The digital native is a myth - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/the-digital-native-is-a-myth-1.22363 <comment><USER2> I teach at a college and I see how terrible these "digital natives" are at technology first hand. Of course not all of them but enough of them to make me laugh when I hear someone say young people are a lot better at tech than old people.

What is happening is that there are now different sets of skills: touchscreen skills and keyboard skills. It isn't even that they are particularly good at using phones (students say they don't see email announcements because they don't check email. I ask them why they don't set up their phone with the university email. They say they don't know how) but that they use phones more and have less experience with laptops and desktop computers (while setting up for presentations I see them struggle to log into email or google slides. They type google and enter to go to google.com, then search for youtube, then at youtube they search for the video they want to show. Strangely, when they cut and past a url they almost always right click and select paste then hit return and nearly never use "paste and go" which is right below that in the context menu. They don't know ctrl+f.)

So if "digital natives" means anything, it doesn't mean that they are automatically good at tech.

<comment><USER3> As someone who has worked helpdesk before, all of those things are widely prevalent in every generation. Old people, middle aged people, and young people alike all google "Google" and then google "Youtube" to get to a video. Everyone sucks at logging in. Everyone finds a way that works for them and doesn't know any alternatives.

The real answer is, computers suck. Seriously, computers are effing awful machines, all developers are hackers, and the only reason things haven't changed is because we constantly lie to ourselves that we're okay with the world.

Passwords suck, no one can remember them, we have way too many of them to remember, and every damn site needs its own special password requirements. And on top of that every site needs its own _username_ requirements too, so there's two things to forget. And email is the universal password, so you want to make sure you use a good password there, but you never really log into your email, do you? The password is saved. So when you get logged out somehow, good luck remembering the password.

And don't get me started on keyboard shortcuts. At least Windows is consistent, quick question: what's the keyboard shortcut on a Mac to go to the beginning of your current line? Ah trick question, it's different for every god damned application! And some applications don't even allow for that without highlighting the entire line!

There's a reason "digital natives" are great at using phones and choose to use them more. iOS and Android were built from scratch and could learn from all of the mistakes of the old systems. In the process, they came up with a ton of their own mistakes (3D touch and long press each do different things? Really? Also TouchWiz is just a bad idea), but consistency and focus are major wins here.

Computers suck and people get scared. Only having one app on the screen at once, only having one way to do things... that's what people like. It's not perfect, but man computers suck. Anything that makes them suck less is a huge win.

<comment><USER4> > what's the keyboard shortcut on a Mac to go to the beginning of your current > line? Ah trick question, it's different for every god damned application!

It's Control-A in every app!

<comment><USER5> Or Cmd-Left

(or Up if it's a one line text field)

<comment><USER4> Sure, but ain't nobody got time for getting the right hand out of the home row. Emacs keybindings everywhere is one of the things that keeps me using OS X. As a bonus, remapping Caps Lock to Control like a proper UNIX keyboard is a few clicks away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article makes sense, that said I have two grandchildren that are five and three. They interact with ipads and phones like they're "normal" life. They talk to their Alexa's and Siri like they're people. They ask the TV to change channels and ask Mom why when they swipe the TV screen nothing happens.

My oldest grandson had the funniest argument with Siri, she kept saying I don't understand you and he would say "why you're talking to me just like I'm talking to you."

I agree we are still humans and no shocking net-new amazing multi-tasking or concentration skills will come out of the "digital generation". That said these kids are growing up on the shoulders of giants and will expect things to just work. If anything, that could make things harder because they may not want to learn how to make new things work.

All this said my grandmother lived through horse and buggy, radio, TV, Color TV, Computers and men on the moon. She used to say the more things change the more they stay the same. Because people are basically the same no matter when they were born.

<comment><USER7> im probably being a Luddite here but I saw my friend's kid talking to alexa and I couldn't help but think it won't be too long until kids don't need parents much. if they have a question they'll ask siri. if they want help with their homework they'll ask okgoogle. if they want someone to read them a story they'll ask alexa.

on the one hand that will be great. a partner who never gets tired no matter how many questions you ask.

on the other hand it's a brave new world. especially when as the computer gets better they might get used to the partner that always does there requests and upset with the real people who dont ?

I'm sure it will all be fine somehow.

<comment><USER8> As a parent who's was "Why"ed to death by two curious kids in the pre-google era, I can tell you that I would have killed for "someone" to take on a part of that burden! ;)

>>I couldn't help but think it won't be too long until kids don't need parents much

I think you meant need as pure "question answerers," but we do a few things for the kids that Siri and Alexa wouldn't have the stomach or, for that matter, the arms for. Oh, also: love!

<comment><USER9> When the answer can't be found perhaps the voice assistant can say "Because I said SO!".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think the term 'digital native' is too disambiguous. There's two things that could be considered being a digital native; one is technical, the other is more functional.

On the technical side, I completely agree with this article. Most people my age (late 20's) and especially younger ones, don't have a clue about the insides of their devices, or how the internet actually works. They also don't seem to be interested in a lot of this stuff. They also tend to think that everything that has to do with their devices is complex.

On the 'functional' (for lack of a better word) side however, they seem to know exactly what to do on the internet. They know how to get attention on the internet, what their peers are interested in and how to get as many likes as possible. They live on the internet, live stream everything they do and make lots of selfies. This seems to be the reason why we're starting to see lots of younger kids becoming YouTube famous, or starting viral marketing companies.

The last thing, to me, is the part where people really become 'digital natives' in stead of 'technical natives'. Also, because most devices are so hard to open, most kids won't even get to see the technical side anymore, unless they want to build a gaming PC.

<comment><USER11> > They know how to get attention on the internet, what their peers are > interested in and how to get as many likes as possible.

Is it specific to an age group, though? My mother is in her 60s and she seems to have no problem getting 100+ likes on FB every time she posts a pic of her grandkids. She knows what _her_ peers want to see.

<comment><USER12> Her peers could be the type to use the like button as a form of basically saying "Yes, I have seen this"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Compare to an excellent report from the trenches: [http://www.coding2learn.org/blog/2013/07/29/kids-cant-use- co...](http://www.coding2learn.org/blog/2013/07/29/kids-cant-use-computers/). A very good read.

<comment><USER14> The observations in that post are helpful to illustrate the problem. But I can't agree with the author's conclusions.

There's another way to read every single one of his examples: as evidence of a design failure. For example:

> A message box opens up, but the kid clicks OK so quickly that I don't have > time to read the message.

Users are so bombarded by unhelpful dialog boxes that many are trained to dismiss them as fast as possible. It becomes subconscious, some users literally can't see the dialogs anymore.

> I hand back the laptop and tell him that it's infected. He asks what he > needs to do, and I suggest he reinstalls Windows.

This is obviously not the users fault. It's the responsibility of the system designers to make it hard to subvert. iOS is now ten years old with no major malware outbreaks -- it can obviously be done (through means that the author doesn't approve of, like application signing).

> I take the offending laptop from out of her hands, toggle the wireless > switch that resides on the side, and hand it back to her.

Poor design decision. Normal users in 2017 basically never want no-network, dedicating the cost of a physical switch to it is doubly bad.

My point is that the author needs to stop lamenting that the hoi polloi have breached the gates and start taking seriously the question of how to design general purpose computing that actually serves most human beings. "Use Linux" is not, by itself, a remotely helpful suggestion. His "Mobile" suggestion is indistinguishable from satire.

<comment><USER15> > _iOS is now ten years old with no major malware outbreaks -- it can > obviously be done_

If even a company with $200B in ready cash on hand, humongous design and manufacturing resources, and full control at every part of the vertical stack can't make a _general purpose_ operating system with these values, what hope do the rest of us have? iOS is extremely limited in what it allows you to do. If it isn't, then how come macbooks still sell?

I've been a tutor at the tertiary level before. Some people just can't be fucked putting in _any_ effort to get what they want. Fuck them; they get to be called incompetent - don't shift the blame. If someone could barely drive a car and smashed it into every tenth lamppost, you'd call them an incompetent driver. Or another example: I can't cook for shit. I can follow a recipe, but it's not going to be very well done. But you would never make the argument that it's the recipe-writer's fault that I couldn't make a good souffle.

It's reasonable to expect users to meet developers at least partway here; reasonable to expect _some_ learning curve for an incredibly complex, capable device.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > And paper co-author Paul Kirschner, an education researcher at the Open > University of the Netherlands in Heerlen, happily describes himself in his > academic work as a "windmill-fighter". But whereas Don Quixote aimed against > solid walls, the digital-native assumption, on closer inspection, does seem > illusory. It is certainly no giant.

To fight windmills, as per the English idiom 'to tilt at windmills', means to attack non-existent enemies out of a delusional sense of righteousness (from the last bit is derived the word quixotic). In the stories Alonso Quijano read so many romantic novels about knights and chivalry he went insane, renamed himself Don Quixote, and set off to vanquish windmills he imagined were giants and swear fealty to an innkeeper he imagined as a lord (for the honor of his lady love who doesn't actually exist).

This paper's authors being the Don Quixote figure doesn't make sense, as I doubt they were trying to insult themselves. A more apt analogy would be the companies trying to grapple with a new generation of digital natives are windmill fighters (fighting an enemy that doesn't exist), while the paper's authors are Sancho Panza desperately trying to get them to see reason.

<comment><USER17> I learned and always thought that the phrase "tilting at windmills" meant, aside from what you wrote about "to attack...out of a delusional sense of righteousness," more like a futile task or something that wouldn't succeed regardless of your efforts. Because of that, I interpreted the previous comment not as someone who is creating enemies out of nowhere against oneself, but rather someone who is doing something (telling others that "The Digital Native is a Myth") that is a more-or-less hopeless, or mostly impossible task.

They're close, but to me there's a distinction between the two.

<comment><USER16> Don Quixote is a pathetic, vainglorious egotist with mental problems, whose attack on windmills is just one of his many feats of remarkably willful stupidity. He isn't fighting a good battle that is unlikely to be won, he's inventing battles out of nothing so he can feel special and important when really all he's doing is being irritating and getting beaten up by inanimate objects (the windmill sail). He's to be laughed at or pitied, not respected or admired. That was something of the point, take a classic knight in shining armor from romance stories, put him in real life, and watch how much of a loser he'd be.

This might be a case of pop culture failing to capture the essence of a reference, and the misunderstanding gaining higher prevalence than the true meaning. Calling someone 'nimrod' is another example. Nimrod was, unironically, one of the greatest hunters in the bible - smart, swift, strong. But Bugs Bunny called Elmer Fudd that, and Fudd was an idiot. So anyone not familiar with the Bible character thought nimrod == idiot, rather than Bugs calling Fudd that sarcastically.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The digital native is not a myth, he's just going extinct.

Back in the day the difference between a computer user and a computer programmer was, at best, blurry. You had to know how to program to use a computer.

And hardware and operating systems were complicated things you had to study, they weren't the appliances of today that "just work".

I think the breaking point was around the time Windows XP and Mac OS X were released. The difference in skills between those raised before that time and nowadays is mind blowing.

So the digital native exists, you just won't find one without grey hair.

<comment><USER19> This reminds me of a story I like to share. You can have the short version.

I touched my first computer in the early seventies. It was from HP, took punch cards, mag strip cards, keyed entry, and could output to a plotter, tv, or LED. It was horrible. I hated it.

Late seventies, early eighties, I now have to use a terminally connected computer and have a computer at home that required additional memory, just to use lowercase letters. It was horrible. I hated it.

Late eighties, it hasn't improved. No, no it has not. I still have to dance a strange dance and wait for my work to be completed. Usually, that meant waiting for my work to be completed in another part of the university. If I wanted to search the 'net, those searches went out to people - who'd send me an answer back in as long as 72 hours. It was horrible. I hated it.

I pretty much hated computers until the 2000s. Oh, I used the Infernal Beasts of Spite and Retribution - but it was adversarial. We're on friendly terms, more like old enemies too tired to continue fighting but with mutual respect.

I don't like programming, tweaking, or fixing. I will, but I don't like it. In fact, I use Linux because she's a familiar beast and I pretty much don't ever have to screw with it. It does what I want and stays the hell out of my way.

That's the short version. It usually contains more details and a whole lot more vulgarities. As a parting comment, it has been wonderful to live through these changes and advancements.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Today's computers seem to try very hard to draw a distinction between consuming content and being productive. These tasks tend not to share any skill sets at all. My much younger sister was a wizard at binge-watching YouTube videos on iOS at ~6. She used most of the features at her disposal: subscriptions, autoplay, voice search... but despite all of that practice, she never really got to using the keyboard, and is functionally incapable of typing a URL in a timely fashion, or structuring a text search for something full of homophones. She basically just gives up if it wouldn't work through voice search.

I got into computers as an interest because on Windows 95, 98, 2000 for WorkGroups, and other contemporary Windows versions (we were not affluent), code of some sort was just a step or two away from using the machine at all. Most computers today (iPhones, WinRT, etc.) don't even have shell scripts on the desktop or a javascript console in the browser. Operating systems in the late '90s and early oughts gave an impression that there were consistent underlying concepts like _files_ and _processes_ or at least _tasks_. You used to be able to market your dual-core processor as being able to run more tasks simultaneously without trouble, nowadays you just tell the consumer it's "faster", and they don't understand why the same app runs slower on their new phone than the last.

<comment><USER3> To be fair about the keyboard thing, when I was born computers were programmed through punch cards, and I never learned how to use them. They switched to keyboards pretty quick after that.

So to a 6 year old who can't use a keyboard... well I don't see keyboards disappearing _quite_ that quick, but it's obvious that voice interaction is going to feature quite heavily into the future of computing.

<comment><USER21> The difference is that keyboards are better than punchcards in every way. Voice is inferior in almost every way.

<comment><USER22> Voice:

\- hands free

\- quicker for short queries ("set a timer for 5 minutes")

\- quicker when precision is not necessary (voice to text can be quicker than typing)

\- doesn't require extra hardware

\- innate/intuitive skill, doesn't need to be learned/practiced

\- no need to point + click. Like terminal, input what you need and go directly there

\- accessibility is 100x better (kids, elderly, disabled)

<comment><USER23> Voice: \- socially embarrassing \- prohibitively imprecise (when is precision _not_ necessary??) \- low work, but also low quality \- currently popular methods require some outside company handling your audio \- also require a good network connection, which shouldn't be treated as a given

These are all related to my own situation and preferences, of course, and I'm sure that there are some people where your list of positives vastly outweigh my list of negatives. No one's served well by assuming that everyone has the same requirements.

<comment><USER3> I want to make it clear that I'm not specifically targeting you for this comment, it's more of a meta comment on the whole subject we're discussing.

I find it interesting how people tend to get stuck to the current forms of technology and then become outraged when anyone dares challenge it. Who needs Windows, I boot straight to DOS. Windows N sucks, I'm going to stick with Windows N-1. Blackberry phones are useless and pretentious, I'm going to stick with Nextel. The iPhone is stupid, I need a physical keyboard. Bluetooth is awful, I need my headphone jack. The iPod is worse than a Nomad. The iPad is just a big iPhone. And now, apparently, voice control sucks, I'm happy with my on-screen keyboard.

And as history shows us in nearly every one of those cases, us tech guys are typically the worst judge of how well a new technology will fare in the market and what consumers actually want.

<comment><USER23> > And now, apparently, voice control sucks, I'm happy with my on-screen > keyboard.

Nah, on-screen keyboards suck, I'm happy with my non-mobile devices (when possible). Bluetooth _is_ an expensive pain in the ass, though ;-)

I'm used to my desires not meshing well with the way that markets go (and I'll bet that other like-minded techies are too). Out of the specific things I mentioned with voice recognition, most of them will change with technological improvements and shifts in societal norms. Change is inevitable.

Honestly, I'll still find a way to do what I want, even if most other users are happy to have tech go in a different direction. I'm not deluded enough to think that what I want is what anyone else wants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I've seen my niece (we she was just under 4yo, she's now 5) open her dad's YouTube app on Android phone and hit the voice button and shout "Pepa pig" to find what she wants.

We were shocked to see it.

She's Spanish native. And she was not as fluent at her own native tongue as some other kinds her age. Her parents don't know how to use voice. No one around her does. I only use it for setting alarms and never _in front of anyone_ (I'm self conscious about it).

<comment><USER25> On the other hand I've got kids near that age, was born before 1980, and I cheerily use voice commands and many other technology artifacts of the day just the same as I'd do any other thing in a given social context, and much better than my kids (thanks to the benefit of having lived a number of years and the experience gained from that).

I'm not sure why anyone is shocked to see someone using modern technology that's made available to them. How do you figure humans learn? We build on what was learnt before, which requires a degree of familiarity.

<comment><USER24> I agree with your questions. In this particular case I doubt she has seen anyone use that particular technology.

But I guess she has seen her family use whatsapp audio message all the time and established the analogy herself when she saw the "mic" icon on youtube.

It is also a testament of the ease of use of some of this tools.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The BBC like to describe older people as "digital immigrants" to contrast with "digital natives" but seem to not quite comprehend that the "digital immigrants" _actually built all this stuff_ whereas "natives" merely use it.

<comment><USER4> I don't see anything wrong with the terms. It's just like in the real world.

<comment><USER27> Consider the difference between "indigenous natives" versus "second-generation immigrants."

Technical professionals are arguably the indigenous natives, present "before it was cool" and working to coerce a inimical environment into something suitable and appealing to people.

<comment><USER28> Consider Dubai. Built by immigrants, used by natives.

<comment><USER27> Considered in many ways an exception and unusual occurrence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> No news here. This excellent blog post is from 2013: Kids can't use computers... and this is why it should worry you[1]

[1][http://www.coding2learn.org/blog/2013/07/29/kids-cant-use- co...](http://www.coding2learn.org/blog/2013/07/29/kids-cant-use-computers/)

<comment><USER30> Thanks, that post was the first thing I thought of, but couldn't remember the details.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> There's a slight confusion in this thread, that many are rightfully pointing out, as there's a bit of context missing in the article.

The thing is, the term 'digital native' has been _heavily_ used as a way of saying that children that grew up surrounded by tablets and TVs and the internet actually _learn differently_ from the so-called digital immigrants.

For an example, see these quotes by Marc Prensky cited in the literature thousands of times:

'today's students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors' [1]

'Our students, as digital natives, will continue to evolve and change so rapidly that we won't be able to keep up' [2]

'Our young people generally have a much better idea of what the future is bringing than we do' [2]

'In fact they are so different from us that we can no longer use either our twentieth century knowledge or training as a guide to what is best for them educationally' [2]

Now this might immediately sound extremely suspicious for anyone who has some background on the research of how humans learn, but it's a common myth all over the learning world. 'Oh I can't learn from books, I need interactive videos and apps, that's why I have bad grades.' Actually computers are an excellent choice for learning if applied correctly, but this is not what is usually being implied in these situations.

There's a big confusion between how much children are familiar with using technology from a consumer's point of view, and the natural human ability to learn. The latter hasn't changed.

The debunking of 'digital natives' is not new either [3].

By the way, for anyone interested, I recommend Hattie and Yates' book on learning [4] as a great, very balanced, modern introduction.

[1] (cited 18000 times!) Prensky, Marc. "Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1." On the horizon 9.5 (2001): 1-6.

[2] (cited 1000 times) Prensky, Marc. "Listen to the natives." Educational leadership 63.4 (2005).

[3] (cited 2700 times) Bennett, Sue, Karl Maton, and Lisa Kervin. "The 'digital natives' debate: A critical review of the evidence." British journal of educational technology 39.5 (2008): 775-786.

[4] Hattie, John, and Gregory CR Yates. Visible learning and the science of how we learn. Routledge, 2013.

</comment><comment><USER32> I stopped believing in the "digital native" buzzword after spending some time with some older relatives.

Because nobody makes good old fashioned cellphones that can only make calls they were all upgraded to touch-screen smartphones. A lot of them came to me for direction to perform the most basic tasks. They were interested in downloading apps, getting the news from their devices, managing pictures and generally browsing the internet from them.

At first I explained every step of the process and I noticed they would all mechanically memorize the steps without really understanding any of them. So I changed my approach. I told them that, software wise, whatever happens to their device I can repair it and that instead of waiting for me to have a minute to go over the steps with them, they should try themselves and if something bad happens then they should come to me.

This has changed their behavior dramatically. They are now more confident using their devices, knowing that someone can get them out of trouble should problem arises, and try new features by themselves. An example of that is when they enabled voice control and started to play with it.

I like to separate users in two categories that I consider more realistic than "Digital Native" and so called "Digital Immigrants". I refer to them as having an "Active" position toward technology and a "Passive" position. The active crowd search for solutions themselves and learn by exploration while the passive crowd pretty much will only do as directed and what they have been taught with clear explanation. I noticed this pattern of refusing to explore new tools and platforms when exposed to one not closely related with age, as many young "Digital Natives" would get extremely confused when exposed to a new tech. Even stuff as basic as an oldschool car GPS (not their usual phone) would confuse them.

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm born 1981, so according to the article I've just made it to be a native? What I do observe is this (this is over-generalization but seems true to me) -

Pre-internet era - people know little but do a lot and deeply

Post-internet era - people know a lot but do little and shallow

<comment><USER34> I was born in 1980 and, having grown up with computers from an early age, I totally agree with pervasive internet access being the next dividing line. Computers allowed us to do many things we couldn't do before, but the internet took communication and information sharing to another level.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Working in tech support anywhere would have shown you this. The supposed digital natives aren't born web savvy.. they're the ones that just expect everything to work flawlessly, and "just make it work."

They don't understand the how and why something works, and they don't care.

and get off my lawn. :)

</comment><comment><USER36> Excellent, the nerd aristocracy's grip on IT stands unchallenged.

<comment><USER37> And how would it ever be challenged? The moment some non-nerd, non-aristocrat becomes conversant with the machine, gains power over it, molds it to her whims, she has become the nerd aristocracy.

The nerd aristocracy's grip will forever remain unchallenged.

<comment><USER38> _The nerd aristocracy 's grip will forever remain unchallenged._

Yeah. This story reminded me of the Star Trek: TNG episode _Schisms_. There is a scene when Riker, Troi, and LaForge are on the holodeck trying to recreate the aliens' surgical table from memory. The way the characters interact with the computer to accomplish an extremely complex task -- build a model of a table from fragmented dreams -- is remarkable.

The scene showcases how natural and comfortable they are at talking to the computer. Though the episode has its detractors, I'm glad they made it. I can imagine the characters regularly using the holodeck to model and design all sorts of objects in the course of their normal duties. It demonstrates that the power of their tools goes way beyond silly period-piece virtual reality games.

The twenty-forth century nerd aristocracy no longer needs to use plastic keyboards and text editors from the 1970s. That doesn't stop them from being sophisticated users of their technology. _Programmers_ , even.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> When my niece was very young, she would try to swipe framed pictures on the wall.

It's not about digital native but having expectations of interactive objects.

</comment><comment><USER40> When most people talk about digital natives, they aren't talking about learning styles.

The idea that you can dismiss the idea of digital natives just because people still learn differently is a little wacky. Digital natives imply familiarity and comfort with the digital technology they grew up with, not anything else.

<comment><USER41> So, just like every generation before them that was comfortable with the world they were born into. Got it.

<comment><USER40> Yes, exactly. It doesn't say anything more profound than that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Digital natives? Are people still using this term? So the people who invented the Internet and most of modern technology are called "digital immigrants"? How can one take lazy journalists who still use these terms seriously?

<comment><USER23> > So the people who invented the Internet and most of modern technology are > called "digital immigrants"?

Consider if a community designed a new language. By definition, no one in the community would be a native speaker. Couples start having children and teaching the children that language. Those children will be the first native speakers. The best of the non-natives would still have more technical knowledge of how the language works than the average native speaker. That's the situation that we're looking at here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I suspect it'd be more accurate to say that many of them know quite a bit, it's just that there's no overlap with what schools want them to know.

I'm sure a younger version of myself would have completely failed a basic test of computer literacy. And yet, I set up DOS extended memory, configured hardware settings for the Sound Blaster, and calibrated a joystick, so I could play Tie Fighter.

The only skill I think a school might have valued was that I learned a tiny bit of basic to fiddle with that qbasic game where the gorillas threw bananas at each other.

</comment><comment><USER44> It turned out to be a misconception because computers are astronomically easier to use now. If you had to ever configure a config.sys entry for a specific game you know what I mean.

</comment><comment><USER45> I think it's somewhat like cars. One generation never used cars, another grew up along side cars where changing your own oil was a standard thing people do and now cars are better, people don't know much about cars any more.

</comment><comment><USER46> "Digital natives" is a codephrase used by employers to mean "we only want to hire young people; if you're over 30 you won't be considered". It's dogwhistle discrimination.

</comment><comment><USER47> My sister is a teacher and confirms: While kids play around with their smartphones all the time, they are remarkably ignorant about the basics of computing. They are users, watching videos and composing texts, but when it comes to drivers (okay, who in today's world installs drivers themselves), OS installations, BIOS, but also simpler things like proper backups or Excel formulas, they are completely clueless.

> _People born after that date are the digital natives; those born before are > digital immigrants, doomed to be forever strangers in a computer-based > strange land._

That's a ridiculous notion anyway. If you put in time and effort, you can learn pretty much anything, and computers and programming are no different, no matter the age. And if you do not put in time and effort, you always remain ignorant. It really is that simple.

<comment><USER48> >That's a ridiculous notion anyway. If you put in time and effort, you can learn pretty much anything, and computers and programming are no different, no matter the age. And if you do not put in time and effort, you always remain ignorant. It really is that simple.

I tend to agree, But younger people have the 'advantage' of being submerged with computers from a very young age. Children tend to pick up things quicker and easier compared to adults. (this is especially true with language, learning a second language as a child is far easier then doing the same as an adult).

Also, i think its unfair to judge people on their knowledge about computing when they are not in the computing field.

most people don't know how to gearbox in their car works, yet they are still able to use a car just fine.

<comment><USER47> > Also, i think its unfair to judge people on their knowledge about computing > when they are not in the computing field.

Yes but you wouldn't call people who don't know how the gearbox works "mechanical native" or something like that just because they grew up with cars. You acknowledge that there are people like mechanics who know that stuff because they learned it, and other people who do not because they did not learn it. It has nothing to do with generations and so on.</comment></comment></comment>


A Closer Look at Neo4j – the Graph Database - <AUTHOR> http://www.dataversity.net/a-closer-look-at-neo4j-the-graph-database/

<comment><USER2> Sigh...this is a PR release. Flagged.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is not a PR release - not even close. It's written by a freelance writer who does not work for Neo4j, and in this instance is working for DATAVERSITY. DATAVERSITY's mission is to provide education. And that's what this article is, to inform and educate about Neo4j. In fact, this is the first article in a series of reviewing some NoSQL DBs. The writer honestly downloaded Neo4J, tested it out, and wrote an article on it.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: what costs more? a 1 kB email or an SMS? - <AUTHOR>

Does it cost more or less to GMail to send a 1 kB email compared to what it costs a mobile operator to send an SMS? My guess is that a 1kB email is cheaper, but does anybody know how much cheaper? (or more expensive) <comment><USER2> The cost is all about scale. an email is going to cost whatever your metered rate is for the traffic (well, technically 2x the metered rate, once for incoming, once for outgoing traffic). For Google's infrastructure and typical bandwidth usage, the cost trends to zero. An SMS message is sent as a packet of data in the control channel to your phone. The cost of an individual SMS message is not as easy to determine as the cost of an email. Your phone exchanges packets of data on the control channel whether you're receiving (or sending) SMS message or not. The SMS message is an additional piece of data that is sent over a constrained channel. In most areas, the towers will be able to easily handle the peak usage of the area without any degradation of service, meaning the towers can easily handle the traffic. However, unlike email, the more SMS messages are sent, the more expensive each individual one is since the tower has to be able to handle that number of simultaneous control channels.

While the cost per SMS does go down as a mobile carrier expands their network, it uses a separate channel from the voice and data, but the same channel your phone uses to negotiate a connection with the tower and to migrate between towers. The premium paid for SMS messages on your phone bill is due to this.

I'm not saying that the cost charged for SMS messages reflects their actual delivery costs to the provider, just that there is a real, measurable cost associated with each SMS message. Essentially, the question you're asking is "What costs more, a gallon of milk or driving to work?"

<comment><AUTHOR> interesting to know - I had no clue - that SMS messages use "the same channel your phone uses to negotiate a connection with the tower and to migrate between towers", and that it is a separate channel the one that handles voice and data.

I know, my question is very much apples vs oranges. My question is something like: if I could use email as a perfect substitute for SMS messages, would I (a web startup) be able to compete in a downward spiral on price against operators?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> In terms of paying for it as a user

SMS is more expensive to send. It normally costs around £0.03 per thousand to send emails when it costs around that to send that for 1 sms.

In terms as a provider

For GMail they tend to store an email at least 6x to make sure you never lose something. This means the cost of an email is actually 6kb plus all the cost to store, replicate and the electricity that goes with it. While with the SMS the provider is really cheap as it doesnt use that much bandwidth to send and receive it.

<comment><AUTHOR> so, GMail more expensive?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From what I've heard, once a mobile operator builds the infrastructure, the cost of sending SMS is zero. The traffic they generate is negligible compared to voice, so charging for texts is pure income. That is, assuming you've paid off your infrastructure :)

<comment><AUTHOR> so, once the infrastructure is there, GMail is more expensive?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Over 9000. If both accounts are from Gmail its even cheaper...

<comment><AUTHOR> a 1 kB email is 9,000 times cheaper? Can you please point to any sort of evidence for this please? Thx.

<comment><USER6> He was making a sarcastic memetic reference.

Your question isn't very answerable.

Ask a more specific or meaningful question.</comment></comment></comment>


Eldar Black Holes - <AUTHOR> http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/weirdastronomy.php#id--Eldar_Black_Holes <comment><USER2> There is a fascinating PBS Space Time video[1] about black holes that questions the very existence of whatever is "inside" a black hole.

They point out that as you approach a black hole, your proper time is advancing slower and slower when compared to an observer located far away from the black hole (like us, on Earth). That means that from the point of view of this far observer, nothing happens inside a black hole until an infinite amount of time. In other words, what is inside a black hole is separated from us not by a space-like frontier, but a time-like one. Events behind the event horizon are postponed to "the end of times".

Does it even make sense to say that those events exist, then? Are they any more real than fairy tales or mathematical equations? If not, we can make any speculation we want, including the existence of alien civilizations.

1\. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNaEBbFbvcY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNaEBbFbvcY)

<comment><USER3> off-topic a bit: does anyone have suggestions for paths for the layperson toward being able to reason and intuit about this stuff at one level beyond pop physics claptrap?

I have heard "the theoretical minimum" suggested in the past, but I haven't heard from anyone who has actually used it to go from zero to say, general relativity, only people who think it sounds good. It also seems like a steep investment -- I just want to have a decent enough grasp to separate sense from nonsense and hold a picture in my mind.

One related thing I have wished existed was a good place to ask questions about and discuss topics like this while learning them, but it seems like in theoretical physics, everyone (including myself) has an infinite number of different stupid questions and misconceptions, to the point that we drown each other out, and answers to our questions often have little cross-applicability.

So, would love ideas for either!

<comment><USER4> Feynman's lectures of physics are good for layman explanations, however they quickly feel lacking without the maths background, which you can fill in with The Theoretical Minimum. There's actually a video lecture series of the Theoretical Minimum series that you might find more approachable, that is if you haven't heard of it: [https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=189C0DCE90CB6D81](https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=189C0DCE90CB6D81) (Here for the general relativity playlist: [https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6C8BDEEBA6BDC78D](https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6C8BDEEBA6BDC78D), and here for the full list of playlists: [http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/archive](http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/archive))

You say you haven't heard from anyone who has used it to go from zero to say, general relativity. You might want to look into the adult alumni of the class.

EDIT: You might also find another HN post interesting, it's currently at the top of HN classic: "Learning classical mechanics through Haskell", here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16453192](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16453192)

(And a direct link to "Classical Mechanics via Scheme", [https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/...](https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/sicm_edition_2/book.html))

<comment><USER5> A small note. The "Theoretical Minimum" is not just a book, it's also a website with video lectures for the complete material.

See: [http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses](http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses)

<comment><USER4> I... I already linked to that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Reminds me a bit of the old short story The Crystal Spheres. In that universe, once a civilization had attained a certain level of advancement, they intentionally migrated to a black hole to await the arrival of others (the idea being that all advanced civilizations in the universe were separated by so much _time_ , that they suffered from a sort of loneliness).

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

<comment><USER7> There's another book whose name is on the tip of my tongue that has a similar premise, except the planet instead of the entire system is encased in a sort of time-dilation field. Naturally, humanity thinks it's an attack.

<comment><USER8> I believe you're thinking of Spin by Robert Charles Winston.

Really good book

<comment><USER7> Yup, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> From one of the article links, " aliens can live inside black holes."

>They would also be brightly illuminated by the central singularity and by photons trapped in the same orbit.

That sounds creepily like a typical description of heaven. Timeless, ageless, godlike beings all in a region of intense uniform brightness.

<comment><USER10> Holy carpe diem

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Greg Egan has a short story called "The Planck Dive" about an expedition into a black hole.

[http://www.gregegan.net/PLANCK/Complete/Planck.html](http://www.gregegan.net/PLANCK/Complete/Planck.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> Wonder if they also explored the possibility that we are in a black hole and the universe structure is recursive.

Maybe the background radiation is the part of the hawking radiation that falls inward. And we perceive it infinite but it's the dilatated space between the hevent horizon and the naked singularity at the center. And the big bang was the supernova that left the black hole.

Trippinng!

<comment><USER13> I've always liked toying with the idea (in my own head, not an astrophysicist) that space is cyclical, or in your words, recursive.

I love animations where it zooms out farther and farther into space, until it gets to the point where galaxies start to resemble molecular structures.

And then of course The Simpson's did a couch gag where exactly this happens and they zoom out and out into space until it finally zooms out of Homer's own head.

<comment><USER14> Learning of atoms initially I was given an orbital model, like a solar system, who caused/allowed me to form a similar idea (I think it's quite common?) that solar systems could be atoms in a super-universe. I was so annoyed as a teenager to find that atoms aren't really little solar systems.

<comment><USER10> When I was ten years old I was meditating and thinking about how each one our consciences are a neuron in gods brain... I will never forget that epiphany as it was before I had studied any philos etc

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't think that's possible. Perhaps the singularity itself will survive a "Big Crunch", but I doubt anything between it and the event horizon will. And without the ability to survive the end of the universe, life is unlikely to emerge inside an orbit within a blackhole. Because of the time dilation, life will evolve there hundreds if not thousands of times slower compared to the rest of the universe. So the lifespan of the universe itself may be insufficient for life to form there.

<comment><USER16> But if the black hole can survive the big bang, therefore it can exist longer that rest of the universe so it seems to have plenty of time to evolve anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Fredric Pohl scifi fans might enjoy Hechee Rendesvous, which is near the end of the Gateway series. Somone finds a way to live inside both Kugelblitzen and black holes I think.

<comment><USER18> I've always wondered if for series like this one you can start somewhere in the middle or if you have to start from the beginning to have context.

<comment><USER17> Hrm, Gateway you kinda need to read the first one at least. It lays out his universe of humans discovering an alien transport system with no instructions, and IMHO the novelty of that is the best part. In later books, they stumble around a little before (no big spoiler) getting a bunch of answers about the builders and finding them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you're interested in this idea, you might also find the transcension hypothesis interesting: [http://brighterbrains.org/articles/entry/the- transcension-hy...](http://brighterbrains.org/articles/entry/the-transcension- hypothesis-an-intriguing-answer-to-the-fermi-paradox)

</comment><comment><USER20> Since we are speculating here anyway.

Could it be that these type III civilizations are simply consuming so much energy that that in itself becomes the black holes?

The KARDASHEV Scale explained. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k-Kuc9esDI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k-Kuc9esDI)

<comment><USER21> Definitely an almost amusing overlap between different senses of "singularity".

Such civilizations might be like "simple germs", their self-sustaining black hole vessels interacting and stirring things together; perhaps the cores of the most "interesting" galaxies are sentient, waiting for one femto-tech civ to arise from a trillion slime-ball planetoids — to make first Contact...

The more general possibility of "intersecting" reality at right angles has been taken up in a few additional works I can think of: in _Count to Infinity_ and _Excession_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> > There was a second, unrelated paper that suggests that aliens can live > inside black holes.

[ ... snip ... ]

> In theory, highly advanced aliens could live on such planets, being > unobservable from outside while exploiting the high energies and large time > dialtions available.

reminds me of Frederick Pohl's Heechee Saga.

</comment><comment><USER23> Wouldn't the aliens just need to wait for the black hole to evaporate in order to escape? We're talking a long time, but still possible? If it was planned just right, perhaps they could make it so they emerge in the new Universe.

Also, isn't the assumption that there is a "big crunch" (also a good name for a cereal if it doesn't exist)? We're not sure whether there is a big crunch or heat death? This still seems plausible whether there is a big crunch or heat death - either way a black hole may be the only way for a civilization to stay alive at "the end".

<comment><USER24> Being emitted as undifferentiated Hawking radiation, after the black hole has shrunk to microscopic size, and when it finaly ceases to exist doesn't sound like much of a happy ending.

<comment><USER23> Wouldn't the black hole's horizon also shrink past a planet orbiting it as it loses mass?

<comment><USER24> I don't think it makes physical sense to talk about planets orbiting inside the event horizon. Black holes only shrink due to emitting Hawking radiation from the perspective of our frame of reference at a distance. We can consider the contents of the black hole to be undifferentiated mass/energy. From the perspective of a planet in that situation, that's kind of meaningless as the process would take infinite subjective time.

<comment><USER23> Well, near infinite time is ideal if you're trying to survive the death of the known Universe?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This was a major theme in the 'three body problem' book series.

<comment><USER26> There's a similar civilisation in "Revelation Space" which I really recommend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Reminds me of the Golden Age Series book 3 The Golden Transcendence. Lost humans using the power of a black hole to power amazing things.

</comment><comment><USER28> If the universe expands in a big bang, collapses in a big crunch, and then expands in another big bang, then it's not a different universe.

The black hole wouldn't be older than the universe. The black hole is just older than the last, most recent big bang, and the big bang doesn't explain anything anymore.

It's disproven as an event of creation. The big bang just becomes different parlance for turtles all the way down.

</comment><comment><USER29> Sounds the Void in starcraft.

</comment><comment><USER30> what if our universe is expanding because there are other bubbles of universes that pull in all directions?

what if Buddha was right in that there are thousand fold universe systems each with their own unique civilizations?

If there are blackholes older than the universe itself, what if that suggested the universe was cyclical and that we may be in some gazillion-th iteration?

what if big bang was just a universe eventually being consumed by a monstrous blackhole that collapses itself?

What about the strange UFO occurences that pentagon acknowledged, are we getting visits from aliens within our universe or from another universe? Have they figured out how to travel between multi-verse, that is if you believe in it?

No proof, no way to find these answers but it really makes me wonder, especially when particles behave strangely like being coupled regardless of distance...but how could Buddha have known that blackholes existed?

[https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/6o8zmg/the_buddha...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/6o8zmg/the_buddha_mentioned_a_black_hole/)

Anyways, just some things to ponder and gawk about...

<comment><USER31> >What about the strange UFO occurences that pentagon acknowledged, are we getting visits from aliens within our universe or from another universe?

The Pentagon has never acknowledged the existence of extraterrestrial craft, or of UFOs as being anything but hoaxes and misidentified, mundane phenomena.

>but how could Buddha have known that blackholes existed?

He didn't, any more than the Norse knew that wormholes existed when describing the Bifrost bridge or the World Tree. Reading modern scientific meaning into ancient religious ideas is a common way to attempt to validate religion, but doing so does a disservice both to the religion and to science.

The Buddha may have had many insights, but none of them involved the relationship between spacetime and gravity.

<comment><USER32> The US government hasn't acknowledge the existence of aliens, but in 2016 the CIA admitted to funding programs because they suspected the existence of aliens. It is very hard to find a good source to link though due to terrible SNR when you google "cia aliens"

<comment><USER31> The government also studied remote viewing, and the Air Force had its own UFO project called Operation Blue Book, and of course there was MKULTRA looking into mind control, but just because something is studied doesn't mean it exists, or gives practical results.

<comment><USER33> Sundevil (remote viewing) and Blue Book (UFOs) were '60s projects. AATIP and the UAP footage has been confirmed by the Pentagon itself, and even Raytheon's official site talks up the use of their ATFLIRs in recording the footage:

[https://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/uap_atflir](https://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/uap_atflir)

We don't know if the footage is aliens, but we do know that the footage is real.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Fantasy Sports for Stocks - <AUTHOR> http://www.stockpools.com <comment><USER2> The idea looks fun to mess around with and I imagine the price is right for playing, it doesn't get much better than free + prizes. This could also be fun in letting out some tendencies to want to play the stock market without actually putting anything on the line.

Just as a separate note, your video and motto sound very reminiscent of gambling or lottery advertisements. I don't necessarily mean to call this a problem, but the juxtaposition of "playing" the stock markets with the same sales pitch as the lottery tickled my funny bone. If you intended that then A+!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot for the feedback! We'll take it to note.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Fantasy Noob here. How does it work? Also how are you able to give prizes when registration is free?

<comment><AUTHOR> We mimic the concept of traditional fantasy sports; you assemble a roster of players (although in our case, they are stocks) and compete that portfolio against the performance of others'. If your overall roster performance is higher than the competition, you win cash prizes. We're able to pay out because of our profitable advertising model. Some of the companies listed use our site to gain exposure for their stock, in an organic, exploratory way.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Mondly – the Siri for learning languages - <AUTHOR> https://www.mondlylanguages.com?upvotes=thankyou <comment><USER2> This might just be the best idea since the Internet.</comment>


Boeing 757 remotely hacked by US homeland security experts in just 2 days - <AUTHOR> http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/boeing-757-was-remotely-hacked-by-us-homeland-security-experts-just-2-days-1647025 <comment><USER2> Unfortunately that is extremely light on information. Is there any other source?

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://www.aviationtoday.com/2017/11/08/boeing-757-testing-s...](http://www.aviationtoday.com/2017/11/08/boeing-757-testing- shows-airplanes-vulnerable-hacking-dhs-says/)

?</comment></comment>


82% of all wealth created in the last year went to the top 1% - <AUTHOR> https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/reward-work-not-wealth <comment><USER2> If someone starts a new company and gets rich, the wealth did not "go" to him -- he created it. On a more prosaic level, my investments in the stock market, which did well last year, represent ownership in companies that employ people and produce consumer goods. If the wealthy did not save and invest, there would be more "equality", but society overall would be poorer.</comment>