Show HN: Early registration for Cybersenshi to automate pentesting - <AUTHOR> https://www.cybersenshi.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hello! This is Jerais, here's my profile [https://sa.linkedin.com/in/jerais](https://sa.linkedin.com/in/jerais) And I'm the founder of Cybersenshi. Cybersenshi is a platform to automate cybersecurity testing and diacovery without having deep knowledge in pentesting. The platform discovers obselete/potential weak hosts, subdomains, opened ports, sql injection, xss, SSL problems so far. The platform also do a vulnerability assessment for discovered hosts. Also, we discover security weaknesses directly without any human intervention. Basicly we are automating penetration testing reconnaissance and vulnerability assessment across the clock.

Now the platform is opened for early registration(no functions yet, MVP!) with 50% discount. I expect to finish up the functions in two months, hopefully!

I'm open for questions!</comment>


PHPKonf – Yet Another PHP Conference in Istanbul - <AUTHOR> http://phpkonf.org/

<comment><USER2> It's great to see events like this in Istanbul. I feel there is a huge community out there. Congrats!

</comment><comment><USER3> Great to see events like these happening in Istanbul. Keep up the good work +1 !

</comment><comment><USER4> nice to see these kind of events in istanbul.

</comment><comment><USER5> awesome! +1

</comment><comment><USER6> nice!

</comment><comment><USER7> +1</comment>


Ask HN: A better mental model to grasp software dev - <AUTHOR> I want to know if there are better existing mental models(aka analogies) to understanding software dev?? some feel it is more similar to construction of buildings , some feel it is more similar to cooking , while some feel it should be artistic and some others feel it is more similar to a combat mission ... in any case i want to know your thoughts and mental models to approach software in your day to day life .. thanks in advance <comment><USER2> When I was 18, I got a summer job in road construction. My job was to walk up and down a hot highway for 16 hours a day, picking large rocks out of gravel.

My mental model is "this beats the almighty fuck out of road construction." :)

<comment><AUTHOR> that's a cool story

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Software dev has many aspects that have different analogies.

The first is requirement gathering. This is essential to know what you are doing, be it from an internal customer or your boss. Best analogy I can think of is ask a 3 year old to describe in detail the house they live in. Enough that you can draw a picture of it and provide a fairly accurate floor plan. Floor plan good enough to use to order furniture against.

Design and coding others have covered.

Testing - ok inspect a car you want to buy ... in extreme detail. Write down the results.

Documentation - write a diary, detailed that if someone who read it they could impersonate you.

</comment><comment><USER4> The UNIX Philosophy; every day.

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

Make small, quality, interoperable things, and glue them together for as long as you need them.

<comment><AUTHOR> explains a lot about how Unix became popular

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> My experience with those analogies is that they fall at different parts of the programming/software development spectrum.

Writing an algorithm <-> Making a recipe (clear, explicit directions, missing details means that things don't come out as expected except by chance). Any analogy based on writing clear directions can be appropriate here.

My preferred analogy here is more like: The computer is the dumbest employee you will ever have, can you write well enough to communicate to it precisely what you want? Ever worked with a very literal person? That's the computer. It'll do precisely what you tell it to do, even if it makes no sense with a moment's thought.

Larger scale programming (software engineering) has better parallels to the design, and somewhat to the construction of, buildings. There's a reason we call them software achitects. The connection is closer to design work rather than traditional labor (construction). Where there is an analogy with costruction it's in project management generally, which is a discipline that spans all design and development fields.

Really, there are many appropriate model to consider and it depends on what you want to do.

I work in distributed, critical avionics software. I have an agent-based view of software as a consequence of this. I model (even single threaded programs) as a collection of agents communicating with each other (a classical view of OO, also related to the Erlang model, and Hoare's Communicating Sequential Processes (which I don't apply formally, but I keep the concepts in mind)). I encourage my new people to play with golang and erlang for a reason (though we can't apply either for reasons, they're great at informing the mental model I want them to have). But that's just the software design/writing/modeling aspect. There's the larger environment in which the software gets developed that also has to be considered.

Other people have a database oriented views, data flow oriented views, etc. Sometimes appropriate to their domain and background, sometimes not. You should learn all of them so that you can communicate.

</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>=

Mental models are one of the most useful and most dangerous things. They're useful, especially when shared, because they allow you to communicate more effectively with others. They become dangerous when they go unchallenged. My agent-oriented view? Can you imagine someone writing (for a single 4MHz microcontroller with maybe hundreds of kilobytes of memory) in that model? Designing, maybe. But writing the code may require a more explicitly imperative style just for the constraints placed on the program. On the other hand, that explicit imperative style doesn't scale well to dealing with hundreds or thousands of servers (or in my case dozens of nearby radios in a mesh network). It's appropriate within the radio, but not when conceiving of the network itself as a computer itself.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks jt , truer words haven't been said . my interest in mental models for software dev comes from not being able to relate to software with any physical phenomenon of giving instructions. I find that most difficult part of software development is knowing what your doing and knowing if it's useful at all to what you want to achieve.when these questions are answered I find that software development is just a matter of solidifying that understanding although this process of solidifying make take use of different software tools and proficiency of the tools is also a factor . I find that now days we forget about trying to understand what we want to accomplish and focus more on tools . i maybe wrong or to naive but I want to know if at all there is a way to stare at a problem and walk through a set of steps and come up with a mental model or a approximate picture of what we want to achieve .</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Apple vs Facebook? - <AUTHOR>

Anyone get the feeling that Apple's new photo sharing capabilities in iOS5 are in direct competition with Facebook, which is primarily used as a photo sharing app these days? <comment><USER2> Sure, why not?

Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and a few others on a similar level have overlapping goals, but each has a stronghold in a different area. Each seeks to gain market share in their competitors' strong areas, in one way or another.</comment>


Scientists are trying to explain the existence of religion - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10903480

<comment><USER2> Funny, because Science itself is a religion. See Foundation, Part I (Asimov).</comment>


As DOJ calls for "responsible encryption," expert asks "responsible to whom?" - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/as-doj-calls-for-responsible-encryption-expert-asks-responsible-to-whom/ <comment><USER2> Isn't it obvious they want backdoors in everything by now? Even nist is compromised.</comment>


Internet of Things - <AUTHOR> http://www.tastethecloud.com/content/internet-things <comment><USER2> A Chinese friend of mine has been on about this 'Internet of things' for a while now. He claims there is quite a lot of government-backed Chinese venture capital chasing 'Internet of things' startups.

</comment><comment><USER3> He is right, China is investing billions in this initiative.</comment>


Swapit Covered by WHub: 6 Hong Kong Startups That Got Funded - <AUTHOR> https://blog.swapit.la/2017/07/26/swapit-got-covered-by-whub/ <comment><USER2> Congrats!</comment>


Silicon Valley VC firm offers to expedite coronavirus tests to its investors - <AUTHOR> https://fortune.com/2020/03/25/silicon-valley-vc-firm-investors-early-access-at-home-coronavirus-tests/ <comment><USER2> This make me burst out laughing at how well it fits into my stereotypical assumptions of VC.</comment>


Silicon Valley is desperate for talented designers - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/05/technology/startups/designers/index.htm?iid=HP_LN <comment><USER2> Honestly, when do we get to call it a bubble? Why do I keep seeing start-up companies who on the one hand, need investment capital to build their runways, but on the other hand offer the finest salary and benefits packages on God's green Earth?

I'm sorry, but where are you people getting the money for free gymnasia and catered meals, particularly when firms like YC don't even invest enough to pay the founders a living wage for the duration of the program?</comment>


$5 million More For 5Min, Following A Painful Angel Round - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/01/5-million-more-for-5min-following-a-painful-angel-round/

<comment><USER2> 300,000 dollars? They couldn't take out a few 2nd mortgages?</comment>


Wine development release 1.7.26 is now available - <AUTHOR> https://www.winehq.org/announce/1.7.26

<comment><AUTHOR> What's new in this release: \- Still more DirectWrite functions. \- Improvements to the common File Dialog. \- A number of C runtime improvements. \- Various bug fixes.</comment>


Free Your Startup - <AUTHOR> http://startups.fm/2013/11/01/free-your-startup-the-power-of-remote-work.html

<comment><USER2> Remote is the future!</comment>


Consultation now open – Contact data collection and publication in the .UK WHOIS - <AUTHOR> http://www.nominet.org.uk/news/latest/consultation-now-open-%E2%80%93-contact-data-collection-and-publication-uk-whois

<comment><USER2> This could be interesting. I'm not overly pleased about having to pay to make whois data private, nor about having to provide full physical address details by default.

I'm sure there are benefits to the system as a whole, but I struggle to see them.</comment>


The Bogdanoff Affair: Gibberish in Peer Reviewed Physics (a la the Sokal Affair) - <AUTHOR> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanoff/

<comment><USER2> Does this refute what pg says here: <http://www.paulgraham.com/resay.html> ?

"We have some evidence here: the famous parody that physicist Alan Sokal got published in Social Text. How long did it take him to master the art of writing deep-sounding nonsense well enough to fool the editors? A couple weeks?

What do you suppose would be the odds of a literary theorist getting a parody of a physics paper published in a physics journal?"

</comment><comment><USER3> article in the nytimes: [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401E4DB1431F...](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401E4DB1431F93AA35752C1A9649C8B63)

</comment><comment><USER3> Thanks for posting - this is hilarious</comment>


Show HN: A raycaster that renders to random dot stereogram (like Magic Eye) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ammonb/stereogram-raycaster <comment><USER2> A quick suggestion that would help people to "lock-on" to the effect, add two small coloured dots the distance of the stereo separation. It makes it easier to work out if you've managed to uncross your eyes the right amount.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you want actual doom as a magic eye thingy, someone else made it already:

[https://blogum.itch.io/omdo](https://blogum.itch.io/omdo)

<comment><AUTHOR> Super cool, and more impressive than what I did! :)

<comment><USER3> I didn't mean to dimish your achievement. It just rang a bell with me and I thought people might want to literally try doom.

I haven't tried your one, but OMDO (linked in GP) is an unplayable nightmare dizziness-inducing headache.

<comment><USER4> Getting shot at in OMDO really ruins the effect, especially since it's nigh- impossible to spot them quickly. I wish you could just play it without enemies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> OK, is it just me or does the stereogram render backwards: The more distant stuff (the skyline) looks closer, while the floor and walls looks more distant? I cross my eyes to see these because I can't do the "focus on the horizon" trick.

Perhaps have a mode where the close/far stuff is swapped so it looks right to those of us who cross our eyes to see these.

<comment><USER6> What always annoyed me is why they devised these to _diverge_ your eyes and not cross them.

Crossing your eyes is much more natural, and you can easily do it by looking at something close to your face.

Diverging is much harder, at least for me and most other people I've talked to.

So I can see these by crossing my eyes but everything is inverted. It comes out as a front layer with stuff cut out of it and behind.

<comment><USER7> I agree, and diverging gets practically impossible if the image is farther away, like on a TV screen. There is no natural scenario when one's eyes would diverge, which is what would usually be necessary in such cases.

<comment><USER8> Looking at something behind the screen (if transparent) or reflected on the screen (if slightly reflective) should do the trick.

<comment><USER7> This only gets you there if the physical distance between the stereo images on the display is <= the distance between the eyes. If it is greater, you would need to look at something more than infinitely away / behind you (your eyes would have to diverge). In particular if the screen is already quite far away (e.g. a few meters), there's not much more far away you can focus anyway, since there's not much difference in angle between a few meters and infinity.

<comment><USER9> I have to admit I don't understand your argument, but in my experience:

Stereograms are NOT meant to be enjoyed from across a room.

It's REALLY hard to 'catch' a stereogram from far away, so why are you even trying?

However, the "focusing on-or-through a transparent thing" that WhiteSage mentions works well at slightly further distances and can be used to help you figure this stuff out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Always wanted to try this with my ray tracer. Some thoughts:

1) Higher frame rate will probably help - it will look even more like old TV snow wrapped around things.

2) Color per object should be possible but it will bleed. This may or may not help the effect.

3) Possibly change the dot size based on distance (some dots are seen at two different distances, so average them? This would be similar to how color might be done. Advantage would be that the snow would be more like a texture that gets smaller further away.

4) I'm not sure about the notion of "base image" I always assumed a method of rendering that may not be what others do.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is pretty cool. I remember when Magic Carpet came out back in '94 ([https://ultimatehistoryvideogames.jimdo.com/magic- carpet/](https://ultimatehistoryvideogames.jimdo.com/magic-carpet/))

It had a magic eye feature, which I haven't really seen before or since so it's neat to see a modern implementation in the browser.

<comment><USER2> Hah, came here to make that comment. Love that game. If I remember right there were a couple of of other modes, including a red/blue glasses version.

<comment><USER12> Thanks for confirming that was actually a feature. I wanted to post as well but couldn't find any screenshot of how that looked like back then and hesitated, fearing that I remembered it wrong :)

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I got really into the whole auto-stereo effect when I was a kid, started drawing them when I was bored in class, so being able to play a computer game like that was pretty cool at the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is wonderful. I found it more enjoyable if you add the following css to the canvas:

canvas{ image-rendering: pixelated; width: 100vw; height: 100vh; object-fit: cover; position: fixed; top: 0; left: 0; filter: contrast(.3) sepia(405%) hue- rotate(273deg); }

Then view full screen (F11).

It fills your screen with a red toned version, with less contrast which I prefer. These things are highly personal so I suggest you experiment to find settings you like. Setting image rendering to pixelated is really personal as well, as some will prefer the softer look of blurring, but it helps me lock on to the stereogram.

</comment><comment><USER14> First of all: One of the most awesome use of autostereogram i have ever seen! I always wondered if that was possible. Thank you!

Question, did you experiment how to reduce the flickering? Or use of colors?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I did try to smooth the flickering. There's a 4th render mode. Press 4 and you'll get a smoothed version of autostereogram. It does look better in autostereogram. However, you'll notice that the smoothing causes an "information leak" into the 2D image (you can see the outlines of the walls)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I get a grey static noise image. Like an old black and white TV that isn't tuned to a channel. Latest Chrome on Linux with NVIDIA GTX 1060 using proprietary NVIDIA drivers 410.104.

<comment><USER16> That's correct -- if you cross your eyes correctly, you should see some 3D depth in the static.

[http://www.magiceye.com/faq_example.htm](http://www.magiceye.com/faq_example.htm) has some helpful instructions (you're looking for a planet with rings)

Would be useful if it had some markers for achieving the correct amount of focus.

<comment><USER17> I've never been able to see these things.

In this example, I always see two squares when trying to look behind it, never 4 like the instructions require.

How can I let my eyes focus behind the screen? I can focus my eyes in front of it by looking at my finger, and get 4 squares that way, but that doesn't work for focusing behind it, for me.

No planet appears when making it 3 squares while looking at finger in front of it either for me. And if I remove my finger, my eyes immediately change their focus :/

Any tips?

<comment><USER18> No tips - except at a guess 10 or 20% can't and won't ever see them.

I spent ages trying to make these things work in the 80s or 90s whenever the posters were the craze. Never got close, and there were quite a few others they simply didn't work on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Super cool!

Does anyone know alternative non-random dot approaches to autostereogram generation?

Seeing the random dot approach in video highlights the lack of temporal coherence across frames.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can apply the exact same algorithm to any starting pattern (it does not have to be random dots). When a pixel is unconstrained by the algorithm, just pick a pixel from an image (rather than a random value). Of course, to work well the image needs a lot of small details. I actually tried that here. But the result "leaks information" into the 2D image (as you move around, the deformations of the 2D image reflects the 3D geometry). It seemed less interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It would be nice if the dots didn't change between renders of otherwise identical frames.

<comment><USER21> That actually seems to be quite an important property in highlighting what a cool effect it is. Someone else here posted a link to a similar project they'd done [1]. If you follow the link and press T to switch on the noise, and then A to start the box moving, you'll see how obvious it is and the effect just isn't as cool. However if you then press B to switch on the background movement the box suddenly become harder to see until you correctly focus your eyes

1 - [https://moefh.github.io/stereogram/index.html](https://moefh.github.io/stereogram/index.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Tangent: I have spent probably at least a few hours total periodically trying, from when I was a child until now, to see the hidden image in Magic Eye, and have _never_ been able to see _absolutely anything at all_ , despite reading guides on how to do it, etc.

Does anyone else have this experience? Is there something physically different about my eyes or brain compared to people who can see them?

<comment><USER23> I did, for many years. It's one of those things that's hard to explain, and hard to do until you've done it, at which point you understand yourself then how to do it. My father did magic eyes in the newspaper every week when I was a child, and I could _never_ do it. I did start to wonder if he made it all up, but there was an answer key and he was able to figure it out, so there had to be something to it.

Go to the paper: [https://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~ihw/papers/94-HWT-SI-IHW- SIRDS...](https://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~ihw/papers/94-HWT-SI-IHW-SIRDS- paper.pdf)

Go to figure 7, "Figure 7. Stereogram showing a hemisphere", on page 24. There are two black dots near the bottom. Cross your eyes: you should now see 4 black dots (2 per eye). Adjust how "crossed" your eyes are such that the "inner" two dots line up, s.t. there are only "three" dots, like `(dot) (two overlapping dots) (dot)`. Now, the hard part: your vision likely blurred when you crossed your eyes; without uncrossing your eyes, and maintaining the position/overlapping of the dots, bring your vision into focus. (This is, IMO, the hard bit.)

Once I've got it into focus, I find my vision "stabilizes": I'm able to look around w/o having to concentrate on keeping my eyes crossed to a particular amount. At this point, I can look up above the dots, and there is a hemisphere in the image, as the figure caption says.

This doesn't have to be done w/ magic eye images, either. Two normal 3d renderings of a landscape side-by-side, where the camera in one rendering slightly horizontally offset from the other, will also work. The idea is the same: overlay the images in your visual field, then bring it into focus.

At least, that's what works for me. According to the sibling comment from chubasco, there's more to it, I guess, but the above is all I know.

<comment><USER24> This is the best instruction I've read so far on seeing them. I'm fine with cross-eye stereograms, so lining up to 3 dots was easy. What you described as "stabilizing" your vision once you've focused is what I normally do with cross-eye images to look around.

In this case, I can stabilize, but I feel like I'm still seeing the inverse of what I should be seeing. The hemisphere looks like it's carved into the image (with various bands that I assume are shading). The very center looks like a hole was cut out and I can see "behind" the hemisphere. I assume this is supposed to be a highlight and the nearest point to me, but I see it as the furthest.

<comment><USER23> Yeah, it's inverted for me too (hemisphere looks carved into the screen). chubasco's comment seems to indicate there's a way of looking at it that goes the other way (and that my technique results in a backwards image), but IDK — the above is the limits of what I know.

<comment><USER25> Firstly: play around with the zoom. I have a _much_ easier time with these at smaller sizes. Second, lean in close to your monitor, so that your eyes are straining a bit to keep the image in focus. Let your eyes "relax" out of focus. At first this might seem the same, but you're getting your eyes to effectively un-cross. Line up the three dots and you should now see the hemisphere in front of the plane, rather than as a cutout.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Although autostereogram is fun, an additional anaglyph mode (red-cyan) might be nice for people who have trouble with such images.

</comment><comment><USER27> The readme is perhaps the best explanation for ray casting that I've ever read. So succinct!

</comment><comment><USER28> That's really nice. I did something very similar a few years ago:

[https://github.com/moefh/stereogram/](https://github.com/moefh/stereogram/)

My version shows a simpler scene (a single tumbling cube) and also works with random-dot rendering, but also supports rendering with a tiled image (I found that tiled images work better for static 3d scenes while random-dot works better for animated scenes).

</comment><comment><USER29> Don't know much about stereograms, two general questions:

a) Is it possilbe to render color images this way? b) Is it possible to have the random dots not change all the time? E.g. When I don't move in this example, I dont see the need to draw new random dots. Also when moving sideways e.g. would it be possible to keep the dots where they are, relative to the world?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's possible to use color in that the dots don't have to be black and white, and don't have to be totally random. The way an autostereogram works is that there's a repetitively tiled base image (or vertical column repeated horizontally). The stereographic angle information is encoded in mutations of the repeating image. That base image can be anything (including a photo).

However, this color image will not correspond in any way to the 3D geometry of the scene. I don't know of any way to get color information to correspond to BOTH the 3D geometry and the stereographic information (without using two images).

<comment><USER30> In the Wikipedia article on autostereogram [1] there is an example of a chess set [2] where the 2D image directly corresponds to the 3D autostereogram image. It is apparently a type of wallpaper autosterogram, instead of random dot, which requires horizontal repetition for the effect to work.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereogram](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereogram) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereogram#/media/File:Che...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereogram#/media/File:Chess_Single_Image_Stereogram_by_3Dimka.jpg)

<comment><USER4> That picture in particular has a really interesting parallax effect - view it in stereo and move your head around. For me, the back rank seems to shift a lot with head position, even though the image itself is (obviously) stationary.

Regular Magic-Eye pictures do this too, but to a much less noticeable degree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> FYI: It might be easier if I could pause the stereogram until I can get my eyes focused. With the magic eye images, I usually focus on a point until my eyes lock in.

With the image constantly changing, there is no point to focus on. I kept double-crossing my eyes because there was no reference.

</comment><comment><USER32> Looks like the parallax is quantized into whole-pixel shifts, leading to flat planes at discrete depths.

The eye can pick up very small sub-pixel shifts when doing parallax solving. Good antialiasing would be necessary for a smooth/continuous perception of depth.

</comment><comment><USER33> I wonder if someone could make a terminal emulator that renders to a "magic eye" view of some hexadecimal characters.

That way we could actually interact with a computer while staring at a screen of randomly changing characters, just like in the movies.

</comment><comment> creative-coder Amazing! didn't think I could get so hooked up to a stereogram renderer.... I'd suggest adding other colorful background variations, apart from random dots, as well. Thanks for sharing !

</comment><comment><USER4> A hint for anyone looking for the easter egg: you're unlikely to find it in the stereogram view as it depends on the colour of the tile (use e+left/right arrows to edit colour).

</comment><comment><USER34> I wonder how feasible getting some temporal consistency in the dots would be? (Something similar to what the return of Obra dinn does?)

Alas it does actually make me nauseous :(

</comment><comment><USER35> I hesitated to upvote this because few things frustrate me as much as autostereograms (hello childhood memories) ...but it's a cool project, so have an upvote :)

</comment><comment><USER36> Thats so cool! Reminds me of the 3DS sort of 3D feeling.

</comment><comment><USER37> Maybe it's just me, but after using this, the text on hacker news comments feels like it's placed at various different z-indices.

</comment><comment><USER38> My trick for seeing these is to shine a flashlight on my face from the side, then focus on my reflection in the screen.

</comment><comment><USER9> LOVE this! Cool little world to play in.

I enjoyed editing a hole in front of me, falling in and editing a staircase to get back out.

</comment><comment><USER39> It's weird but if I zoom, I can't make the magic eye work. Even at 50% or 200%. I wonder why that is?

</comment><comment><USER40> this is super cool! :) for some reason I can never see gradients in these :( so it was a bit disorienting until I realized it's literally just a room with some stairs in the middle. I'd love to see more complex geometry in this :)

</comment><comment><USER41> Found it easier to get the correct effect if I removed my computer glasses

</comment><comment><USER42> This has a wonderful bunnyhop :)

now I have to find the easter egg

</comment><comment><USER43> very cool, I find it's a bit easier to see these with a bit of alcohol

</comment><comment><USER44> damnit I looked everywhere for that easter egg and didn't find it.

</comment><comment><USER45> oh this is so much fun! love it.</comment>


Can you pay users stock for sign-up? - <AUTHOR> Is it legal for me to pay users to register on my app? <comment><USER2> Yes, but talk to a lawyer before you issue stock.</comment>


Forget Gmail filters, let Google sort your inbox using Machine Learning - <AUTHOR> http://mikhailian.mova.org/node/256

<comment><USER2> Sounds like a really cool idea, but the free version seems to be 100/day for up to six months. I'm not sure that's enough, and I'm skeptical of it being worth $10/month once the trial ends.</comment>


This Bubble's Got Legs - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-09-09/this-bubble-s-got-legs <comment><USER2> According to the OP, we have a global "central-bank-led cash bubble" powered by "an ever flowing money hose."

If you believe interest rates are being kept "artificially low" (whatever that means) by the "money printing" of central banks like the Federal Reserve and the Bank of Japan, then you will agree with the OP. In this view of the world, central banks are contributing to our current economic malaise: by keeping rates artificially low, central banks are causing asset prices to increase, making investment in productive endeavors less profitable for businesses and individuals.

If you believe interest rates are low primarily _because businesses and individuals worldwide want to hoard cash_ (as a way to protect themselves against, say, potential deflation or insufficient aggregate demand), then you will disagree with the OP. In this view of the world, central banks are doing everything they can to motivate businesses and individuals to invest more in productive endeavors. Yet even when rates turn _negative_ , individuals and businesses still want to hoard cash, as evidenced by their demand for negative-interest instruments.[1]

[1] [http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/07/the-weird-new-normal- of-...](http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/07/the-weird-new-normal-of-negative- interest-rates-economics-japan-eu-draghi-yellen-central-banking/)

<comment><USER3> I believe this is a generation thing. Generation Y grew up with so many crisis and terror attacks, its just naturally everyone is hording their cash. Also a lot of people want to stay independent and mobile so they are not (yet) settling down.

<comment><USER4> Uh, historically the last 40 years have been pretty good. Sure it is worse than some of the years before that (but we did not have to go to 'nam so there is that). But historically you can't say Generation Y have had many crisis and terror attacks. Think about people born 1900-1910, they had two world wars to survive!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you're interested in monetary policy and a fundamental analysis of the state of money and banking in the world today, I highly recommend "The End of Alchemy" by Mervyn King [0].

The book starts with a long history of why we have money at all, why it takes the forms it takes, and how banks evolved into their current role. It then goes on to describe why there is so much inherent risk in our banking system and what we could do to reduce or eliminate it.

As someone who follows financial news but has no formal education in finance, I found the book enlightening and extremely readable.

[0] - [https://www.amazon.com/End-Alchemy-Banking-Future- Economy/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/End-Alchemy-Banking-Future- Economy/dp/0393247023)

<comment><USER6> FYI, Mervyn King was the Governor of the Bank of England for 10 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The financial problems originated with excess debt, but debts that are so large that they cannot be paid back - will not be paid back.

Inflating assets via QE doesn't really address the real underlying problem.

The only long-term solution I have seen is Debt for Equity swaps. It won't work everywhere, but it does help.

For example, when the Banks were technically insolvent then the opportunity should have been taken to forcibly re-arrange their financial underpinnings rather than shoring up the existing rickety structures by using taxpayer monies to in effect bail out the rich.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_restructuring#Bondholder_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_restructuring#Bondholder_haircuts)

<comment><USER8> _The only long-term solution I have seen is Debt for Equity swaps. It won 't work everywhere, but it does help._

Note the US Federal government owns so much land in the Western part of the country and Alaska that that alone _might_ allow it to get its fiscal house in order, and could certainly help.

I mean, isn't it everyone's dream to have title to a plot of Alaskan tundra ^_^? Obviously it would be very hard to make this work, and impossible for our current ruling class, but the raw numbers just might work out.

Otherwise you're right, it simply won't be paid back. But who knows how long we'll be viewed as a "least worst" place to park your liquid assets?

<comment><USER9> Even taking the silly assumption, for the sake of this argument, that the federal government's finance is just like a giant household, its debt figures are fine.

It has a debt-to-income ratio of 14.3, the highest possible credit rating, and assets that far exceed debt. Lenders would be tripping over themselves to lend to to such a household, and lo and behold lenders are tripping over themselves to lend to the USG.

This dour anti-debt Puritanism is dumb enough when it comes to individuals, but makes no sense at all when it comes to government.

<comment><USER10> It isn't "dumb puritanism" when applied at the individual level.

The problem is private debt, particular private debt that doesn't self- liquidate (consumption). See Steve Keen (certainly no puritan on debt) on the distinction between public debt and private debt and its effects on the economy.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLplU4WdX9A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLplU4WdX9A)

<comment><USER8> How much of our current Federal debt is just funding current consumption?

How much of the budget can truly be scored as investments? Perhaps not even the bulk of student higher education loans....

<comment><USER10> I agree entirely, but the sovereign issuing debt in it's a currency it controls (and let us assume, push come shove, the Treasury will side with the government over the Federal Reserve) is different than an individual taking on debt for consumption.

Keen is very good on this and has convinced me, despite it going against my inherent anti-debt biases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The graphs offered as evidence seem to have very carefully picked axes to fit the story. e.g. looking at the first MSCI graph with the x axis extended back to the 60s[1] it is hard to draw the same conclusions

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSCI_World#/media/File:MSCI_Wo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSCI_World#/media/File:MSCI_World.png)

<comment><USER12> I was thinking about that as well, particularly the "complacency index." I have never heard of this composite before, of course I am not an economist but I do follow finance. Can anyone speak to if this is an exotic index?

<comment><USER13> Banks make up dozens and dozens of these indices for marketing purposes. The idea is that when a client trades with a broker, the broker provides "free" research to the client as a sweetener. That research mostly consists of dodgy trade ideas based on their proprietary "sentiment index" or whatever.

The research tends to be low quality in general. I'd guess that the researchers are treated as a cost center rather than a source of business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> So my vague understanding is that QE and stuff is technically printing money, but the resulting money isn't really being used for anything.

Is a bubble a bubble if the extra bubbly-ness is from stuff that doesn't get used?

EDIT: actually, answered my own question. QE raises asset prices (even if the sellers aren't really doing anything with the money), and at one point people will be like "wait, none of this is worth the price it's at" and then panic (unless QE Infinity).

<comment><USER15> QE is effectively creating money, which is then used to purchase financial assets in the hope that the person selling it will use the proceeds for something that is economically stimulative. It also reduces borrowing costs along the way.

Most central banks buy government bonds. As a result of this buying, the returns on these bonds are reduced and supposedly less attractive to the investors that previously would have bought them (or did buy them and then sold them to the central bank).

The issue is that an investor that previously would have bought a government bond, doesn't suddenly decide to spend that money in the general economy because government bond returns went down. They instead put it into other financial assets, like corporate bonds, the stock market, or perhaps real estate, thus driving a bubble in these asset classes.

In places like Japan, the central bank buys nearly all bonds issued by the government (effectively financing the government deficit). This distorts markets tremendously. Japan is the most indebted developed government in the world with close to zero GDP growth for 20 years and yet you need to pay them to loan them money for 10 years (i.e. negative return on their bonds).

As an investor, you currently have to pay the governments of most Western European countries to loan them money. In Switzerland for example, if you loan them $100 today, you'll get back $98 in 2 years and no interest. Even Spain and Italy which are in terrible shape fiscally, have a negative return on their 2 year bonds [1].

We now have extremely distorted markets. Heavily indebted governments around the world are borrowing money for free, enabled by their "politically independent" central banks. Some central banks are purchasing equities outright (Bank of Japan announced last month they would double their purchasing of equity ETFs).

There's also a great deal of research indicating that such QE policies increase wealth inequality, by driving up the price of financial assets (which are owned by the rich) and increasing the cost of living for everyone else that needs access to these assets (rent etc.) [2]

To most laymen, the idea that creating money and buying financial assets will somehow stimulate spending and inflation is clearly flawed. Central banks by design however, have few other options.

[1] [https://twitter.com/MktOutperform/status/773577673587105792](https://twitter.com/MktOutperform/status/773577673587105792)

[2] [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-10/how- centra...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-10/how-central- banks-have-made-wealth-inequality-worse)

<comment><USER14> Well TARP worked out pretty well, right?

I think there's a logic to QE in scenarios like the credit crunch, since suddenly banks need cash and there's a bunch of illiquid assets on everyone's balance sheets. But I do agree that owners of treasury bonds aren't really going out and spending their proceeds at Wal-Mart for a while.

<comment><USER16> TARP was a very specific program that had very specific goals. It was strictly intended to prevent the collapse of the banking sector, not to inflate the economy more generally. It may have done that as a side effect, but that was not its primary purpose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Some background for those concerned with inflation:

The US dollar is backed first and foremost by the global reserve status of our currency, which it became in 1971, as (probably the most important) part of the Bretton Woods System. As long as nations need US dollars to purchase crude oil, the US dollar will continue to be globally valuable.

Secondly, the US has a powerful military, including hundreds of essentially forward operating bases and air fields, lying in wait, all over the world.

Third, and as a secondary property of our military and economic strength, many countries are owed many billions of US dollars. This is because, due to the strength of the US military, T-bills (essentially bets made on the US dollar) are purchased by many nations. When other countries bet on the US dollar, they're creating a vested interest in the US dollar not collapsing, which increases the US leverage (leading to things like money printing).

None of this is meant to make you more _too_ comfortable, because, despite all of the above, China, Russia, Libya, Iran, Brazil, South Africa, and, at times, India, have been attempting to reduce the US dollar hegemony by creating other means of trading oil.

For instance, Libya's late leader, Muammar Gaddafi, created a gold backed currency for trading oil (this is the reason NATO invaded Libya and killed Gaddafi). Russia and Iran made agreements to trade food (from Russia) for Oil (from Iran), which Russia would then add to its exports, acting as a trade proxy for Iran. This, combined with Iran's efforts to pipe natural gas and oil to China, is the reason for the supposed "Iranian nuclear threat". China has also recently created the Shanghai Gold Exchange, as a means to further commoditize fiat currency (china has very large gold reserves). BRICS has created a competitor to the Western-dominated IMF in the past 24 months, which also threatens the US reserve currency's backup plan, which is called the SDR (Special Drawing Rights). The list goes on; not to mention the calls Xi Jinping has directly made to remove the US dollar as a reserve currency (IOW, this isn't exactly covert, as of about mid 2010).

As you can see, considering our posturing in the South China Sea, and considering what happened to Gaddafi, the US won't acquiesce to losing its reserve status. So, the US dollar is not going to "collapse", lest we find ourselves engaged in total war (with China, et al). So, as long as you don't plan to bail on the US in a total war scenario, you're, in my opinion, safe to invest in USD.

<comment><USER18> Another reason, possible related to all of the above: if the USD sharply declines in value for some reason, its trade deficits with many export- dependent economies (e.g. China) will also decline and perhaps even become surpluses. Those who run such economies /really/ don't want that to happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> So, the article says dotcoms caused first bubble in 2000, houses in 2008, but this one is driven by central banks printing money. And there is no way they will stop printing so this is an infinite bubble

There is sooo much wrong with that. As @rtpg says, that s stops not when Fed stops printing money but when market realises that the high asset prices "globally" become obviously unsustainable.

The issue is that when that happens, it happens across the world simultaneously- which is why they article refers to the complacency index. (It is possible the article is more sarcastic than I could read into it)

<comment><USER20> > So, the article says dotcoms caused first bubble in 2000, houses in 2008, > but this one is driven by central banks printing money. And there is no way > they will stop printing so this is an infinite bubble

> There is sooo much wrong with that

Well, for one thing, its not true. In the US, for instance, the Fed stopped QE in 2014, and has not only stopped QE but raised interest rate targets slightly since.

Central bank policy -- like the economic indicators that drive it -- tends to be cyclical, not infinite positive feedback. This has been a long and particularly intense period of loose monetary policy (largely, because governments, especially the USG, have completely been asleep at the switch in terms of _fiscal_ policy response to the economic situation, relying more heavily than is sane on central banks and monetary policy), but there is very little to think that the usual cyclical drivers won't work the way they normally do.

(Of course, that won't actually pop asset prices in general -- though it may result in a shift across asset classes -- since the cyclical drivers of tighter monetary policy are _exactly_ the same things that drive high general asset prices _without_ a loose-money driver.)

> As @rtpg says, that s stops not when Fed stops printing money but when > market realises that the high asset prices "globally" become obviously > unsustainable.

Which, if those prices were high nominal prices driven by the Fed printing money such that the supply of money vs. that of other assets was ever expanding, would actually require the Fed to stop printing money, because as long as it continued to do that (and as long as people believed it _would_ continue to do that), high asset prices would be sustainable.

(Conversely, if people believed that the Fed would stop, but would only do so because of the existence of some other driver supporting asset value, then even _with_ the money-printing-presses stopped asset values would be maintainable.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is scary as I moved to all cash a couple of years ago. I still don't understand how there can be a bubble in money. All I see around me is house and stock prices going up incredibly. Does a money bubble popping result in high inflation making my money in the bank worthless. Fuck. First I got burned in stocks, then in real estate, and now cash?

<comment><USER22> What could happen is your cash becoming more valuable in a deflationary spiral. My take is you're incurring the opportunity cost today on your cash reserves. Your present value is based on a belief that the future will be deflationary over inflationary. You could model this with an estimation of the present value of your cash holdings as a function of how long you hold it and your expected inflation rates.

<comment><USER23> This is an extremely risky proposition, because under no circumstances will the Fed ever permit long term deflation.

They will literally mail cash to individual households or have cash giveaways before that happens. Or, more simply, they ask Congress to pass a law stating that all cash reserves over a certain amount are heavily taxed or confiscated entirely.

My suggestion:

10% notional gold

10% physical gold & silver

10% Bitcoin

40% equities

30% cash

<comment><USER22> True and printing money is too easy a thing to bet against. We are truly in weird times.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> There has been substantial asset inflation, the cost of housing, health care, education, child care are all through the roof, and really there is substantial inflation in necessities too. Yet wages are largely stagnant, and people can still buy cheap junk at Walmart, so officially inflation is called low.

Like all bubbles, it will eventually correct. It could be soon, it could be years away. We may be stuck in secular stagnation with high asset inflation for a long time. Who really knows? That there has been so much intervention from central banks, with ZIRP and NIRP policy being the new norm, should make everyone a bit nervous. We are in uncharted waters.

</comment><comment><USER25> The focus on our current economic climate frequently seems to be on the experimental dovish policies of central banks and its implications on bubbling asset prices, yet nobody seems to be talking about how eerily close this is predicted by the Austrian Business Cycle Theory[0]. I'm confounded by why the theory is considered by mainstream economists as controversial when in instances such as the dot com and housing bubbles popping in the US it was preceeded by the Federal Reserve contracting the money supply after prolonged periods of money printing. I fully expect the next fatal economic downturn to follow the eventual raising of interest rates, if runaway inflation doesn't occur first[1].

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

1\. [http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2010/05/inflation_...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2010/05/inflation_and_sovereign_debt)

<comment><USER26> Thank you for sharing this theory. I agree with the theory that low interest rates are meant to incentivize riskier investments and can lead to runaway prices in capital asset classes that eventually must correct because they don't provide consumer value. However, based on this theory, the current actions of corporations and investors are rejecting the incentive to place riskier bets and I can't see run away prices on a capital asset on the macro us or global scale as we saw with housing from 80s to 2008. Perhaps capital allocation managers implicitly agree with the theory and taking cautionary steps to avoid the bust.

But I wonder if this fear of busts is holding back innovation. Society is helpless to progress at a faster rate because God forbid there is another bust and people lose jobs and hope about the future. I think companies are waiting with cash in hand to buy up the good deals in an expecting bust. But I would prefer to have the cash used for risky ventures and I accept the bust outcome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I am reminded of when I worked on a financial analytics app and we constantly had to remove the Zimbabwe stocks. They'd all gone up 1000's of percent and ruined all the other data on the chart (appearance-wise). Why? As the Zimbabwe currency lost value and became worthless, the stocks denominated in that currency held their real value. I would expect to see some version of this play out in the stock market today.

<comment><USER28> I have near zero knowledge of finance infrastructure, but shouldn't stock price be normalized by the exchange rate in which said stock is denominated? Say index everything in USD or whatever currency your user prefers. Otherwise, even if you remove Zimbabwe stocks from your charts, any analytics will be fundamentally flawed.

<comment><USER27> You are right that most carefully presented charts will correct for exchange rate differences over time. However, a database of stocks will often keep performance over different time periods in the native currency as a convenience. For example, this is usually good enough for most screening applications, and on-the-fly charting apps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Possible interpretation:

Not enough people are trying risky entrepreneurial things; the market is begging us to quit our jobs and try more startups.

In other words, productivity gains are meaning that the world is saving too much money, and we need fewer workers and more explorers.

Alternate: Wages should be raised across the board.

</comment><comment><USER30> The conclusion makes sense only if every major economy participates. What about China and Russia? Granted, I doubt investors today trust either country without qualification, but if this goes on another 5 or 10 years, who knows?

<comment><USER31> Out of those two countries, Russia, a country with an economy smaller than that of Spain, is the only one not currently engaged in massive subsidies and stoking artificial demand (metallurgy, construction). China isn't engaging in QE but it is using other methods to prop growth.

I doubt China's position is as tenuous as the Euro zone, but it is engaging in some similar practices.

Russia is wholly dependent on the Euro zone as an export-based economy until it can improve internal consumption. It can't be relied upon to prop up the world economy in the event of an asset value correction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I keep seeing discussions about high-value neighborhoods full of empty homes. The homes are purchased purely as a way to hold value.

Vancouver and London are examples that I've heard of.

Sounds like a big clue to me!

</comment><comment><USER33> It's obvious bubbles are all caused by money anyway (printed or not). What is the money being spent on?

</comment><comment><USER34> Helicopter money has worked, unfortunately all the money has fallen onto 15 Central Park West.

</comment><comment><USER35> The forrest is dry, just waiting for a black swan. The problem with black swans is they are definitionally unknown unknowns... until they are not any more.

</comment><comment><USER36> Isn't it always a thing before a bubble pops where everyone says the bubble wont pop.

<comment><USER37> A lot of people called housing a bubble a long time before it popped.

<comment><USER38> Economist cover June 2005: [http://www.tradersnarrative.com/wp- content/uploads/2008/03/a...](http://www.tradersnarrative.com/wp- content/uploads/2008/03/after%20the%20fall%20house%20prices%20economist%20magazine%202005.png)</comment></comment></comment>


Google Is Going to Block Adult Content from Websites Hosted on Blogger - <AUTHOR> http://webandtechs.com/2015/02/google-is-going-to-block-adult-content-from-websites-hosted-on-blogger/

<comment><USER2> From a Dutch perspective, it's curious how there are two "foreign" forces trying to drag our culture back to pre-60s prudishness and ultra-conservatism: Muslim immigrants IRL and Silicon Valley online.

Just this morning I was walking by a billboard from SuitSupply (one that wasn't defaced by religious fanatics), a company who's previous online campaign was already banned from Facebook and who shouldn't even try to run this ad campaign through any of the major US dominated networks. Because, OMG, breasts.</comment>


Elsevier sues Russian scientist for publishing papers - <AUTHOR> http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/research-pirate-makes-millions-scientific-papers-available-free <comment><USER2> > However, academic publishers such as Elsevier say that monetizing these > papers brings in vital funding for ongoing academic research, enabling > authors and scholarly societies to obtain vital revenue.

There is some truth to that, in that publications in top journals help scientists get funded. But the credibility of top journals depends on _pro bono_ work by editors and reviewers. Also, reputations of top journals go back decades, in some cases centuries. Current owners of academic publishers are just parasites.</comment>


Sealed Traits in Scala - <AUTHOR> http://underscore.io/blog/posts/2015/06/02/everything-about-sealed.html

<comment><USER2> I've seen the author (Noel Walsh) talk on Scala a few times and he's a great teacher. And also good at showing how far you can get with just ADTs, structural recursion and objects as namespaces for your functions. This, in my view, represents a great, functional, subset of Scala. (Avoid normal classes, mutable state, etc.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I strongly believe type classes, in addition to the features you list, are all you need for 95% of your Scala code. Taking this approach leads to very simple and comprehendible code.</comment></comment>


Is there a weekly summary available for top news on Hacker News? - <AUTHOR>

The Hacker news frontpage changes almost continuously. However, I want to batch my readings as opposed to checking the site (several times) daily. Is there a way to find the top N posts by rating for a given week? (also posted to Quora: http://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-weekly-summary-available-for-top-news-on-Hacker-News) <comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/over?points=200> will work pretty well.

</comment><comment><USER3> Go to <http://www.hackernewsletter.com/> to subscribe. I get it weekly, and it's pretty much great as a weekly round up.

</comment><comment><USER4> Here you go: <http://hnweekly.chibidesign.com/>

Googling brings it up too (turns out Google isn't all that bad).

<comment><USER4> Whoops, looks like that hasn't been working for a year now. Which is probably the last time I used it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah too bad, it looks perfect..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Read these once a week - <http://www.daemonology.net/hn-daily/></comment>


Ideas on how to monetize IsItChristmas.com - <AUTHOR>

This question might not have an answer, but I figure it could start an interesting discussion. <comment><USER2> The true meaning of IsItChristmas is about bringing pure binary joy to millions. Don't be a little adsense grinch.

...How about selling a nice IsItChristmas wall-clock? Completely dormant for 364 days a year. But on that one day, something more magical than you could ever imagine...

</comment><comment><USER3> Make it part of the "is it <some holiday>" network. Everday, I'd like to figure out if it's a holiday by deduction... so that's a lot of traffic for you.

Make an API for it, and charge.

</comment><comment><USER4> How about a digital advent calendar? Sell space in the calendar to products that are given away for free (or coupons)?

</comment><comment><USER5> Email address submission form. Then sell to the highest bidder.

10000 spams. 1 email saying "it's christmas!".

</comment><comment><USER6> Sell me the domain for $1</comment>


Macadamia Nut Cookie may be the internal codename for Android M - <AUTHOR> http://www.technostall.com/macadamia-nut-cookie-internal-codename-android-m/

<comment><USER2> I'm still with the side that thinks Marshmallow is the best option. So well known and simple, easy to brand/market and I really want to see a marshmallow Android bot.</comment>


Jot #2600: Zuckerberg's joke on us - <AUTHOR> https://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/2600.html <comment><USER2> That was seriously cool. I had to scroll to see the last section. That was cool.</comment>


Ask HN: Is deep learning really enough to get us to AGI? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> What is required for AGI:

1\. Natural Language Understanding

2\. Knowledge Representation (NOT in the form of a NN)

3\. Reasoning algorithm(s)

As to "Deep learning": The system should be able to learn unsupervised (autonomously) and the more high-quality data it sees, the better.</comment>


MooTools and Sizzle - <AUTHOR> http://ajaxian.com/archives/mootools-and-sizzle

<comment><USER2> Valerio has always been a man to stick to his guns, so this isn't all that surprising.</comment>


Ask HN: What have been your best and worst experiences with recreational drugs? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> best is something thats very difficult to quantify really, i guess it depends entirely on the application and setting. I have had vast experience which psychoactives, a lot substances more than most people could even name however i have never had anything that id consider a meaningful or spiritual experience.

Thats not to say i havent had fun, there are a lot of interesting and enjoyable experiences to be had and i can honestly say that despite having experimented with well over 100 unique chemicals i have never had a single bad experience</comment>


Gantter: Project Management in your browser (imports MS Project files) - <AUTHOR> http://gantter.com/

<comment><USER2> Very fast, very easy. I have been checking this out the past few days and I like it-- Have yet to move any of my actual project teams over, but I intend to try. I have used zoho, google docs, and huddle in the past. Currently using Huddle for its LinkedIn app, but this puts all of these to shame with simplicity and usefulness.

</comment><comment><USER3> Google should buy it for Docs - looks like it was designed with their API. The help page (Learn more) is also a model of clarity and good documentation. Excellent work.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'd really like the ability to share access with my cofounders. Without that one of us ends up being a choke point.</comment>


New Zealand's crusade to rid itself of mammals - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/22/big-kill <comment><USER3> Im a kiwi in my late 20s. I spent much of my childhood and teenage years in the mountains and bush (jungles) of New Zealand hunting introduced mammals. I wouldn't have spent so much time in the bush if there weren't these mammals to hunt. I'm not a yee-haw gun toting hillbilly, I'm an educated guy who, as a young man, got so much informal education from being in the mountains trying to stalk in on Deer, Tahr, Pigs (all introduced) that I could take home and eat.

It taught me resourcefulness, physical discipline, patience and survival skills. Having now traveled the world and spent many years living outside of New Zealand I have come to realize what unique abilities these are and in what a unique way us Kiwis have them. My grandfather used to tell me how appreciated us Kiwis were in World War Two for exactly these reasons.

There is nothing special in our water or our climate or anything like that. We just have an incredible resource that many young kiwis have traditionally engaged, often for the purposes of recreational hunting.

There is a chunk of conservation advocates who hardly engage the New Zealand outdoors, like myself (and others), yet they have a say in how it is run. They live in cities and have an idealistic but impractical understanding of our resource. The outdoors and the animals within the outdoors are a concept to these people, not a part of their lives.

Some mammals in New Zealand are an absolute resource and would be easy to control if we saw them as such. We wouldn't need state sponsored poisoning runs or organized culls of NZ's large mammals if youth were shown the educational value of going out and learning how to survive, be safe, be brave, in order to hunt a deer - and then how to not waste it.

I really hope the larger mammals in New Zealand remain and are treated as a resource for NZ's ambitious young people who want adventure but instead find it in playing video games and driving cars fast on public roads.

I see myself as a conservationist, I just don't see the need to wind back the clock 300 years. Lets control the large mammals and protect our unique environment: the two aren't mutually exclusive.

<comment><USER4> I see what you are saying as similar to the "window breaking argument". Just because a bad activity produces a positive output, doesn't mean we shouldn't fight the bad activity(so like in the example - just because city's glass makers have more work thanks to the vandals breaking down windows everywhere, doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to stop the vandals).

>>ambitious young people who want adventure but instead find it in playing video games and driving cars fast on public roads.

Come on now, real world is never as black and white as this. It's not like the only decisions in the world a young person can make are "hunting in the wild and learning to be brave" and "driving fast on public roads". I am very glad you had a great childhood - but I also feel like you are romanticizing your experiences and feeling like everyone should have the same ones because they were the only good ones in your opinion. That's called bigotry, no?

<comment><USER3> I'm not against organized mammal control in NZ. I am against ridding the country of mammals completely. My statement was an attempt to show that I believe we have an incredible resource that is largely under-utilized for the benefits it offers people.

Regarding your last point; it depends if you see spending time in the outdoors and breaking laws on public roads as ethically the same thing.

Everyone doesn't need to have my experiences, but if I cant talk about the value of those personal experiences and recommend some of them without it being referred to as bigotry then I'm left wondering what the free sharing of ideas is for? Can I only share purely objective ideas? - Because, unfortunately, I don't have any of those.

<comment><USER4> Oh god no. I appreciate the ideas. My problem is that you categorized experiences into good ones(as in - the ones you had) and into bad ones(as in - the ones others are having). And driving fast on public roads is not the only point you made and I am not trying to defend illegal activities - and also one could argue that ethically hunting animals stands lower than speeding - but I am not trying to make such point so I will not defend it if you decide to discuss it. You also mentioned people spending their childhood playing games - what if I show you someone who thanks to THEIR experience with games went on to become a programmer, designer, artist - and is now a perfectly happy person? Is their life any less because they have not experienced hunting deer in the wilderness?

I only mentioned bigotry, because this is what happens when someone says "I have experience X, therefore everyone should have experience X because I have had it and it is the best, instead of activities Y or Z which are clearly inferior to my experience X". I am not calling you a bigot - one comment on the internet is far too little to judge that.

<comment><USER5> I think a charitable interpretation of the grandparent poster is that he wants young people to channel their desire for adventure into _not only_ playing video games rather than for them to not play video games at all.

<comment><USER3> Well said, thanks

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I visited New Zealand for the millennium. When we picked up our rental car in Auckland, the following conversation happened:

"Sir, a moment before I give you your keys?"

"Certainly."

"You know what a possum is, correct?"

"Yeah."

"Well, we have these furry cute ones that foreigners love to coo over."

"Really?"

"Yes. Very cute. Fuzzy and the like."

"Fascinating"

"Quite! Now, if you see one of the little buggers on the road, there's something you should do."

"Oh? Slow down or drive around them? What should I do?"

"Aim."

Total tally: 15

<comment><USER7> I hope you aimed well enough. Can you be sure not to have left behind any half-dead, suffering animals?

No disrespect to you in particular but this way of handling the problem comes off as very blunt and uncivilized.

<comment><USER8> Sounded like a joke? In any case, swerving to avoid/hit a small animal is quite dangerous, and leads to crashes. If the animal isn't big enough to cause significant damage (I've heard "smaller than a medium sized dog", dunno if that's a accurate) then you shouldn't do any evasive maneuvering.

<comment><USER9> You're driving too close to the car in front if you hit them after they do an emergency braking manouver.

<comment><USER10> Where did gp say anything about a car in front of theirs?

I grew up driving in Buffalo, NY, and if that doesn't evoke visions of black- ice covered frozen tundra roads, it should. One thing I know from having learned here is, a deer can jump out of the brush at any time. You don't want to hit a deer. Even if you have comprehensive insurance there is a very real risk of bodily harm to yourself, deer are large and probably more likely to survive than most small animals, if you don't have a hunting knife or a gun, you might even be waiting for police or animal control to come and put the thing out of its misery, if you weren't going fast enough to kill it.

The same is true about small animals - they can jump out at any time. But on snow-covered roads, they are more dangerous to you if you try to avoid hitting them than if you just keep going. Especially don't swerve. You might be driving too fast if you can't safely come to a stop when an animal jumps out in front of you, or you might just have bad luck and timing.

Anyway, if you had to stop (or thought you had to stop) and got rear-ended, there is unfortunately not much you can do about the guy that was driving too close behind you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The introduced rats were a foodstuff for the Polynesian sailors who brought them to New Zealand.[1] The article mentions the exception of the bats, [edit (thanks!): and mentions stoats and ferrets being released to hunt rabbits, without specifically mentioning how the stoats] got to New Zealand. Looking up the issue,[2] it appears that several of the nastiest invasive species on New Zealand were brought in to be hunted for sport, which has turned out to be a mistake.

Where I live in central North America, I have seen and heard coyote quite near by, and I'm glad they are here, as they help cull the deer, which I have also seen at very close range in my neighborhood. (Once my third son and I happened to meet going opposite directions on our city trail just where my son had noticed a magnificent eight-point buck calmly browsing in the restored wild swamp alongside the trail.) Here it is actually important to kill native deer, as deer are the most lethal wild animal in the United States today.[3]

[1] [http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/concessions- and-p...](http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/concessions-and- permits/conservation-revealed/kiore-pacific-rat-polynesian-rat-lowres.pdf)

[2] [http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/mammals- introduced](http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/mammals-introduced)

[3] [http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most- da...](http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americas-most-dangerous)

<comment><USER12> The article suggests that stoats were brought over to try to control the rabbit population. A real forehead-slapper...

<comment><USER13> Their neighbours the Australians brought in the cane toad (Rhinella marina) to control the cane beetle.

<comment><USER14> Rabbits, foxes, water buffalo, camels..... the list is quite long, take your pick:

[http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive- species/...](http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive- species/feral-animals-australia)

<comment><USER15> I've never been able to find the footage again, but it was quite something - arid scrubland in the foreground, rabbit-proof fence across the middle, and orange sand from there to the horizon. On the other side of the fence was a boiling mass of furry bodies; rabbits trying to get into the scrub.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> One thing that the article fails to mention, and some comments here don't seem to understand, is that Environmental organisations such as Greenpeace NZ _sanction_ the fur trade in some NZ mammals (eg. the possum) as they are regarded as such a destructive pest.

My family has a high country farm in the south of the South Island and it used to be overrun with rabbits. Not cute; more like a biblical plague as there are no predators (aside from the occasional hawk). I recall driving up the farm road and having rabbits part in front of me like water. Crazy numbers.

Don't mistake a cavalier attitude to possums/rabbits/stoats/australians for lack of civilisation. It's just a different set of circumstances than what you may have experienced.

<comment><USER17> > possums/rabbits/stoats/australians

Australians. Huh?

<comment><USER16> Yep. Particularly Queenslanders, victorious Aussie Sporting teams, overly attractive bikini models and other non-kiwi things.

<comment><USER18> Good on you mate. Queenslander here. Wouldn't trade it for the world. Will see you next year in the World Cup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's a shame because you don't want to be cruel to Mammals who after all are pretty similar to us, however you also don't want to lose rare and endemic species. So its a moral dilemma, the problem is that 1080, and most poisons, are particularly horrible ways to die. It's not the animals fault that they are here, its purely our fault, yet the animals suffer.

Saying that I live next to [http://www.visitzealandia.com/](http://www.visitzealandia.com/) which is an inner city pest free zone in Wellington, since it was completed in the late nineties years ago the bird life in the area is amazing. It has about ten kilometres of fencing around the perimeter which is three metres tall and extends under ground.

<comment> Ono-Sendai I lived right beside it for a while, we had a lot of visiting birds (Tui mostly) singing in our garden.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Hopefully not ALL the mammals. New Zealand does have some native mammals. The short tailed bat [0]

[0] [http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/native- animals/bats/](http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/native-animals/bats/)

<comment><USER21> I hear there are also about 4 and a half million homo sapiens there, though presumably they are an introduced species.

<comment><USER22> This invasive species is slowly being relocated to Australia.

<comment><USER23> It would just be easier to reclassify NZ as Australian territory.

<comment><USER22> Being more serious NZ has the right to join as an Australian state when they want. It is really an historical accident that they never did.

<comment><USER23> I couldn't imagine they'd want to do that after all this time.

<comment><USER22> Australians and New Zealanders like to pretend that we are really different, but we are very similar. In reality we operate as a single country economically, but on the sporting field that we are two countries.

<comment><USER19> That is not reality at all, there is very close collaboration between the two countries but its like saying Canada and the US operate as a single country economically.

There are also significant differences ideologically between the societies as a stereotype.

<comment><USER22> New Zealand's economy maps closer to New South Wales' economy than NSW does to Western Australia's economy (these are Australian States). If you look on the back of any product for sale in Australia or New Zealand you will see they are made for both markets. Citizens from either country can go and work and live in either country without a visa. None of these apply to the USA and Canada.

Politically New Zealand and Australia are different, but I think a lot of that difference is due to Australian federation and our electoral systems. If New Zealand were to join as an Australian state and use the Australian system of preferential voting (instant runoff) I think we would see a convergence in politics. I don't see New Zealand joining the Australian federation anytime soon, but if there was a desire it could happen pretty easily.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Where I live in Dunedin the peninsula is the site of one of the few breeding colonies of yellow eyed penguins, and the only mainland alabtross colony in the world. They've eradicated possums back to the city limit.

The Aussie possums we've been infested with are not at all like their American namesakes, they make great coats, sadly the fur-is-murder people wont make exemptions for ecological devistation.

<comment><USER25> Greenpeace NZ unambiguously supports and advocates hunting possums, and selling their fur.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Sirocco was the bird that famously attempted to shag Mark Carwardine's head: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T1vfsHYiKY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T1vfsHYiKY)

</comment><comment><USER27> According to the wikipedia page for the "1080" pesticide [1], it can be toxic not only to mammals but also to birds and insects.

What if we invented a substance that was only toxic to mammals, perhaps by targeting their unique reproductive method? Could we use something like that to eradicate all mammals from New Zealand, while taking sufficient care to protect ourselves?

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

</comment><comment><USER28> Animals aren't the only pests, the hills around Wellington for example are filled with gorse, a horrible, horrible plant.

Would definitely like to send a Terminator back thru time to eliminate the fools who brought it.

<comment><USER13> Gorse, as I understand it, was brought to New Zealand to be used as fencing between farm fields.

<comment><USER29> I understood it was also because of the pretty yellow flowers and that it didn't grow so well in western Europe

<comment><USER30> It grows plenty well in western Europe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Given that the destructive mammals are already present, and number in the billions, wouldn't it be more efficient to introduce an extra layer of mammalian predators? That would get rid of the ones already present, or at least to keep their numbers down to manageable levels. It seems that these invasive species have become particularly destructive precisely because they are not subject to any native predators.

<comment><USER32> That was a reason for introducing some of the existing predators. It didn't work. The new predators also like the existing fauna. What other predators are left, which will kill the rats? Cats? That hasn't worked anywhere else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> For a minute there I thought New Zealand were about to give up all their sheep, and Wales would become the sheep rearing capital of the world!

<comment><USER34> I thought you were exaggerating (we have a very large stock here in Uruguay, thought we had them beat handily), but you're not:

"Figures just released from the June 2012 Survey of Agriculture and Horticulture in Wales, show the total number of sheep and lambs in Wales in June was nearly 8.9 million, with lamb numbers rising by nearly 5% to 4.6 million and ewe numbers rising slightly by 1.2 % to 4.2 million."

By comparison we have about 12 million sheep here in Uruguay, Argentina has 10 or 11 million, and New Zealand has about 40 million sheep.

"The country has the highest density of sheep per unit area in the world. For 130 years, sheep farming was the country's most important agricultural industry, but it was overtaken by dairy farming in 1987. Sheep numbers peaked in New Zealand in 1982 to 70 million and then dropped to about 40 million."

Area of Wales: 8,016 sq miles (20,761 km²) Area of Uruguay: 68,037 sq miles (176,215 km²) Area of New Zealand: 103,483 sq miles (268,021 km²) Area of Argentina: 1.074 million sq miles (2.78 million km²)

Uruguay usually looks up to New Zealand as a model to follow (similar population and economy).

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> The writing reminded me of Roald Dahl's "The Ratcatcher."

</comment><comment><USER36> This is interesting heading. Humans are essentially mammals. Will extinct Kiwis reign over these two islands once again?

</comment><comment><USER37> I hope the top on the list is Homo Sapiens

</comment><comment><USER38> _New Zealand's Apollo program_

Wiping out rats? The Apollo program? I know it's a small country, but wiping out rodents is both hopelessly petty and hopelessly grandiose at the same time. Spoiler: The mammals will win.

<comment><USER39> Wiping out rats is possible. While not exactly the same situation, the Canadian province of Alberta is rat-free due to an aggressive program to prevent and contain infestations [0].

[0] [http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agd...](http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex3441)

<comment><USER40> Alberta is not a very welcoming environment to the human-dependent Norway rats that article talks in the first place. It's a huge, empty area that, for those rats, is a barren wasteland with a few tiny oases of human population - <USER2> the Albertans _still_ have to constantly clean out new infestations.

New Zealand is vastly more welcoming to the invasive species it has. In a decade or three, they'll call it "good enough" on the mainland islands and spend a great deal of effort in perpetuity to keep pest levels under a modicum of control.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> It's good to see conservationists admit that their task is mostly killing. Too often people confuse conserving a species with being nice to animals. They're diametrically opposite ambitions. Conservationists sometimes try to tap into our "don't kill cute animals" feeling to support their cause, but have to do a 180 when it doesn't suit.

I once proposed to someone that the best way to prevent whales being killed was to kill them all. It's surely true, they can't be hunted if they're never even born. But his response was "you have no morals". Actually conservationism is an activity without morals.

<comment><USER42> > I once proposed to someone that the best way to prevent whales being killed > was to kill them all. It's surely true, they can't be hunted if they're > never even born. But his response was "you have no morals". Actually > conservationism is an activity without morals.

Okay... But I'm pretty sure a conservationists goal is not to make species go extinct.

There is a long run goal which is the survival of as many species and habitats as possible. Being nice animals is not diametrically opposed with being a conversationist, nor would a conversationist actually argue for killing all whales unless it had greater benefits for ocean ecosystems as a whole. You're ignoring the long-term consequences and only focusing on the actions themselves in calculating moral utility.

<comment><USER43> There's also the prickly moral issue that whales are not clearly non-sentient, on a similar level of consciousness to humans.</comment></comment></comment>