich person. I rarely get to throw around numbers with strangers so almost weird to even type but I am spending $2.4m this year just on my little pet projects. Not businesses - just stuff I wanna do for fun with no real purpose.

I am very serious about managing my money and I'm a wealth manager's worst nightmare. I meet with everyone, talk endlessly about what is possible, read a lot on investment, and very very rarely give people my business. They are welcome to pitch but after meeting with a ton of folks I ended up making it my part time job and I always know more than the back slapping sales guys they send to try and get 1% fees out of me.

You end up finding other people in similar situations. I have a good friend from my startup days in a similar boat with a slightly lower number who made $8m on crypto this year purely out of boredom. He made $10m the year before on a startup he cofounded for 18 months again out of boredom. We get together every week or two, talk about the struggle to keep busy but not too busy. Ha it sounds like we are complaining! It's just a balance as we navigate having fun with projects but not getting stuck in a decade long slog again.

I guess I like the idea of being 'rich uncle' or 'grandpa' to a startup, having a flexible amount of involvement. Perhaps daily for 6 months, 4 days a week for a year more, and then 1 day a week from there. In the real world I just worry I'd be so involved it would accidentally be me killing myself and stressing out for 7 years to build a $20m company when my investments make me $7 a year living my life with freedom.

Dating is a bit funny when you don't work; you sort of self-select the people for whom it is an issue. People see my house at some point in the dating cycle and there's no hiding the situation. I have on a whim with 24 hours notice taken a girl I was attracted to across the world, had a great week, and then basically that was it. But by and large dating is just normal go around have dinner get a drink stuff, no helicopter sunset champagne yacht adventures. I feel a little bad I'm doing it wrong. Very few gold diggers in my life, surprisingly. I kind of was hoping at one point my friends would have to tear me off of some model. Ah well. I watch TV shows like Ballers and their idea of what rich people are like is really funny to me; I do normal things and date normal people. I suspect based on dating history I'm going to become a stay at home dad to a career minded woman. I suspect it is rewarding to raise the kids?

<comment><USER27> That lifestyle sounds amazing coming from a late 20 year old. Hoping I can achieve that in the next 5 years too :)

What was the company specializing in that you co-founded?

<comment><USER26> Good luck! It was a stunningly unremarkable software company that never makes it on Hacker News. Slogged it out, bunch of false starts, ended up going pretty well after a rough first year where it almost blew up and a really rough fifth year where it again almost blew up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Still working on it post-sale, but with more resources at my disposal and a sturdy safety net to prevent abject failure due to lack of resources.

</comment><comment><USER29> I sold part of my online letting agency for a small amount of €€€ and now running another company while being a DN in Asia :)

<comment><USER30> Mind me asking, what does DN mean?

<comment><USER31> I'm guessing Digital Nomad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Bought it back :)

<comment><USER13> Why, how and how did it work out? Would read an entire blog post about it.

<comment><USER21> OK then, read this :) [http://www.techweez.com/2017/06/05/majani-speaks-on- ghafla-a...](http://www.techweez.com/2017/06/05/majani-speaks-on-ghafla- acquisition-fail/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I started more companies and work even harder now. What is the point of doing anything other than what you love?

</comment><comment><USER33> Congratulations on your success!. Just wondering - How old were you when you started your company,what would you do differently when starting another company and the market that you were in, was a large one or a niche?

</comment><comment><USER34> The startup nearly killed me but I cashed out ~$3M after taxes. It's all invested in a portfolio of index funds.

I moved to a ski town in Colorado and ski 3x per week and volunteer teach fitness classes 4x per week.

My wife and I have plenty of time and money so we "live sexy" - <USER2> we're swingers. We try to hook up with others for a threesome our foursome once a month or so. It is insanely fun but only works because we have a super strong relationship.

Hooking up with others has been great motivation to stay healthy. I live close to the main street in our town and walk to the grocery store most days for lunch. I'm in the best physical shape of my life.

I sleep on average 9 hours a night. If I ever feel at all in a negative mood I take a nap and feel great again.

I stay lightly in the entrepreneurial game but don't do anything that demands much of my time. Working ~20 hours a week I'll do ~$100k in profits.

My wife and I talk a lot about how we're basically cheating at life because money isn't supposed to buy happiness but in our case it definitely has!

<comment><USER35> Always interesting to see what other people think is 'cool'.

I love my wife too much to swing. Couldn't and don't want to imagine someone else having sex with my wife.

<comment><USER34> We mostly do FFM threesomes and soft swap (oral only) in larger group situations. She's just not that interested in other guys, moreso the ladies, which works for me.

I like to see her happy. She likes to see me happy. The dynamic obviously isn't for everyone but it works for us.

<comment><USER35> Would it work the other way around also? Would it be okay for you to do FMM?

Independend of my wifes choice of doing ffm, i will not do this until i'm compftable with fmm and i'm not. I don't even care for ffm or fmm very much anyway but fmm is the deal breaker for ffm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I haven't succeeded in that area yet. But here's what I would do: I'd get a job for about 20h/week as a developer because I like developing. I'd charge a rather low pay and make sure already in the interview that the boss knows I can leave any time if he pisses me off too much. Reason being that without a regular main task and daily interaction with the same people even the biggest loner feels lonely and useless.

Then I would spend a lot of time travelling, prepping travels, honing my hobbies, and probably I would also make investing more of a hobby. I expect it's good to see the effort and ambition of other people succeeding, even if one is only passively involved in what they are doing.

Last but not least: I hope you ask this question before you succeeded financially. In the big topics in life one should have at least a broad idea what one wants to do before huge failures or huge successes are incoming.</comment>


China Blocks Foreign Companies from Mapping Its Roads for Self-Driving Cars - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedrive.com/tech/17001/china-blocks-foreign-companies-from-mapping-its-roads-for-self-driving-cars <comment><USER2> Protectionism with Chinese Characteristics

It's a pretty common tactic. Cite "national security" or any other vaguely plausible reason to deny access to non-favored firms (foreign companies, and local companies who don't have the "connections"). If anyone complains, government spokesperson and 50 cent mafia generate lots of angry nationalistic crying. If another country retaliates, same spokesperson and 50 cent mafia will then decry with a straight face how hypocritical "democracies" are and how great Xi Jinping is.

The game plan is simple. Buy and/or steal tech. Rebadge as Chinese, then bankrupt the original creators by leveraging government subsidies and underpaid workers ie Segway.

<comment><USER3> US and EU have in the past blocked several Chinese companies (ZTE, Huawei, etc) for national security reasons as well. Would you classify them as protectionism?

If yes, then why are you complaining? If not, then why are you applying double standards here?

<comment><USER4> Why not judge the concerns on their own merit?

Blocking a chip or other technology that's hard to vet is one thing.

Blocking mapping when the same is already accessible from space via spy and public satellites? Does not really makes sense.

Now, of course these cases can and should be compared, but so far it seems that citing national security issues in one case seems to be pretty baseless excuse, whereas in the other case it seems to have some merit, even if the actual ban of Chinese sourced components is ridiculous, because a lot of other things are sourced/imported from China with the same or more severe espionage potential.

<comment><USER5> > Blocking mapping when the same is already accessible from space via spy and > public satellites? Does not really makes sense.

Then no one needs to map the road anyway, why bother?

<comment><USER6> The satellites don't provide enough information for self driving cars while they _do_ provide enough information to be what China is considering a national security concern.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Business as usual. The real question is why the West sits on its hands.

<comment><USER8> What kind of response would you like to see from the West?

<comment><USER7> No mapping, no access to our markets for anything mapping related. Fair's fair!

<comment><USER9> Are there enough Chinese companies doing mapping related things for this to be relevant?

There are legitimate security reasons to restrict maps, so this seems unlikely to be something easy to mobilise a larger trade war over.

<comment><USER10> > Are there enough Chinese companies doing mapping related things for this to > be relevant?

The sanctions wouldn't have need to be in the exact same area, just ones that would cause equivalent pain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The title implies a bit more than what the article says. Basically China doesn't like their country to be mapped. As a result supposedly it's pretty difficult to use most navigation software (e.g. Google Maps) within China.

China is NOT blocking it because it is self-driving (which is what you might assume). China blocks pretty much any mapping.

I haven't been to China btw; I'm curious if OpenStreetMap would work.

<comment><USER12> I don't think its that simple and I'm curious what's really up.

I was just in Shanghai, Nanjing, Hangzhou for a week. I purchased a Hong Kong sim for my phone. Google and Facebook were not blocked when using tbat sim but they were blocked on hotel WiFi.

So then trying Google Maps the location was always wrong. So wrong as to be unusable. But, trying Apple Maps it was always correct. It seems like that could only happen by regulation not technical means. The iPhone itself isn't going to give different GPS info depending on which app is running is it ? Which seems to means Google Maps' location is wrong because the Chinese government told Google to make it wrong?

<comment><USER13> Google Maps are intentionally offset in China to comply with regulations because the global version doesn't have a license to operate in China: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps#Google_Maps_in_Chi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps#Google_Maps_in_China)

Apple Maps in China uses Autonavi maps which are licensed by the Chinese government. Note that these maps are different than the maps seen in Apple Maps outside of Mainland China.

Google and Facebook weren't blocked using your Hong Kong sim because roaming sims tunnel data out of the country and connect to the internet there (like a vpn!).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Reminds me of how the Soviets supposedly bought different sized rail cars than Europe so that it was harder to invade. Sounds more like a military protectionist measure than an economic one.

<comment><USER15> If you take a train from Beijing to Moscow, there is a gauge switch for the cars once you hit Mongolia (they literally lift the cars up and switch the wheels).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's a big surprise to me for a while that China Government blocks so many U.S. internet services but no complaints from the U.S. government what only complaints on old-type of unfair trading: steel, consumer goods, solar panels etc. The digital economy is much a bigger deal.

<comment><USER17> > The digital economy is much a bigger deal.

Is it really? Or would it all be compressible if someone else had complete control over your manufacturing and hardware supply chain?

Strategically I think China having a bigger Amazon competitor than anyone else pales in its relevance to the US compared to US infrastructure relying on Chinese-produced components.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> They are not wrong, in that detailed maps of streets can reveal more than simply how to drive around. The combination of both detailed maps and vehicle flow is even more telling in terms of economics and other activities.

It will be interesting to watch the ramifications of this sort of policy. As China moves to become a leading economy with a high level of technology distributed throughout the country, it will become harder to control communications and information dispersal. Historically information access has been anathema to their style of governing and I can't see how they can have both.

<comment><USER19> The first film based government satellite imagery was 0.3 m/pixel, in the 1960s. It has only gotten better since then. (For comparison you can buy GeoEye 1 data today commercially at 0.41 m/pixel) We also regularly fly stealth collection aircraft over Chinese airspace.

At this point all the strategic things an invading army worries about (bridge heights, strength of roads, width between buildings for turning tanks, etc) can be obtained easily from overhead reconnaissance.

Hedge funds have been flying satellites to collect economic indicators (traffic flow in retail spaces, fill levels in oil storage tanks, number of ships in port, etc) since the '90s.

<comment><USER18> I think you might be mis-remembering the history of satellite surveillance. In the 60's you would be lucky if you got 3 meters per pixel (see [https://lta.cr.usgs.gov/declass_1](https://lta.cr.usgs.gov/declass_1) for additional details) That said, there have been claims of 0.1 m GSD satellites[1]. That said, satellites cannot read street signs or business names or capture WiFi hotspots or measure mean traffic density. Things that 'streetview' cars do all the time in order to create a better navigation experience.

That information may or may not be interesting to the military but I can imagine ways that it would be interesting to business and finance and enforcement folks. It is perhaps opportunities for that sort of scrutiny that is unwelcome?

[1] [http://www.businessinsider.com/satellite-image-resolution- ke...](http://www.businessinsider.com/satellite-image-resolution-keeps- improving-2015-10)

<comment><USER19> You are correct, CORONA only did 6 m. The replacement GAMBIT achieved 0.6 m by 1966, so not far off.

Obviously street level data is always better, but from a governmental standpoint I don't believe China has effectively denied us anything we care about. Wifi capture happens over other countries at 25,000 feet from MQ-9's, so we could probably do it in China if we cared enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> To be fair, mapping and geo measuring were forbidden in China even before self driving becoming a popular topic.

Not only the foreign companies, even a lot of chinese companies are still not allowed to do such measurements.

It was rather a military decision than an economic one.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_d...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_data_in_China)

</comment><comment> dis-sys Is there any international law or treaty explicitly requiring countries to allow their roads to be mapped by foreign countries/companies?

<comment><USER21> Common sense, perhaps?

Large militaries will create their own up-to-date maps for every region of the world where they could possibly expect to be operating. They will, of course, keep strategic details in such maps secret, but with a bit of marginal effort, the maps deemed to have low military relevance can also be sold to civilians for their business purposes.

In order to keep a location secret now, it can't be visible from space. And it can't have surface roads leading to it, or even change the surface significantly from historic aerial photographs of the same location. And it _definitely_ can't have radio signals coming out of it. That basically means tunnels and submarines.

There exist people whose jobs are to stare at satellite images all day, classify them, and draw shapes into a database. There is no longer any credible military rationale for restricting by law the creation of surface maps.

<comment><USER22> It eats up foreign military budgets.

<comment><USER21> Those militaries can't trust your civil maps anyway, no matter how accurate they may be in the parts where people actually use them. It's not like you're going to have that featureless black square labeled as "ICBM silo" instead of "dairy barn".

<comment><USER22> You can fairly efficiently check that a city's street layout is accurate by random sampling. That's much less human labor.

China might also be concerned about internal security.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If anyone has specific knowledge of specifics of self-driving cars I'm working on an article and would love to bounce some questions off of you. My email and GPG key are in my profile.

</comment><comment><USER24> For some reason this makes me think about that time I read that Russia installed wider train tracks to prevent trains from other countries from slipping in and entering the country.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is the sore spot economists often have with anti-trade politics. Recap: people tend to only think of the benefits of trade in the _money_ they make from trade, and not the products or ideas that they get when other countries make money from us. There are benefits to both buying from and selling to other countries, and by only considering one side, we make decisions that make us poorer.

China doesn't want foreign companies making money from Chinese maps in China. As a result, Chinese firms may make a tiny bit more money, but one billion people have drastically worse maps.

<comment><USER17> Economists often understate the value (especially to government and powerful connected folks) of stability and control while focusing on things like "massive number of people with objectively worse maps."

The potential-foreign-influenced-insurrection-to-better-maps exhange rate is tough to pin down. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I wonder how much of a cost the Autonavi license cost and if companies that are starting the self-driving cars may be stifled in china for these licenses

</comment><comment><USER27> The leading position of China in AI and Quatum technology is very worrying. We must adapt.

AI: [https://www.ft.com/content/856753d6-8d31-11e7-a352-e46f43c58...](https://www.ft.com/content/856753d6-8d31-11e7-a352-e46f43c5825d)

Quantum tech: [https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech- talk/telecom/security/china-s...](https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech- talk/telecom/security/china-successfully-demonstrates-quantum-encryption-by- hosting-a-video-call)

</comment><comment><USER28> Ugh, I really wish everyone contributed to OpenStreetMap and shared its dataset. I don't want map accuracy to be a competitive advantage.

</comment><comment><USER29> This is a typical China behavior: lie to WTO about how open its economy is, then openly disregard the repriprocity with other countries and block foreign companies from competing.

Thank goodness other countries are waking up:

"The United States, European Union and Japan vowed on Tuesday to work together to fight market-distorting trade practices and policies that have fueled excess production capacity, naming several key features of China's economic system."

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-wto/u-s-eu-japan- sl...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-wto/u-s-eu-japan-slam-market- distortion-in-swipe-at-china-idUSKBN1E62HA)

"US formally opposes China market economy status at WTO"

[https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/30/us-formally-opposes-china- ma...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/30/us-formally-opposes-china-market- economy-status-at-wto.html)

"TRUMP STARTS NEW WAR AGAINST CHINA OVER 'ECONOMIC AGGRESSION'"

[http://www.newsweek.com/trump-starts-new-war-against- china-o...](http://www.newsweek.com/trump-starts-new-war-against-china-over- economic-aggression-750502)

<comment><USER30> This type of negative opinion on China is shared all too often on HN, and it's really irritating.

It's also untrue.

For example, lets go to the WTO itself and see the list of current disputes, which is helpfully grouped by country: [https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_by_countr...](https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_by_country_e.htm)

\- China is currently responding to 39 complaints.

\- The USA is responding to 132. Which is more than the entire EU (84) and more than any other country.

It's really tiring to see the "China is a protectionist market" narrative trotted out again and again, unchallenged, and is probably second only to the "China is encroaching on the South China sea" narrative in terms of how hypocritical both views are, _especially when espoused by Americans_.

<comment><USER31> This is textbook "whataboutism" which has been used to deflect criticism since Soviet times. It is wrong when China does it, and it is also wrong when the US does it.

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

<comment><USER32> No it isn't. It's responding to the claim that China is a terrible protectionist place and the US has to make them stop, which implies that the US has the moral high ground here.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How We Got Our First 10,000 Users - <AUTHOR> http://blog.idonethis.com/post/14167259098/how-we-got-our-first-10-000-users <comment><USER2> how long did it take to get 10,000 users?</comment>


Ravi Shankar dies at 92 - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/ravi-shankar-sitar-virtuoso-who-brought-indian-music-to-west-mentored-beatles-dies-at-92/2012/12/11/a05f1b48-4415-11e2-8c8f-fbebf7ccab4e_story.html <comment><USER2> I saw Ravi and Anoushka play together 10 years ago and it is still one of the best performances I've ever witnessed. Anoushka broke a string, which I guess takes awhile to replace on a sitar, and Ravi just started giving a lesson on percussion with out missing a beat or breaking a sweat. He started lecturing about music and having the tabla players demonstrate. I left the Kimmel Center smiling ear to ear.

Sometimes talk about things like serenity and presence is shallow, because the authentic experience of spiritual depth is rare... Even in a room with 2500 people you could feel Ravi in the room and know you were in the presence of greatness. I guess that's what happens after years of dedication and spiritual discipline.

I won't hope to be half the man Ravi was. I'll be lucky to have even a speck of that kind of mastery in my life. I regret not seeking him out while he was alive. It would have been incredible to hear his music live one more time and to give him a hug and thank him for his immense contribution to the world. I'm grateful that I was even in the same room as him once and I'm grateful to live in a world create beautiful music and beautiful lives.

<comment><USER3> Pandit Ravi Shankar was just one of those masters from Indian subcontinent who happened to get famous and so comes to attention.

Back here in India, such people are quite common[Not to say they are all over the place, but you just don't hear about many of them]. Most of them just don't come up because of lack of encouragement, and proper ways of monetizing their art.

Just to tell you. Back in the past when I was in school. We would practice for hours singing devotional songs in Carnatic music. There was once a inter school competition, where you could sing in any genre you want. Our opposition school was totally convinced our 'old music' didn't stand a chance. To add to our bad luck, they had a complete band that could play with piano, guitar and band. We had none of that. Despite that, our singing was so damn awesome- we didn't just win. But looked something like 100 times more awesome than they were. In fact when the results were announced the judges said, they hadn't heard anything like that before. Coming from average middle class background, I couldn't even convince my parents to come and watch how I sang. No photographs were taken, none of it was recorded. On top of it my parents thought singing was an utter waste of time, and If I get too much into it I wouldn't study well- And so won't be able to get a good job. I wasn't able to rekindle my passion for music until later after I started earning.

There isn't a shortage of how many such competitions I participated in.

You will not believe how much of such talent goes wasted here. And even talent that some how continues into a full practice never gets any attention. Artists often live in poverty, and perform for peanuts. What that basically means is even talented kids don't want to take it up as a full time profession.

<comment><USER4> I think this is exaggerated on many levels.

1\. There are dozens of famous and wealthy Indian classical musicians - Hariprasad Chaurasia, Zakir Hussain, Amjad Ali Khan, etc. There are hundreds if not thousands of lesser known musicians who make a living by teaching and performing in small venues.

2\. Of course, many talented people are prevented by social custom or poverty from following their dream, but its simply not the case that there are hundreds of unrecognized geniuses walking around.

3\. Ravi Shankar's success was not totally accidental - he didn't just "happen" to become popular. He was a great communicator, and he appropriately structured his music to be not too complex for beginners and westerners to understand. If you listed to his rivals like Ustad Vilayat Khan for example, they went the opposite way and added layers of complexity and did not achieve popularity among the masses.

<comment><USER3> I never said Ravi Shankar was 'just' lucky, did I?

But frankly this is survivor ship bias at its very best. Looking at it from my very own parents stand point. What are the odds that somebody like me was going to be the next Zakir Hussain[Who himself happens to be the son of a very famous Tabla player]?

So there you see the problem. If there isn't a way to make good money doing music. People are not going to be taking it up as a full time profession.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is scary, Dave Brubeck passed away the other day and now Ravi Shankar (both pioneers in their own respectively different genres). We've lost quite a few musicians and prolific figures this year, a sign that I'm getting old myself. Living to the age of 90+ is quite an achievement in itself if you ask me.

<comment><USER6> how can Ravi Shanker that lived in this age be a pioneer of classical indian music genre? He was a pioneer in taking the genre to the west, yes, but not a pioneer of the genre itself. Rest in Peace.

<comment><USER7> He was a pioneer in the sense that he extended the classical Indian music genre in many ways (i.e. through innovative compositions and film scores that added many non-traditional elements)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "...Shankar was born in April 7, 1920, in Benares, a northern Indian city famous for its temples to the Hindu god Vishnu..."

For someone who confuses Shiva (the destroyer) with Vishnu (the maintainer), one has to wonder how much truth there actually is in that article.

I for one am taking it with a grain of salt. Like most things in west that are about east, it is not the facts that are important, but how good they have dressed into what west expects them to be (as something originating from east).

</comment><comment><USER9> Is every famous musician death going to make it to the top of Hacker News from now on?

<comment><USER10> If you don't think a post should be on HN, hit the flag button and a mod will look at it. HN is as good as you want it to be after all.

<comment><USER11> I already flagged the parent comment, as the typical Hacker News complaining is inappropriate for an obituary thread.

<comment><USER10> I agree, there's often a time and a place for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Thank you for all the wonderful music.

My all time favourite Ravi Shankar recording is "Raga Bhupal Todi - Tala Ardha Jaital" off of Ravi Shankar In San Francisco: [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000TEPBFQ/ref=dm_mu_dp_trk...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000TEPBFQ/ref=dm_mu_dp_trk1)

</comment><comment><USER13> huh, norah jones' dad. who knew?

<comment><USER14> Apparently she is bitterish about her father since he left them.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1423071/Norah- Jones-snubs-famous-father-in-Grammy-triumph.html#)

<comment><USER15> Seems like she got over it: [http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwDRbCiFEsPI5A0Z6JE7_g...](http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwDRbCiFEsPI5A0Z6JE7_gzAqzFxwBiDd)

 _Here are some great clips of my Dad playing the Sitar for anyone who never saw him perform live.

He's 51 in the first clip and 92 in the second clip and an inspiration in both. I love you and miss you, Pops._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Rest In Peace. Silver lining: perhaps Annapurna Devi will start playing publicly now.

</comment><comment><USER17> RIP Ravi. he was the first Indian musician I really got into.

</comment><comment><USER18> He lived a full and beautiful life.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOi45THGJdQ>

</comment><comment><USER19> That's saddening, I love Shankar's music and am always going to think of him as the greatest sitarist to ever live. RIP.

</comment><comment><USER20> Crazy - a bunch of deadpoolers picked him: <http://stiffs.com/celebrity/ravishankar/></comment>


C17: a "bugfix release" of the C standard - <AUTHOR> https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2018/04/17/c17/ <comment><USER2> I interpret "bugfix release" as criticism. However, isn't the success of C (especially nowadays) the simplicity and the universal availablity?</comment>


With New Zealand citizenship, Peter Thiel can watch the world burn in peace - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/26/peter-thiel-new-zealand-citizen/ <comment><USER4> I think they were trying to make a joke, but Peter Thiel _does_ love the Lord of the Rings. Just a few of the entities he has founded:

        - <USER2>
        - Valar Ventures
        - Mithril Capital Management
        - Lembas LLC
        - Rivendell One LLC

Apparently in internal Palantir communications he talks about how their software helps the good hobbits resist the evil orcs and stuff. (It does make one wonder how closely Thiel read the books, since the all-seeing Palantir corrupts its users).

That said, Thiel's end-of-the-world scenario is almost certainly some fantasy about going Galt. He's not worried about the world under Trump the way many of us are.

<comment><USER5> The Palantiri don't inherently corrupt their users, they were only dangerous because Sauron had captured one of them and was feeding bad info from the other end.

<comment><USER6> I don't know, take this as you will but this wikia disagrees that Sauron could feed "bad information" via the Palantiri:

[http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Palant%C3%ADri](http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Palant%C3%ADri)

At the end of Appearance and Properties, it is suggested that Gandalf himself claimed that false images or information could not be transmitted by the Palantiri, only suggestions via the selection of what information to show.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have to say I find it both incongruous and disturbing that one of the architect's of the new administration's transition is simultaneously buying himself an escape pod in case things don't work out at the day job. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, in either him or his erstwhile employer.

<comment><USER8> It's insurance, do you live a life without insurance? Which would bother you more, meeting a man who lived entirely without insurance or one who bought insurance for what he could afford? Does it bother you that the government has bomb shelters (escape pods for nuclear holocaust) while the citizenry don't? I'd prefer someone with a modicum of common sense over an optimistic fool.

<comment><USER7> On ships, it's a crime for members of the crew to abandon their posts in an emergency if there are passengers at risk. Similarly, when you are working for the government in some capacity I think you ought to be fully committed to it. If you prefer to put your own interests first, then stay in the private sector.

And yeah, I do think it's a bit of a problem that the United States doesn't have any real civil defense infrastructure in place although realistically geography largely insulates the United States from conventional military attack and so there's much less practical need for such options compared to countries in other regions.

<comment><USER9> >I do think it's a bit of a problem that the United States doesn't have any real civil defense infrastructure in place

I might be misunderstanding you, but The National Guard doesn't count?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This manufactured outrage is ridiculous. Diversification in terms of citizenship is vital when you are a very high net worth individual, everybody does it.

The only thing that Thiel does different from others is to actually take second citizenship in a civilized country instead of just going to some tax haven in the carribean or malta/cyprus where you can pay for citizenship.

<comment><USER11> Then why hasn't he renounced his US citizenship?

<comment><USER10> Why should he? It's diversification.

<comment><USER11> Regular people don't get to "diversify" like that. He should be treated no differently. You get one country for citizenship.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> From what I read so far it looks like while you can obtain US citizenship while holding another one already, it is strictly prohibited to get new citizenship without renouncing US one. If this is correct, does it mean Peter is not US citizen anymore?

Edit: just one link i found right away - [https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal- considerati...](https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal- considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-and-dual- nationality.html):

      Potentially Expatriating Acts:
      1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon one's own application after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);

<comment><USER13> US simply doesn't recognize any other citizenships but it doesn't care what other passports you hold.

<comment><USER14> What do you mean "doesn't recognize other citizenships"? Dual citizenship is legal.

<comment><USER15> You still have to bring your US passport to pass the customs. That is not the case for other counties that would recognize any valid passport.

<comment><USER14> Countries are free to define their own travel requirements for their citizens, which they do for security reasons. What you describe is a very obtuse definition of "does not recognize other passports."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It seems this is getting enough traction that the Parliament has officially asked the Immigration Dept why Thiel got his citizenship even if he didn't spend enough time over there. It will be interesting to watch what precedence this situation's popularity will set - was this his money (not a bribe just the fact he is somewhat celebrity) or other requirements that me and you can fulfill.

<comment><USER17> The requirements aren't firm, he didn't meet the guidelines but I'm sure he far exceed the investor visa requirements.

Many countries court investment in these ways.

<comment><USER18> The Minister in charge at the time is claiming (feigning?) complete ignorance; apparently he "doesn't recall the application" which, given it was granted under "special circumstances", is pretty rich. The Government are getting questioned about this closely. Even if it comes under the investor visa, I suspect the populace is going to want some evidence _of_ investment, because we're full-steam into a housing unaffordability crisis, and I suspect many will take a dim view of a foreign investor owning $10m of property (even if it is a luxury estate and not really related).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's disturbing that HNers are lapping up the author's implication (Thiel has NZ citizenship as an 'escape plan') without any support being needed.

<comment><USER11> Because it's pretty clear that's why it is? Otherwise why get it, and why not renounce his US Citizenship after getting it?

<comment><USER19> >Because it's pretty clear that's why it is?

It really isn't. The onus is on you to explain why it's so clearly an escape plan, when even the article acknowledges both that NZ is a tax haven and that Thiel gained citizenship before the election. Why should he throw US citizenship away? Dual citizenship is cool.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> You know it is the end of days when absolute privilege needs an escape chute...

Ah well, maybe those upper deck passengers on the Titanic were right - <USER3> paid so much for their tickets that they _deserved_ their place on the lifeboats over everyone else...

</comment><comment><USER21> He got his NZ citizenship since 2015. Maybe even before Trump announcing his run and quite a bit before knowing that he'll serve in Trump's administration.

Insinuating that he did it as a doomsday plan because of Trump is clearly manipulative.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi,

I needed to share this because I always found difficult to swallow, that a libertarian would have Washington as his biggest customer. I wish it will help my libertarian friends to understand that Thiel is more about himself than freeing people.

PS:Can some admin or anyone else why is this flagged?

</comment><comment><USER11> There was an interview on Fresh Air with the guy who wrote the story about the ultra-wealthy survivalists, and one guy he talked to. He was a VC, but I don't remember his name. He said, "With all the money you're spending on being prepared to run away, how much have you spent trying to prevent the collapse you fear? How much have you given to your local homeless shelter?"

I feel that's very relevant. Peter Thiel clearly has more than enough money to help stop whatever he's afraid of happening in the US, and he has the connections to other people with money that can help as well. Yet, here he is, trying to run away instead of doing the right thing.

<comment><USER22> > _Peter Thiel clearly has more than enough money to help stop whatever he 's > afraid of happening in the US_

Peter Thiel is worth about $2.7bn [1]. That's a lot, but not enough to stop political momentum. It _is_ enough to warrant the common practice of back-up citizenship.

(I am curious how he procured New Zealand citizenship, though.)

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Very disappointing to see this flagged. I thought better of HN.

</comment><comment><USER24> must be nice to get special government treatment when it comes to citizenship. A short phone call away, I'd imagine, when you have that much money.

the pain in the ass it would have been for him to spend 240 days a year there for 5 years before being granted citizenship, sheesh.

although if things go south here, he might want to trade his currency in for NZ bucks before the hyper inflation kicks in. the government probably won't want someone with monopoly money taking up that prime real estate, ya know?

</comment><comment> aaron-lebo This is just a thinly veiled partisan attack.

I don't agree with all of Thiel's actions or beliefs but he's getting singled out for being different. Anyone with billions of dollars is gonna be able to pack up and sit high and tidy in case of disaster. Someone with homes spread across several states or countries and the money to buy their own security and healthcare has the same opportunities and and no reason to be loyal to any given state, anyway, but we are not forming online lynch mobs to get them.

It's a horrific thing when Iranian PhD students might be banned from the country (yes) but fuck Thiel for being a citizen of the world. Huh?

<comment><USER25> What of the fact that he is serving as a member of the transition team for the current administration? Doesn't the idea that someone closely tied to the government has an escape hatch into another country disturb you?

<comment> aaron-lebo Not really. As I said, anyone with money has an escape hatch anyway. If the world goes to hell there's plenty of nations that will gladly invite money.

The article suggests Thiel acquired the citizenship before Trump was elected - is it not possible given Thiel's political views that he was ready to leave the country given other events or another electee?

It's only an "escape hatch" because people are calling it that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Isn't there more important things to worry about? Trump has tons of executive actions to cover yet the media focuses on some gossip from one of his supporters.

</comment><comment><USER27> This happened 6 years in 2011! Why is it an issue now? Should we block everyone that supports Trump from leaving the US??

</comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash So he helps sets up the scenario for role-reversal Atlas Shrugged and then goes off to his own Galt's Gulch anyway?

What a hero.

</comment><comment><USER28> A role model for us all.

<comment><USER29> /s not needed

<comment><USER30> and how do you know he is not being honest? Shouldn't everyone have a plan these days?</comment></comment></comment>


Transloadit: Outsourced file uploading for your web app - <AUTHOR> http://transloadit.com/

<comment><USER2> Interesting idea, especially the video encoding would trip a lot of web developers.

However, does $3 to process 1 GB seem steep to anyone else? Especially when working with video files.</comment>


DARPA's new memristor-based approach to AI - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/artificial-intelligence/moneta-a-mind-made-from-memristors

<comment><USER2> Yeah, that's like saying that you've got a new approach to writing the world's greatest novel based on using the letter 'y' in place of 'i'. AI is a software problem and if you don't know how general intelligence works, having a new kind of transistor really, really, really ain't gonna help you much. Wrong level of organization.

<comment><USER3> Have you looked at how we write code? It is directly related to the hardware architecture. Operators over here, memory over here.

Why wouldn't there be a benefit in having the hardware mimic the type of software they plan on using, namely, neural networks? That way, from the ground up, you've got these "neurons" that can computer and store information locally, which is pretty much what you've got in a neural network.

I'm really excited to see what kind of ground-up software architecture is going to come from using memristors as opposed to the combination of logical operators and separate memory. It sure as hell isn't going to look anything like Assembly. :)

<comment><USER4> There is really no mathematical advantage that NNs have over other approaches namely statistical, optimization and formal symbolic approaches/algorithms which are (imho) better engineering tools as they are more amenable to analysis. At the same time NNs are not inferior to other approaches, mathematically. The only advantage of NNs are sounding cool and being superficially similar to our brains. Consider this simple and often repeated analogy, sticking a beak and feathers on your toy airplane won't make it go faster. In real AI research, NNs are just a bullet point in the huge field of Machine Learning (<http://ijcai-11.iiia.csic.es/calls/call_for_papers>).

AI people should stop throwing around cool names and instead build things which are real (Please do not start another AI winter.) Watson is a refreshing step in the right direction.

<comment><USER5> In this case, neural networks have the advantage of looking similar enough to networks of memristors that you may be able to cram a big neural net into a small, low-power chip. It's not a huge breakthrough in AI, but prove very handy for some applications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is so _bollocks_. And from the IEEE no less. Shame on them.

A turing-complete architecture is a turing complete architecture. There is _no_ difference in computational ability between turing-complete architectures.

The advance here is in hardware architecture, not in AI. Make no mistake, it's an interesting approach - possibly the memristor will allow a neural network to be a practical chip, which has not proven feasible to date. But it's not going to open the magic gates to Big AI.

The mathematical, philosophical, and algorithmic aspects of AI are simply not understood in any sort of great depth of thought. Say, what is intelligence anyway (rhetorically)?

I look forward to seeing the memristor research results, and I hope some useful hardware neural network advances come from it.

</comment><comment><USER7> The article comes across as either boastful or gushing about memristors, and hand-waves over as many hard unsolved problems as old AI predictions ever did. This makes it quite hard to take seriously. Prefix all these bold statements with: "If MoNETA is successful in its goals..."

I have no doubt that trying to simulate mammalian brains with memristors will lead to some great new AI advances, but I won't hold my breath that it will solve all AI problems simultaneously, and neither should you.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm staying healthy as long as possible. An exciting future awaits.

Forget going to Mars... the next frontier is understanding and emulating a mammalian brain, preferably the human brain with its amazing cerebral cortex. And boy will the memristor and related technology come at a great time when we're bombarded with an exponential increase in data that we don't yet fully exploit.

<comment><USER9> +1 for staying as healthy as possible for as long as possible - not that I'm actually all that healthy.

There's a good chance that human lifespans will increase dramatically over the next few decades.</comment></comment>


Online dating services don't work, scientists say - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57372526-501465/online-dating-services-dont-work-scientists-say/ <comment><USER2> The real problem is that the incentives are wrong for the sites. If they only got paid when there was a match that resulted in at least 3 months of dating or friendship then you can bet they'd actually get that kind of result.

Instead they actually get paid by letting men message women irrespective of how appropriate the match is(1), and by getting page views by suckering in people to believe more "connectivity" is available than really is there.

(1) Explained in an OKCupid blog post they pulled but a copy is at [http://interestingreads.posterous.com/why-you-should- never-p...](http://interestingreads.posterous.com/why-you-should-never-pay- for-online-dating-ok)

</comment><comment><USER3> I agree that there is no algorithm for love. But I think the reason of the dating website of matching the people with the common attitude or interest is that when they go out, at least they have the common denominator. And from the common denominator, people can explore or discover if they are really compatible with their partner.

</comment><comment><USER4> ""For years, the online dating industry has ignored actual relationship science."

That's nothing - you should see what the offline dating world does.</comment>


Some Limits of Science and Evolutionary Processes [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/31/32 <comment><USER2> I'm nervous about the source. It has no Wikipedia entry. Its "technical publications" page <[http://www.blythinstitute.org/site/sections/11>](http://www.blythinstitute.org/site/sections/11>) includes "Review: Knowledge and Christian Belief" <[http://www.blythinstitute.org/images/data/attachments/0000/0...](http://www.blythinstitute.org/images/data/attachments/0000/0068/BartlettReviewOfPlantinga.docx>) and "Developing an Approach to Non-Physical Cognitive Causation in a Creation Perspective" <[http://www.blythinstitute.org/images/data/attachments/0000/0...](http://www.blythinstitute.org/images/data/attachments/0000/0007/non_materialist_cognition_v4.rtf>). And they've published "Naturalism and Its Alternatives in Scientific Methodologies " <[http://www.blythinstitute.org/site/sections/66>](http://www.blythinstitute.org/site/sections/66>), on a science which accepts supernatural forces (or rather, a science which isn't dependent purely on "naturism" aka "only natural (vs supernatural/spiritual) forces" for explanations).

<comment><AUTHOR> In that case, you may want to also avoid the works of Newton, Bayes, Pascal, Darwin, and Mendel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Wow, another "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy paper. Mixing all the things: math theory, algorithmics, evolution, genetic optimization algorithm in its simplest math model. All to make the conclusion that the authors could not understand those things all together.

On Goldbach's conjecture: "Hypothesizing that the new axiom is true requires faith; faith in its consistency within the formal system"

And concluding: "However, not all possible phenomes can be produced by genetic algorithm. So it is a matter of faith to believe that every existing phenome [..] could be the result of material things interacting with one another."

<comment><AUTHOR> Are there any specific errors you've identified?</comment></comment>