Futurist Ray Kurzweil Pulls Out All the Stops (and Pills) to Live to Witness the Singularity - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/16-04/ff_kurzweil?currentPage=all <comment><USER2> >Kurzweil predicts that by the early 2030s, most of our fallible internal organs will have been replaced by tiny robots. We'll have "eliminated the heart, lungs, red and white blood cells, platelets, pancreas, thyroid and all the hormone-producing organs, kidneys, bladder, liver, lower esophagus, stomach, small intestines, large intestines, and bowel. What we have left at this point is the skeleton, skin, sex organs, sensory organs, mouth and upper esophagus, and brain."

What developed country's government would allow people to experiment with such things? Risk-aversion is a real brake on the singularity, and it tends to increase with wealth.

<comment><USER3> I think it is already happening, there are artificial hearts, for example?

<comment><USER4> Yes, I think Kurzweil's response would be that these things will be replaced in people with a condition that would be fatal if the original organs were left intact. Over time, people would be come more and more "cybernetic" as their natural parts failed and technology came up with "improved" replacements.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I loved Kurzweil's book. Unfortunately in all the talk about Moore's Law and exponential growth, Murphy's Law was forgotten (perhaps in a self-referencing manifestation of the same law).

Example: My HMO has figured out that, if a patient has a serious chronic ailment (e.g., diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc.) then it is cheaper for them should the patient die:

I. Treat patient:

          cost of treatment           $100

          cost of future treatments   $???

Highly-variable costs borne largely by the HMO.

II. Let patient die:

          cost of treatment           $100

          cost of future treatments   $  0

Cost to HMO limited to $100. Remaining costs borne by the deceased's life insurance company.

The perfect HMO patient is one who never visits his doctor and then dies quickly.

Should the HMO increase profitability by speeding their chronically-ill patients to a painless death? Stockholders cry "Yes!"; patients whimper a fearful "No." Needless to say some cognitive dissonance must arise should one's income be so directly tied to one's ability to (not) keep one's patients alive.

Economic and social conflicts within the medical system are a greater hindrance to the singularity than are technical hurdles.

<comment><USER3> What is a HMO? In any case, if an insurance company would default to "Let patient die", it would probably lose a lot of customers - shareholders would not be pleased.

<comment><USER6> From the _New Oxford American Dictionary_ :

health maintenance organization (abbr.: HMO)

a health insurance organization to which subscribers pay a predetermined fee in return for a range of medical services from physicians and healthcare workers registered with the organization.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've got a better plan for my future: _I'm going to grow old and die_.

(Unless, of course, fate intervenes and I don't grow old. But I intend to keep _planning_ to grow old right up until the last minute!)

It's a classic plan, and well tested. Lots of prior art. Lots of examples to learn from, and a lot of infrastructure and literature.

You folks can find fault with my plan if you want. But here's the thing: You're going to follow the same plan, whether you're willing to admit it or not. [1]

Further reading: <http://kk.org/ct2/2007/09/my-life-countdown-1.php>

[1] I'd offer to bet, because my odds are really, really good... but tontines are illegal for a good reason. ;)

<comment><USER8> Really? So if you lived in a post-Singularity world, in which clinical immortality was an unquestioned human right, you would periodically get your face wrinkled, inject yourself with bone-brittling nanobots, induce dementia, and then wither away?

If you tried to inflict that fate on anyone else, it would be a terrible crime. If you wanted that for yourself, it would be evidence of mental illness. If you consider it anything but the status quo or an inevitability, it's indefensible to desire it.

<comment><USER7> _So if you lived in a world... in which clinical immortality was an unquestioned human right..._

ROTFL.

I live in a world where my wife and I had to fight our old insurance company for basic preventive health care. (She tried to have a mammogram in the same year that I had a simple 20-minute physical. Turns out that violated the fine print in our policy, and we had to pay out of pocket.) I'm glad to say that our uninsured, thirtysomething friend just managed to save enough money for his cancer surgery, but others of our friends aren't so lucky. And I live in _Massachusetts_ , where the state has forced insurance companies to sell relatively affordable policies to individual contractors like me. If I lived in a different state, I'd probably be paying over $1000 a month for the privilege of having my claims denied.

So, sure, I'd love for clinical immortality to be possible, and love it even more if it were an "unquestioned human right". But here in the USA I don't even have the "unquestioned right" to _effective, existing medical technologies_ , and that's a more pressing concern.

Meanwhile, would I want to age in a post-Singularity world? Who the hell knows? I don't think you can be immortal and still be recognizably human -- the entire design of humans is predicated on mortality, just as it's predicated on gravity and an oxygen atmosphere and the presence of edible plants and animals. And who knows what the post-human aliens will think?

To the extent that post-singular beings remain human, I think they'll exhibit many of the same self-destructive tendencies that humans do now. I used to be a cancer researcher, and the sight of people lighting cigarettes still makes me angry inside. It feels like they're setting fire to my hard work. But what can you do? To discount the future is part of human nature.

Recommended reading:

On the alienness of the immortal human: William Gibson's _Count Zero_.

On the psychology of the immortal human: Doctorow's _Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom_ is good. The much shorter, ha-ha-only-serious version is the tale of Wowbagger, the Infinitely Prolonged in Douglas Adams' _Life, the Universe, and Everything_. (Douglas Adams is one of those guys whose every throwaway joke encapsulates an entire _series_ of philosophical novels.)

On the "unquestioned human right" to immortality: Roger Zelazny's _Lord of Light_. You may have to read most of it before it becomes clear what I'm talking about, but keep reading. It's an awesome work.

<comment><USER8> ROTFL is not the right reaction if you follow it up with, basically, "Your hypothetical futuristic scenario is not like my real-life right-now scenario!" I said "If" for a reason.

I don't think immortality is or should be an unquestioned right, but I suspect that within a decade or two of it being a realistic possibility, letting people die will be about as popular as slavery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> God bless him; those pills are exactly what will kill him.

The singularity is coming, but Moore's law won't have much to do with it. I remember seeing a few-days-old kitten and for the first time in its little life, it saw a dog. It hissed.

We already have the equivalent computing power of a kitten's brain. What we don't have is the software that can recognize a dog without having ever seen one before.

<comment><USER10> How can you say the pills are dangerous without knowing what they are?

<comment><USER9> I'm channeling a pharmacist friend here. Either a pill has no effect (such as Vitamin-C) and just gives you expensive urine, or it has an effect. And if it has an effect, it has a side effect(s). No pharmacist in the world knows what would happen if you mix that many pills, whatever they are, and so, unless most of them are herbal non-drugs, he's taking a big chance, which is exactly what he's trying to avoid. Thus the irony.

<comment><USER11> Vitamin C has no effect?! That's not what mommy told me :(

Any references?

<comment><USER12> Linus Pauling died.

<comment><USER13> He's not the best example as he died at age 93.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Anyone seen one of his talks or ppts? Anyone else get those creepy cult feelings? Anyone?

<comment><USER15> Yes. I've laid out my objections to his timetables here before: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=142175>

I like what his books do in terms of sparking the imagination, but take his claims with the same level of skepticism as I do an infomercial. Another thing is the repitition; if you've read _Age of Intelligent Machines_ you've read _Age of Spiritual Machines_ as well as _Singularity is Near_.

Some of the predictions of Spiritual Machines have fallen short already: Most people don't use speech recognition to enter data into computers. Granted, he chose 2009 as that target date, but I feel safe that won't be the main method of entry in a few months.

<comment><USER16> Speech rec with Naturally speaking, as of a year ago when my buddy broke his arm and tryed it, was getting there, but still not usable for him.

Speech is not as nice as typing for entering data. Typing seems [citation needed] faster and like less work. Also, in an office, the voices absorb mental bandwidth from everyone in earshot. So I think in this case Kurzweil may or may not be wrong about the quality of the technology in a year, but he's definitely wrong about speech being a preferred method for interfacing with a computer.

<comment><USER17> Solved? I think this qualifies within his predictions. <http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/22037/>

<comment><USER15> I'm guessing that given the difficulty of characterizing voiced speech is still inaccurate, the more difficult task of translating neural impulses to speech will result in even further degradation of performance. Unsolved: _At the moment, the device has a limited vocabulary: 150 words and phrases._

A long way to go.

<comment><USER17> They still have an year and a half, which means twice the number of transistors on their next hardware. Give them the benefit of doubt.

<comment><USER15> No, I won't. The problem is not transistors; the problem is in the lack of understanding how speech recognition works. It is very difficult to get right and it is highly unlikely that those problems will be solved completely within the next 18 months.

They could double the transistor count now by running the algorithm on a better DSP or Cell processor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think it is important to remember that the immortality mentioned here is a protection from biological causes of death, but there are plenty of other obstacles to prolonged existence (especially prolonged self-consciousness and memory, which is harder to wrap one's head around).

Take the popular theories of the universe's lifespan (or life cycle).

1) The universe is expanding exponentially: eventually every star will die and there will be nothing to birth new stars. The universe will stop moving and hit a zero Kelvin freeze.

2) The universe cycles between big bangs and big crunches: information cannot survive through a crunch. Well maybe one binary bit? hehe.

3) Some sort of multi-universe collisions or string theory madness: who knows but there could be some event that wipes out what we know as reality.

Basically, I am trying to point out that immortality is probably a fundamentally flawed concept. A simpler approach might be to consider memory. Memory storage cannot grow forever (let alone be accessed efficiently enough) and while we could cap memory and still exist indefinitely, I think we would have to hit a ceiling of knowledge attainment and we would just be spinning a wheels like a more exciting version of a rock (not that humanity is any less of a _process_ right now).

Smarter people than I have already dwelled upon these issues and probably have better answers than mine (esp. since I have no answer). Asimov's "The Last Question" is an interesting short story that covers this area a bit.

</comment><comment><USER19> I can't help noticing that while we are making these exponential advances in technology, we are also using exponential amounts of our limited supplies of cheap resources -- things like oil, coal, copper, gold, and helium. I sure hope Kurzweil gets his singularity before any of these limiting factors kick in, or it could put a nasty kink in his graph.

<comment><USER2> One of the most striking features of the 20th century is that the economy has gotten lighter per unit of wealth. New goods are made of fewer raw materials and more ideas. Greenspan has a famous piece on this, which unfortunately I was not able to google up. I am with Julian Simon on the issue, I doubt that raw material scarcity will be a significant brake on human advancement.

<comment><USER9> That's a good point but it's only one aspect. Another striking feature of the late 20th century is our ability to use advanced technology to extract resources optimally. So instead of getting a slow decline in supply and a corresponding higher prices slowing demand (the ubiquitous bell curve), you get a diagonal line followed by a vertical -- in other words, a cliff.

That sounds alarmist but it's just because you don't notice until you're on the wrong side of the graph. Cod was one of the most plentiful fish around and because it was good and cheap it became the base of the "fish and chips" British staple. Cod is now an endagered species. 90% of all large fish have disappeared from the world's oceans in the past half century. And that's just fish. We have new technology to extract oil efficiently sometimes called "super straws". So instead of sputtering to a stop, we'll get there at full speed. It's easy to say, "Oh we'll just slow down or find alternatives." That's like going 150mph and saying if the curve is too tight, we'll just slow down. Sure we will. James Dean style.

<comment><USER2> The situation that you mentioned with the cod fits the "tragedy of the commons" scenario. Where property rights are hard to define, resources are over-extracted because there is no owner with the incentive to conserve.

I challenge you to name one resource with normal property rights that fits the "diagonal line/cliff" scenario. I know of none, although it appears to be the common wisdom of the internet at the moment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It would be very hard to argue that the singularity won't arrive eventually, provided humans survive long enough. It's just the date that's tough to predict. Sure, computing power has been growing exponentially, but as they say, "past performance is no guarantee of future results", and there are so many other variables aside from raw processing speed.

<comment><USER21> _It would be very hard to argue that the singularity won't arrive eventually_

Really? What if consciousness is not an algorithm?

<comment><USER20> What does consciousness have to do with it? Eventually there will be machines that are capable of passing the Turing test or something similar. The singularity is what happens next.

``To the question, "Will there ever be a computer as smart as a human?" I think the correct answer is, "Well, yes... very briefly."'' - Vernor Vinge

<comment><USER21> _What does consciousness have to do with it?_

It's human. If one or more aspects of being human aren't computable, then it's plausible that computers will never pass the Turing test.

Of course, if you assume that the space of what can be expressed algorithmically is equivalent to the space of all that is, some of these claims become trivial. But that's a whopping leap of faith. Perhaps Richard Dawkins could get around to writing a book about that one when he's finished demolishing its more popular competitor. :)

<comment><USER20> _[Consciousness] is human. If one or more aspects of being human aren't computable, then it's plausible that computers will never pass the Turing test._

You seem to be saying that a computer would have to actually _be_ human or _be_ conscious in order to pass the Turing Test. But passing the Test only requires the computer to _simulate_ some observable behaviors of a conscious human well enough to fool a skilled interrogator. In particular, it only has to simulate those behaviors that are observable through a low-bandwidth TTY.

I suppose one could argue that there _simply does not exist_ an algorithm that could pass the Turing test (when run on a the powerful computers of the future), but that seems like a very hard case to make, particularly here on Hacker News. One could instead try to argue that though such an algorithm may exist, we will never find it, but that doesn't seem to be what you are saying either.

<comment><USER21> I'm not saying there _simply does not exist_ such an algorithm; I don't have an opinion on that one way or the other. I'm questioning your claim that "it would be _very hard_ to argue that the singularity won't arrive eventually" because "eventually there _will be_ machines that are capable of passing the Turing test" (emphasis added). You don't know that. Nobody does. Some people like the idea, some people don't; it's wishful thinking on both sides.

My point was to offer one possible scenario under which computers might _not_ pass the Turing test: namely, if there turns out to be some essential aspect of humans (capable of being observed through a low-bandwidth TTY, if you insist) that can't be captured algorithmically. Consciousness _might_ be one such feature. (It's a reasonable one to suggest for two reasons: it's central to human existence and no one has a clue what it is.)

"We'll just simulate it, then" is, in my view, a dodge. If there isn't an algorithm for X, why should there necessarily be one that approximates X arbitrarily closely?

Partisans of the "singularity" are fond of insisting that it's all a matter of processing power, but that's only true _if there's an algorithm for everything_. That blithe assumption seems to me an article of faith. It reminds me of G.K. Chesterton's line, "Give us one free miracle and we'll explain everything."

<comment><USER20> You are suggesting that there may be some aspect of humans which (a) can be observed by another un-augmented human over a low-bandwidth TTY and (b) can _never_ \-- at any point in the future -- be simulated by a computer, no matter how complicated the algorithm or how powerful the computer.

While I admit that this is _possible_ , it strikes me as implausible for the following reason: the capabilities of computers are increasing as time goes by, while those of humans are not (the Flynn effect notwithstanding).

I could understand if you were to say that we won't have the technology to make computers that pass the Turing Test in the next _x_ years, for a sufficiently large _x_. But you are suggesting that it is plausible that we will _never_ do it, in the same sense that a physical object will never move faster than the speed of light. In the absence of a well-accepted theory supported by evidence (as we have for the limit of the speed of light), this strikes me as a very strong claim that is difficult to defend given the existence of technological evolution in the world.

<comment><USER21> At this point I can only appeal back to what I already said: it depends on whether or not _there's an algorithm for everything_. If this is true, then sure: assuming enough processing power (and programming power), anything can be simulated. And if it's _not_ true, well, it follows that there's a hard limit, à la your speed-of-light analogy, to what computers will ever be capable of. Doesn't it?

How is that a strong claim? I don't state that the "algorithms for everything" thesis is true or false, because I don't know. Nobody does. My point is that singularianism depends on a belief about this; a belief that is, based on what we currently know, rather miraculous, and therefore not very hard to dispute.

Thanks, by the way, for quoting me as saying " _may_ be". I was starting to doubt my ability to get my point across!

<comment><USER20> _[I]t depends on whether or not there's an algorithm for everything._

We already know that there is not an algorithm for everything. Indeed, Turing himself showed that there is not an algorithm for solving the halting problem <[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem>](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem>). But that has no bearing on whether or not there exists an algorithm that would someday allow a computer to pass the Turing Test.

<comment><USER21> Replace that phrase with _algorithm for everything that's intrinsic to being human_.

Or, if you prefer, _algorithm for everything necessary to simulate being human sufficiently well to consistently fool humans via low-bandwidth TTY_. My point remains the same: it's a belief either way. And throwing processing power at it will only yield the predicted effect in one of those cases.

Edit: the existence of undecidability results (and the general failure of the formalist project) ought to make us more, not less skeptical of grandiose claims concerning computability.

<comment><USER20> _[I]t depends on whether or not there's an algorithm for everything necessary to simulate being human sufficiently well to consistently fool humans via low- bandwidth TTY._

But clearly such an algorithm _does_ exist, so this objection fails.

Its existence follows from these facts:

(1) only a fixed amount of data in the form of questions can flow through the low-bandwidth TTY,

(2) only a fixed amount of data in the form of responses can be sent back back, and

(3) there exists an algorithm for any function with a bounded input and output. (To see this, note that the algorithm could consist of a lookup table containing a correct output for each of the finite number of inputs it has to deal with.)

I concede that it is another matter entirely whether or not we will ever discover such an algorithm and implement it on a sufficiently powerful computer. But the fact that an algorithm for passing the Test _must_ exist takes the discussion out of the realm of physical and/or philosophical possibility and into the realm of technology and engineering.

<comment><USER21> Uh oh, you got technical on me!

It's been a long time since I've studied this stuff, but for what it's worth, your argument feels incorrect to me. It might not be possible to address that effectively here, but let me try.

Let's call a particular run of the Turing test a "Turing dialog". Say a Turing dialog D consists of alternating statements C1,H1,...,Cn,Hn where C stands for "computer" and H for "human". Say a "successful Turing dialog" is one that succeeds in fooling the human participant - that is, Hn is something like "I think you're human".

You're right that for any Turing dialog D, D is finite and therefore an algorithm exists to reproduce it (a simple lookup table will do). But such an algorithm is only good for one specific D. To build it, you'd have to know all of D in advance.

To pass the Turing test, we need more. We need an algorithm, which, given _any valid prefix_ of a Turing dialog, i.e. any sequence C1,H1,...,Ck,Hk, knows how to produce Ck+1 in such a way that the dialog will end successfully. That's not the same thing, is it?

<comment><USER20> _We need an algorithm, which, given any valid prefix of a Turing dialog, i.e. any sequence C1,H1,...,Ck,Hk, knows how to produce Ck+1 in such a way that the dialog will end successfully._

Exactly, but since each Turing dialog is of bounded length (i.e. no more than a megabyte in size, depending on the bandwidth of the TTY and the predetermined maximum length of the test), the set of all Turing dialogs is finite and is therefore subject to the dictionary algorithm approach.

It's rather like building out the game tree of optimal play for White in chess. The tree for the Turing Test "game" would have to include all the questions that could be asked at each point in the tree, but you only need one possible correct ("Turing-test passing") response at each node.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> For Kurzweil, it's an interesting way of asserting - advertising, if you will - his own confidence in his capacities as a futurist.

</comment><comment><USER23> To address the points raised in these comments:

1\. We do NOT have "the equivalent computing power of a kitten's brain." That's like saying that because we have apples we have the equivalent taste of an orange.

The only real way to translate current silicon processor-based computing into a biological brain-based form is to ask how <a href="<http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19767/>">many neurons can we model on current hardware.</a> The answer to that is: not nearly enough... yet. At the current rate of technological growth, we can expect to model a full rat brain within ten years, with a human brain shortly to follow (remember, exponential growth moves fast!) Once we can fully simulate a brain, the only limit to its power is the speed of the processor it runs on.

This approach also addresses the "recognizing a dog" point. By accurately simulating a brain, they will use the same algorithm the brain does to recognize objects. It is also worth pointing out that <a href="<http://www.onintelligence.org/index.php>">advances</a> <a href="<http://www.numenta.com/>">are being made</a> in deriving the cortical algorithm directly and using it for the very type of pattern recognition you mention.

Finally, the point is subtly flawed. Cats recognize dogs "without having ever seen one before" because the knowledge of what a dog is is hardwired into their brains from birth. In effect, they <em>have</em> seen dogs before, or some part of their brains have.

2\. The point applying survival of the fittest to robots is ridiculous. I barely know where to begin.

First, we will use the term AI instead of robot, as a robot is just an AI with a body. Second, the only thing that matters to an AI is how "smart" it is - how efficient its algorithms are and how fast those algorithms run. Having a big strong body doesn't even make sense in this context.

Additionally, the idea that AI's will design AI's smarter than them is also flawed. If an AI figures out an algorithm that allows for a more efficient thought process, what's to stop the AI from modifying itself to use that algorithm?

3\. Pills: Pharmaceutical drugs have (often serious) side effects. Homeopathic medicines usually have very little side effects. I'm not saying that taking all those pills is healthy or beneficial, but the rampant side effects people seem to be suggesting probably won't manifest.

The heuristic that seems to crop up in all matters of health/eating is "in all things moderation."

4\. Ray Kurzweil suggests that the final form of immortality will manifest as computer systems able to model/run our consciousnesses. That way we will be able to exist for as long as the machines do, as well as back up and transfer our consciousnesses.

I submit that, even if this is possible, it wouldn't make <strong>you</strong>. Rather, it would merely ensure that some copy of you persisted. Consider if you could make perfect clones of yourself, with all of your memories and developments. Those clones would act exactly like you, but they still wouldn't be you.

5\. On a personal note, if we agree that it's possible that a method for achieving immortality will be discovered in our lifetimes, the logical course of action is to devote the entirety of ones efforts towards realizing this possibility. The reward surely justifies the risk.

<comment><USER24> Great points.

> Consider if you could make perfect clones of yourself, with all of your > memories and developments.

> Those clones would act exactly like you, but they still wouldn't be you.

I believe the argument is something along the line of if you replace a neuron with some sort of artificial neuron are you still "you"? How about another 10? How about a handful here and a handful there over the course of a year? What if 10% of your neurons are now artificial along with fake hips and knees and regenerated biological teeth? not to mention the tip of your finger that you accidentally sliced off..

<comment><USER16> On the same token, if you cloned me, and he was sitting next to me and I had to choose who would get shot, I'd choose him. He isn't me because I can't access his thoughts. I think identity is tied to physical and temporal location and is in continual flux, so a clone is never me--it never occupies the same points in space and time. The nerve replacement idea is tough, though. Maybe our idea of identity is wrong, artificial, or too limiting.

<comment><USER25> Of course, he'd definitely pick you to get shot!

<comment><USER16> True, but what I'm getting at is if we were the "same" we wouldn't care.

<comment><USER25> Ah, the old "different forms of equality" problem. You're thinking === (same object in memory) while I'm thinking == (identical copies).

<comment><USER16> Well said.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I worked with that Matt Phillips guy. Glad to see he spent his Yahoo money on becoming immortal.

</comment><comment><USER27> A more balanced view is here: [http://www.portfolio.com/executives/features/2007/11/19/Long...](http://www.portfolio.com/executives/features/2007/11/19/Longevity- Industry)</comment>


Ecuador spent millions on spy operation for Julian Assange - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/15/revealed-ecuador-spent-millions-julian-assange-spy-operation-embassy-london?CMP=share_btn_tw <comment><USER2> Julian Assange is a really a hero and a small country like Ecuador protecting him is a real big deal.

<comment><USER3> I doubt Ecuador is doing it for moral reasons. I'd wager Wikileaks has nasty dirt on Ecuador's leadership.

<comment><USER2> In international politics no one does anything for moral reason. Do you think US wars in Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan are for moral reasons ?

For example Trump who claims `America first` and wants to deport even legal immigrants suddenly has his breast filled with milk of compassion for Syrians who allegedly died in possibly fake chemical attack ?

Did Hillary Clinton want to assassinate Assange for moral reasons ?

We should focus more on outcomes rather than virtues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This guy is just the worst houseguest ever.</comment>


Why Sleep Deprivation Kills - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-sleep-deprivation-kills-20200604/ <comment><USER2> I cannot stand those long form articles. The headline picked my interest, the lead text is intriguing but the first paragraph that starts to describe a bright, warm morning or the attire or the facial features of a "lead character" immediately takes the wind out of my sails. How can anyone place so little value on their time as to be able afford to consume material that is so sparse in information?

<comment><USER3> I thought maybe you were being overly critical and the writing wouldn't be so bad... then I read halfway through this sentence:

 _On a cold morning this winter, Rogulja leaned over a tablet in her office, her close-cropped dark hair framing a face of elfin intensity..._

<comment><USER4> Poe's law strikes again.

<comment><USER5> Huh?

<comment><USER4> I could honestly not tell whether that quote was written satirically or actually in the article without looking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> After finishing this article, I immediately started googling for any anecdotal signs of antioxidant usage effects on sleep. Coincidentally, I found out that melatonin has strong antioxidant properties itself. Could supplementing with melatonin reduce the need for sleep?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melatonin#Antioxidant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melatonin#Antioxidant)

[https://www.gwern.net/Melatonin#tempus- fugit](https://www.gwern.net/Melatonin#tempus-fugit)

<comment><USER7> Please research in-depth before experimenting too much. Some common antioxidants are surprisingly linked to modestly increased all-cause mortality; the most famous is the set of vitamin E studies, but there are others.

[1] [https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/antioxidants-in- depth](https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/antioxidants-in-depth)

[2] [https://www.webmd.com/drug- medication/news/20070227/antioxid...](https://www.webmd.com/drug- medication/news/20070227/antioxidant-supplements-up-death-risk)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> So the interesting question here would be (and I'm not a biologist so may have misunderstood parts of the study), does increasing the amount of anti-oxidants you consume reduce the need for sleep and/or improve wakefulness?

<comment> GuB-42 It looks like anti-oxidants can prevent you from dying in case you don't sleep at all.

It doesn't tell much about the long term effects of low levels of sleep deprivation.

<comment><AUTHOR> One should always be cautious to not assume that studies conducted in lab animals translate to humans by default. The media is quick to do that but we can be better than that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> TLDR: Sleep deprivation in flies and mice leads to increased ROS (Reactive oxygen species) molecules in the gut. This is show to be highly correalted to be the cause of lethality. To show the causality, the over-expression of anti- oxiodants restores normal lifespan in the animals.

Abstract video summary by the senior author here:

[https://bit.ly/3cy0C9u](https://bit.ly/3cy0C9u)

<comment><USER9> The Cell paper [1] begins with a three bullet Highlights section:

\- Sleep deprivation leads to ROS accumulation in the fly and mouse gut

\- Gut-accumulated ROS trigger oxidative stress in this organ

\- Preventing ROS accumulation in the gut allows survival without sleep in flies

[1] [https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30555-9.pdf?_ret...](https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674\(20\)30555-9.pdf?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867420305559%3Fshowall%3Dtrue)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> TLDR Feeding fruit flies antioxidants (suitable for flies) lessen the damage from sleep deprivation to the point it's no longer lethal or life shortening. Damage from sleep deprivation seems to be very strongly correlated with oxidants build up in the gut of fruit flies. Similar oxidants show up in guts of sleep deprived rats as in fruit flies, so it's quite interesting.

By reading the actual paper I learned that apparently melatonin and lipoic acid fared best at extending survival without giving any additional sleep. Another interesting observation from the paper is that anti-oxidants didn't affect lifespan of non-sleepdeprived fruit flies.

</comment><comment><USER11> > Yet scientists have found it oddly hard to say exactly why sleep loss is > lethal.

Barf. This kind of straw-manning is all too common in science journalism. IANAS but I know that normal metabolism generates free radicals (electron- greedy molecules), which then steal electrons from anything they touch, causing damage. If that damage isn't repaired regularly, then our basic metabolic pathways breakdown, and we die.

I'm sure there are mysteries to unpack beneath this, but why treat the reader to a moronic underrepresentation of the state of the art?

<comment><USER12> If I find I can't open a door, it cllouls be because there is a lock. If I remove the lock does that mean the door can be opened? No, there might be another lock, or rusty hinges, or nails to the frame.

Just because we might be able to remediate this one mechanism in the gut doesn't mean we can solve sleep. What about memory formation? Or immune system effects of sleep?

<comment><USER11> I think you misunderstood? I meant: we understand one way in which sleep loss can kill sufficiently well that we don't need to describe its lethality as "oddly hard to explain". That doesn't mean there isn't more to learn about sleep, or other things about sleep that are, indeed, oddly hard to explain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As someone who has chronic maintenance insomnia (so bad that I've been off work for more than 6 months), is there anything I can do?

<comment><USER14> Take forum advice with a grain of salt, but you asked for it, so here it goes.

Exercise daily, starting today.

Ditch or at least dim all screens a few hours before going to bed. Hard ban on screens when unwillingly awake in the middle of the night. Paper books are okay.

Look into techniques to fall asleep, this article helped me: [https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/fall-asleep- fast/](https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/fall-asleep-fast/). The article and the research it cites are male-oriented, women may try it more speculatively. Intuitively it seems to me that gender differences should not be relevant.

Septum surgery helped my sleep enormously by making breathing easier, see if it's for you.

Hard ban on stimulants, including sugar and coffee, a few hours before going to bed. Hard ban on stimulants when unwillingly awake in the middle of the night. For a severe case such as yours, consider a hard ban after midday, or even a complete permanent ban.

<comment><USER13> Thanks for the reply. Sorry I didn't give more details. Unfortunately, I've been following most of the "best practices" for sleep for a while, as it's been almost a year since my sleep turned to a mess.

Currently, I try to take a walk at least 30 minute everyday in the morning and then I do the 7-minute-workout in the afternoon, even when I have no energy. My sleep's improved for the past couple of months since I started this workout routine. I can't tell if it's because of that or my sleep just improves on its own but I'll keep doing it since exercising is better than doing nothing. I also started 18:6 intermittent fasting. That might also have helped.

Still, my improved sleep means about 5 to 5.5 hours (sometimes less) a night with at least 2 awakenings in between. My normal sleep was about 8 hours with 1 awakening, and I'd still nap in the afternoon if given the opportunity. Now, I can't nap and there's no rebound sleep (i.e. I don't sleep more the next day because I sleep very little the day before). It's a pretty messed up situation and doctors haven't found anything abnormal from medical tests, including MRI and EEG. Sleep study indicated 50% sleep efficiency, reduced REM and deep sleep, but no sleep apnea or any common cause.

I tried the 2-min fall asleep method when my condition first started but it didn't really help. And yes, I only drink green tea and have some chocolates before lunch time in terms of stimulants.

I've also read Why We Sleep before my sleep got this bad. In fact, knowing too much about how sleep work and the negative impact on health with lack of sleep makes it much worse for me. So now I tend to avoid reading articles like this and learning more details.

I guess what I'm asking is if there's anything more I can do, like something to supplement or eat/do to make up for the stuff lost due to insufficient sleep. It's a long shot asking in a tech forum, but I'm willing to give anything a chance to help improve my sleep. Let's hope there's more research into sleep as insomnia is one of the worst form of suffering.

<comment><USER15> I have a recurring insomnia too. Nothing to recommend tbh, as I am still not alright, but my anecdotes are: 1. sleep pills do "power off", but not a real "sleep". You wake up in the same state at the moment a pill metabolizes. 2. A neck/collar massage seems to help to some degree. 3. A strong routine _may_ help – before things went downhill, I could feel these two "want to sleep" hours which turn you off instantly and which are easy to skip and be awake for more time. Now I don't feel them, but they're still there. You may try to go to sleep _before_ your insomnia kicks in; maybe your body is just missing this period by ignoring it completely. 4. Another cause may be purely psychological – long-standing anxiety and stress, which you do not count as real problems (everyone has problems!) and do not report to a doctor, but they are. 5. Have someone to "sleep with", in a bed-sharing sense. 6. Ensure that your nutrient levels and inner organs are fine. In retrospect, all of the above did change my average state for better or worse over a period of around ten years (or it was a coincidence, idk). I know that experiments can bring even more suffering in your current state, so please discuss them with your health care first.

>insomnia is one of the worst form of suffering

I once had a "day" that lasted four days or so. The last one was pretty hell on earth. Idk how people stay awake for weeks in stories out there. For a reader who never experienced that: it is not "I don't wanna sleep and it's probably bad". No, you are tired as hell, your brain is almost failing, you _want_ to sleep, but you just can not.

<comment><USER13> Agree with your points and I might give massaging a try. I've let go of so many things and pursuits since my condition started so I doubt it's anxiety and stress. It's been more than half a year since I need to work (fortunate to be on company's disability benefit for now). Right now I simply wish to stay alive/healthy and enjoy simple things in life. Hopefully my sleep keeps recovering to a point that I can work full time again. For several months, it was super scary that it was only going down hill.

> you are tired as hell, your brain is almost failing, you want to sleep, but > you just can not.

I know exactly what you mean. I was like that for the whole winter. Fortunately this scenario's not happened for quite some time. I'm at least getting some amount of sleep everyday.

<comment><USER16> Have you tried sleep headphones and/or noise generation? Also does listening to guided meditation/relaxation recordings (as opposed to just following a practice you read) do anything to knock you out?

<comment><USER13> Right now falling asleep is usually not a problem. Waking up early and then again and again is the problem; plus not sleeping more than 5.5 hours. This is an example from my sleep diary: bedtime 11:39, and the subsequent wake up times are 1:50, 3:16, 4:42, 6:01, 6:35. I wrote a simple app to track them without having to look at a clock. I only know the result when I'm out of bed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's 4am and I read this headline. Thanks for the motivation to head to bed.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is the kind of article that causes harm to insomniacs. We stay up late, worried about our sleep deprivation, causing sleep deprivation.

Really when I talk to a sleep doctor, they say don't stress about a single night or two of bad sleep. It happens. Even a weeklong stretch. If you can't sleep, don't try. And its ok if you get 5 or 6 hours. They'll often care about quality over quantity.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am sorry for your struggle with insomnia. I just don't see why this research does harm to you? The whole goal of research in this field is to understand the underlying molecular mechanisms that are responsible for sleep disorders or related to them. In the lonf run, a better understanding of these mechanisms will help the research community to develop methods to treat these disorders in humans.

It is unfortunate that this research has to be done with animals and the scientific community is thankful to the society for understanding the crucial need for it and their support with research grants from their taxes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Until I'm free/can work on my own time I'm usually often sleep deprived especially on Mondays and it goes throughout the week until I get back to normal by Friday... crappy cycle. Still I find when I get too much sleep(sleep as long as I want) I feel bored with my life. So slightly sleep deprived seems to keep me in the grind.

</comment><comment><USER20> First: I find this kind of research valuable, I think mankind will benefit from it.

But now, the discussion question: What would people say if this experimentation were being done on puppies, or rabbits, or baby seals? Why are fruit flies different?

<comment><USER21> > What would people say if this experimentation were being done on puppies, or > rabbits, or baby seals? Why are fruit flies different?

Because we as a society explicitly assign different levels of moral worth to different animals. Fruit flies have greater worth than bacteria or yeast but lesser worth than mammals, which in turn have lesser worth than primates or humans (as subcategories of mammals).

That's an inherent problem to in vivo studies: we're fine with experiments on bacteria or yeast but we'd all be horrified at unconsenting experiment on humans. There's a line, and we must draw it somewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I really wish we had a human analogue to test these things on. If we push the boundaries of ethics, moral and technology can we create a decephalized "human" currently?

<comment><AUTHOR> There are artificial grown tissues from human Stem cells called "organoids" [0] that are used in labs to conduct experiments. But of course these experiments are very limited as it remains to be seen how far can organoids resemble the human brain (or other organs). Behaviour experiments are of course a far far goal on this.

[0] [https://hsci.harvard.edu/organoids](https://hsci.harvard.edu/organoids)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Given that during the pandemic people are over stressed and suffering from insomnia, this articles should not have been submitted imo</comment>


Ask HN: Can you learn to become charismatic? - <AUTHOR> It seems charisma is an important skill associated with leadership and which enables relationship building (e.g., for sales, business development, recruiting). Can one learn to become charismatic or is charisma an entirely innate skill one is born with? I'm interested to hear opinions on this. <comment><USER2> Absolutely. A good book that I read a few years ago is The Charisma Myth by Olivia Fox Cabane. The premise of the book is that you can learn to be more charismatic by working on your mind to cultivate greater confidence, greater warmth and compassion towards others and a greater ability to focus and really pay attention to people. The book presents a lot of techniques to help you do this and I found it to be quite accessible. My life is an awful lot better than it was before as a direct result of my having read it and having worked hard on the exercises that it taught me and I'm very grateful to the person on Hacker News who recommended it to me.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes but I don't think it's something you can necessarily read in a book. Read a book or two, sure, but you'll learn more by

1) Interacting with a ton of people, especially in a public-facing professional context. While generally not great, retail and food service jobs are actually a good way to become charismatic. Especially at local cafes and shops where the veneer of 'corporate-ness' doesn't exist.

2) Participate in some organized activities as a leader. Start a fundraiser, coach a local sports team, host a potluck dinner, that sort of thing. In many ways charisma and leadership are simply a matter of confidence, and the best way to build confidence is to put yourself in real leadership situations, even if the stakes are low.

<comment><USER4> > Participate in some organized activities as a leader.

I've noticed that martial arts schools often cultivate leadership. Once you've been training for a year or two, you will often be asked to demonstrate technique to beginners. Did wonders for my confidence as a teenager.

Similarly with the outdoors club at my university. Once participants had gone on a few trips, they were encouraged to plan, organize, and lead their own.

Any of a number of hobbies ought to offer similar opportunities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Yes.

There are loads of books and videos on it, "How to Win Friends and Influence People" is a classic. I am constantly getting youtube suggestions from "charisma on command", I occasionally watch them and they have some interesting snippets.

I think the most important thing there is to actually intact with people and practice these skills. I used to be quite introverted in my early 20s but then I got a job as rafting guide because I loved white water. Having to interact with new people every day gives you plenty of practice. These days I don't have a problem interacting with people. I probably am not top of the scale as far as charisma goes, but I am whole lot better than in my early 20s.

</comment><comment><USER6> You can definitely improve. Some people a naturally better at this, often there are cultural or class differences, for instance I noticed after a while people from UK public schools are much better at selling themselves and introductions.

Look at people when you meet them and talk, shake their hand (not at the moment!), remember and repeat their name, tell them your name and something about yourself, ask and listen to them talk about themselves family/interests. Followup on the conversation if you want to keep them in your network.

Oh and you can practice this lots. Talk to people in the street, in shops, in bars. I think I improved this a bit going backpacking for instance as you have to communicate with lots of new people often without a common language

</comment><comment><USER7> Absolutely. You have to make charisma work for you (and not try to be someone else and their manner of expressing charisma), in the sense that your unique personality will lend itself to a type/style of charisma and manner of expressing it (projecting it outward into the world, to the reception of others). You have to figure out how to best take advantage of your personality strengths.

Warren Buffett was awkward and shy, incapable of public speaking, when he was younger. He points out that public speaking would make him physically ill. He credits a Dale Carnegie public speaking course [1], for breaking him out of that.

Today he can sit in front of a packed arena of 18,000 people and hold the annual Berkshire Hathaway meeting, while giving long speeches with the spotlight focused squarely on him.

A lot of charisma is about getting your personality out of the box it's being held in. Figuring out the strategy that best enables you to do that. Typically people don't lack for personality, they lack for being able to outlet it properly, understanding the method of doing that. It's like having a car in your garage and not understanding how to drive it; it's sitting there waiting and it'll take you places, if you learn how to drive it.

Charisma is the pairing of your personality with the system/approach of how you get that personality out into the world where it meets other people in a highly effective, impactful manner. You likely have a personality, you need the delivery system.

Buffett has a different type of charisma and a different manner of unleashing it, than eg Steve Jobs, Michael Jordan, Tom Cruise or Will Smith. Buffett's style lends itself more to a kind of folksy story telling approach, and it works extremely well for him and matches his personality strengths (for example he liberally uses self-deprecation to disarm his audience of their preconceived notions of elite wealthy types; he learned a very long time ago that people like hearing stories they can relate to and he channels through that mechanism often).

[1] [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/billionaire-warren- buffett-s...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/billionaire-warren-buffett- says-a-100-dollar-course-had-the-biggest-impact-on-his-success.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> [https://medium.com/packt-hub/how-to-be-like-steve-ballmer- cf...](https://medium.com/packt-hub/how-to-be-like-steve-ballmer-cf4c9803d74c) Is a good start

</comment><comment><USER9> Yes.

But I recommend therapy first, charisma will follow you working on your psyche

<comment><USER5> This seems such a strange thing to suggest to me. But therapy seems to be something "normal" in the US compared to Europe.

<comment><USER9> I am from Europe, Poland so pretty backward country. Not sure if I understood you correctly, you think therapy is more prevalent in the US?

Therapy doesn't always have to be focused on very negative illness like depression or anxiety. It can help with positive sides of psychology. Maybe calling therapy a coaching session would be more appropriate in my post, but tbh it's almost the same thing

<comment><USER5> Its quite unusual for people to go to therapy here unless they have been traumatised. We certainly don't openly talk about going to a therapist the way Americans do.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Logarithms Are So Important in Machine Learning - <AUTHOR> https://towardsdatascience.com/why-logarithms-are-so-important-in-machine-learning-6d2ff7930c8e?source=friends_link&sk=2b817d8bbf609ff92bb7b96827198e64 <comment><USER2> Different optimization techniques will end up approximating such formulas in the course of execution such that you may not necessarily have to code or see an explicit logarithmic formula. I'm not necessarily downplaying logarithms, only saying real-world implementations may represent more or less the same thing different ways.</comment>


Why I quit my cushy corporate job to join a startup - <AUTHOR> http://danclay.posterous.com/why-i-quit-my-cushy-corporate-job-to-join-a-s

<comment><USER2> "Do I continue down the path of steady, stable employment in a field I don't hate but am not passionate about, or do I make the jump into a field that I love but doesn't offer the level of perks that my current job affords?"

This is the challenge of leaving a local minimum and getting out of your comfort zone.

</comment><comment><USER3> Good luck! If you don't like where you land - it'll be ridiculously easy to find somewhere you will.</comment>


Claim a Neanderthal Clojure function as your own pet by supporting me on Patreon - <AUTHOR> https://dragan.rocks/articles/18/Patreon-Announcement-Adopt-a-Function <comment><AUTHOR> All mentioned Clojure libraries are free and open source: [https://github.com/uncomplicate](https://github.com/uncomplicate)

Direct link to Patreon if you do not have time to read the blog post: [https://Patreon.com/draganrocks](https://Patreon.com/draganrocks)</comment>


Serving static files with Django and AWS - going fast on a budget - <AUTHOR> http://eventseer.net/p/thomas_brox_roest/whiteboardentry/13/

<comment><USER2> _Web servers such as lighttpd and Apache are blazingly fast at serving static pages. Reading a file from disk and sending its contents back to the browser is as simple as it gets._

Except that it's not. One of the reason the classic web servers are so amazingly fast with static files is that they, along with the operating systems they run on, have spend significant time trying to optimize this process. For linux, for example, look at the sendfile(2) system call, or the TCP_CORK socket option. These were expressly designed to permit a userspace program to get a file through the kernel and onto the wire with as few CPU cycles and memory copies as possible.

One of the most frustrating things about the Web 2.0 crowd (from the perspective of curmudgeons like me) is that they really don't have a clue about any of this complexity. They just figure that they'll stuff everything into a DJango/Rails/whatever request and scale up later. Then when they run into trouble, they end up turning to tools like Apache as black boxes and designing Rube Goldberg apparatii around them when they really should be looking at the problem more directly.

Really, folks: those low level APIs are your friends. They're not nearly as scary as they look. Even if you end up with an off-the-shelf solution, knowledge of this stuff can only be good for you.

</comment><comment><USER3> 0\. Make sure your HTTP responses return the correct value in the Vary header. Otherwise, everything else will fall apart.

1\. Ensure that all your HTTP responses have proper ETags, and make sure you process the If-Match and If-None-Match request headers appropriately to avoid doing unnecessary work.

2\. Put a simple caching reverse proxy (e.g. Squid, Varnish, mod_disk_cache) in front of your application. Then, tune the cache-control directives to allow the cache to return cached responses without hitting the back end. For this to work for HTTPS responses, you need to put a HTTP-to-HTTPS proxy in front of the caching proxy.

3\. Add a system like the one described in the article, that immediately purges entries from the cache when they are updated in the back-end.

4\. Purchase a caching, SSL-enabled, load-balancer appliance (e.g. Big-IP) that is built to do all of the above nearly automatically.

Most people never need to go beyond step #2.

</comment><comment><USER4> Being into Django+AWS development at the moment (and using <http://eucalyptus.cs.ucsb.edu/> for a private cloud with AWS as an extension as AWS is not cost effective in many ways), I find this a good article to improve performance in a basic way. Many people seem to forget not all content needs to be dynamic and some basic modification can seriously improve performance.

It is great to see articles that include code snippets and architecture diagrams. People should use direct example more often instead of trying to describe things in words.

Lastly, I'd suggest using nginx (<http://wiki.codemongers.com/Main>) as I found it to be a serious improvement on lighttp for many of my projects.

<comment><USER5> I've heard great things about nginx. In relation to this article, how would you implement the lua script presented in this article with nginx? I know that Perl can be embedded in the server, but I'm not sure if that would be the proper solution for deciding which files to serve statically and which to serve dynamically at the httpserver level.

<comment><USER6> you probably don't need perl for that. afaics from the snippet, it fits into nginx mod_rewrite. maybe something like this:

if ($http_cookie ~* "auth=1" ) { proxy_pass <http://backend> ; break ; }

if (!-f $request_filename) { proxy_pass <http://backend> ; break ; }</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How does "Passionatepolka" work? - <AUTHOR> I've read some things today which claim the NSA has a software tool called "Passionatepolka" which can brick a NIC remotely. Of course my first thought was to the Black ICe from fictional stories like Neuromancer and Shadowrun..
So I did some web searching, but I cannot find anything about this supposed program, and frankly I don't believe it exists. It shouldn't be possible to brick a network device using software alone across the internet, and if it were possible surely at least dozens of hackers would be discussing it on the internet somewhere, as happens with all significant exploits.
So my money is on government propoganda, but it's interesting enough to not disregard completely. Does anyone here know about this program and have some insight on how such a thing would function? <comment><USER2> No idea how this one works, but the idea itself is rather plausible.

Firmwares in all sorts of consumer hardware are often quite lousy and weren't, until recently, even considered as vectors for exploits (and therefore seriously secured).

I've heard of viruses that hide in the USB disk/thumbdrive firmwares, for example - the protocols to update them are sometimes open and unrestricted, and other times not hard to figure out.

So it's not a particularly far-fetched idea that there would be vulnerabilities in some of the NICs, that allow remote exploits.

That no one talks about it is not really saying anything - remember the heartbleed bug, for example.</comment>


Ask HN: Where do you get your news? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I walk to the local store every morning and buy the newspaper. I live in England and I read the Guardian Mon-Sat and the Observer on Sunday.

</comment><comment><USER3> \- Hacker News

\- Reddit

\- Twitter

\- Pocket Recommendations

\- RSS Reader for individual websites

\- Newsletters</comment>


CS Degree Won't Prepare You for Angry Users the Whims of Other Engineers - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/your-cs-degree-wont-prepare-you-for-angry-users-legacy-code-or-the-whims-of-other-engineers-64a43595ec63 <comment><USER2> Good article

It's a little more readable for me where it was originally posted[0] i.e. without a good chunk of the screen being taken up by the Medium and HackerNoon top bars and the bar at the bottom trying to get me to join Medium. YMMV

[0] [https://angel.co/blog/3-obstacles-your-cs-degree-wont- prepar...](https://angel.co/blog/3-obstacles-your-cs-degree-wont-prepare-you- for)</comment>


Geothermal Energy Production Heats Up - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2018/02/04/582132168/the-forgotten-renewable-geothermal-energy-production-heats-up <comment><USER2> While cleaner, technically geothermal energy is not renewable. After couple of years the area is cooled down and efficiency drops. For example, one project planned in central Europe is expected to last only 15 years. Then re-drilling is necessary or leaving the drill to re-charge. Among other risks, contamination of underground water and earthquakes are commonly mentioned.

<comment><USER3> Agreed, geothermal in that form is not a good option. They (we) need to come up with a better, more sustainable technology. If found, then geothermal holds the promise of providing all the energy we might need (and satisfy a certain amount of greed as well).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I looked into geothermal energy while going to school for renewable energy. What surprised me at the time, even though it's quite obvious now in hindsight, is how much of the geothermal industry is actually controlled by the large oil/gas extraction companies. As fossil fuels become more scarce, oil and gas extraction has required going deeper and deeper into the earth's crust to reach elusive reserves, and as you drill deeper into the earth the hotter everything gets. This means of course that oil/gas extraction companies are best positioned to transition and apply existing extraction technology into geothermal energy projects.

An enhanced geothermal system (EGS), as mentioned in the article, is essentially a fracking project implemented to geothermal systems.

This was a disappointing conclusion to my younger idealist self for some reason. As a comparison, solar power is not as reliant on previously developed R&D, and has made it possible for a number of newcomers into the solar energy industry.

EDIT: To circle back to what this article was saying, I think the reason geothermal energy has been quiet is because the players in that space don't need attention (read funding). If it's profitable, the people who will implement these systems have the finances and manpower to do it. The geothermal industry is by no means a 'David vs. Goliath' game.

<comment><USER5> Funnily enough a big bunch of future wind power will be controlled by oil and gas companies as in order to anchor your wind turbine in the deep sea you need the technology and knowledge that was developed by these companies in order to anchor petrol platforms

I'm fine with that personally, as long as we put enough pressure for that change to happen rapidly</comment></comment>


The Magic Bureaucrat and His Riverside Miracle - <AUTHOR> http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/magic-bureaucrat-riverside-miracle/ <comment><USER2> The Iron Law of Program evaluation: "The expected value of any net impact assessment of any large scale social program is zero"; the stainless steel law: "the better designed the impact assessment of a social program, the more likely is the resulting estimate of net impact to be zero."

[http://www.gwern.net/docs/1987-rossi](http://www.gwern.net/docs/1987-rossi)

</comment><comment><USER3> > Neither the federal government nor the states that ran the welfare-to-work > programs had the political will to rethink the programs, which they had > worked already to reform.

This is an under-appreciated constraint on government-run welfare programs and other government-run charities.

The larger problem – providing welfare and other forms of charity – is, of course, huge, complex, and possibly impossible-to-solve (completely).

<comment><USER4> Most political leaders are focused on making their problems someone else's problem. We tend to overweigh the amount of "thought" going into these things.

In this case, you had an expensive benefit that was politically unpopular with just about everyone and very expensive to local government (who provides the workforce and shares costs). Welfare to work "fixed" that, and at the end of the day, most of the people who fall off the wagon end up on the Social Security Disability rolls.

All the stakeholders are happy:

* Recipients are happy - They get their money, and deal with less bullshit once their get the benefit.

* People who get off of government supports are happy. They have a job.

* Local politicians are happy - Social Security pays for everything, their share goes away.

* Local voters are happy - "We're not paying for those freeloaders. Derp."

<comment><USER5> If all the stakeholders are happy, the solution is good, right?

Or perhaps not all the stakeholders really are happy?

<comment><USER6> Well, it's partly a problem of shifting the problem to a much larger one that affects much more people, which allows the _original_ stakeholders to shift responsibility. The new problem includes the entire State or US population as a stakeholder, and they are not happy that the burden has been shifted to them.

Put another way, local pain is spread throughout a much larger area, allowing a more average level of burden overall (which helps heavily affected areas), but more importantly allows hiding of the cost for the local area, so local stakeholders are "happier", if by happier you mean they are now upset about the same thing under a different guise, which they no longer see as their own responsibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What is not mentioned here is that many of the welfare recipients moved to SSDI (Social Security Disability Income). SSDI is paid for by the Federal government, so the states were incentivized to encourage this move. In fact, there are companies that specialize in applying for SSDI for welfare recipients, and charge per successful application.

There's the feel-good story, and then there's the harsh reality. The reality is, SSDI enrollment has gone up by a factor of 3X since this "welfare reform" thing passed.

I have a neighbor who is reasonably fit (he can move 100lb+ stones in his side gig as a landscaper), but he is on SSDI and collects a cool $3K/mo for doing nothing. Once you are on SSDI, it's very difficult to kick you off.

<comment><USER8> I am hoping the slow expansion of Social Security and Disability will eventually bring Universal Basic Income to the USA. This is the only likely route for the USA to get UBI, since the political forces opposing UBI are very strong. But if we can push to expand the definition of "disability" and if we can lower the age of Social Security, then eventually we can get close to something like UBI. And hopefully, once we've passed some critical threshold (which might be 30% of the population or 50% or 80% or some other number) then the public will see the need to reorganize the way these programs are run, and hopefully when that reform is enacted, we will get a real UBI, implemented in a clear and concise way.

<comment><USER9> > _push to expand the definition of "disability"_

I think this is very much the wrong way to do it - you're suggesting that we can leverage people's existing thinking that "disabled == deserving" to expand who is considered "deserving". Whereas it could well go the other way and leave the public thinking "disabled == skiving". Plus the fact that encouraging people to label themselves "disabled" is debilitating and demoralising.

The only way to get UBI is to break the negative associations of voluntarily not working.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The magic of regression to the mean - "They compared these subjects to those participating in other California programs that had focused on education and training. What they found was that the effects of the 'Riverside Miracle' had all but disappeared."

<comment><USER6> The important point here is not that they compared to other programs, they did that from the start, but that the trajectory of the future benefit looked very different. It was much more beneficial in the short term, but less beneficial overall in the long term. The initial study period was just not far enough out from the beginning of the program to see this.

It's a catch-22 really, you either wait long enough to correctly identify what may be some long term detrimental effects, and if it's actually a better option many people are kept from these benefits during that period, or you move more quickly to help the people you currently have and risk a situation like this, where the eventual outcome is worse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11>
      > Before Townsend and Clinton, the prevailing philosophy
      > around welfare was that single mothers needed it so they
      > could afford to stay out of the workforce and raise
      > their children.

I wonder if it might not make sense to return to those older ways (for those parents that wish it): childcare is expensive and paying one parent not to work (or to give them the security to work part-time) may have a greater societal benefit / societal cost savings than aiming for full employment.

<comment><USER12> As someone who recently had to face this issue in my family (should one of us stay home with our daughter or should we do daycare?), I think I disagree.

Simply put, daycare is much more economically efficient than having one parent stay home with one child. In a daycare setting, one adult can care for up to 4 children. Most stay-at-home parents are NOT parenting 4 kids at once.

Like most things in the world, specialization has all sorts of advantages. Daycare is able to provide stimulation for our daughter that a parent at home would struggle to provide; when it is your full time job to take care of a number of kids, you can dedicate your time to creating stimulating and fun activities for them.

I also think there is benefit in the socialization aspects of daycare. Learning to be around other kids and be the social creatures we are is a good thing.

Now, I do believe that a dedicated stay-at-home parent can of course provide all of these things as well, it is just very difficult and inefficient... it is the same reason we all don't grow our own food and make our own clothes... division of labor and specialization are great things.

<comment><USER13> > we all don't grow our own food

I can make way better tomatoes in my backyard garden then anything you can buy at the most premium, organic farmer's market you can find. Part of the reason is that I can care for my tomatoes to an unreasonable level since I know that I am the one that's going to be eating them.

<comment><USER14> The other part of the reason is your natural tendency to believe your tomatoes are better, because you put in all that work. Bias is a funny thing

<comment><USER15> Agreed. There are plenty of studies that attest to the well-being of children who go to daycare.[1]

"Home grown tomatoes" may be best when grown by good gardeners (i.e. some people are just better with kids, including their own) and the ideal environment (parks, museums, grandparents nearby). But it's not a universal truth.

[1] [http://www.cckm.ca/ChildCare/EvidenceQuestion1.htm](http://www.cckm.ca/ChildCare/EvidenceQuestion1.htm)

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly, the question is...how to pay for the daycare. My son went to daycare. When I went to grad school, it was half my salary. Literally half. Thankfully I had the US GI Bill, otherwise I'd have been hosed. Dealing with the churn in society, and lets not argue semantics, if you're on welfare it's likely the skills you have don't meet the market needs. We need an education system that enables people to learn to fish, while giving them fish to survive/take care of their families. Right now, that system is slightly borked. Online education is awesome at providing access to many people, the problem is getting employers to recognize the value of the degrees/certificates that result. Some do, many don't. I totally get it, the quality is all over the place. Then again, so is the quality of in-person institutions.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


When Fonts Fight, Times New Roman Conquers - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jan/29/when-fonts-fight-times-new-roman-conquers <comment><USER2> ITT: nobody takes readability into consideration + default Windows, Mac, Office fonts

Times has some objective merits, bland and ugly as it is. It is somewhat readable on screen due to hinting. It's available in Office and used to be the default, and many people won't even look for other Office fonts. If they did, they'd find that Georgia rules the 'works on any resolution + paper' category. Another (non-Office) solution is FOSS favorite Bitstream Charter (I suggest a variant called XCharter for better Unicode coverage). Both Georgia and Charter were designed by Matthew Carter.

If you have a high-dpi screen and a 1200dpi printer, you may as well use Garamond. Minion (or FOSS-licenced Cochineal) are a bit plainer. Linux Libertine is quite nice. If I wrote in a WYSIWYG editor, I'd probably still use Charter, because it's even simpler and cleaner, and print something else. These 'nice' serifs may provide some inspiration with their sheer beauty, but I find looking at them on a screen tiring and prefer the simplicity of Charter.

When it comes to sans-serifs, fortunately Arial isn't on the list. Both Arial and Helvetica are shitty choices for copy, Univers being just slightly better (wider spaced and easier to read) but still shit. Even Calibri reads significantly easier than all of them neo-grotesques.

Frutiger (and its near-clone Myriad) reads much easier on screen and in print. Syntax looks stylish on paper but crappy on screen, and same can be said of FF Meta (I blame the angled terminals on some letters). Fira Sans (Meta derivate) looks great on screen and on paper. If i had to use a sans-serif in a WYSIWYG editor, I'd pick Fira or Frutiger.

However, since I only write LaTeX and (Pandoc) Markdown (both in Vim), I write in Terminus or Inconsolata LGC, depending on screen resolution.</comment>


StackGAN: Text to Photo-Realistic Image Synthesis with Stacked GANs - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.03242 <comment><USER2> Remember back in the old days of November 2016 when people said neural networks could never be creative....</comment>


Ask HN: Awesome founder looking for awesome-er co-founder - <AUTHOR>

I've been working on a prototype for an idea that I've had for a while.  I've been discussing the idea with investors, potential clients/beta testers, and have gotten almost unanimous positive feedback.  The prototype is about 75% complete and I have potential investments lined up already.  It's SaaS geared at restaurants and I know it has the potential to be big.  I'm looking for a co-founder for a couple of reasons.  First, having someone to bounce ideas off of and to get feedback from is great.  I unfortunately don't have anyone technical at the moment that can refine and develop new ideas with me.  I also want someone who can compliment my skills.  I'm a developer, but have a lot to learn, so having another developer would be very beneficial.  I'm also interested in getting into YC and having a co-founder will really help improve our chances.  The app is being built in Ruby on Rails, so strong experience in that area is a must.  I use jQuery for pretty much all javascript needs and that pretty much sums up the tech involved.  I'm not a great designer, so having design chops would be a definite plus as well.  Outside of technical requirements, you have to have a good sense of humor, like to have fun, and not take yourself or life too seriously.  I'm laid back and goofy and won't work well with anyone who can't joke around and act stupid every once in a while.
A little info about me:  I'm 24, live in Indianapolis (the closer you are to me, the better), and work full-time as a Rails developer.  I camp, play music, rock climb, and like to travel and have fun.
If you're interested in being considered, drop me a line at email@example.com to tell me a little about yourself and we'll talk.  Thanks!
any questions not specifically regarding what the app does will be answered in the comments
edit: forgot to mention... I've put in plenty of time and effort already, but split will be 50/50.  I want you as personally invested as I am. <comment><USER2> _edit: forgot to mention... I've put in plenty of time and effort already, but split will be 50/50. I want you as personally invested as I am._

Admirable and, imho, smart. One word of warning, though: set up a vesting schedule. Don't just give the 50% outright.

Since you've been at it longer you should start with more shares, but perhaps have your cofounder accrue shares faster so that within a year or two you'll be at 50/50 - but don't give 50% right off the bat with no protection for yourself against the risk of your cofounder just walking away...

<comment><USER3> I strongly suggest 51/49. Decision making with a 50/50 split is not fun. Lock- up agreements are generally pretty messy.

It's pretty clear you have already put in substantial work. I would assume a co-founder would be quite pleased with 40% at this stage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sounds awesome! Congratulations on all achieved so far and all the best moving forward.

Your mention of the restaurants sector reminded me of one of one of our sites that we built (mainly for experimental purposes) a couple of years ago. You can take a look at it at convenience and let me know if it (the site) and/or the associated data could be of any use to your startup. I'll be glad to help however I can, under a 0/100 split (0 - me, 100 - you ;-)):

<http://www.USRestaurantGuide.info>

<comment><AUTHOR> Whoa, thanks for this resource! You just gave me a possible client list for the entire country, haha.. My app is for restaurant owners and/or managers and I'll need to contact plenty. Thanks again!

<comment><USER4> I had kind of thought so ;-)

Happy to help, whichever way I can.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Talk to some people at Rose-Hulman in Terre Haute I'm sure you can find a skilled undergrad there that would love to work with you also IU Bloomington has a pretty good PhD program in CS. Otherwise it's really hard to find skilled people in Indy most leave. Went to Rose-Hulman and then IU for grad school so I'm familiar with the difficulty. You might have to look towards Chicago, but most of the available good programmers got taken by Groupon.

Let me think about it, I might know some people (lived in B-town for quite a few years)

<comment><AUTHOR> I went to Rose. class of 2008

You?

<comment><USER5> Shoot me an email. If you plan on staying in Indy I know quite a few of the people you'll need to talk to: from investors to lawyers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Before you go off and give ANY part of the company away, please do another AskHN post or see a startup lawyer or SOMETHING! You could easily screw things up at this stage that will affect you longer term (i.e. YC). Many startup lawyers will work on delayed charges (i.e. you pay $400 up front, rest of charges accrue and only become due on a funding event, etc...).

You sound like a great guy! I LOVE your attitude. Wish I was younger and closer to OH cause I would be happy to help.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm definitely going to run things by a lawyer before signing anything. I just want whoever I choose to know they're in it as much as I am and it's not like a "hey, jump on this with me and do tons of work for 10% because I had the idea" sort of thing. I want a committed partner, not an employee.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Will be happy to bounce ideas with you and perhaps we can work together if it fits. I'm just starting with Rails but have tons of web dev experience in other languages. Expert in JS, decent by my own estimation at design. Email in profile if you'd like to chat.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Can't edit, but I liked the suggestions below. 51/49 with the 49 being accrued on a vestment schedule that focuses on contribution and meeting deadlines. Clearly I don't want someone to jump in, sign away 50% of my company, and then have them do nothing without protection.</comment>


Obama to announce nuke plant loan (New Nuclear Plants in the US)) - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100213/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_nuclear_plant

<comment><AUTHOR> I think this is great, normally I'm against government involved in things like this and let the market forces decide on optimal choices, but I think in the case of nuclear power -- the amount of regulations -- it might be the only way to get them built.</comment>