Amazon's Disturbing Plan to Add Face Surveillance to Your Front Door - <AUTHOR> https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/amazons-disturbing-plan-add-face-surveillance-yo-0 <comment><USER2> It is not the technology that is dangerous but the scale and manner of its deployment. Patented, opaque, closed source, championed by mega-corporations closely allied with powerful governments, entirely beyond the analysis or oversight of the vast majority of citizens, completely connected realtime to various other systems, automated, eternally slurping up data for indefinite storage... these are the real concerning factors.

After all, a good old security guard also does 'face recognition' of everyone passing by, but with a human there are obvious limits and a person to confront, charge or circumvent. With ubiquitous, tiny robots all over the place, society will get sharply stratified into the 'watched' and the 'watchers' and the latter will get access to nearly limitless data and power. That's not good.

<comment><USER3> > _society will get sharply stratified into the 'watched' and the 'watchers' > and the latter will get access to nearly limitless data and power..._

Don't kid yourself, even the 'watchers' will be 'watched'. The people bringing all these systems together will not be your local yocal Barney Fifes. They will be professional and highly intelligent technical teams whose members have likely studied little other than security and intelligence gathering for their entire professional lives. These are not the type of teams that carelessly leave obvious security holes like that laying around.

Taken as a whole, the technologies coming out today will enable surveillance regimes the likes of which even the UK and China never previously would have dared to dream up.

<comment><USER4> Why do you think this? Who are these elites that never leave security holes in things? The snowden leaks show they don't work for the NSA. They don't work in consumer electronics... the deeply flawed copy protection schemes in most video game consoles show that. They don't work for the FSB. What gives you the impression that these people even exist?

People seem to not understand the asymmetry in difficulty between offence and defense. For something to be broken, there just needs to be one fuckup, or a few tiny fuckups that can be linked together. Smart people are not infallible. Everything is exploited eventually. The only foolproof thing to do is not to build the infrastructure in the first place.

But yes, I agree with your last point. There's no privacy anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _Likewise, homeowners can also add photos of "suspicious" people into the system and then the doorbell's facial recognition program will scan anyone passing their home._

This has to be the worst part of it, if you've ever been part of a suburban neighborhood that uses NextDoor as a community tool you'll know that Ring doorbell videos of "others" crank the pearl-clutching paranoia of bored homeowners up to 11. The comment sections will go from "Did you get a license plate?" to "Hurry, add his face to the database before he comes back to rob and murder us all!"

<comment><USER6> I get why this could be problematic under the wrong context.

But if I have video footage of someone approaching my door, not knocking and just looking aroud to then leave; and I'm given the option to track if that person shows up again in future video footage, you bet I would use that option.

This is not because I'm paranoic and I think right away that anyone showing up to my door will murder or rob me, but because said person already exhibited suspicious activity around my private property.

Why would I take for granted that this person was simply lost or innocently looking around? If that's the case, then my camera would never see them again. But if they show up a second time, I want to know that.

<comment><USER7> So under this system if I walk up to your door mistakenly before realizing I'm at the wrong place, the police will be alerted any time I walk past a house.

<comment><USER8> Ring their doorbell. When they answer, tell them "Hi, this isn't the house I was looking for, but you've got that surveillance system in place, so I don't want to be registered as 'suspicious'. OK, sorry not sorry for wasting your time, goodbye."

<comment><USER9> ...for every house? I don't go up to random houses and ring their doorbells to begin with, because nobody does that anymore.

<comment><USER10> Nobody? Where I live (suburbs, New England, USA), it's pretty common to be visited in person by local political candidates and/or volunteers during campaign season. I doubt this is in any way unique to my neighborhood.

<comment><USER9> Campaign season is an outlier, and I've had that happen... well, I can count the number of times on one hand, since a decade ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In my state Kerala in India, police seems to have started using face recognition. There was a huge protest recently in a famous temple called Sabarimala. Police had installed 12 cameras in the temple compound. If I understood correctly, the system compares live video feed against a database and alerts the police if anyone in the database was caught in the camera.

Quoted from the below link:

>"The cameras are equipped with artificial intelligence (AI). They can recognise people, who are among a crowd, by identifying faces. To ensure safety, the photographs of wanted people will be uploaded on the system. Whenever a person who is in the wanted list appears before the camera it will detect the person and send popup notifications to the three control rooms at Sabarimala," said IG Manoj Abraham, Cyberdome nodal officer.

[http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2018/oct/14/no...](http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2018/oct/14/now- facial-detection-cameras-to-catch-crooks-in-sabarimala-1885170.html)

While I dont know the specifics, police used this system to arrest 200 known protestors by preparing a database of 1500 people and had the system go through over 800 hours of footage.

If that is not enough, now they are planning to use drones with facial recognition as well.

[http://www.newindianexpress.com/specials/2018/sep/17/kerala-...](http://www.newindianexpress.com/specials/2018/sep/17/kerala- police-plans-to-add-facial-recognition-systems-on-drones-1872892.html)

I thought the plans to use face recognition in airports was scary, but they are taking it to an entirely different level altogether.

<comment><USER12> NYPD was using this during Occupy. Everyone complained that Occupy lacked organization.

But what was happening on the ground was that the NYPD was identifying who potential leaders were by using face recognition technology and (we believed) cell phone tracking to identify people who consistently showed up to different meetings.

They would then use the same face identification technology to pick these people out of crowds, and arrest them before or when major events occurred, so they would be in holding during the event.

Eventually the individuals would either be charged for resisting arrest, or let go since they were arrested without reason. Which dovetails into the other NYPD/LAPD tactic during mass protests of , in their words: "arrest people now, end the protest now, pay the civil liberties fines 10 years later."

<comment><USER13> I have never heard of this, do you have references to this?

If this is true, and even if you (or someone) made it up but it is a practical possibility, then it has truly horrific consequences for social organization and the peaceful transition of power (democracy).

I've written about that before: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15110645](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15110645)

This is bad.

If you take away more and more ways to (relatively) peacefully protest something (for example by arresting the leaders as you say). Then the frustration will just continue, and grow and grow until the only way is violence, say what Marx had in mind.

<comment><USER14> > New York City Police Department documents obtained by The Verge show that > police camera teams were deployed to hundreds of Black Lives Matter and > Occupy Wall Street protests from 2011–2013 and 2016. Originally acquired > through a Freedom of Information Law request by New York attorney David > Thompson of Stecklow & Thompson, the records are job reports from the NYPD's > Technical Assistance Response Unit (TARU) that document over 400 instances > in which the unit's video team attended, and sometimes filmed, > demonstrations. More important than the records the NYPD turned over, > however, are those that it claims it cannot find: namely, any documents > demonstrating that legal reviews and authorizations of these surveillance > operations took place.

[https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/22/15016984/nypd-video- surve...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/22/15016984/nypd-video-surveillance- protests-occupy-black-lives-matter)

<comment><USER15> The MUCH bigger story is FBI standing ready to kill protestors with snipers "if deemed necessary". All of these disruption tactics articles are just "soft" news to gently irritate the public and convince it that the truth is known, is regularly leaked and the press will keep the public informed. The real truth (the planned murder of activists MLK-style) is mostly NOT known, virtually no news outlets write about it, and FBI refused to declassify it. The truth is this: If somebody is a real threat to established order they get killed, plain and simple. This should be the discussion, not "disruption" tactics of the police and how allowable/legal they are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Amazon's Disturbing Plan..."? Come on. I agree this is scary and "disturbing", but doorbell cameras have been around for awhile. It's not like Amazon is the first to do this. Phrasing like that always makes me immediately distrust the article's intent, even if at face value what they are saying is something I agree about. Just because they are openly saying it in a patent, doesn't mean the other companies weren't already doing it in some other sketchy way.

With all that said, what did you think would happen when people openly started allowing listening/video devices on the inside/outside of their homes? Of course people (law or others) are eventually going to want a way to utilize that data if it's useful to them. The same way that I'm sure Facebook/Twitter/etc. work with law enforcement with their data.

<comment><USER17> Did you even read the article. It's a patent for sending facial and biometric recognition results to law enforcement.

<comment><USER18> ...and it is an extremely late patent. Patents for this type of innovation first appeared 25+ years ago when IP video was first happening. In fact, the lateness of this filing smells like it is purely for the creation of outrage articles such as what we are discussing.

<comment><USER19> > In fact, the lateness of this filing smells like it is purely for the > creation of outrage articles such as what we are discussing.

Amazon filed this patent now, instead of earlier, purely for the creation of "outrage articles"? Can you walk me through the logic here?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> News messages such as these are increasingly scary and alarming. They paint a picture of a very nearby dystopian society that, until now, was the stuff of fiction.

The news is successful in scaring us, but what can we do against this type of thing? What can I as an individual do? I can install ad-blockers, etc on my PC, but how can I prevent the technology described in the article from impacting my life or that of my children? I don't want them to grow up in a 1984 or Brave New World scenario. What can I do today to stop from, at the very least, my country from going down a path where this is considered normal?

<comment><USER21> Well, you can:

* Push your politicians to support GDPR-style legislation

* Donate to your politicians so they actually listen

* Run for office

* Try some weird tech solution like dazzle clothing (this won't work most likely)

* Take inspiration from Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, and emigrate to a place with governance that more closely reflects your own values. A place covered by the GDPR would be a good start. _Presumably_ if your country loses enough talented people it will work to retain them. But, that's a pretty long-term approach and I have doubts about it's true efficacy (My homeland is hardly building great bike infrastructure since I left, and that was one of the biggest motivations)

* (Also pretty extreme and of dubious efficacy long-term) live off-grid somewhere remote and not walk by people's houses.

Probably a lost cause, though. I find it infuriating that my voice is being listened to by Alexa, etc. when I'm in other people's homes, but they don't seem to care. Maybe civilization will collapse and render this a moot point.

<comment><USER20> Thanks for the suggestions. They follow some of my own thoughts.

> Push your politicians to support GDPR-style legislation

Luckily I live in the EU, only 'luckily' might be an overstatement with regards to privacy if you look at the article 13 issue. Apart from that, at least to what I perceive, privacy carries at least some meaning here still.

> Donate to your politicians so they actually listen

I do not have enough money to make politicians listen I think.

> Run for office

This seems like one of the only conceivable routes to take that could have some real impact. I don't want to run for some political office, but at some point I might have to.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Nietzsche thought that we shouldn't give power that those who want it. Right now there are a lot of people in power who want that political power and use that to advance themselves in life, rather than helping society. Not only in politics however; Amazon's developers who work on these intrusive technologies are just as guilty. I would not work on this type of technology because I can't justify this to myself as a person, but apparently many people leave the person they are at the door when they go to work, developers and politicians alike.

> ...emigrate...

I could consider this at some stage, but that would be to protect myself and my family against imaginable changes to political situations with regards to privacy, not as much as a way to force government to change their views.

> ... live off-grid

This sounds like a great way to draw attention to yourself. Besides, I don't want to live in the woods, I want to live in society without my privacy being violated constantly by advertisers, other companies and government. Because everybody has a right to their thoughts staying their own.

<comment><USER21> "This sounds like a great way to draw attention to yourself. Besides, I don't want to live in the woods, I want to live in society without my privacy being violated constantly by advertisers, other companies and government. Because everybody has a right to their thoughts staying their own. "

Yeah, it just means you won't have to walk by the doorbells. I wasn't really serious about it. And between cheap drones, IR cameras, etc. if somebody wants to find you, they will.

At this point I think your only real hope is finding a place that aligns with your values, moving there, and working to keep it good. Effecting real change is 99% luck and places heading towards dystopia have a lot of wealthy forces arrayed against you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This article is needlessly histrionic. Companies will patent anything they can just so they can have the patent and not somebody else. Jumping from that to "Amazon's plan to bring about a nightmarish dystopia" is a bit much.

 _Could_ this bring about a police state? Yes absolutely. But the technology is possible to build, so someone will build it, or at least patent it. There's no preventing the technology from existing.

We don't prevent a police state from happening by freaking out about the technology that enables it. We prevent it by voting for responsible leaders. So let's just assume that the technology for government oppression is going to exist and make sure we structure our government in such a way that it doesn't oppress us.

</comment><comment><USER23> I got this creepy recruiting email from Amazon.

"Amazon PeopleTech's mission is to re-invent ways for our employees to connect with one another. You will work closely with our team of engineers in designing a strategy for new projects like our new Facial Recognition technology for Amazon's Time and Attendance systems"

I love connecting with people!

</comment><comment> jf- Have you heard of those handy online tracking companies, the ones that build profiles of you based on as much data they can scrape, steal or buy, mainly for advertising, but occasionally for more dubious purposes? Well, now thanks to Amazon Ring® powered by Rekognition™, you can have that same privacy invasion experience in real life! Not carrying your mobile device? Not to worry! Advanced facial recognition technology means that never again will you need to worry about going anywhere without being surreptitiously tracked! Every location, every purchase, and with optional amazon echo, every conversation. Amazon - total surveillance, today.

My point is, I don't like it, and this is actually where we're heading with this crap. The same tracking we currently have online, but in the real world.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'll tell you what:

1\. No question this raises concerns about the system pinging authorities as someone who has been flagged in the system is detected.

2\. This will sell like hotcakes with people who are on NextDoor. Everyday there is an alert about a burglary, stolen packages and people snooping around their properties. These people are very likely to approve sending any images/video of interest to police. (Right now it's very mechanical, scroll through video, capture and send --people will put out requests for footage very often).

I think the only thing we can do is call for strict regulation on its use. It's gonna get deployed and it's gonna get used.

</comment><comment><USER25> Has anyone trolled Amazon yet with video loops of bad things happening? i.e. webm's from 4chan and such. I'm sure it would violate their ToS. Would it break any laws?

I could imagine selling a service that multiplexes video cameras and only sends Amazon devices live video when there is really motion and not just when they say there is motion. Meaning, put the security control back on the home owner.

</comment><comment><USER26> Ring automatically enrolls you into a community program and you don't have an option. In fact you cannot even use Ring without signing up with your address and signing up for the community feature. They suck up your data by force. You know its amazon, they don't have any qualms and reservations about how they use it.

</comment><comment><USER27> I don't welcome "general facial recognition", but I do welcome this specific and single use case. As someone with an active stalker for the past two decades, I really appreciate the value provided by a device that watches specifically for the person that's sent me death threats.

</comment><comment><USER28> In my neighborhood, we are impacted by constant property crime - burglaries, car break-ins, mail theft, porch pirates, you name it. After being a victim myself, I can say that it does indeed cause an increase in anxiety, especially the sense of helplessness that comes with it. The police department here is woefully understaffed and has been ordered to not focus on property crime because their staffing only leaves room to focus on violent crime. The under- staffing is in part due to the anti-cop sentiment of the far-left activists. This leaves law-abiding residents to largely fend for themselves.

I have always felt it would be very useful to be able to identify people in videos who may have committed a crime locally or elsewhere in the city, to learn of their movements, where they might live, what other crimes they committed, etc. This would help police prioritize some non-violent crime effectively, get a high return on the time they spend investigating property crimes (actually catching criminals), which would then in turn serve as a deterrent that is outright missing right now. I would gladly contribute my video to that cause, as would almost everyone in my neighborhood.

A word on the commenters here going on about 'pearl-clutching': that's just the latest in pejoratives that are nothing but empty stereotypes. Most people on NextDoor in my city are reasonable, but are regularly unfairly characterized by the far-left progressive cabal in this manner. Caring about the safety of yourself, your loved ones, and your property is not a bad thing. We work and live in part for those very things. If you disagree, then try outlawing door locks. It is unbelievable to me that the rights of criminals are more important to commenters here than the rights of those who want to protect their own. And worse yet, the conspiracy-theory notion that we are about to be taken over by a tyrannical government because of doorbell recordings. If this was a topic they disagreed with, those same commenters would readily call this a "slippery slope fallacy".

A further aside: The ACLU has been wrong a lot on this topic - for example when they called AWS's Rekognition service a "facial recognition service" instead of what it is, a generic object recognition service. They also did not seem to understand how false positives/negatives are managed and why it is fine to use an imperfect object recognition service as a first-pass filter. And they are wrong again here - people are allowed to film on public property and share it with whomever they want. They're allowed to perform whatever analysis they want and share it with whomever they want, period.

<comment><USER29> Completely agree. I've seen several legitimate instances of theft and porch piracy on my local Nextdoor and the government police seem to do little about it. Something like this would support private policing which is desperately needed in many areas of the US

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> That's not surprising. Amazon is actively working to create a dystopia, and this would be a logical next step.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm quite surprised here to not have seen anyone point out the way these patent games typically work inside of a big company.

Often a company is motivated to increase their IP portfolio. In turn they motivate their engineers by offering lucrative bonuses for each patent filed. At my last company we played this game and it was roughly $3k per patent. In general, out of the huge number of patents that get filed in a big company, very few---if any---have any hope of ever seeing the light of day as an actual invention.

While I agree that the technology itself is somewhat alarming and I personally disagree with the idea of anyone building it, let's maybe save the outrage until they announce that they are actually going to build this thing and deploy it in the real world?

<comment><USER30> "let's maybe save the outrage until they announce that they are actually going to build this thing and deploy it in the real world?"

Perhaps enough outrage now would prevent it from being deployed, or would get them to engage in at least a tiny amount of mitigation of the worst aspects of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Ok, now you just have to combine the cameras with a social-credit-as-a-service ecosystem to keep your suspicious people list up to date and one or two of these guys [1] mounted on every front porch for automatic suspicious people deterrence - and we can get a nice Black Mirror style scenario where you will be physically incapable of entering certain parts of the city if you pissed off the wrong algorithm.

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/9ys1e...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/9ys1e4/automatic_sprinkler_test/)

</comment><comment><USER33> Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

</comment><comment><USER34> There's a solution: make it inadmissable in court. That roves a huge incentive. And get rid of the fisa and other administrative kangaroo courts held to different standards of evidence, preponderance thereof, and due process.

</comment><comment><USER19> "Jeff, it's much easier to pave the way for Cthulhu when you pretend to be kind. Still a shitty thing to do, but easier."

</comment><comment><USER35> Anyone else immediately think of the all seeing 'telescreen' from 1984? What a time to be alive...

</comment><comment><USER36> The Circle</comment>


iOS8 presents serious issues that prevent file uploading - <AUTHOR> http://blog.fineuploader.com/2014/09/10/ios8-presents-serious-issues-that-prevent-file-uploading/

<comment><USER2> Wasn't iOS8 going to support extensions for mobile Safari, i.e. move in the direction of more openness?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, it will, as far as I know. That's a tangential discussion though. This article deals with the crippling of the native <input type="file"> element and File API support in iOS.

<comment><USER2> Is that for web views embedded in apps? I can't recall mobile safari or any other app providing a file upload option in a browser view. I was hoping that extensions would enable this feature.

<comment><AUTHOR> Since iOS6, the <input type="file"> element has been supported, which allows the user to select a file or files from the underlying OS.

<comment><USER2> Just tried this in Safari on iOS7. That element enables choosing of a photo.

To access a file from the underlying OS, do you need a jailbroken device?

<comment><AUTHOR> iOS doesn't really have a filesystem. You can only store photos and videos, which are accessible via an <input type="file">.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage - <AUTHOR> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

<comment><USER2> "For instance, one issue relating to copyright law is whether music sharing should be allowed. Patent law has nothing to do with this. Patent law raises issues such as whether poor countries should be allowed to produce life-saving drugs and sell them cheaply to save lives. Copyright law has nothing to do with such matters."

I don't know how that remotely refutes the umbrella term "intellectual property." Is there really such a huge difference between laws that make it illegal reproduce and sell music created by somebody else and laws that make it illegal to reproduce and sell drugs designed by somebody else that we can't put them in the same category? Perhaps he has a point with trademarks, but the differences between patents and copyrights don't seem to be much greater than the differences between burglary and embezzlement laws.

<comment><AUTHOR> Richard Stallman gives the example of a law professor who refers to patents and copyrights collectively as intellectual property when he knows that it doesn't apply to tramemarks. Others might not get the distinction. This isn't pedantry. Richard Stallman explains that the conflation is relatively recent and prior to this, case law set very distinct properties for each class.</comment></comment>


Devuan GNU+Linux is a fork of Debian without systemd - <AUTHOR> https://devuan.org/ <comment><USER2> Devuan uses sysvinit, offers openrc, runit, sinit[1]

[https://devuan.org/os/init-freedom/](https://devuan.org/os/init-freedom/)</comment>


Snowden files 'read by Russia and China': 5 questions for UK government - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/14/snowden-files-read-by-russia-and-china-five-questions-for-uk-government

<comment><USER2> There is not enough popcorn in the world for this right now.</comment>


The brain has a limited capacity for self-regulation but practice increases willpower capacity - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/opinion/02aamodt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin <comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=153491>

</comment><comment><USER3> Dupe, dupe. WTB super de-duper.</comment>


Apple Just Gutted Its Laptop Lineup - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/apple-just-gutted-its-laptop-line-up-1836210895 <comment><USER2> I'm actually rather surprised that so many of these reactions are so negative. I guess it's another case of outrage being a more profitable form of journalism.

In reality, Apple just price cut all its most popular laptops in a pretty major way.

Want a quad core laptop? It's $1300 instead of $1800 now, and adds the Touch Bar.*

Want a basic MacBook for school or light browsing? The MacBook Air is $100 cheaper now and has a better screen.

These are big, big price cuts, and I think Apple's going to sell more laptops in Q4 than they ever have before.

The 12" MacBook was discontinued, but we can only assume it was never really selling all that well. I think the Air's extra 3/4 pound of weight is somewhat unfortunate but I'd imagine that the extra horsepower is probably needed for most people over the anemic performance of the 12" MacBook.

* Love it or hate it, you still get more tech for the money with the addition of the Touch Bar to the lowest MacBook Pro model. Why exactly do we assume that _most_ people dislike the Touch Bar again? Just because some people are vocal about it online? Apple does collect plenty of telemetry and I assume they wouldn't add it to more models if they figured out that nobody used it.

<comment><USER3> "I think the Air's extra 3/4 pound of weight is somewhat unfortunate but I'd imagine that the extra horsepower is probably needed for most people over the anemic performance of the 12" MacBook."

Not having paid attention to Mac laptops in a while, that just seems ridiculous. Maybe they're doing great things now, but they must have really been out to lunch if they ended up with a product line where the "Air" model was the heavy and high powered choice.

<comment><USER2> When it comes to the "Air" name it's more of a brand recognition thing than anything else.

The 12" MacBook was launched after the Air but did not replace it. I'm not sure why the MacBook was just named "MacBook" but it is what it is, people just didn't really make the extra dollar tradeoff and the Air was a best seller. Especially at launch, the MacBook was quite a bit more expensive than the Air.

I suspect the Air's slightly larger size and cost-optimized design won out over the more expensive, slower MacBook.

Perhaps Apple intended to eventually replace the Air with the MacBook but for whatever reason it just didn't happen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sad to see the 12" go. It's the portable that makes sense to me, saving a lot of weight and shaving almost too much power for that goal. Meanwhile the air just seems like a 13" not-pro.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Likely Apple is reducing the laptop lineup because they aren't selling enough. Although they have been great machines (I still use a Pro every day) they are not competitively priced. Especially for a student, a laptop at roughly half the price for enough comparative capabilities is a much better selection. For hardcore software development and graphics work, a Dell XPS is also roughly half the price. The display performance may not quite compare to the Pro but the price difference is huge.

Reducing the line up indicates to me that Apple recognizes they are not competitive in this market and they are pulling out. Apple's business focus has been and continues to go in other directions.

</comment><comment><USER5> I never liked the Macbook. I think if they rename the Macbook Air as Macbook and keep that similar form factor I wont have complaints about that.

The Macbook Air was their smallest laptop, this became the opposite when they brought those smaller Macbook Laptops since otherwise they would of just had a rename. I dunno why they didnt just rename the line up. Then they coulda called those smaller Macbooks the new Macbook Airs.

</comment><comment><USER6> Does Apple really need to cater to developers anymore? I don't think they think they need to.

<comment><USER7> Sure. People still write code you know.

And all their Macs work for development. I wrote about 100K lines of C++ on one of those tiny MacBooks, both at my office desk and all around the world. MacBook Air is OK, but that tiny MacBook was so light I couldn't even tell if it was in my bag without checking.

<comment><USER6> _Sure. People still write code you know._

 _And all their Macs work for development._

Yes they work, of course, but at this point Apple is powerful and dominant. Apple doesn't need to _court_ developers like us anymore. At this point, many of us are stuck with them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I feel the Touch Bar is the only fault with the MacBooks at this point. Get the F1-F12 buttons back and it's all good.</comment>


Macron says France and U.S. reached digital tax deal - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g7-summit-tax-macron/macron-says-france-and-u-s-reached-digital-tax-deal-idUSKCN1VG1N7 <comment><USER2> So basically they just kicked the can down the road a bit.

<comment><USER3> The plan was always to reach a more comprehensive arrangement in the near future, according to France (they stated it was a temporary measure until OECD members could come to a solution). The US has repeatedly said it was willing to work with OECD members to come up with a digital tax solution. The US position for example has never been blanket against implementing an OECD- agreed digital tax. So there is likely room to find a compromise. Kicking the can down the road until that can be accomplished, is probably the best outcome here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wouldn't be surprised if new taxes are all based on revenue in the concerning region and not on profits. Taxes should just be part of the cost of doing business.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm kind of surprised - I'm sure going forward treaties/agreements countries undertake with the US are going to start having withdraw penalties.

I certainly wouldn't trust any agreement currently.

</comment><comment><USER6> >3% tax on revenues earned on digital services in France

A tax on _revenues_???? Not on profits, but on revenues, which do not deduct operating costs????

It looks like France is continuing its reputation as a reverse tax haven, IOW a place that the rich keep their assets away from. [https://www.nomoretax.eu/france-wants-back-rich- people/](https://www.nomoretax.eu/france-wants-back-rich-people/)

<comment><USER7> This type of tax is gonna happen all around eu. The reason being - big digital services pay almost zero taxes by doing clever tax tactics and moving all their revenues to tax havens.

<comment><USER8> There's an argument to be made that they also don't use anything in that country because they're _digital_ services. And, supposedly, taxes are to pay for infrastructure? Although these days the view seems to be, let's just take as much money as possible, even if nothing / very little is provided in return.

<comment><USER9> Here's an example: A German company pays to advertise to a German consumer. It used to be that the money spent on that advertisement went to a German advertisement company, so that money would stay in the German economy, and the system would be sustainable, with money flowing around the system but not escaping. Now the ad money ends up in the Cayman Islands via Ireland and none of it is retained in Germany because the multinational advertising company has no/very few employees in Germany (no salaries/income tax) there's no VAT (because the ad sale is a B2B transaction) and there's no corporate taxes (because the ad company uses transfer pricing - e.g. licensing of IP that they can price arbitrarily - to shift all their profits to Ireland where they make them disappear in a puff of smoke). The end result is that money is being siphoned out of the German economy and into tax havens (so there's no return flow like there'd be if this was just normal trade with other active economies) making it harder and harder to sustain the German economy. There's a leak in the system when selling to consumers, and if it's left unchecked it'll slowly collapse the middle class and consumerism as we know it. I'm not sure if revenue tax is the best solution, but we need A solution. (or you know, we could just blame the foreigners and let the weakest parts of society fight over the jobs and shreds of wellfare state that are left, which seems to be the preferred solution these days). Mind you I'm not arguing against international trade (which increases competition and drives down prices) but against the unfair competitive advantage that multinational companies, especially digital ones, have over local companies by not needing to pay taxes at all. We need an even playing field, tax-wise, that's all.

<comment><USER8> > It used to be that the money spent on that advertisement went to a German > advertisement company

It sounds to me like the problem is that the German economy failed to produce a Google competitor or, at least, a decent local German online advertising network that the German consumer would want to use. So, now they have a problem that they're trying to solve with taxation instead of innovation. This won't work, it just creates barriers to international trade in global world. It is 19th century economics.

> have over local companies by not needing to pay taxes at all

That is incorrect. They pay their taxes in their home countries. Why should they be penalized extra over local to Germany companies by having to pay double tax: once at home and once in that country?

<comment><USER9> You don't seem to understand how transfer pricing and tax havens work. These companies are not paying taxes on profits from most of their foreign sales in their home countries - the home corporation pays taxes on their domestic profits, and profits from those international subsidiaries that can't be channeled to tax havens (e.g. not from Europe) while all those profits that can make their way to tax havens do. Here's an article explaining how Apple does it: [https://www.irishtimes.com/business/apple-s-cash-mountain- ho...](https://www.irishtimes.com/business/apple-s-cash-mountain-how-it- avoids-tax-and-the-irish-link-1.3281734)

<comment><USER10> What that article doesn't make it clear is that the overseas cash was still subject to US taxation.

A few years ago, that taxation could be indefinitely deferred, but that's no longer the case. So calling it a tax haven is somewhat misleading if we're talking about US companies.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to Ethically Modify the DNA of Humans - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-to-ethically-modify-the-dna-of-humans <comment><USER2> see also: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10671897](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10671897) (article from a day earlier, efore the statement was released)</comment>


Is learning to program inherently hard? - <AUTHOR> http://computinged.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/is-learning-to-program-inherently-hard/ <comment><USER2> Is learning to ride a unicycle hard? It is if you don't have inherently good balance. Is linguistics hard? It is if you don't have a good associative memory. Is math hard? Is carving a wooden bowl on a lathe hard? Is pro-Hockey hard? Is sculpture hard? Metal working? Philosophy? Music?

The percentages of people with specific inherent skill sets will vary widely in society, so 'hard' is best defined as 'requiring a skill a smaller percentage of the population possess'. Good programming does require specific skills, but I don't see it as being any more difficult than other specialized tasks.

I don't find programming hard at all... perhaps that is because I started very young, perhaps it is just a 'natural' ability to understand and evaluate systems. To me it's second nature. However when I watch an artist form a mental image then extract it from a block of stone, or I watch my math PhD friend throw around set theory and abstract dimensions like cake recipes... I am fascinated.... and lost.

Hard is relative.

<comment><USER3> _Is learning to ride a unicycle hard?_

I think the difference here is that riding a unicycle is a fundamentally bounded problem: you balance, you move your feet, you do a couple of other things. By contrast, programming is effectively unlimited in its potential problem domain.

 _Philosophy? Music?_

These are both hard to do really well, but they have a much greater margin for error and often aren't provably correct or incorrect. When I write an academic paper, if I have a typo on the fourth page, the entire rest of the paper won't catastrophically fail. When I write a program, however. . .

 _Hard is relative._

Very true! But some fields still, at least to my mind, feel harder than others. One (limited) way you could look at "hard" is in the context of universities: I've seen dropout graphs for various majors. It's not at all unusual for someone to go from electrical engineering to com, or CS to English, but I've yet to hear any English majors say, "English was too hard for me, so I switched to Chemical Engineering."

<comment><USER4> _When I write a program, however. . ._

It might not catastrophically fail, but it might mean anything from not compiling through to not outputting a newline or create a possible security issue via a buffer overflow.

Like the majority of things in life, it comes down to shades of grey, and that's why it's tricky at times ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Programming is hard, period. Knuth has noted that its so difficult for him that when he is programming he can't teach courses, and he's among the best programmers in history.

Jon Skeet wrote a blog on the topic: [http://msmvps.com/blogs/jon_skeet/archive/2009/01/29/program...](http://msmvps.com/blogs/jon_skeet/archive/2009/01/29/programming- is-hard.aspx)

Jon Skeet is right. Programming is hard, except the most trivial tasks. And anything that is not trivial is probably broken. But we're OK with things being a little broken, and we've made users bend to our will sufficiently now that we have pushed much of the cognitive load to the users.

<comment><AUTHOR> _"Programming is hard, period. Knuth has noted that its so difficult for him that when he is programming he can't teach courses, and he's among the best programmers in history."_

This reminds me of something I've read about writing:

"A writer is someone for whom writing is more difficult than it is for other people." -- Thomas Mann

I wonder if this also applies to programming.

That is, perhaps the reason programming for Knuth is so hard is that he has such high standards and that he's working on such difficult problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would note that the author jumps between "teaching programming is hard", "programming is hard" and "learning programming is hard". None of these are equivalent statements about a field in general (even if they're all true here).

Still, it seems like in fact _saying things about_ "programming" might also being inherently hard!

I mean, we can say that the halting problem is inherently but the halting problem doesn't reflect the day-to-day practices of the working programmer. Yet how do we characterize what does? The boundary between programming and using computers is fuzzy and given Church-Turing, just about defined activity can be encompassed in using a computer (a lot of machinists have become "programmers" of numerically controlled machines but this use is more similar to artists using Photoshop than software engineers using c++). One might argue that the advance of computer technology will create more and more professions which involve the high-level use of computers but won't be "programming as such" (spread-sheet use, UI design, etc).

By that token, if "real programming" is what's left when you've codified the other occupations, one could argue that it is inherently hard. But we're still a bit at the level of tautology.

</comment><comment><USER7> As a 'business' guy, I taught myself to program so that I could communicate effectively with my team. It was damned hard - partly because I was doing it on an evening and (if I'm honest) I wasn't that interested in it... at first. The more I learned though, the more that I understood that its about solving problems and as soon as my brain understood that it was a challenge it became more fun. I will admit that I am still not a very good programmer. I'm slow, but I treat it as a hobby now and whilst its probably amusing for the people on my team I enjoy the feeling I get when I create something.

To any of the non-programmers on who read HN a lot, I'd recommend doing what I did

<comment><USER8> I've thought about this for a while. Where did you start, and what languages are best for this kind of toe-dipping? Also, what kind of time investment did you have to put in?

<comment><USER7> Well, I've been in business a while, so the first language I learned was called Cold Fusion (I think now owned by Adobe). I then tried learning PHP, but there was some kind of mental barrier there unfortunately for me, though I think I'd be OK with it these days. I then moved to Python which I've found to be a great language. There are a lot of free online books out there. In terms of investment in time, I just started off doing an hour a day. As I did not have anything specific to do, with any timeframe, this worked well for me and did not impact on the day-to-day activities. I will say though that you need to set yourself a challenge fairly quickly as this is the only real way to solidify the theory in your mind. The first one for me was a small crawler to screen scrape some data from a site, put it into a database and search it. One of my team could have done it much quicker of course, but the sense of achievement when it (finally!) worked was great. Hope this helps

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9>
      learning to program is deceptively hard.

      First you think it hard,
      then you think its not,
      then you think its hard,
      then you think its not,
       ...

</comment><comment><USER10> I think what makes programming particularly hard is that there is such a large space of possibilities. There's pretty good research out there that people flounder when there are too many choices. When I was first starting out I remember being paralyzed by that; I could think of several ways to write this one algorithm, and how did I choose? What helped was learning about efficiency in programming, simply because learning "best" practices was a way to limit the space of possibilities.

There are, of course, parallel examples of open problems- writing a novel is much the same way, I think. And I think most would agree that writing a novel is also hard. And doing original research also falls under this umbrella.

</comment><comment><USER11> Hard? It's easy to write one line of code that works. Anyone can do that. It's easy to write two lines of codes that works. Anyone can do that. Now you just continue. See, not too hard!

No, of course the complexity grows for each new instruction - and that's why it's hard. Software engineering is about managing this complexity. Programming is the easy part.

</comment><comment><USER12> Programming is probably as challenging as any other intellectually demanding task, but it does have one advantage to other skills: it can be done fairly cheaply. It doesn't require any sort of capital investment other than a cheap netbook (or someone could probably even learn on machines in the library), there are tons of high quality tools and tutorials out there that are completely free, and there is a large community of people that are very accessible and actually like helping other people.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think he got it spot on with the mental model stuff. People fail at programming because they've learned to always use plug-and-play formulas instead of properly understanding what's going on. This approach fails absolutely with programming. There are no shortcuts.

<comment><USER14> I don't fully understand what's going on. However, as long as someone design the black box carefully, I can figure out what it can't and can do.

<comment><USER15> Thanks to the law of leaky abstractions, that will always bite you in the end (provided your are doing something complicated enough).

[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.htm...](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I found programming WAY easier than learning the guitar. 'Course I was 13 at the time, and the latter involved "practice". Practice was boring, yet learning things like ASCII, how to toggle a PDP-8, Hammurabi, ... Those weren't "practice".

As everybody knows, doing what you like to do is easy. Doing other stuff is not.

<comment><USER17> > Practice was boring, yet learning things like ASCII, how to toggle a PDP-8, > Hammurabi, ... Those weren't "practice".

I get better at programming as I do it more. I think you're correct that individual knowledge points aren't "practice" per se, but practice definitely factors into skill over time. Just like I imagine it does with the guitar.

<comment><USER18> I think the essential difference is that practicing the guitar involves doing the same thing over and over until you get it right/fast, whereas practicing programming involves doing different things.

<comment><USER16> I would think to a guitarist, what we do when programming is "all the same". Just like we think guitar practice is all the same. No, the guitarist would say, there's real differences between flamenco, jazz, prog rock, ...

If you support the 10K hours argument, some things are willingly done and others less so. I make coin with programming, yet people pay to see guitarists.

<comment><USER19> Guitarists definitely do engage in some 'mindless' practice where they're essentially just building dexterity/muscle-memory by playing the same thing over and over. I don't think there's anything like that in programming... unless you count trying to get used to emacs key bindings.

But obviously some guitar practice is more involved. It's something I think about a lot actually, as when I need a break from programming first thing I do is pick up my guitar. My musical goal is to be able to improvise on the guitar using jazz theory. To do that you need to internalize abstractions like scales/modes and chord progressions. You need to be able to transpose the same abstraction/pattern to different notes (on the most basic level this would just mean sliding further up the neck and using the same shape for fingering), and you need to be able to 'search' your options (some chords can substitute for other chords, which might then allow a whole new path of music) on the fly.

In programming you don't need to wrangle all these abstractions in a strictly timed performance, and there's no physical component to the challenge. But still, I often think about the similarities. I guess playing jazz guitar, while complex, can still be kept within a manageable scope of permutations and ultimately 'mastered'. But with programming you can't tame the complexity, you just get good at dodging it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Learned to program when I was around five or six years old, by picking up a book of prewritten programs in BASIC for a Sinclair ZX80 (or ZX81? not sure), figuring out how they worked and writing my own.

I am not sure what the term "inherently hard" is supposed to mean in this context.

<comment><USER21> Come on. I think the context is pretty clear. If a group of novelists are discussing how writing is inherently hard, would you let them know you don't understand how they can say writing is hard? After all, you learned how to write when you were five or six by picking up "See Spot Run" and then stringing together some nouns and verbs of your own...

<comment><USER22> If something is "inherently hard", not just "hard", it seems that it should be hard for _everyone_ , which is clearly not the case with programming for some geniuses out there. There are people who don't blink an eye at mastering any data structure or algorithm, don't sweat when it comes to actually coding, and they're human just like you. Plus what if programming became really simple for some AI to do? You ask it "Make me a triple-A style video game I might enjoy" and it does so after a short while. I believe Eliezer is pointing out that programming being inherently hard is a mind-projection fallacy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Programming is like most things in life: hard if you have no affinity for it, much easier (but not necessarily easy) if you do.

I see programming to have a lot of parallels with being a combination mechanic and automotive engineer.

A mechanic fixes cars, diagnoses problems, tunes a car and so on. It's really a lot like (code) reading, testing, debugging and maintenance--all key programming skills.

An automotive engineer will actually a design a car, design and various components, model how it should work and so on. This is really program design and _programming_ specifically.

The thing about programming is that involve perhaps the most tractable medium humans have ever used. It takes a long time to design and build a car. It still takes a long time to make significant changes to that car. Now compare that to software, which is easily changeable with a feedback loop that can be measured in as little as a few seconds (edit code, save, reload page in browser).

Of course some software has a longer feedback loop but at worst it tends to be in hours, possibly days. It's a different order of magnitude.

Cars can be adjusted within fairly tight limits (meaning you can make the engine more efficient or make the brakes work better or not at all but you can't easily make that car float or fly).

Is programming harder than being a mechanic and/or automotive engineer? Empirically I can't answer that question. I would be useless as a mechanic. Could I learn? Possibly. Would I be as good as those with a natural affinity? Absolutely not.

One thing I'll add is that the barrier to entry for programming is probably higher but this might simply be an issue of complexity.

Consider a car from 40-50 years ago. It wasn't that complicated. Now? Cars have _dozens_ of computing units in them and qualified mechanics have to use computer systems to interface with them. So perhaps modern software is more like a modern car than a car from the 70s.

Now consider another discipline like medicine. Is medicine hard? It certainly requires a lot of knowledge. Part of many medical disciplines it appears involve a significant amount of rote learning. Bone names, nerves, diseases and so on.

Some have an affinity for rote learning and some don't. I know I don't.

The other part of medicine is the mental attitude required. Not everyone is psychologically capable of dealing with a patient who is dying or has the mental endurance to perform a 12 hour heart transplant. It's very _exact_.

But is it harder?

My own theory is that some people can become programmers and others can't. Some of the ones who can't sadly are employed as programmers.

Programming requires an extremely high level of abstract thought. I remember demonstrating to my sister how I used Splashtop on my iPad to connect to my PC at home to start it doing something. To her, it was for all intents and purposes magic (to paraphrase one of Arthur C. Clarke's laws).

To me--and anyone reading this--there's nothing magical about it. It's simply a system of concepts built on top of other concepts.

This also changes my thinking. I see (human) language much like a network protocol. Letters are merely agreed-upon symbols that, when combined, form sounds (most) humans are capable of making. Combine those sounds (or groups of letters) into words and you have a another layer of agreed-upon concepts (or definitions).

Network protocols work much the same way. Ultimately there is a physical layer where certain voltage differences equate to 1s and 0s. Once you have the concepts of transmitting bits, you arrange them into bytes. Certain bytes or byte sequences resolve to characters. Combine those characters and you have a message.

It's systems built on systems. Do non-programmers see language that way? Unless they're linguists, probably not.

So I guess my point is that programming (or anything for that matter) may simply look hard because the foundation in concepts simply isn't there. Whether or not someone can learn those concepts and whether or not that makes programming qualitatively hard is another matter.

<comment><USER24> _I would be useless as a mechanic._

90% of being a good mechanic, just as 90% of being a good programmer or a good doctor, is debugging. If you're a good debugger, you can damn well do _anything_.

<comment><USER25> As a mechanic, you also need good grip strength and not be afraid to bloody your knuckles.

<comment><USER24> That's the 10%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've said it before, and I'll say it again. In my experience, the problems that students have ultimately fall into one of two categories:

1\. Learning to think algorithmically; 2\. Abstraction.

What do I mean by these? By "thinking algorithmically," I really mean "taking a large problem and breaking it up into an ordered series of steps or sub- problems." This is surprisingly hard for a lot of people, in part because the correct "size" of steps or sub-problem can change from problem to problem and from language to language. This can absolutely be taught, though. Some students have an easier time of this than others, but eventually (in my experience) they all get there in the end, and develop an intuitive sense of how to do it... at which point 99% of people immediately "forget" what it was like to _not_ be able to do it, and become incapable of recognizing and dealing with students who haven't gotten there yet. :-) Most programmers (myself included, at least until my dozenth or so student, at which point I figured out what was going on) fall into this category: thinking in this manner is so deeply imprinted into our cognitive processes that we typically have a very difficult time visualizing what it's like to not be there. We're sort of like fish and water, if you know what I mean.

The second problem is much more difficult to address. Abstraction is one of those things that, I'm convinced, some (most) people can "get" and others simply can't. For example, I've had students who seemed to understand arrays perfectly, including the idea of using an integer subscript to refer to the value at an array index such that if you showed them the following code:

<pre>

myList = ['monkeys', 'elephants', 'giraffes'] print myList[1]

</pre>

they'd easily tell you that it would print 'elephants' (yes, they can usually get their heads around zero-indexing without issues). If, however, you showed them this code:

<pre>

myList = ['monkeys', 'elephants', 'giraffes'] idx = 1 print myList[idx]

</pre>

a lot of them would be more than a little bit lost. Even worse would be if you showed them this code:

<pre>

for i in [0, 1, 2] print myList[i]

</pre>

They'd be _really_ lost, then. Even if you walk through it line by line, with lots of extraneous print statements, there is a certain sub-type of (otherwise perfectly capable) student that just isn't gonna get it. I'm convinced that this problem--- lack of abstraction ability--- is also why so many students have problems with loops. Dealing with loop counter variables (and the things that you usually want to do with them--- array indexing, printing, doing math, etc.) is very hard if your brain isn't able to think in this abstract manner.

It's worse in Java than it is in Python, just 'cause there's so much more code involved (meaning that it's harder to pinpoint exactly where the confusion is coming from), but the problem totally persists even in sane teaching languages. I've talked to a lot of other CS educators who've noticed the same thing- no matter how you approach it, this level of abstraction is just beyond some students' reach. It gets worse once you try and teach them about object/class distinctions, and so on. It's not that they're stupid- my students are usually MDs working on their masters' degrees. It's just that some people's brains don't work that way. And it's not that they can't do other computer stuff- some of these students have gone on to become pretty good at SQL and even relational data modeling, which you'd think would use some of the same cognitive patterns, but apparently is different enough that it's doable.

I don't know if the problem would be better or worse teaching with a purely functional language; my gut says "worse," but I haven't tried it so I don't know, and the fact that many students with this problem go on to handle declarative languages pretty well gives me pause.

<comment><USER27> You can simulate <pre>

       by
         indenting
           four spaces in

<comment><USER19>
        always
            wondered
                how that worked

<comment><USER28> <http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's a lot like Chess or Poker, you can teach anyone the basic rules in a few minutes and they will be able to have some level of success, but it can take you a lifetime to master

</comment><comment><USER30> Learning the language of programming is easy (like learning the chords on a guitar) but combining the elements of programming into a working solution to a problem is an entirely different thing. Like any other skill the amount of labor required to go from novice to master grow exponentially over the course of learning.

</comment><comment><USER28> "The contraints imposed in building large software systems are the limitations of our own minds. In that sense computer science is like an abtract form of engineering; it's the kind of engineering where you ignore the constraints that are imposed by reality." - Harold Abelson in SICP lectures

</comment><comment><USER31> I've always thought it was pretty easy. But you can't judge that kind of stuff in a vacuum - maybe if the people around me were demonstrably better programmers I would have a hard time trying to close the gap.

</comment><comment><USER32> I think programming is a vague term. If programming just means rigorously encoding an imprecise set of instructions then while not easy I cannot say it is especially difficult.

But if your programming involves complex mathematics,physics, linguistics, biological, intricate interactions with the world, heck even philosophical concepts then programming is in the cartesian product of the domain and field and is as hard as the toughest problem you are attacking, judged with respect, also to the source field. The true difficulty is in balancing multiple species of abstraction, domain knowledge, device knowledge and encoding instruction in a way that satisfies all of these.

So there is the base difficulty of abstracting and then converting mental concepts to a set of computations compounded with the difficulty of getting the abstractions of your domain knowledge to transfer to a set of mental concepts that are transferable to a set of computations. heh. If the field you are dealing with is easy And Or you are continually dealing with the same problem more or less (just different facets) such that you had internalized most of the process to automated subthought (mastery) then yes it will appear easy.

Programming then, would only be bounded by its own internal difficulty, which gets easier the more you explore it and learn widely applicable abstractions. Once you mix in the difficulty of the field the same applies till you have reduced the interactions of field+programming to mastered concepts. If the field has a high minimum then this reduction may still always remain extremely difficult. So if one finds programming easy it could also be a sign that you are not challenging yourself enough, not pushing your boundaries sufficiently.

My theory is that those of the greatest skill have burning curiosity and will to improve, respond positively to challenge, and have great ability to focus - together this allows them to hold on to and continually attack a problem to a greater depth than most. You need only pick 3, maybe only 2. If there is any inherent genetic advantage held by some - greater ability to focus, efficient use of nutrients, quicker and more enduring synaptic connections, whatever - for the rest of us, I feel the brain is marvellously malleable and can be tuned down another set of dimensions. The space of intelligence is gigantic and non euclidean and likely with no concept of a global maximum. If the person is so determined they will work around their deficiencies and or train their mental processes stronger so that any "lack" of inherent skill does not get in the way of what they wish to do. This is what I believe I do and did. I do be slow as molasses.

<comment><USER32> I am new here and so do not understand the intricacies of this community. Is there anything particularly offensive or especially stupid about my comment? I tried to be careful but perhaps I failed and so would appreciate any insight for further edification.

<comment><USER33> Don't worry about it. Your comment was fine. People sometimes downvote for idiosyncratic reasons but someone else usually comes along and neutralizes that (as I just did). The main thing is to keep the discussion on-topic and not go meta.

You make an excellent point: the difficulty of programming is not only that of instructing the computer but also that of the problem the program is to solve. I agree.

(As an aside, the main problem with your comment is that it was rambling. This obscures your otherwise valuable insights. I recommend a course of obsessive- compulsive editing :))

<comment><USER32> Thanks, that was helpful. I'll have to take on that course as I do need to work on communicating clearly. The unedited stream of thought thing does a good job of hiding what I am trying to say. counter-productive.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


I'm A Thinker, Not a Do-er - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@cuppy/im-a-thinker-not-a-doer-23614fbd9de0

<comment><USER2> The best advice I've found is: try doing nothing.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7864809](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7864809)

Not getting anything done out of anxiety you should be getting something done is a real problem a lot of people have. I sure had it at times. I would be more sympathetic to the author and try to understand the problem better before calling her names.

</comment><comment><USER3> Work out what's actually important in life and to you, and LET GO of everything else. Work out what your heart desires, and then the thinking becomes doing very quickly.

</comment><comment><USER4> The hardest part, is to start.

Take the first step, and the rest get progressively easier.

<comment><USER5> That's completely wrong. Doing a start-up, or learning any new skill is like riding a bull. Its easy to get on, and when you do... you have this optimism that can only come from having no idea what you're doing.

The hardest part is staying on the ride while it tries to shake you off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow, are we the same person? Or is this the new state of a generation?

</comment><comment><USER7> You're not a thinker--you're a procrastinator.

There a deep emotional issues causing your anxiety, probably from your childhood. You need to get out of your head. You're stuck in an endless loop.

<comment><USER8> "There a deep emotional issues causing your anxiety, probably from your childhood."

Um, what?</comment></comment>


Republican Presidential Candidates on SOPA: All Oppose - <AUTHOR> http://protestsopa.com/post/16149076016/presidential-candidates

<comment><USER2> A disturbing observation I've made regarding politics is that stances on issues are often highly cyclical (specifically in regards to the election cycle). This means that during an election year, candidates tend to fall "on the side of the people", and shortly afterwards, the politician's stances shift to favor their largest contributors.

I fear that this is the case here. All candidates (including President Obama) are in a competition to be elected. SOPA/PIPA are unpopular issues at the moment, and it is in the candidate's best interests to publicly oppose the bills. Once the votes are in, all debts must be repaid. Special interests have a longer memory than voters, and disappointing a campaign contributor is not an option if the candidate wants their support in the next election.

That's all I have to say on the matter. I don't wish to get very deep into politics here, except where they intersect with typical Hacker News interests.

<comment><USER3> Yes, I believe that was the case for all of them except Ron Paul. Ron Paul opposed it before it was cool for the other politicians to oppose it. Plus, it's against his beliefs, because he believes the Government shouldn't intervene in most issues. He opposed net neutrality, too, for the same reason, and that's actually something that "the people" wanted back then. So I wouldn't worry about him in regards to changing his mind depending on where the wind blows like that.

But I noticed at least a few Congressmen who were very opposed to net neutrality "because the Internet should be free, and the Government shouldn't intervene" (while receiving donations from carriers), and then going full 180 degrees, and becoming sponsors of SOPA (when receiving donations from Hollywood). Washington is full of hypocrites, and the current incentives to go and beg for the corporations' money for their campaigns, are definitely not helping.</comment></comment>


Realistic-Looking Images via Deep Convolutional Generative Adversarial Networks - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Newmu/dcgan_code/ <comment><USER2> I wish they'd use larger images.</comment>


How to bounce back after a reputation fall - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@BestinTest/bouncing-back-after-a-reputational-fall-48f0dcc177dd#.q635yfhuk <comment><USER2> This is interesting/disturbing. The content-marketing aspect was a little heavy-handed, though.</comment>


Traveler's still seek the human touch and expertise from Travel Agents - <AUTHOR> http://www.tnooz.com/article/not-dead-yet-why-the-old-school-travel-agent-isnt-going-anywhere/

<comment><USER2> Excellent article and thanks for sharing!

The new bunch of travel websites has not attempted to create a human process flow to help travelers plan holidays. The approach so far has been mostly transactional e.g., offer information on individual questions vs. tackle the whole trip (mentioned in the article as well).Those who did not start off doing so have sadly shifted to aforementioned model going to the extreme of posting hotel options on the first city page. Revenue pressure, I understand, but no one is really looking for hotels before they decide where they would like to go.

Want to tell you about WanderShip. Something we've been working on for some time now. We've designed it to be the most human flow for planning a trip. And yes it tackles the whole trip, and not only answer individual questions.

As for personalization, no one, not even a travel agent, will recommend restaurants or hotels as well as a friend who knows you for a long time. So WanderShip is not completely human, but probably does as well as a travel agent.

If you're interested, check www.wandership.com</comment>


Is there something like Hacker News but for Product management - <AUTHOR> I want to get into product management, I believe it would be the best skill for me to acquire before moving on into starting up on my own.
Is there something wrong with this thinking?
Is there a place I should start? Do I have to start from scratch, actually. <comment><USER2> Did you know [https://www.indiehackers.com/](https://www.indiehackers.com/) ?

<comment><AUTHOR> No but now I know, thank you</comment></comment>


Edward Snowden's biggest fear? Losing access to his computer - <AUTHOR> http://theglobeandmail.com/news/world/edward-snowden-still-on-the-run/article12773353/

<comment><USER2> >To make matters worse, there are no alcohol sales aboard the nearly 12-hour flight and the reporters must spend three days in Cuba before they can leave because of the country's travel rules.

I find this supremely funny.

"Where's Ed? He's suposed to be on board! Crap, he's not here. Stewardess, I'd like a double whiskey on the rocks. _What?! No alcohol?_ This is worse than being hunted by the US government..."</comment>


Ask HN: Should I pursue a second PhD in AI if I want to do industry? - <AUTHOR> I'm currently in my 3rd year PhD student doing computational physics in a top-10 US university. I have always wanted to start a company with some AI / automation type of tech. I know that a physics PhD is definitely not the ideal way to go but as an international students there aren't too many choices. So I'm wondering, if my ultimate goal is industry => start my own company, would it be worth it if I start from now preparing for 1-2 CS publication and apply for a second PhD in AI after I graduate as a physics PhD?<p>I know people say, if you aim for the industry, don't go for a PhD, but AI requires way more top-notch research skills than most programming works and being in a top school (like Berkeley, MIT or Washington) gives you so much more opportunities to lead a team or be in charge of a technology once you graduate, all of which are opportunities that I can't have, being just a fresh PhD out of a physics department. (though I'm sure I can find a job pretty easily) <comment><USER2> I would say no to the second PhD. If you're motivated enough to get one PhD and to start your own company you're motivated enough to do some research on the side (if necessary) while working in a software job. You'll be a lot better able to save up money for your future company if you are working in an industry job, and in industry you'll acquire kinds of experience that are hard to get from any PhD program. Finish your current PhD, get an industry position, and once you're settled in start doing your own side self-education and research. (Assuming that your day job doesn't naturally afford you opportunities to further sharpen your interest in and knowledge of specific AI areas.)

Research publications aren't important if you want to start your own company. You're not trying to impress yourself enough to get hired by yourself. But doing research-y things, like finding a recent research result that interests you, reproducing it, and trying to improve upon it, still might be important. Even better, IMO, may be looking at recent research results from groups that share source code, and testing your skills at turning research-quality source code into industrial-quality code. That might have to wait until you've been in industry a few years and have a better feeling for how robust production- quality code differs from research code.

</comment><comment><USER3> No, do not get a second PhD. Your opportunity cost is too high. In particular since you are doing computational physics your computational modeling, statistical analysis and understanding of high performance computing should exceed the average AI founder. Second, you will already be capable of self- study of AI type academic publications and you want to be focused on translating those into real life applications not writing grant proposals and other graduate level academic stuff.

By the time you finish a second PhD you might be well along the pathway to business success, or you might fail. But I am convinced that adding a second PhD won't noticeably reduce your risk of failure.

I am almost certain that given the technical capabilities you have already developed that the risk factors in starting a business are product-to-market fit, timing, poor PR, marketing and sales or bad co-founders. By the way I have experience with all of those risk factors - they are real and technical skills or even a second PhD will not make them go away.

</comment><comment><USER4> I am only a mere MSc Statistics student in a Canadian university, but from my perspective, if you are succeeding as a physics PhD in a tough and respected program, then you are more than equipped to do anything you set your mind to in the tech sphere. I'm interested in AI/ML too and I read papers to try and keep up - I'm surprised at how many ideas and methods have ties to statistical physics and other domains that you're probably already comfortable with as a physicist.

In my city's (Vancouver) Slack chat, a lot of the most knowledgable participants in data science discussions are physicists (and they're proud of the fact that they're physicists). Check out the Director of Data Science at Unbounce, who published papers and worked as a postdoc as a physicist before starting in industry data science at PlentyOfFish. Worst case scenario if you find yourself pigeonholed, find a home in Vancouver with like-minded people.

I'd say finish your PhD, skip the AI PhD and go for your ultimate goal ASAP!

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm working on a startup that has a heavy focus on machine learning and AI and I don't even have 1 PhD. Or 1 Masters. Or 1 B.S. I just have 3 Associate degrees. I wouldn't worry about it. Worry about the knowledge, learn on your own and don't over-think the need for formal credentials.

</comment><comment><USER6> A successful company you build could be hiring people with PHDs years faster than getting one yourself.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!</comment>


I posted my password / API key on GitHub - <AUTHOR> https://flaviocopes.com/git-secrets/ <comment><USER2> This article talks about how you cannot roll back things in Git in one paragraph, then about how your reputation is at stake and then immediately into what to do after you've fixed the problem of having committed a secret. I think it should also talk about how to fix the problem, if it targets an audience which might not know how Git works. Otherwise a novice is walking away from it having learnt that Git is irreversible but you can also still somehow fix an issue of having committed secrets to it. I know I'd be confused if I didn't already know what to do.</comment>


Ancient Martian Rivers Revealed in Newest Satellite Images - <AUTHOR> https://newatlas.com/mars-rivers-esa-images/58591/ <comment><USER2> Man this is so cool. I saw that movie Serenity when I was younger and totally wanted to Teraform other planets after seeing that. In the movie they're like "Process only takes 10 years!"

...AI please help us</comment>