The Boy Who Heard Too Much - <AUTHOR> http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/29787673/the_boy_who_heard_too_much/print <comment><USER2> The acts of this individual demonstrated that he was unable to operate within the bounds of human society. 11 years is about right in relation to other sentences with the US justice system, but that presupposes that the US justice system is fair and proper.

I don't believe the purpose of prison is punishment. I think the US system of prisons is cruel, unusual and close to insane. People are regularly threatened with rape in prisons and a lot of average US citizens think this is perfectly acceptable. This unconstitutional system is terrible for our society, as it churns out repeat offenders.

Look at the Norwegian prison system for something that is sane. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/14/norway- prison-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/14/norway-prison-erwin- james)

<comment><USER3> According to the article, Norway has a mere three thousand prisoners out of a population of four million. I really don't think America (which incarcerates people at about ten times that rate) could afford Norwegian style prisons.

<comment><USER4> I don't think you can decouple the process of incarceration and the number of people incarcerated. If a functional penal system actually helps to curb society's fundamental problems rather than simply concentrating the undesirables, there's a feedback loop that affects the number of people incarcerated. In other words: fix the problem, don't just push it away.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This kid has major emotional and behavioral problems, and I don't think they're going away any time soon.

I didn't buy into the tone of the writing, which had a lot more pity and sympathy for him than I bet his victims have. And I found his self-image deeply tied to his "abilities" -- and it probably will be for life. And I also found this kid to be a cruel tyrant, ready to use whatever abilities he had to force other people to his will, laughing the entire time.

I'm not optimistic about this kid.

</comment><comment><USER6> 11 years is right in my opinion.

He physically abused people dozens of time, in the form of FBI coming to their house and beating them up as they arrested them.

Not too mention how many threats on people's lives?

The immense number of malicious intended calls definitely leads to a number like 11 years, at least.

<comment><USER7> Americans and their weird notions of justice. No interest in solving the problem. Just hide the problem behind bars.

Just give him a year, professional help and a (low-paying) job at the FBI or AT&T. Saves society pain & money and saves his life.

<comment><USER8> Modern Western penal systems assume that _everyone_ can be rehabilitated. They are in the state they are now because that isn't actually true. In the old days people understood this, and that's what penal colonies were for.

<comment><USER9> The modern US justice system, conversely, assumes that almost noone can be rehabilitated. At least, nobody that's committed anything resembling a serious crime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This guy is a completely vicious puke. He deserves everything he gets and a whole lot more.

Did you read the bit where he told a woman who wouldn't have phone sex with him that he would kill her baby by flushing it down a toilet? How do you think that made her feel?

</comment><comment><USER8> Kid had turned his talent to music, he coulda been the next Biggie. A man who got the girls, the money and the respect and no-one cared about his immense girth.

</comment><comment><USER11> I had a blind childhood friend who did a little "work" with the phone system (in the era of dial phones in a small rural area) and got caught making many long distance phone calls. A call by the phone company to his parents cleared the issue up. He had a much better family than Weigman, but the stress of a blind child eventually led the parents to divorce.

My blind friend used to follow me on his bicyle all over town, and he could navigate down his own street, up the driveway, using the sound made by the _trees_ to guide him.

What is interesting about this article is the talents we aren't using that blindness exposes.

</comment><comment><USER12> "As he listened in on the party lines, Weigman began pressing random numbers on his phone, just to see what would happen. Once he held down the star button and was surprised to hear a computerized voice say, "Moderator on." He had no idea what it meant. But when he hit the pound key, the voice suddenly began ticking off the private phone number of every person in the chat room."

Security FAIL! Would it have been that hard to require a NIP for access to that feature?!

\---

"If he heard a supervisor's voice once, he could imitate it with eerie precision when calling one of the man's underlings."

Why can't computers do that yet? Are we close?

</comment><comment><USER13> I wonder how he kept track of all the phone company employees he gained the trust of, etc. Being blind he probably couldn't write things down easily.

I also wonder if he could have avoided being caught indefinitely by keeping track of information better and taking more precautions. How long would it take a superintelligent computer to effectively take over the world with nothing more than phone access?

</comment><comment><USER14> Wired had a writeup of this guy last year. Pretty interesting: [http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/02/blind_hacker?...](http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/02/blind_hacker?currentPage=all)

</comment><comment><USER15> _In June, he was sentenced to 11 years in prison_

What is it with the US justice system throwing the book at hackers. Is there something deep and Freudian that I'm missing?

<comment><USER16> Did you read the article? Obviously, this is a rhetorical question since your quote is from near the end. But seriously, after doing all that stuff, is your suggestion that he should... what... get off with a stern verbal warning? Because that's not just hacking into the local payroll computer, "poking around", and harmlessly leaving. Those are, like, _crimes_. In fact, if you fill out the quote you cut off:

"Last January, he pleaded guilty to two felony counts of conspiracy to _commit fraud and intimidate a federal witness_. In June, he was sentenced to 11 years in prison."

He didn't even plead guilty to any computer-related change, though perhaps he plea-bargained them away (article doesn't say). He was warned before he was of age.

What more do you want, exactly?

"Throwing the book at hackers" was when you could get 400 years for (essentially) "annoying the phone companies", or get hit with a umpty millions in "damages" for hacking into a computer vaguely in the vicinity of valuable data. Or get hit with that for trying to report a vulnerability, or even just accidentally stumbling onto something. Those days are, if not over, certainly on the wane. It's not being charged with things you actually did, then convicted of them, then sentenced in accordance with that just like any other non-hacker.

<comment><USER17> This is the problem with the US justice system - it's about vengeance rather than any utilitarian benefit.

<comment><USER18> The threat of vengeance can provide some utilitarian benefit.

<comment><USER19> It may. But it may also engender more problems than it solves.

Don't forget that the burden of maintaining the prison system is on the shoulders of the rest of society.

America has an absolutely amazing number of people in prison at any given time, also the chances of becoming a prisoner in your lifetime border on the medieval compared to the rest of the developed world.

<comment><USER20> >also the chances of becoming a prisoner in your lifetime border on the medieval compared to the rest of the developed world.

That implies that the imprisoning is arbitrary, which it isn't. If you don't commit major crimes then your chance of being imprisoned is near zero.

<comment><USER19> > If you don't commit major crimes then your chance of being imprisoned is > near zero.

You think so ?

Three strikes law ?

Minor drugs infractions ?

stuff like this:

[http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/topless_woman_poli...](http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/topless_woman_police_entrapment_sting/)

Think again:

<http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1001548>

<comment><USER3> The second link is very interesting. What crimes against "public order" are people committing? Wikipedia suggests that prostitution, statutory rape, and DUI are all in the category. (I would guess that DUI comprises the bulk of their public order crime number then, but maybe they count that under drug crime instead?)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Wonga chased debt with fake lawyers, says FCA - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28015456 <comment><USER4> 22 comments. 20 about usury/rates/APR. 2 about fake law firms (the subject of the article).

<comment><USER5> I always wondered if it was a viable to send letters pretending to be lawyers. Seems like it is on the cusp of legality. Maybe quite different in the US?

<comment><USER6> I think what might (or at least should) tip them over the edge here is that they added on fees for these imaginary law firms to their customers' bills. NAL, but sounds like plain, old fashioned fraud to me.

Edit: I see I'm not the only one thinking this: [http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/06/25/wonga- committe...](http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/06/25/wonga-committed-a- fraud-why-are-they-being-allowed-to-continue-in-business/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't understand the hatred for Wonga. They lend to people with a high risk of default and so have to charge accordingly.

<comment><USER8>
      I don't understand the hatred for Wonga.

So, there's this idea called 'usury', which Wikipedia [1] defines as "the practice of making unethical or immoral monetary loans [...] A loan may be considered usurious because of excessive or abusive interest rates or other factors".

People have been condemning it as immoral since about 1,200 BC (vedic texts) and continue to do so in the present day.

When I visit Wonga [2] I am offered a loan at "Representative 5853% APR" and if that isn't usury, what is? (Wonga contend APR is a poor measure, as they charge a mere 22% in interest and fees over 18 days, which happens to be 5853% annualised)

About the only good thing you can say about Wonga is they don't literally break debtors legs.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury) [2] [https://www.wonga.com/](https://www.wonga.com/)

<comment><USER7> But Wonga isn't for lending money for a year. It's for lending money for a few days or weeks.

It's like going to Avis to rent a car for a week and them having to quote you the cost for a years rental.

<comment><USER9> So? The cost of money doesn't increase.

<comment><USER10> The cost depends on the counterparty risk, and at the same time the overall liquidity to provide that type of loan is not provided by your every day bank. I don't think that Wonga has a great reputation, I don't like their business, but they are providing a service no one else is.

<comment><USER11> Eh, If I offered to kick people in the head at £10 a go, I'd be "providing a service no one else is". If it's legal, ethical or something that people will pay for is a different matter.

<comment><USER10> > Eh, If I offered to kick people in the head at £10 a go, I'd be "providing a > service no one else is".

Don't be silly. People use Wonga because people need very short term loans. Full stop. Barclays, Lloyds, HSBC, Santander, RBS, etc, do not provide that service (and they won't).

<comment><USER11> Some people need crack too, but we can decide to make it illegal to provide that service if we as a society don't think that meeting it is a good idea.

<comment><USER10> Thanks, I'll leave it here [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/539027-never- argue-with-stu...](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/539027-never-argue-with- stupid-people-they-will-drag-you-down)

<comment><USER11> That's such a persuasive argument!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The issue with Pay day loans are that they are by their nature unfair, and they're run by morally dubious people who have no issue with profiting from this unfairness.

Therefore they target people who don't understand what the impact will be with slick marketing. These naive, often uneducated people are fooled into thinking they're only borrowing £10 to pay for nappies, but they're really borrowing the potential for financial catastrophe.

In a truly civilised society, pay day loans would still exist, but they'd be run as a special financial instrument of government, and be means tested with sliding scale interest rates and all profits would be put into educating these people about finance awareness.

This way the idiot who doesn't have the money to buy the next CoD on the day of release, but must have it, would pay a high interest rate, but the mother who needs nappies would maybe get the loan as specific vouchers at a much much lower interest rate.

</comment><comment><USER13> PayPal does or used to do the same thing in the UK. Three years ago, I received threatening letters from a non-existent lawyer company when my PayPal balance went ~£50 below 0.

<comment><USER14> Does the FCA know? I would definitely take the opportunity to give paypal a punch when due

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm shocked (Shocked!) that a payday loan company would do such a thing.

<comment><USER16> mm so as this is voted down how many ycombinator payday loan companies are there :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wonga is backed by Index Ventures, who otherwise have a very fine reputation (they are major backers of Dropbox, for example)

Companies like Wonga should really be legislated out of existence. I am disappointed that a reputable VC like Index Ventures would want to be associated with a company like Wonga.

</comment><comment><USER18> My opinion on Wonga and other similar companies is that the usury laws which were repealed in the mid 19th century should be reinstated. In those times convicted usurers danced on the end of a noose, but I'm not suggesting that be used as a punishment these days. Mere imprisonment is probably a good enough deterrent.

<comment><USER19> In defence of Wonga they seem popular with their million or so users - <USER3> have a NetPromotor score of around 70% vs around 0% for the regular UK banking industry. ( [http://www.openwonga.com/uploads/openwonga_statistics_oct_20...](http://www.openwonga.com/uploads/openwonga_statistics_oct_2013.pdf) ). Also for better or worse they don't lend generally to the destitute - <USER3> lend to people with normal income with something like an unexpected boiler to replace and tell the genuinely hard up to go away.</comment></comment>


Copyright troll Righthaven achieves spectacular "fair use" loss - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/copyright-troll-righthaven-achieves-spectacular-fair-use-loss.ars

<comment><USER2> This is a fascinating ruling. It's almost like the judge invoked a "don't be a d _ck" penalty against them. Seems like if the original copyright holder had filed suit (instead of Righthaven), if they went through the standard request for takedown first, if there was some sort of damage that could have been proven (possible Google issues are just one possibility even if $ not being made off by site reprinting article), if there was some kind of actual monetary damages (in some ways just wasting the courts time if results in $0) -- any combination of that and it could have gone other way. Also_ really* leaves you wondering how competent the Righthaven attorneys are.

Another very nice piece by Nate Anderson.</comment>


We bring 3D to the web - <AUTHOR> http://sketchfab.com/browse/faved <comment><USER2> For those asking what's special about this - the design of the UI is pretty top notch. It "feels" great, works well on desktops and tablets, and has a great selection of content. I wrote it up for Wired if anyone wants more background: <http://www.wired.com/design/2012/10/sketchfab-embedded-cad/>

<comment><USER3> It's also optimized for retina displays. Those thumbnails look incredible on a Retina MBP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a great site with lots of interesting models, but I'm genuinely curious about how the Hacker News community is going to help you get into YC W13. What are you asking us to do? (I really don't mean to be snarky, I'm just not sure what you want here other than page views)

<comment><USER5> I think the YC app should have a crowdfunded question. "How many people have you convinced to buy your non-existent product based on a shiny video and peer hype?"

<comment><USER6> ahah good one, their product is live apparently

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> <https://tinkercad.com> is another one that I have been using lately. It seems to be focused on editing more, but the community and library are quite good as well.

I'm always amazed at how well WebGL works - I used to think that 3D intensive applications would be one thing that would/could not be converted from desktop app to web app.

<comment><USER8> I've been using tinkercad for a few weeks and I absolutely love it. The editor is amazing.

I'm not really sure I see the point of the original post though, since it is just a viewer and not an editor. tinkercad's ability to import, edit, and export stl is extremely compelling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> <http://grabcad.com/>

<comment><USER10> Am I missing something? Grabcad while great does not have webgl based viewer like sketchfab. Also, it seems to be sketchfab supports wide number of formats.

<comment><USER11> <http://www.bevelity.com/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm a bit confused. Is this a sharing site? Every model on the site can be viewed on the site, or embedded in another site, or the more technically adept can simply open up Firebug, see where the assets are on the servers and download them directly. This seems like a great way for digital artists to loose control over their creations, because there's no protections for them. Please illuminate what I'm not seeing here...

<comment><USER13> In my understanding, they are building a Dropbox/Trello/Deviantart hybrid specific to 3D Models. In my view they are coming up with an MVP that is somehow promising on these lines. How money will flow in [i.e., why power users would pay sketchfab instead of relying on the whole bunch of existing 3D library services] still looks to me a bit of a cryptical point, but they have probably yet to focus on this with some serious customer development.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Awesome site, this one is particularly freaky though: <https://sketchfab.com/show/9Por2SANpJ7ZjLfnyilD56UxLP8>

(spin the model around until you're looking at the back of his head, watch how his face always looks like it's looking straight at you, i believe this is a known psychological effect but some quick googling didn't turn up any results)

<comment><USER15> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORoTCBrCKIQ>

<comment><USER16> And more details here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-Face_illusion>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Nice UX and some good sample content. I'd put in a warning, though, since when I clicked through to one of the models it hung Firefox. Probably a WebGL issue of some kind, but since I've got a high-end machine I wouldn't have expected that. People could click through to one of your 3D views not realizing that it might tank their browser and lose unsaved content in other tabs.

</comment><comment><USER18> <http://3dfile.io> (powered by teamplatform.com) supports almost all major CAD formats.

</comment><comment><USER13> As an applicant myself to YC W13, and leveraging on a very related problem [D'oh! :)], I totally vouch for SketchFab. I showed it to most of my friends working in 3d as soon as it hit HN a while ago, and I always had positive feedback. I would use it myself if I worked in 3D design!

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Verold I think is another company doing something similar.

<comment><USER20> Here is a link for anyone interested, <http://studio.verold.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> TeamUp - www.getteamup.com - likewise provides a WebGL preview of 3D assets, but is also paired to a realtime production renderer. Disclaimer: I work there.

<comment><USER21> We're currently in closed beta, but here's a render of the tie fighter with a couple of droids from 3Dtin - <http://imgur.com/pHPtI>

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> another one is <http://www.solidworks.com/default.htm>

</comment><comment><USER23> is that site built with zurb foundation?

<comment><USER24> It does not look like it to me. No .row's, for one.

<comment><USER23> yeah, i should have looked at source #lazy</comment></comment></comment>


Vampire Weekend's Mutinous Muse - <AUTHOR> http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2010/08/vampire-weekend-scandal-201008 <comment><USER2> >>"And I was like, 'Yeah, that's strange. That's me, many years ago,'" says Kennis, who was momentarily stunned by the sight of all that beautiful hair. Three weeks earlier she had completed chemotherapy for breast cancer, and her hair was just starting to grow back."

I'm going to avoid the diatribe on whether or not one should own the recorded pattern of electromagnetic energy reflected off of the surface of an "owned" object (and all of the implications that has for localization maps), and simply highlight that in a beautiful ironic twist, VW actually brought Ms. Kennis "a moment [she] thought [she'd] forgotten."</comment>


California Is Drilling for Water That Fell to Earth 20,000 Years Ago - <AUTHOR> http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/03/california-pumping-water-fell-earth-20000-years-ago <comment><USER2> All of this reminds me of a trip I took about 10 years ago to Palm Desert. Even then I was stunned by opulence of their water use and the utter disregard for sustainability. It's a city built in the desert that regularly reaches 100+ degrees, and yet every house had a bright green grass with sprinklers running constantly. One of the main attractions was their huge amounts of golf courses, that were of course always kept green and watered. I guess it makes sense, a third of the population is 65+, they won't be around when the consequences of their unconscionable actions really hit.

<comment><USER3> _I guess it makes sense, a third of the population is 65+, they won 't be around when the consequences of their unconscionable actions really hit._ Oddly enough, I live in a university town in the Midwest, in a neighborhood with quite a few elderly residents. I've noticed quite a few elderly people driving hybrid cars.

<comment><USER4> There might be a little overlap there with elderly drivers looking for cars that have more assistive features. (In other words, newer and more computerized.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One major problem that needs to be tackled is that much of California (and the world) is still using flood irrigation[1], which wastes massive amounts of water to runoff and evaporation. Fortunately this is starting to be tackled due to higher water costs and government subsidies. (But of course it's only part of the problem, and these subsidies carry some moral hazard[2]. Also, it's interesting to note that not all of the water "wasted" in less efficient methods of irrigation is actually wasted.[3])

[1] [http://www.mullerranch.com/making_news/sacbee_drip_2_2014.ht...](http://www.mullerranch.com/making_news/sacbee_drip_2_2014.html)

[2] [http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2014/world/conserve- wa...](http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2014/world/conserve-water- california-not-increase-supply/)

[3] [http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5942](http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5942)

<comment><USER6> I was in the Central Valley the other week and asked my dad about these little tanks that had popped up on farms in the area. He told me they were part of new drip irrigation systems. So things are changing slowly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> One solution to producing water is desalination. You can effectively get unlimited amount of water, but you pay for it in energy. A quick Google search finds that there's a desalination plant under construction in Carlsbad, California.

<comment><USER8> There's also the problem of what to do with the high salinity waste water that is generated from the process. Simply dumping it back into the ocean can cause environmental problems.

<comment><USER9> I have a hard time understanding this would be a problem, considering the scale, i.e. how much water there is in an ocean.

Let's say we take the amount of water mentioned in a link in another comment, and desalinate 54 million cubic feet of clean water per day in a single plant. That is 204 400 cubic meters per day. It is a huge amount, but we're talking about operating this plant at depth of 1 km. 204 400 cubic meters is 0.0002 cubic kilometers. The California Current flows at around 0.25 m/s which means that the cubic kilometer of water around the desalination plant will be completely exchanged almost once per hour, 21.6 times in a day.

I would say that the salt that you take from desalinated water is an entirely insignificant problem when just left in the ocean, even locally. It's a drop in the ocean. Most likely the saltiness of water will vary a lot more due to other reasons (e.g. how much water evaporates locally).

Other aspects of access to more water in places like California are probably a much more relevant environmental problem. That water is mostly going to be used as irrigation water in agriculture. This will flush a huge amount of earth particles to the ocean. Literally, it will eventually wash away the agricultural land, unless it is used sparingly. When doing that, it puts additional earth material in streams and rivers.

And then there are the issues of fertilizers, pesticides etc for the ever increased volume of agricultural production.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Water waste is everywhere. In deserts we water golf courses. In cities we hose down sidewalks to reduce dust and dirt. A huge percentage of the food we produce that uses water to generate gets disposed of. Then there's this:

"Initial estimates are that when fully operational, the Utah NSA Data Center will use as much as 1.7 million gallons of water per day."

<comment><USER11> where does that water go? evaporated?

<comment><USER12> Yes

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> And South Dakota is injecting toxic chemicals into theirs because "we won't ever need that water anyways".

</comment><comment><USER14> All these companies are buying up rights to fresh water sources - it's like the next oil crisis.

Maybe instead of the US invading other countries for oil we will have people coming to us for water.

</comment><comment><USER15> Wonder what it would be like 30 years from now with all the water problems.

<comment><USER16> Julian Simon: Bumping against any limit will increase the price of any resource in short supply, leading ingenious humans to find new supply sources or substitutes.

<comment><USER17> Nothing like paying $4/gallon for water.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Reminds me of the film "Interstellar" with dust storm. And this is already happening every year in Beijing and its neighboring towns. Does this "bad" human cultural behavior push our scientific researcher further? It certainly does for the 200 yrs of technological advances.

<comment><USER19> Well desertification is a very interesting problem. But basically there is natural desertification and there is accelerated desertification caused by the growth of population (misuse of lands, overuse of farm lands, deforestation, rapid growth of population, etc). In northern part of China, the government and locals plant trees to slow down and even able to recover lands from desertification. But the progress is slow...

although South America is still full of trees, scientists are already seeing rapid desertification because we are destroying the nature.

<comment><USER20> Our appetite for beef is causing the destruction of forests. If we could tone down our meat consumption, we stand a chance to save tue environment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Not a secret. Scientists have already found that there are more water underneath the deep earth of Earth if you just search "water under earth". However, digging is very hard. But essentially deep in the Earth there are copious amount of water.

</comment><comment><USER21> Strangely I am concerned about the dryness will more likely trigger an earthquake there.

Can they somehow transport sea water to inland? if there is a need for that I'm sure CA will have some startup working on that.

<comment><USER22> Only if there's a social angle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> And this means that soon, many of us will be eating food grown with 20,000 year old water.

<comment><USER24> if water in bottles expires in a few years i can't even imagine how bad this unpackaged water will have turned. this is totaly outragous

<comment><USER2> pretty sure water in water bottles only 'expire' because of the plastic leaching into the water over time. "Unpackaged" water has been sitting in the earth for thousands of years, as evidenced by this article, and is perfectly safe to drink.

<comment><USER25> I think your humor detector needs tuning.

<comment><USER2> Oh, yeah, you're probably right. I just thought they were bad at English.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Never Solved, Cornell University's Dorm Fire Has Become One Man's Obsession - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/nyregion/never-solved-a-college-dorm-fire-has-become-one-mans-obsession.html <comment><USER2> > Who tries to get a Ph.D. in six years?" said Marguerite Waller, a Phud who > became a professor of comparative literature and gender and sexuality > studies. "It's insane."

This isn't explained well, but I guess they meant getting a PhD while skipping/racing through the bachelors?

<comment><USER3> Yes, they mean to get a PhD 6 years after you graduate high school.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [http://archive.is/hfQxX](http://archive.is/hfQxX)

</comment><comment><USER5> that was painful to read through

<comment><USER6> Out of curiosity, what drives you to push through it to the end?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Currently an undergrad at CU. Had never heard of this before. Interesting article.

</comment><comment><USER8> If ever a tldr was needed, this is it.

<comment><USER8> Ok here's what I got:

A long time ago people died in a fire at Cornell. It was probably arson. They never figured out who did it.

Later, some guy got obsessed with figuring it out, and thinks he's got it. This other guy seems real suspicious. But there's no proof.

So the reporter went to talk to the suspicious guy, and he didn't want to talk about the fire.

So I guess we'll never know.

<comment><USER9> This must be one of those "digests of digests" Bradbury warned us about. While we're on the topic of arson.</comment></comment></comment>


An 'Exosuit' That Boosts Endurance on the Trail - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/15/751096093/these-experimental-shorts-are-an-exosuit-that-boosts-endurance-on-the-trail <comment><USER2> For those looking to learn more the full study is linked from the NPR report: [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6454/668](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6454/668)

"We show that a portable exosuit that assists hip extension can reduce the metabolic rate of treadmill walking at 1.5 meters per second by 9.3% and that of running at 2.5 meters per second by 4.0% compared with locomotion without the exosuit. These reduction magnitudes are comparable to the effects of taking off 7.4 and 5.7 kilograms during walking and running, respectively, and are in a range that has shown meaningful athletic performance changes."

Note that "The entire exosuit weighs 5.0 kg, with 91% of the total system mass carried at the waist," so it might be a few more revisions until this is very practical, but it's still super interesting work!

<comment><USER3> Are you subtracting 5KG from 7.4? I don't think you should. The tests take the weight into account, given the test subjects are wearing the device. IOW, if the device was weightless we would expect energy decrease corresponding to a 12.4kg weight reduction.

<comment><USER2> I actually skimmed through the paper but wasn't able to determine if it did take the weight of the exo into account. Do you have a reference for how it specifies that?

Also, I saw the BOM in the supplementary material (using 2 x 500g 3700mAh 6S LiPos; 160Wh total), but did not see data on what the range/battery life actually was in the system. That seems like that should be in there somewhere, but doesn't look like it's mentioned anywhere in the paper.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It disappoints, but doesn't surprise me yo see the immediate links to military use in this article and elsewhere.

I was recently on a trip with my nearly 100 y/o grandmother, who up until this point has resisted using a wheelchair. Walking, and especially stairs ended up being too much and we had to borrow wheelchairs, catch shuttles to get around. If she had even a modest mechanical assist she could have traveled with probably just a cane.

<comment><USER5> I have a friend with MS who struggling and will soon end up in a wheelchair, priority order from the article:

1\. Military 2\. "weekend warriors" 3\. Help people with medical issues such as multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease to move more easily

<comment><USER6> Formally targeting people with medical issues makes your device a "medical device" and adds extensive certification delays. If you make something that's "totally just for weekend warriors" but it's useful for people with medical issues, they.. can still use it, but since it's not being marketed as a "medical device" the onerous FDA approval process isn't invoked.

<comment><USER7> For practical examples to examine scalability of prices, consider cooling vests, a vest you wear that circulates cooler water to keep you comfy.

Weekend warrior products run around $200. I am toying with the idea of buying this or making my own to take hikes in hot weather. Strictly hobby/fun use.

"CoolShirt(tm)" products for operating room surgeons to wear under lead vests or whatever are probably more reliable, easier to autoclave, likely more durable, but cost $1500. I don't know why surgeon's need lead vests. Alien autopsies I guess.

I can't find the price for cooling machines for surgical patients but I imagine the liability insurance would triple the cost of the surgeon's clothing, maybe $4500 for a medical product? OF course most of the time patients would have an ice towel thrown on them not a wearable vest, but whatever.

<comment><USER8> Lead vests are worn to reduce radiation doses from radiological exams performed during surgery (to guide the procedure / monitor something etc.).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Long distance hiker here. This is not useful on the trail on two fundamental levels:

-energy is seldom the limiting factor in high mileage days. Typically it is a combination of joint pain and feet swell/bruising. A robot will simply remove some of your control over those primary factors.

\- the chemical storage of energy in batteries is nowhere close to human efficiency, so you will never pay for the weight of this thing. Seriously, we drill holes in our toothbrush handle to get total base equipment weight < 8 lbs. It is only at these weights that we come close to our limits. Maybe a day hike on one battery would still have benefit, but one-shot day hikes have nothing to do with endurance hiking.

<comment><USER10> Well, soldiers carry over 10 times the weight you're carrying; the increased weight might be a bigger problem than joint and foot pain (not to mention fatigue from fighting, or being up for 2 days crossing enemy territory).

<comment><USER11> Wow, some people-not-even-worth-of-insults have downvoted your perfectly fine and informative comment. 8 lbs is not even the load of typical long-distance hiker. It's only very small minority who have those minuscule loads, and their rationale is most often than not just lifestyle choice. I have done hundreds of continuous miles with about 60 lbs many times over the years and experienced no joint problems (this is very personal thing). My feet tend to suffer most in the long run even with good boots so I typically limit the distance covered in a day to 20 miles.

In the army we made 40 miles with about 80 lbs load with basically no rest and that was tough but doable (and not even tough compared to what some other people must go through in the army). Heck, the basic assault rifle we were issued weighted that 8 lbs. That is just ridiculous load for hiking.

I honestly thought that people drilling their toothbrush handles did not actually exist. I have heard numerous times someone joking that "choosing low weight equipment or no some equipment at all can be beneficial but once you start drilling your toothbrush handles it's time to stop" implying that no-one actually drills them. I have always hiked without toothbrush (I used to forget it, nowadays I just don't bother, still having perfect tooth though).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I was expecting a new evolution of the unpowered exosuits like [1] that have similar performance enhancement without needing motors and batteries. This is interesting, but the gains seem like they will be minimal for the weight addition until battery tech improves significantly.

[1] [https://www.embs.org/scientists-develop-an-unpowered- exoskel...](https://www.embs.org/scientists-develop-an-unpowered-exoskeleton/)

<comment><USER13> Idle thought: Is a bicycle an unpowered exoskeleton? What if you clip in to it?

<comment><USER14> Do you ride on it, or does it ride on you? Is an exoskeleton a vehicle?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Does anyone remember those ...I don't know what to call them, they attached to your legs, and had curved metal bands that you stood on, about a meter off the ground, and the bands were springy. Wearing a pair of these things you could run at some crazy speed, bounding down the street.

I can't think of any search terms that aren't too generic.

<comment><USER16> Look for "running stilts"

<comment><USER17> _Jumping_ stilts - apparently also known as bocking/powerbocking:

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Sort of OT, but I can never seem to get the text-only npr.org to work for articles on HN, it just redirects me back to the text site homepage... Are only a subset of articles available on it?

</comment><comment><USER19> Plain text version: [https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=751096093](https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=751096093)

</comment><comment><USER20> This is fascinating. It never occurred to me to mechanically boost running at the hip/thighs level, I was always imagining the boost happening on the lower part of the legs.

<comment><USER21> Long-distance running is more hip and thigh intensive than anything else, so it makes sense to me (an armchair expert).

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Break-even? It weighs 11lbs, and is the equivalent of reducing a runner's weight by 12lbs. So all this gadgetry to effectively lose 1 pound?

<comment><USER23> No, the 12lb figure takes its own weight into account.

<comment><USER22> Really? I didn't see that mentioned.

<comment><USER24> You can infer it easily enough, the weights are based on the reduction in energy use. It doesn't say that the reduction in energy use is like shedding 1 pound while running, it says it's like shedding 12 pounds while running.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The coolest part, in my opinion, is the exterior cabling. My mind is spinning with alternative configurations to do lots of different things passively using this technique.

</comment><comment><USER26> Doesn't that defeat the entire point of fitness training?

<comment><USER27> I read an article recently talking about how e-bike users get the same amount of exercise as normal bikers because they tend to ride farther and more frequently. Same thing would likely happen with this.

<comment><USER28> link to article?

<comment><USER29> I think it's probably this link which has been in the news recently [https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S259019821930017X](https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S259019821930017X)

<comment><USER30> Please don't linke to elsevier after all they have "done" for the scientific community.

<comment><USER29> Feel free not to follow the links - but please don't tell others what to do and not do.

<comment><USER5> Politely asking people to stop supporting industries that hurt society is one of the ways we make society better; he asked, not told.

Ironically you are doing the exact same thing, politely asking them to stop doing something you don't like.

<comment><USER31> Maybe it would've been more constructive to link to the sci-hub copy of the paper, rather than complaining?

<comment><USER5> Asking somebody to stop supporting terrible institutions isn't complaining. Maybe you could help them find the link instead of complaining that they didn't?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I wonder where the power comes from? How long does it last?

<comment><USER33> The Supplementary Materials [0] contains an Excel file containing the Bill of Materials.

The power source seems to be surprisingly small. 2x 3.7 Ahr 6s LiPo Batteries.

[0] [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2019/08/14/365....](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2019/08/14/365.6454.668.DC1)

<comment><USER34> 3.7Ah * (6 * 3.7w) * 2 = 25,4W * 2 = 50,8W. That is a small amount. My calculations was off by a magnitude. Spotlight calculator is acting weird.

<comment><USER35> Does it have some sort of impact cushioning with regen? You might only need a small store of its mostly being recharged by the regen.

(No I haven't read the OP.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> How long until I can go full Elysium?

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm amazed/skeptical that science could add something to millions of years of evolution and make it more efficient.

<comment><USER38> It already has: hip/knee replacements, surgeries to repair where human body couldn't do so well, antibiotics to supplement the immune system, immune- boosters to boost it, iodine added to salt, sunglasses, sunscreen... There are literally hundreds of ways science is adding to our evolution by improving our bodies' biochemistry.

<comment><USER39> I've heard Titanium (like used n joint replacements) is actually weaker than bones. It's better than not having the surgery, but you are not Wolverine.

<comment><USER40> You can't really compare bone and titanium in terms of strength. Bone is strong in compression but weak in tension and extremely weak in shear. Titanium is slightly weaker in compression but dramatically stronger in tension and shear.

Bone works great until it fails catastrophically (ie it fractures, breaks, and shatters) while titanium will begin bending long before it breaks. The latter is generally preferred in engineering structures, but since a human can heal its bones, the sudden failure is an acceptable compromise for consistent performance even at high loads.

Finally, bone weakens as we age, as does the body's ability to heal itself. Eventually wear and tear will make joints highly uncomfortable and the potential damage from otherwise minor injuries significantly greater. Titanium holds up well in the body over human timespans, and our ability to replace titanium components far exceeds our ability to artificially regenerate bone.

There are good reasons why evolution favored a composite like bone for our structural elements, but if you could magically replace your skeleton with one made of titanium once you were past your prime, it would be an unambiguous upgrade.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36821582 <comment><USER4> I think for many millennials, the conclusion of this article doesn't come as a surprise. As a member between the Gen X and the millennial crowd, I've certainly seen how much harder people just a few years younger than me have it as well as how much easier for those slightly older.

Older generations don't realize that their wealth is primarily built up in what is really an elaborate ponzi scheme of sorts, money which is really borrowed from future generations.

<comment><USER5> Stagnating wages, rapidly increasing house prices, bad terms for renters, increasing university costs.

If I were 20 I'd consider working remote and just go live in a much cheaper country. You could get a boomer lifestyle yet!

<comment><USER6> As an X-er watching the millenials and the boomers lobbing grenades at each other, it amuses me that the millenial argument sounds like this: "Those greedy boomers have fucked up the world for everyone else with their overly lavish and unsustainable lifestyles... and they won't let us into their cushy club!"

Point of fact is that if you were to give the choice between today's 20-year- old lifestyle and the same in 1970, you'd be insane to choose 1970, _especially_ if you were a minority or a woman. Sure, houses are cheaper in `70, but the jobs are much more menial, life is less comfortable, medicine is less advanced (particularly pain medication), social opportunities are much more stratified, entertainment is much harder to get, communication is considerably more limited, shopping times are much more limited, so on and so forth. Summing up the differences between now and then as merely "houses and uni costs" is basically just propaganda.

<comment><USER7> The factual errors in your argument are extreme.

Working class wages were proportionately higher in 1970. Drawing a dividing line is hard, but somewhere between 1970 and 1980, wage gains became decoupled from productivity increases.

Medicine quite simply hasn't advanced significantly since 1970. _Access_ to medicine by the underserved has, and accounts for much of increases in outcomes, as well as reduced environmental polutants and healthier lifestyles: clean air, clean water, unleaded petrol, lead-free paint, reduced smoking, and reduced alcohol consumption.

"Lifestyle" shopping was only just being invented at about this time -- shopping as recreation largley didn't exist. "Amazon" was called "Sears, Roebuck", you could buy a house, or a bed, or a wardrobe, with a 100% satisfaction guarantee.

Communications and entertainment are about the _only_ area with significant improement, though I'd argue the quality of news coverage 1970 - 1980 was far higher than today -- most cities had multiple local papers with detailed coverage, and newsmagazines weren't the joke they are today. Television was more limited and video didn't exist, but movie theaters were much more common (and cheaper), and live performances easier to find. There was also a form of entertainment and information called "books", freely available in these terminal service devices called "libraries".

You've failed to account for decreased labour union participation (stronger job security), general life and housing security, highly subsidised educational opportunities, the burgeoning of opportunities resulting from the 1950s and 1960s Civil Rights movement, the long boom in opportunity in California (offsetting the decline of the rust belt), affordable air conditioning making life in the southeast comfortable for the first time, and the fact that in 1970, the advances of the next 30 years were rapidly approaching. I (and others) see the information revolution as largely played out -- its peak period seemed to be ~1995 - 2005.

Sources: varied, though Robert Gordon's _The Rise and Fall of American Growth_ covers much of the changes in lifestyle, transport, health, communications, and work, from 1870 - 2015. It's especially damning on info/comms technologies excepting 1995-2005, and healthcare since 1970. Thomas Piketty's _Capital in the 21st Century_ is one of many books addressing the rise in inequality, see also Anthony Atkinson's _Inequality_.

<comment><USER8> > Medicine quite simply hasn't advanced significantly since 1970

This is not true. Here are just 3 examples:

1\. Childhood cancer - Less than 50% 5 year survival in 1970 vs greater than 80% 5 year survival now. [http://www.cancer.gov/types/childhood-cancers/child- adolesce...](http://www.cancer.gov/types/childhood-cancers/child-adolescent- cancers-fact-sheet)

2\. Anything dealing with the brain including diagnosis and treatment. Before CT and MRI - neurologists and neurosurgeons where operating blind. CT and MRI combined with computer technology allow the surgeon to plan and execute a much safer and gentler approach. In addition, during this time, our knowledge of practical neuro-anatomy has increased and enabled much better surgical approaches.

3\. Low birthweight/premature infant mortality - We are much better at saving low birthweight / premature infants. See [http://www.hrsa.gov/healthit/images/mchb_infantmortality_pub...](http://www.hrsa.gov/healthit/images/mchb_infantmortality_pub.pdf)

I would call these significant medical advances.

If you are talking about public health advances as opposed to medical advances, then actually good nutrition, good sanitation, and elimination of environmental toxins is probably responsible for almost the entire improvement in life expectancy. However, this has been truethroughout history and is not something new since the 1970's.

<comment><USER7> Overal LE increased at twice the rate 1900-1950 as 1950-2000. Source: Gordon 2016.

One of the NYTime health reporters had a statistc in a 1990s book that 85% of human L.E. improvements were from public health, not diect medical, meaasures. Laurie Garret IIRC.

[https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/12627.Laurie_Garrett](https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/12627.Laurie_Garrett)

"In all, 86 per cent of the increased life expectancy was due to decreases in infectious diseases. And the bulk of the decline in infectious disease deaths occurred prior to the age of antibiotics. Less than 4 per cent of the total improvement in life expectancy since 1700s can be credited to twentieth- century advances in medical care."

― Laurie Garrett, Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health

Intensive methods have worked in some areas. Sanitation, clean water, waste disposal, nutrition, vaccinations, hazard and toxin removal, and general preventive care -- all the nonsexy stuff, matter far more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Young people in developed nations are the next wave to get hammered by globalization. The capital markets aggressive search for efficiency will leave no developed world worker unscathed until they are all at parity with developing nations. But if it's any consolation they aren't the only ones. The only difference is that most of the baby boomers made it into the asset class before globalization was in full swing.

<comment><USER10> the appropriate response for ordinary americans seems to be democratic isolationism, imo. oppose trade deals like ttip, tpp and tpa -- these deals serve to enrich those who are already the global winners and provide nothing for the emerging intelligentsia of the first world. globalism might benefit those in power at the moment, but it provides nothing for those of us who need to work through a career or two to be comfortable. i may be poor, but i have far more in common with a poor texan than a rich chinese man.

<comment><USER11> Which is something I've been ranting about this very thing for years, often to much undeserved derision in my opinion. You touch the point but don't nail it down. You need to identify exactly what you have in common with the Texan vs the Chinese man.

I would argue this is the beauty of the true American exceptionality, in that the American Revolution, despite the British propoganda attempting to paint it as hardly more than a momentary lapse in military judgement, truly was the unique act in history of an imperfect overthrow of monarchy for individualism.

In politics I always see a thing that divides the people, but the American principles we are fighting for are about unity under the common societal belief structure that each man is his own King. Immigrants swear alligience, and military take oaths, not to the queen or king, but to the Constitution. The Supreme law of the land, constructed to protect the rights established naturally upon all men. Not to establish any right, but to protect them all.

I want the rest of the world to be granted inspiration of our constitution, but we need to stop doing it by military might, and do it by example instead.

<comment><USER12> Are you serious?

The US was founded by wealthy land owners because they preferred to keep their money rather than pay taxes to the British Empire.

I sympathise with that but lets not pretend it was founded with the freedoms and protections of ALL people in mind. Slaves and women were not granted those rights.

The country was founded by oligarchs for oligarchs and it has remained that way.

<comment><USER13> I think that's a bit harsh when you consider that they could have just set up another monarchy and made themselves the newest round of nobility or something. It was a cutting edge experiment in liberty at the time.

You have a point about the government being set up to serve the wealthy and propertied, but that's likely true no matter which time period you live in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Might want to consider the increasing drain on the economy that the government takes.

[http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2020...](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2020USp_XXs2li111mcn_F0t_US_Total_Government_Spending)

One way or another, it comes out of our pocketses.

<comment><USER15> Do you have any evidence that increased government spending harms economic growth? It seems like an a priori certainty in right wing thought, but what evidence I've seen suggests that the effect is minimal or even beneficial (within the spending ranges that we see in modern developed nations).

<comment><USER16> You're entirely right, government spending does not harm economic growth.

<comment><USER17> Not to champion austerity (and no, I'm really not championing austerity), but if increased spending is paid for with increased borrowing, government bonds will complete in capital markets and make borrowing generally more expensive for everyone.

Of course right now capital is ridiculously cheap and the economy still isn't doing very well...

<comment><USER6> And government projects improve people's ability to work, whether it's by education or welfare, or negotiating trade treaties, or protecting trade routes (military).

For example, the US gets immense economic benefits from it's oversized military, being able to lean on people to give it favourable terms - <USER2> to remember for the people who want to 'stop being world cop' (a self-imposed role, taken to improve it's economic power).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Meanwhile, 40-year-olds (firmly members of generation x) are committing suicides[1] in record numbers (males in particular), and 10 years from now the same will be said about millennials having it easier as compared to their younger counterparts.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate- sur...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-surges- to-a-30-year-high.html)

</comment><comment><USER19> OTOH, Gen X might earn more than their parents, but they have less wealth than their parents did at the same age: [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-07-10/economic-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-07-10/economic- setbacks-have-hurt-generation-x-more-than-millennials)

(Link from 2015)

<comment><USER20> More "money" less buying power.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> There are mitigating strategies that we can use to our advantage. Rejecting car & home ownership culture, enforcing various frugal lifestyle patterns (cook and eat home, body weight exercise), cheap travel (couchsurfing/airbnb), geoarbitraging income can do wonders on a personal level. There are several changes on the horizon that could cause interesting ripples soon - <USER3> example, what happens when mobile solar power, electric transport, better batteries and global internet coverage enables entirely new kinds of productive lifestyles outside of expensive cities?

<comment><USER22> Home ownership is a great asset if you're using the home yourself. On the other hand a car is a actually a liability that depreciates over time requiring inspections in regular intervals, compulsory car insurance and a parking lot at both the departure location and the destination.

<comment><USER23> A home is no different from a car in that it also depreciates, things break, needs to be maintained, repaired, etc.

The only real difference is that in major populated areas, the land it sits on tends to be rare and valuable, which allows its value to keep up with or even exceed the rate of inflation.

<comment><USER24> The biggest advantage of home ownership is the tax break. You can leverage capital 4:1 (with a 20% down payment) and your capital gains will be tax-free up to $250,000 per person.

The second biggest advantage is that you can fix your housing costs. Good luck finding a rental that will have the same monthly payment for 30 years, but it's not hard to get a 30-year fixed rate mortgage.

<comment><USER25> You would be hard pressed to find rentals that have the same monthly payment even for 2 years, let alone 30.

I remember distinctly in 2008-2009, even as the housing prices were crashing, our rent went up by $90/month (outpacing inflation by 7%), and that's when we made the decision to buy a house (the $8000 first time homeowner credit/subsidy helped also)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> >Its research found that some of the pay squeeze was due to under-35s entering the job market as the recession hit, but it also concluded that generational pay progress had ground to a halt even before the financial crisis struck in 2007/8.

Interesting. I graduated into the worst of the financial crisis (Lehman brothers went under the month after I finished my studies), and I remember reading a lot about the former -- that those graduating into a recession make less in their lifetimes -- but was unaware of the latter part of this statement.

</comment><comment><USER27> When boomers wanted cars, we subsidized cars. When they wanted education, we subsidized education. When they wanted gas, we subsidized gas. When they wanted suburbs, we subsidized suburbs. When they wanted to take a loan out of their retirement, we paid for it out of ours. When they wanted to eat themselves into oblivion, we paid for their health care. Now that they are sated, millenials want the same...but the boomers have indebted us and destroyed our government, and they refuse to make any of the sacrifices that they decided we would make without asking for our permission.

There is a coming political doomsday in the US, and it will have nothing to do with left vs right, but rather the haves vs the have nots...and it just so happens that boomers are the haves and millenials are the have nots. It won't end pretty.

<comment><USER28> That broad generalization doesn't fly with my observations. There are plenty of wealthy (or at least high income) millenials and plenty of poorer baby boomers.

<comment><USER29> Boomers have done quite well considering.

[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/mar/15/babyboomers...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/mar/15/babyboomers- welfare-politics-tax)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Millennials do value work ethic less than other generations: "Asked who has the better work ethic, about three-fourths of respondents [edit: Millennials] said that older people do" ([http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/millennials- con...](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/millennials-confident- connected-open-to-change.pdf)). This can be good or bad but either way it might have some effect on the relative earnings.

<comment><USER31> Isn't that just a measure of perception?

<comment><USER30> It's three-fourths of Millennials themselves who believe that, so it's not just the perception of other generations.

<comment><USER31> Sure, but is that metric useful? Wouldn't hours worked, vacation taken, etc. be more useful? And even then, you'd have to adjust for under-employment and precarity, don't you think?

I just don't see a self-perception survey like this as very useful in determining the actual working habits of generations.

<comment><USER30> Sure, that would be nice to know, but I haven't seen such data.

Edit: I looked it up and found this "gen X and especially the millennials were much more likely to say they wanted a job with more vacation – that was more flexible." ([http://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-of- psychology/un...](http://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-of- psychology/unlocking-millennials.aspx))

<comment><USER31> That doesn't really help without a baseline. If the boomers averaged _x_ hours of vacation time, and millennials are average _x /2_, then wanting more doesn't speak to a lack of work ethic.

<comment><USER30> The researcher states that they compared people in these generations when they were at the same age, so I would think the absolute values were used.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> And people wonder why we want a socialist for president

<comment><USER33> But if Millennials are earning less money, who will pay for socialism?

<comment><USER34> I'm not suggesting that I'm in favor of this, but the idea is that the country has plenty of wealth, it is just concentrated in older generations who were able to build it through decades of economic largesse, so, well, that's who should should be paying for it.

<comment><USER35> And I'm still not clear on how taxing the shit out of everyday working citizens somehow redistributes the wealth which is already hoarded by the 0.1%.

<comment><USER36> Well we could start with some common sense tax reform, like not letting anything above $112k not be taxable for social security, a system through which old people are living off the backs of the young and straddling them with debts for services they will never see themselves - a ponzi scheme

<comment><USER35> Wait are you for increasing the SS cap (which is 118.5k btw) or just eliminating it entirely?

<comment><USER36> I think having no cap on income for SS would make sense and make the system solvent - so basically, cut a tax only for the wealthy retired folks living off of backs of young folks, who are not exempt and they will never get there by subsidizing old folks in exchange for interest payments on private loans in the 7% range.

<comment><USER35> But the super wealthy -- the ones the Sanders crowd really dislike -- don't tend to have earned income anyway. They primarily benefit from capital gains which are entirely exempt from SS and Medicare entirely.

<comment><USER36> There's still a huge gap from $112 to having income in long term capital gains tax. Just because there are more things to do with capital gains tax reform, doesn't mean we can't have common sense reforms like this one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I think there's a trade-off, millennials will live a life with more public conveniences. Internet, social networks, free games, etc. Not my cup of tea, but as a millennial I think the generational values are generally geared more to life experiences over money.

<comment><USER38> Eh, but in exchange we lost affordable health care, affordable schooling, and other things.

<comment><USER39> Don't forget paid off homes and retirement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> There are three main reasons for this.

One is that wages have stagnated for most jobs since the 1980s. Which has meant that it's harder to get ahead and easier to fall behind unless you step into a high paying career early or are lucky enough to climb some business ladder into high ranks.

Another is that if you look at the employment after the 2008 economic crash the majority of the impact was on folks under 25. Unemployment shot up, as did underemployment, and that situation has persisted for the better part of a decade before recovering at an agonizingly slow pace. Literally millions of people, most of them millenials, just fell out of the job market, and millions more were stuck in crappy, underpaying jobs for years. That kind of thing has a dramatic long term impact on your career development and thus your earnings, your savings, your personal investment, and so on.

The last is the massive cost increases in housing and education. In combination with the other two these things have significantly hampered millenials ability to earn money, to save money, and to build up wealth and stability via home ownership (which has traditionally been a classic way to do so for Americans). Millenials can barely afford to live in the cities where there are jobs and if they don't have a decent-ish job they can't afford to move to where there are, they can't save, and they can't accrue wealth.

</comment><comment><USER41> My feeling is that we've been giving our wealth away for trinkets.

True wealth sustains life: strong social ties, housing, food and the means of production.

We've been convinced to trade true wealth away for non-essentials. Fancy vacations in far away places and 2-3 cruises a year-people used to do that maybe once in their lives, 50inch flat panels in every second room in the house, huge houses with fewer kids in them, 64 bit cellphones, fancy kitchens with wolf stoves and granite counter tops all these things are non-essential.

My parents used to save for years to buy a new car or to buy a new stereo. It was easy, just write "New car" on an envelope and put cash in it every month, then 4-5 years later you bought the car cash, no loan. This went even moreso with luxury items like new TVs and stereos.

The quality of cars and electronics has increased, but the quality of our food and our social lives has decreased.

Cooking of real food at home must be on the decline. Every time I go to the grocery store every other person's order consists entirely of boxed processed food.

Instead of cooking and having dinner with the kids, in our industry, we now get texts[1] on our fancy cellphones at 7:00 pm to fight a fire in production because no software company wants to properly plan anything anymore[2] and then we feel awesome about solving the problem we created by being disorganized scatterbrains.

My suggestion, buy as many of the essentials of life in cash. The rest that you have to borrow for; pay it off quickly. Invest in long term investments and start early. Be frugal and forget about the fancy new doodad, or if you insist save up for it an pay for it cash. Cook at home and spend time with you kids and your friends.

[1] A text, god forbid not a human voice! People are addicted to texting because it allows them to have conversations with multiple people at once. We communicate more than ever but those conversations are shallower.

[2] Fail fast + short term methodologies.

<comment><USER25> > My feeling is that we've been giving our wealth away for trinkets.

If you want a great example of this, look at post-USSR Russia and what happens when you trade wealth for trinkets.

Massive regional concentrations of wealth, hopeless money-losing industries that are technologically behind by 25-30 years, massive brain drain, absolutely stagnated sciences, rising nationalism and censorship of the press.

But hey, at least gas is semi-cheap and everybody has cars and iphones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is the result of it pays to invest. It doesn't pay to work. This benefits the older generations who have more stored up wealth than younger people so they can live in the best spots and do nice things while saving money.

</comment><comment><USER20> Decreases in female fertility rates all over the world will only make this worse (Peak Population). Most industries will settle into global duopolies and there will be those who own non growth based assets and those that do.

</comment><comment><USER43> Probably because they're not just working hard enough amirite?

</comment><comment><USER44> The Stagnation Hypothesis basically explains all of this.

I would like to remind you that earnings, prices in general are phenomenon which relate back to the real world in some way. That is to say they must be side affects of something else.

The cartoon series The Venture Bros symbolizes the Stagnation Hypothesis. If you don't want to watch the entire series to understand the point, just take a look at the episode: Season 3 Episode 2: The Doctor Is Sin (the intro even features Dr T. Venture offering jobs to migrant laborers for which they are absurdly under qualified and very low wages. This, in light of the frequent complaints of worker scarcity in the midst of stagnant wages is quite poignant).

In the series the grandfather (deceased) was able to do all kinds of amazing innovations, space stations, underwater laboratories, biospheres, rolling walkways, new fabrics, all kinds of new machines. The next generation symbolized by Dr T. Venture was unable to compete with all this amazing success and began to act as a hanger-on, a me-too, acting as if he knew what was going on but in actuality understanding nearly none of it and therefore became reliant on sexing up what is really ancient technology to make himself look good to investors and his own self image. His sons, the next iteration of Ventures are permanent children, living in a technology wonderland they effectively treat as magical surroundings. Not only do they not understand the technology of their grandfather, but they don't understand there is anything _to_ understand, despite the fact that as clones they are actually technological artifacts themselves.

Unfortunately this supposed comedy show is a reasonable interpretation of the last few generations.

If you exclude computation (electronics/robots/AI/internet) then there just aren't very many parts of the economy that are genuinely growing. This has been going on since the early 70s.

This has been obfuscated by the accounting of the economy.

The government and central banks have an incentive to produce numbers that sound rosy because they noticed long ago that if the people in the economy felt like things were going well, that they were more likely to spend, invest and work. There is a self fulfilling prophesy nature to it all.

The source of wealth or 'more stuff' is the ability to produce more stuff for less cost. Lower the inputs, up the outputs. Technology is a key element in making that happen.

The problem is that (ex-computation) new innovations are far less likely to affect the average person. Name a single invention outside computers of the last several decades. I do not mean a hypothetical abstraction in a laboratory somewhere.

When people find themselves coming up with close to nothing they resort to saying: well, maybe new innovation is bound up inside classical things we have but cannot see inside of (we are at the Dr T. Venture stage here).

It is certainly true that minor improvements accumulate into a quality of their own over time. That is Toyota's business model. The insides of the cars experience consistent iterative improvement. There are similar analogs in other industries.

But. And this is the key point. That utterly fails to explain why new innovations aren't reaching the common person. If we really were experiencing a boom in innovation and invention we would expect to see thousands of new fields and sub-fields opening up. What new materials technology do you have inside your home that did not exist in 1970? What forms of transport? There are literally dozens of major areas that have not seen any major innovation and they have stopped being labeled 'technology' as a result.

With any technology there exists diminishing returns. Even in computation as Moore's Law attests to.

The real mark of true innovation and invention is the new thing associated with the typical household. For example; suppose the manufacture of aerogel could be brought down by 2 orders of magnitude.

This would be a leap that would revolutionize everything insulation related. Household energy bills could probably be 1/10 of what they are today. And due to the thinness of the fabric and the money it would save, it would get rolled out very quickly indeed.

<comment><USER45> That is, to put it most softly, a load of bullshit. The cutting edge of science and technology is every bit as innovative, hell perhaps more innovative than anything happening in the 70s.

I love how every one of your statement is predicated by "excluding computers, the internet, etc". That's like saying "aside from that whole steam power thing the industrial revolution was no big deal"

We have rockets that can land autonomously, stunningly high energy density batteries that have ushered a revolution in portable electronics (go ask your parents about NiCd batteries and how shit they were),god damn electric planes at prototype stage, carbon fiber solar panels pushing 35% efficiency, network of satellites that can pinpoint you on the meter level an connection to said network so cheap it's a basic addon to consumer hardware, and the the technology to fab transistors at 14 fucking nanometers (a feat thought to be impossible in your golden age of innovation).

You mention household energy bills, ignoring the efficiencies gained by vastly more efficient electronics, better available windows, insulation and = hot water heating, if you live in Seattle you can now have your energy usage broken down by device just by an analysis of noise on your input lines so you can better curb usage.

What do we have in our homes that wasn't around in the 70s. Hmmm, let's think, flat screen displays, solid state digital storage of high fidelity media, maybe you're an audiophile and have a nifty set of electrostatic speakers, a mechanical pencil at your desk, or maybe just a gel pen, LED light bulbs giving you long lasting pleasant lights at 50x the efficiency of incandescent and those are just the things that don't rely on a mirco controller to function. And you have the fucking gall to suggest innovation is slowing down.

The best part about it all, is to the public these innovations come so fast and hard that it's all "no big deal".

<comment><USER44> > That is, to put it most softly, a load of bullshit.

I would have said the same thing a few years ago. I would have said it was preposterously stupid. Then I changed my mind when I saw the map must be fitting the map of some territory other than ours. Keep an open mind if you can.

Incidentally some version of the Stagnation Hypothesis is believed by Peter Thiel, Larry Page and Elon Musk. So I am in terrific company. Many of their projects are motivated by a belief in the Stagnation Hypothesis.

> The cutting edge of science and technology is every bit as innovative, hell > perhaps more innovative than anything happening in the 70s.

That isn't even true in software development. I don't think that is even controversial on HN. And now that Moore's Law has almost completed its journey in hardware it appears that for the first time ever laptops are coming out that are slower than the previous iteration (I don't have one myself but I think that's the Macbook Air and due to battery size).

I'm not saying there's no innovation any longer in computer science generally. The opposite is so. However in the present and near future we're going to be retrenching a good bit (making FPGAs for routine junk, making algorithms more efficient since hardware is no longer quite picking up the slack, and lest we forget, you can't yet parallelize everything just because the capacity exists, that's a key unsolved problem).

> I love how every one of your statement is predicated by "excluding > computers, the internet, etc". That's like saying "aside from that whole > steam power thing the industrial revolution was no big deal"

I do appreciate the significance of computation or I would not be here.

I'm saying it is not enough by itself. Example; can Silicon Valley give us 12% GDP next year? I don't think so. But historically during the industrial revolution we did get splendid growth rates like that (and much higher) because of technological development.

> We have rockets that can land autonomously,

Elon Musk's project. A believer in the Stagnation Hypothesis who did it precisely _because_ he believes in it. Same goes for his car, energy and transport projects. He is doing them _because_ nobody else is doing them. Half a century since the moon landings anyone? Or did we not want those asteroids mined and moon hotels? Half a century is a long time before we return to the first stage of space economic development.

I have a chart in my office of the necessary stages to make space economy prosper, and we're just getting back to 1983 with Elon Musk's reusable rocket project.

Take a look at it. Google "Integrated Space Plan" by Rockwell International and Ronald M. Jones.

There _was_ a plan. It was taken deadly seriously. And it did fail.

> stunningly high energy density batteries that have ushered a revolution in > portable electronics

This does not impress me. Li-ion has already reached diminishing returns.

Battery technology overall is supremely unimpressive despite a century of people banging away at it.

The one thing that would be really impressive is a secure containment for a nuclear battery. That would enable a battery life of thousands of years. That my friend, is impressive.

Also impressive was Velkess's physical house battery using a flexible lasso- like flywheel. It was for houses and it would give you 15kwh at first prototype for 6.5k. The impressive part was the expected lifecycle would, if the prototype had been iterated, of a half century. Naturally they are bankrupt because nobody in Silicon Valley had the balls to back Bill Grey's genuinely innovative idea.

So far chemical batteries seem like a bust to me. It's all fancy press releases and no ultimate results applicable to any market.

That incidentally is the shared characteristic of the majority of so-called technology you hear about in the media.

Lots of press releases. No available tech. That's because it either does not work or it is too dangerous. There is astounding little effective technology reaching market.

> god damn electric planes at prototype stage

Believe it when I see it.

>carbon fiber solar panels pushing 35% efficiency,

I admit that is impressive. It's one of the exceptions to the "ex-compuation rule".

> network of satellites that can pinpoint you on the meter level an connection > to said network so cheap it's a basic addon to consumer hardware,

Computation. And old too.

>technology to fab transistors at 14 fucking nanometers (a feat thought to be impossible in your golden age of innovation).

Computation. We agreed this was the bright oasis in the sand ocean of stagnation.

> You mention household energy bills, ignoring the efficiencies gained by > vastly more efficient electronics, better available windows, insulation and > = hot water heating

First ask yourself why we are investing in insulation when we didn't pre-70s.

It is because even with the recent bottoming out of the oil price, it is still much higher than the highest point (in real) it was during the OPEC crisis.

Insulation is a thing because high energy prices are a thing.

Great insulation (like the one I mentioned) would be a boon. But as Thiel says, any growth generated by the computer revolution has basically been cancelled out by the terrific rise in energy prices.

Secondly, it is true that electronics have improved in efficiency energy usage-wise. However the consumption rate has overall gone up as their capacities have expanded. Look at old power supplies and new ones, and this should be perfectly clear despite the gains you mention.

Electronics aren't important though. The majority electricity cost is heating, then mechanical, lastly electronic. They've developed more efficient water heaters and so on but it just doesn't compensate enough for the rise in energy prices.

Real game changers are things like rolling out Gen-5 nuclear fission stations or nuclear fusion. There has definitely been a stagnation in this form of energy production for political reasons. Tell me if you want to see some bleak charts illustrating the point and I'll find where I put them.

This is not just another technology. It is a keystone technology. The source of many other potential routes to economic prosperity. The direct route. It's the same with using genetics in biology to accomplish artificial breeding. Guess what, they're both defacto banned or literally banned (both are outright banned in my country) in many places.

You might want to pause and think about that. All is not roses.

> And you have the fucking gall to suggest innovation is slowing down.

Ex-Computation. I have the gall because it is a reasonable conclusion to reach. It's just not emphasized by the media, companies or governments because it is not sexy and would be considered unhelpful. Nevertheless, it is there. The Stagnation that is.

That's why wages haven't risen for decades. Enjoy your delightful LED lamp and the ability to change the hue of your lights.

> The best part about it all, is to the public these innovations come so fast > and hard that it's all "no big deal".

I think you're going to change your mind on this. Try reading newsprint from the previous few decades. Same crap different decade. Somehow the innovations (ex-computation and a very small number of bright spots like solar/fracking) don't quite seem to reach the public. In most cases it is because they do not exist. They don't exist in university labs. They don't exist in company labs. Ignore the press releases and look for evidence of substance.

Here's an interesting titbit. Have you heard of Eroom's law? Despite the exponentially declining costs in genome sequencing and x-ray crystallography (their major tools) there exists exponentially declining effectiveness in coming up with new working drugs.

I repeat: exponentially declining effectiveness. And we can't even digitize medical records properly to date albeit that's political again.

I'd tell you more weird facts you'd hardly believe that are true but I think you've had enough for today.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Isn't it also true that Millenials put less value on financial success and more value on fulfillment and life experiences than did previous generations? Could it be that Millenials are "set to earn less" because they are actually _fine_ with earning less?

Perhaps they watched their Baby Boomer parents chase after money and accumulate stuff and end up unhappy anyways and decided that they would pursue other more rewarding aspects of life.

<comment><USER36> > Isn't it also true that Millenials put less value on financial success and > more value on fulfillment and life experiences

Where did you get that from? Maybe that's all that's left when no financial success can be had, and they're trying to make do with the lemons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Should be "get paid less". We really need to end the framing of whatever people are paid as assuming that it's equal to what they earn (as in what they actually deserve given actual work value etc)

<comment><USER47> What someone gets paid has to be, overall, less than what they earn, overall. Otherwise it'd be uneconomical for their employer.

<comment><USER48> Not sure what you mean by "overall," but isn't this trivially contradicted?

Salesman A sells $100 of product @ 40% margin, bringing in $40 of "profit," and is paid $20.

Salesman B sells $100 of product @ 40% margin, bringing in $40 of "profit," and is paid $41.

The owner is up $20 from Salesman A, and down $1 from Salesman B, and can merrily continue overpaying Salesman B.

"But no owner would do that because it's obvious that this is ridiculous." Certainly. But replace "Salesman A" with "QA Lead," and "Salesman B" with "Director of HR," and who knows who's contributing how much?

<comment><USER7> In theory: marginal productivity of labour.

E.g., you start adding and/or cutting sales, QA, and director positions and see how the organisational performance responds.

You'll also typically find (unless, say, you're a Google, Apple, Intel, and Cisco colluding with illegal mutual noncompete agreements on labour) that you're taking prices from the market on what people demand to be paid.

In practice, the information's far less clear, and rules of thumb or gut feels get invoked a fair bit.

But overall, yes: companies which are aiming for profitability have to balance their costs, including labour, with revenues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> (UK)

</comment><comment><USER50> It's not fair.</comment>


Developer fury as Google makes Android apps vanish - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/27/android_market_search_fail/

<comment><USER2> _The anger on the Android forums is partly financial – one developer said downloads had been cut 80 per cent since the change – and partly irritation at Google's arrogance: the company hasn't bothered to respond._

It's this exactly that makes me wary of depending on Google for anything other than GMail. If you have any kind of problem with them you're thrown into this Kafka-esque maze of automated support that often can't do anything for you and leaves you no way to escalate an issue.

<comment><USER3> I'm with you there.

However, building a mostly automated support system for array of diverse services is something we (the present-day civilization) have little experience with. This painful experiment /may/ end up accumulating enough experience to make cheap, mostly-automatic support possible in a few years. As opposed to current practice of throwing countless callcenter `drones' (people forced to adhere to ready-made scripts) onto the problem.

Should the experience gathered become public knowledge, the need for tech- support personnel would be drastically lowered. In practice significantly lowering barriers for start-ups to serving large userbases.

<comment><USER2> I think there will always need to be some kind of escape hatch at the top that connects you to a real person. The complete lack of such with Google's services is vexing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> While I understand the anger here and do think Google have done a lot wrong, a lot of people complaining are making the assumption that apps that have been downloaded a lot should rank more highly. Does that necessarily hold?

To me it seems a little self-reinforcing - whoever is at the top is more likely to be downloaded, which keeps them at the top.

Certainly on the Android market, whoever was at the top of search results before was no good indication of quality either, so the search has gone from useless to useless. From a user-perspective we haven't lost much! And of course, if you make ANY change to rankings, the people that go down will of course be upset.

<comment><USER5> I thought the largest issue was searching for an App by it's name and not getting it at the top of the search results for that term. It makes it very hard to just find and download an App if you already know what you want.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think this is the difference between Google and Apple.

Google optimizes search algorithms constantly, apparently not thinking of the real-world repercussions of rank changes.

Apple has over a decade of experience with iTunes. Rankings on iTunes are equivalent to or even supplant the Billboard Top #100. When they moved into apps, they brought their ranking system over as well. Apple has only very carefully made adjustments to app rankings. Especially keyword based rankings. The secret of making money in the App Store is in dominating the ranking for a common keyword search. Pretty icons go a long way towards that. And a well- designed app even more (number of ratings, average rating). The Power Law distribution applies.

I have no idea why Google is tweaking or breaking their core ranking algorithms. In the Apple App Store, a high ranking is something you earn through marketing and having a product that Apple wants to have in its store.

</comment><comment><USER7> Related : <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2811756>

</comment><comment><USER8> Seems like Google is notoriously non-responsive to user complaints. Perhaps it would make sense to turn some of the billions to that, as well.

Edit: this is a serious suggestion. I'm a Google fan, for sure, but I think the notoriety exists.

</comment><comment><USER9> Does anyone have a short list of apps affected? I somehow doubt that Google shoveled any truly good and useful apps down the 50th page.</comment>


Apply HN: Alternative to Advertisement - <AUTHOR> Advertisement works very well for the status quo that has lot's of money to spend on advertisement.
Wouldn't be awesome for new small companies to be able to focus less on advertisement and more on the product?
How? By having an online listing of products with tagging and up-/down-voting.
For example, imagine a new smartphone manufacturer creates a new awesome smartphone.
Instead of spending money on advertisement, the new smartphone company would publish its new smartphone on this online listing. Let's call this online listing "listing-platform.com". Then the following would happen:
1. Because the smartphone is new it gets on the landing page of listing-platform.com
2. Because the smartphone is awesome it gets lot's of upvotes by the community (Similarly to news on Hacker News)
3. In the future when users are going to look for a smartphone, they will see this smartphone because of its upvotes and good reviews.
This "popularity boost" could eventually be good enough to market new products. Without the need of advertisement.
Product Hunt is similar and it's quite nice. That said Product Hunt's focus is on the consumer side. The focus here is on the producer side. The goal here is to allow companies to market new products without the need of advertisement.
Feel free to comment negatively <comment><USER2> Great idea -- good products should sell themselves. :D

UX-wise, I think it'd be engaging if the format would be like 9gag where there'd be popular/hot/new pages. Also, it might be take a while to deal with the poster/voter chicken and egg thing. How about also integrating the product's engagement via various channels (quora, stackshare, fb, tw, ig) but focusing more on the engagement metrics than the vanity popularity metrics? Like a Klout for products. :D

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks!

I agree; 1. a "new stuff section" is super important, 2. measure popularity via engagement (although I'd use upvotes for that), 3. allow users to share via fb/tw/... .

As for the chicken egg problem; I guess focusing on a small industry first would help. Actually, why not make Nyolk focus on sneakers first? There is a community of people that are obsessed with sneakers and they would love such platform. The word would spread quickly in that community. They eventually would become the first core community to contribute to Nuyolk.

I'm excited to see what Nuyolk becomes! We can keep in touch:)

(for readers curious to know what Nyolk is: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11441834](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11441834))

Other feedback on the general idea to offer an alternative to advertisement?:)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Would there be limitations on who can post? for example product hunt has a member community that is allowed to post, and an even more exclusive community that can "pin things" to the front page directly.

I imagine that this idea would get the company short term traction when first posted. How would they maintain traction without advertising as their posting slips in the rankings?

<comment><AUTHOR> 1\. I'd rather go democratic than "elitist": e.g. it would be nice if a post gets deleted because a majority wants it deleted and not because of moderators. That said, "even more exclusive community that can pin things" is actually nice because it increases the motivation of this "more exclusive community" to contribute.

2\. I often ask myself that. Some thoughts;

\- Not only can users see the popular stuff of the last few days but also of the last month, 6 months, 3 years, etc... Effectively "smoothing" this "slipping" you describe.

\- With tagging, slipping is less a problem; even though a product has slipped in the general ranking it can still be on top in certain tags.

Thanks for the comment, what do you think of the overall idea?

<comment><USER4> > _I 'd rather go democratic than "elitist"_ [...]

It's nice in theory, but what is your plan to combat sockpuppets, meatpupets, shills, astroturfing, voting rings brigading, spammers, ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Advertisements (specifically online advertisements) are used by companies looking to reach their target market. For example, fantasy sports sites advertise on ESPN.com because a lot of sports fans go there.

How will you get sports fans to visit listing-platform.com?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the comment.

With the tagging system: they would look for the "sport" tag.

(Actually it wouldn't be a tag because sport is a "top-level-tag". Instead it would be a category with a dedicated website. So the users would go on sports.listing-platform.com and then be able to select tags like "football", "soccer", etc.)

<comment><AUTHOR> and if a user is looking for fantasy sport websites, then they would lookup the tag "fantasy-sport". The fantasy sport website would publish itself on listing-platform.com under the tag "fantasy-sport".</comment></comment></comment>


Async Tasks in C++11: Not Quite There Yet - <AUTHOR> http://bartoszmilewski.com/2011/10/10/async-tasks-in-c11-not-quite-there-yet/

<comment><USER2> Interesting read but what is becoming clear that there are too many cooks in the kitchen: language, library, OS API, OS and, to some degree, the HW itself. How can you create a usable abstraction if there are so many pieces, each with their own idiosyncracies.

<comment><AUTHOR> What do you think of Go's approach?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Did anyone ever expect tasks to be anything other than syntactic sugar (of questionable taste) over threads?

Also, the title "not quite there yet" is misleading, given that async:: will never get "there" if "there" is defined as "implementing green threads."</comment>


Nick Bradbury: Android Apps Shouldn't Be Crappy Clones of iPhone Apps - <AUTHOR> http://nick.typepad.com/blog/2012/05/android-apps-shouldnt-be-crappy-clones-of-iphone-apps.html

<comment><USER2> Everyone knows this, the problem is that very few devs straddle the iOS/Android fence, and therefore are more familiar with one platform than the other. While most devs might know that conventions are supposed to be different, few have a deeper understanding of what is necessary for actually implementing each. Someone who truly understands both platforms and treats them accordingly is quite rare.

</comment><comment><USER3> ...well then give me the hardware or some unique OS feature set to exploit! Right now I'm doing a quickie hello world app which will be a simple multimedia book for a tablet. Just putting the specs of the most recent iPad side-by-side with a Kindle Fire is just depressing.

Or even if the feature sets are pretty much the same focus on ease of use for getting my foot in the door. For example why isn't there something like HyperCard so non-programmers can create apps for Android? Not for nothing Visual Basic had a huge impact on making Windows a standard for inhouse IT dev.

<comment><USER4> Google released App Inventor for this purpose, don't know how good it is though. Now maintained by MIT: <http://www.appinventor.mit.edu/> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_App_Inventor>

<comment><USER3> App Inventor looks cool -- but in terms of interface and usability it just isn't HyperCard. It's honestly amazing to me that since 1987 nothing much has come out to top it in terms of ease of use. I really LOVED that program...</comment></comment></comment>