Why I stopped travelling to the US and largely stopped doing business in the US - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/fngfo/why_i_stopped_travelling_to_the_us_and_i_largely/ <comment><USER2> I have to admit, as difficult as it is, he makes a good point here.

I'm nowhere near as well travelled, but we do a lot of work in the middle east (some of the nastier parts too), which is a place you would imagine a white westerner would count seriously against you.

But, frankly, I've never felt safer or more welcomed in my life (apart from the odd dicey moment).

OK, the US is not terrible, unsafe or specifically unfriendly. But there are little things; some cities I just didn't feel overly welcome because I wasn't American. I'm in my mid twenties and ordering a beer with a meal got me some highly suspicious looks! Numerous times I have been questioned by police; for being sat at a bus depot with a rucksack (they made me miss a bus and were utterly unapologetic, grr), for being stood on a street waiting for my pickup (for about 20 minutes.. I think someone had actually called them) etc.

Don't get me wrong; I've met loads of really awesome, friendly and welcoming Americans. And mostly it is fine. But more than any other place I have been to you get treated with suspicion.

<comment><USER3> One of the more surreal conversations I've had while entering the US was one guy who wanted to know why I've been to Turkey/Egypt/Morocco so many times - he just seemed to refuse to believe me when I said that they are really nice places to go on holiday and that they are very common holiday destinations for Europeans. I actually had to explain what it is that I like about them!

Note - I'm from the UK.

[Edit: Note that I really enjoy visiting the US - the country is great, its just that the experience of getting in can be a bit odd, although I have to admit that the last few times were all perfectly pleasant].

<comment><USER4> If it makes you feel any better, I get more questions from US border control than any other country I've visited, and I'm an American, so it's not just foreigners they treat like crap.

<comment><USER2> Make the mistake of entering Israel with a passport stamped for an Arab country and you will probably put the US second :) Perfectly civil.. but a LOT of questions, over and over and over.

<comment><USER5> Back in 1990 I lost my passport in Turkey, got a temporary one at the US Consulate there, and then got it extended in Munich (where I was living at the time). As part of this they crossed out the 90-day expiration date, and wrote in "see page 16" by hand, where the consular stamp etc. appeared. A month later I had a business trip to Israel for a business trip and decided to continue on to Cairo for vacation. They questioned me for about an hour at Ben Gurion as I left the country ... and who could blame them?

<comment><USER2> Heh indeed!

We landed in Israel and I realised I had handed over the wrong passport (as we work in the region a lot we all have a 2nd passport for Israel, it is just sensible), cue face to palm moment.

They "detained" me for about 45 minutes, but I have heard of people taking longer (and, in fairness, shorter).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I will tell another personal experience. I am based out of India and have been invited to speak at a conference in San Francisco. I applied for a business visa and was denied that visa because apparently I am young (23) and they have not heard about my startup (it is of course not an IT service giant like Infosys, TCS or Wipro) or conference (it's about A/B testing). Mind you: my startup is doing quite well financially and we pay regular taxes (had all relevant documents to prove it). Getting a simple business visa for US is so hard that from multiple sources I heard that founders of a lot of VC funded startups (with more than million $ in bank) in India many times don't get a US visa if they need to setup a sales team there or be there for some business purpose. Is doing business in US for foreign startups really this hard or I am an outlier?

It's, of course, frustrating and I don't know what to do about it.

<comment><USER7> You're just too much of a flight risk - they see you as having too little at stake in India. I've had some friends have similar issues (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=851287>). I myself returned to India after 8 years in the states partly because it was practically impossible to start my own business without a green card, aka 4 years of indentured servitude.

For future reference: Try to show assets you own (real estate, homes etc) that incentivize your return; Bring literature about your conference, maybe ads etc (they need to see that its purpose is not an immigration scam); if you're married or have kids, that helps a great deal. Good luck!

<comment><USER6> Thanks for your comment. I brought a lot of documents with me during visa interview but didn't they see a single document. It's true I am unmarried but getting married just to get a US visa is too much to ask for :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _everyone is utterly paranoid_

Everyone?

I have bit my tongue for a long time about this great community's slipping quality, but honestly, how does shit like this make it to the top of Hacker News. Flagged.

Any suggestions for how to get back to having hacker news on Hacker News? (And please spare us the lame "situational logic" response of how <anyShit> is hacker news.)

<comment><USER9> It's not just the off-topic stuff. It's groupthink. The needle on that has been buried for months now.

I'll give you a telling example: the _insane_ series of threads where, in essence, an angry mob chased a comp-sci grad student around for nominating Wikipedia articles for deletion. "Here's the main offender!" "You're a drain on Wikipedia, a negative source of knowledge!" "You're an idiot!". An Internet-famous guy chimes in with a comment calling him "a gigantic Nazi asshole" (fun fact: this is after the guy took the time to sign up to talk to HN commenters).

Then HN dutifully mods up a blog post by the same guy that calls the guy out by name for "deciding he's the sole decider of the notability of programming languages". Nice.

Then a triumphal thread on a post about how the guy has stopped nominating articles for deletion on Wikipedia. The system works!

Why do I like this example? No politics. Still bad.

You can see the groupthink everywhere on the site, from the comment on any Amazon post that gets reflexively modded up for pointing out that Amazon removed Wikipedia content, or how Sony once installed a rootkit, or how IP laws are bad for America (I especially liked watching people downmod 'grellas trying to provide context and upmodding someone who, presumably, was not a startup lawyer).

<comment><USER10> I like that example, too. Well stated. My observation was that the whole episode reeked of something you'd expect to play out on reddit, but not the old-school HN.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, it definitely had a sort of mobbish feel to it. I've been a Wikipedian since about 2003, been in and out of the meta-circles, and have a mix of positive and negative opinions about how it works (but I think on the whole it's a huge benefit to accessibility of knowledge). So when something like this comes up in a community I'm also part of, I usually try to participate in the discussion. Not even really just to defend Wikipedia, because there are plenty of criticisms one could make. But it was hard to figure out where to enter into the discussion, and what productive result could come from it.

When there's a bunch of angry people wielding pitchforks convinced that Wikipedians (or some subset) are evil bastards who hate knowledge and love nothing but rules, it's not that conducive to calm discussion. There's just sort of a vaguely defensive, "well, it's not _quite_ like that, you know most of us also think about these issues and have tried to balance the criticisms many people have of Wikipedia, and even some of the rules and guidelines I disagree with do have some reasons they exist, but nobody seems very interested in discussing any of that, so I guess I'll just mostly sit this one out...". To be fair, there was some good discussion buried in some of the threads.

I did write up a way-too-long version of what I would've said in the discussion: [http://www.kmjn.org/notes/wikipedia_notability_verifiability...](http://www.kmjn.org/notes/wikipedia_notability_verifiability.html)

(As a non-HN-specific aside: What's frustrating from the perspective of someone who wants to make Wikipedia work is that it seems most external discussion of Wikipedia comes in these weird mob frenzies, but they come from opposite sides. One group of people is convinced Wikipedians are a bunch of rule-loving fascists; another group of people is convinced Wikipedians are a bunch of anarchistic amateurs with a hippy anything-goes attitude. So the first group gets angry when a topic they're a fan of is deleted, and demands fewer rules; the second group initiates big frenzies like <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_biography_controversy>, and demands _more_ rules.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I wonder how much longer it will take before americans get enough to take a stand about this. I suppose it would never reach critical mass with flying because not enough americans are flying to care, which is why I can't wait for TSA to follow through with their plan to set up their nonsense at bus stops and subways.

<comment><USER13> Most Americans aren't seeing this stuff.

When I was married and my American wife got to join me in the queue I was in, and had to go through the same process that I went through. Well she was incredulous that she was being treated that way.

Until Americans actually experience this, nothing will be done about it.

I've considered that enough to think that a better way to approach it is to subject people to the kind of security that they subject others to. So that if Americans want to visit other countries that they are finger-printed, interrogated, X-Ray'd, delayed and otherwise harassed.

Then when they complain point out that what is being done to them is a reflection of what they do to others, that is the only thing I can imagine might make them consider changing their ways... and I really am not living in the kind of world where I think this is achievable since European border control isn't going to start implementing this stuff on a per nationality basis. So it's not as if I really think this is feasible.

As I've pointed out in the past, I also no longer go to the USA or do business there.

When I am forced to have face-to-face meetings with Americans, I force the venue to be in Canada at a location I can get a flight to that doesn't require going via the USA (tends to be Toronto as direct flights from London are cheap and frequent).

This works for me to the point that I no longer think about it until it appears like this on a forum and I remember that I don't go to the USA anymore... it's become subconscious. I just don't go to the USA because of the experience of doing so (not limited to border alone, but border is the initial impression and the worst).

<comment><USER14> _Most Americans aren't seeing this stuff._

You mean most foreign-travelling Americans, who are a minority in comparison to the Americans that don't have a passport, as only 37% hold one [1]. Domestic flights are way less of a pain than international, if only because you don't have to go through Customs.

[1]: [http://www.theexpeditioner.com/2010/02/17/how-many- americans...](http://www.theexpeditioner.com/2010/02/17/how-many-americans- have-a-passport-2/)

EDIT: My American wife (I'm British) was the same way. I'm in the process of applying for a Green Card, which means we'll have to go to an INS office and both of us get our fingerprints taken. "Why the hell do they need my fingerprints? There's no way I'm giving them my fingerprints!" "Honey, they take my prints _every time I come to the US._ "

<comment><USER12> You're trying to get a green card? Do you realize that once you get it you're going to be responsible for filing tax returns as long as you have it, no matter where you actually live and work?

<comment><USER15> This is precisely why I've been repeatedly extending my E-2 visa. Of course, by wanting that freedom, all my payments to US social security are definitely going to waste...

<comment><USER12> There is no way to claim that back? To be honest with you, I worked in the US for over a decade and I consider everything I paid into SS a waste. If I end up keeping my citizenship (unlikely), by the time I would be able to draw it would probably be $100/mo or something ridiculous. It could easily cost me much more than that in wasted tax dollars before I retire.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I am a Russian citizen living in EU. I generally avoid trips to US. BTW, me and some of my colleagues, postdocs or PhD students, had to go through the infamous TAL (technology alert list) checks. What it practically means: 1) you are a citizen of some US "enemy" country, like xUSSR, China, Brazil or, God forbid, Iran 2) you have a PhD in any engineering discipline (true for architects, computer scientists, chemists, physicists, etc) or you work towards your PhD 3) you are going to a conference in US Then they will do a mock background check for long enough to grant you a visa one day after the conference ends.

</comment><comment><USER17> It's not merely inconvenience at the border, but travel has become cost ineffective to him.

 _An expensive piece of kit lost that meant that I basically didn't make any money that month._

and

 _After 9/11 everyone is utterly paranoid and everyone from security guards to police, and even random passers-by, have hassled me. Claiming that I am breaking the law (I am not) or demanding I explain why I am taking pictures._

<comment><USER18> _"I usually have to spend a lot of time being interrogated for my lack of a huge suitcase"_ he is bothered at the border. He is talking about the whole experience not only about the cost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> _NegativeK Insurance is for things that could destroy you if you didn't have it. Otherwise, by the law of averages, it's a waste of money.

Unfortunately, in the US, lots of things can destroy you: Lawsuits from car accidents, medical issues, not having a car, et cetera._

Nice comment.

<comment><USER20> By the law of averages, all insurance is a waste of money. Insurance companies make money. They do this by collecting more fees than they pay out. In aggregate, they win and you lose.

The real question to ask is, "can I afford this insurance" and "is it worth it to me". If you buy a $250 mp3 player and the "insurance" is $300 and lasts for 6 months, it's a waste of money, because you aren't going to break your mp3 player twice in 6 months. But if it's $20 to insure your $10,000 of camera equipment which has a replacement cost equal to a month of income, then you should probably go for it. It's a bad deal, but $20 is the cost of a few beers, which is also a bad deal.

Anyway, someone makes money on every transaction. That doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't be a party to that transaction.

<comment><USER19> No, medical insurance isn't a waste, because the cost of not having it can be _extremely_ high, not just in dollar terms.

Happiness (100% x losing $1000 + 1% x having a free necessary operation) > Happiness (1% x not being able to afford a necessary operation).

<comment><USER21> In the US routine medical care costs less than the cost of insurance.

When you get a serious illness like cancer, the insurance company rescinds your policy and then you become uninsurable and die.

Insurance does cover the odd accident though, but they will fight tooth and nail over whether you need therapy to learn to walk again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm a permanent resident of the U.S., but even with the green card the hassles at the border are just nasty regardless of where I've been or for how long. The attitude is atrocious and I usually feel more like a criminal they've reluctantly had to let back in rather than welcomed back home. Green card holders also get fingerprinted and in some cases retina-scanned at re-entry. The nudie scans have only managed to create a small additional inconvenience for me…

<comment><USER22> (And I'm a white guy from northern EU. My sympathies to those from more targeted regions or ethnicities.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I am Indian and not muslim but "unfortunate" to have been born in the middle east. Everytime I visit the US, I have an intensive check, basically running all my finger prints through an extensive check. I have to swear what I saw is true (which I find awkward, raising my palm and repeating what they say). The officers take my wallet, go through all my credit cards, docs, etc. I have to wait for about 2 hours. I once missed my connection flight because of the long wait.

And what is crazier is that the same procedure repeats when I leave the US.

</comment><comment><USER24> I always resented traveling to the US too because of border controls. Recently I moved to the US and felt relieved that I do not have to go through immigration there anymore. Seconds after that thought I had the epiphany that I now have to go through immigration whenever I am going anywhere else in the world.

The funny thing is that I have never had a bad experience with US immigration. The only time I had a non-smooth experience was in Canada, before a flight from Montreal to Atlanta. An officer waved me out of line saying "I'm sorry sir but you were selected for a random security check. You can thank Mr George W. Bush for that."

The two funniest experiences I had was when entering Dubai and Sao Paulo, In Sao Paulo the immigration officer did not speak a single word of English. I do not speak any Portuguese. We quickly realized this frustrating situation and I was waved through. In Dubai I was the first person in line at the customs and not knowing what to do I just kept walking. The customs people just stood there and looked at me. I was already quite far behind the customs people, nearly out of the airport, when I realized that I just walked past the customs officers without having my bags or anything checked. So I went the whole way back just to go through customs properly.

</comment><comment><USER25> I refuse to travel to the US because of how much hassle is involved. I don't starting my trips off on a sour note. The UK is headed this way as well, mind you.

<comment><USER26> Refuse? Refuse? You can fly to the US - some 4000 miles away in 7.5 hrs for the East Coast and 11 hours for the West coast. You then may have a little bit of a wait at immigration (or not as the case may be). I've gone through in 5 minutes and one time it was 45 minutes. Seeing as you state you're in the UK, you also eligible for the VWP which means you can travel to the US whenever you like.

Just consider what it was like to travel before the invention of the airplane, or the steam ship. Please appreciate that you live in a time when travelling the world is very very easy. And please watch <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk>

<comment><USER25> I'm not in the UK, you just assumed that. I just said the UK is heading the same way. You have to undergo racial profiling, _in your own country_ when applying for a visa for both the US and UK, and then you're subjected to "random" searches and interviews when you land there. This has happened on several occasions to a friend of mine. In fact, soon after 9/11 everyone in his family's US visas were mysteriously cancelled, presumably because his surname is "Hoosein". His sister had to leave the US where she had been working for years and reapply for another visa. She has to do this every year now. Last month, my friend's employer (Sky News) had to supply special documents to the UK government to prove that he was actually who he said he was, and even then they wouldn't give him a visa. We had to get in touch with the local foreign minister to get him a visa. The last time he was in the UK, he was detained for several hours (and nearly arrested without warrant under the Terrorist Act) because he dozed off in front of the Israeli check-in counter. These aren't isolated incidents.

So yes, I refuse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> _On several occasions I've had expensive gear disappear from my carry-on during security checks and last year a TSA agent dropped my Canon 1D Mk3, smashing both the lens and the camera body. No apology, but more importantly: I was never compensated._

That can't be, can it? Property damage is property damage. Shouldn't the TSA have insurance anyway? Is he stretching the truth?

</comment><comment><USER28> "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

Unfortunately I don't see this changing any time soon with the TSA unionizing.

</comment><comment><USER29> As a British person I find it sad (and slightly scary) that the best advice given to him is to start carrying a gun.

<comment><USER30> Does he really have to own the gun or does he just have to declare his camera as a gun?

<comment><USER31> This. The GP got it wrong. The suggestion was to use something "sortof" gun- like to declare that the case contains a weapon, so that the TSA has to list (and treat) according to the rules for these things.

The one giving the advice said that he has a "starter pistol", which google explained as a gun that you use to start a race etc.. Not a real weapon. Others suggested a flare pistol (Dangerous? Sure. But not a 'weapon', but more a tool).

I find it sad that these workarounds seem to help and that they are deemed necessary. But "bring a gun" is not what they are suggesting here.

<comment><USER29> [http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/09/expensive_came...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/09/expensive_camer.html)

The article referenced, which I read, had this:

"Then someone has the brilliant suggestion of putting a firearm in your camera-equipment case"

Matt Brandon (the blogger referenced) had the genius move of using a starter pistol rather than a handgun.

However, it is still sad and slightly scary to me that the solution to protecting your property during a flight is to pack it with a weapon or something that looks like weapon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I travel alot around the world. America is the only country where I am treated like shit when I go through the airport.

This time they took everything out of my bag. Spent ten minutes reading my diary! I mean what the fuck! Were aggressive, rude.

The system is an utter disgrace to foreigners. I wont be coming back.

</comment><comment><USER33> It must be great to be able to afford to stop doing business in the US.

<comment><USER17> The US just became unaffordable, it was probably not a choice on the OP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Anybody willing to share how Schengen/EU borders are for foreigners?

<comment><USER35> What exactly would you like to know? I've traveled to about 10 European countries. I've never been photographed, had my fingerprints taken, been interrogated about my intentions. But every time I visit the US, all of these things happen. I should note that I'm a European Union (EU) citizen which gives me the right to travel freely between countries in the EU. But my American friends have only ever been hassled when they broke the conditions of their holiday visas (e.g. overstayed their 90 days).

<comment><USER34> Well, I am an EU/Schengen citizen, and I would like to know what non-EU, non- Schengen citizens experience at the EU/Schengen borders.

<comment><USER36> My live-in partner went home with me to Denmark for Christmas. The border crossing in Copenhagen Airport was pleasant and completely without incident.

What was maddening was the process of applying for a visitor's visa. In addition to forms, it required around 25 pages of auxiliary documentation, including her most recent pay-slip; a print-out of her bank balance on the day of submission; a letter addressed to the embassy from her employer attesting to her position, her monthly salary and her length of employment; a travel insurance policy covering the length of the stay; a round-trip plane ticket; a letter of several pages from me, accompanied by evidence such as photos, describing how and when we first met, when I most recently met her, the total amount of time we have spent together face to face, etc.

That was for a two-week stay over the holidays. Fun.

<comment><USER37> What countries are you originally from?

<comment><USER36> I am a Danish citizen. She is a university-educated project manager for a large international engineering firm in Thailand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> _> I've been to Russia before the cold war ended. I've been all over the middle east. I've been to China. I've travelled all over Europe. I've been to Cuba and I've been to Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Nicaragua. What all of these places have in common is that going there was a far more pleasant experience than going to the US._

Oh, c'mon, this sounds very over-the-top. My experience is that TSA and USCIS (formerly INS) are very professional and follow a strict protocol. The protocol may be unfair or not, but that's the protocol, not the professional's fault. In places like Brazil your entire trip is at the hands of chance: Most times you get a nice officer, but sometimes not.

For example: After an incident involving an American in Brazil [1], all Americans were out of a sudden required by the Brazilian authorities to get pictures taken at the Brazilian customs. The situation got so ridiculous, that at some point the airports ended up with 3 lines: "Brazilian Citizens", "Foreigners", and "Americans". In other words, Americans were singled-out from the rest of the world. Would the OP describe that as a "pleasant experience"???

I have had somewhat bad experiences in the US too, but that's not even close to the kind of stuff I (or close family members and friends) went through in Brazil, or as a Brazilian in Europe. In the US I never had any trouble, and officers always acted professionally.

And I highly doubt this person would get compensated in any one of these countries.

[1] [http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/01/14/finger.gesture....](http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/01/14/finger.gesture.reut/index.html)

Disclaimer: I am a Brazilian naturalized American.

<comment><USER39> >> all Americans were out of a sudden required by the Brazilian authorities to get pictures taken at the Brazilian customs

I'm curious why this would be such a hassle. I work in China right now and every time I go through customs, there's a little web cam there that takes a photo of me while the customs officer looks at my passport and stamps it. I think both foreigners and citizens experience it. Adds no time to the process at all. I even see my photo on the computer screen if the screen is angled right.

Unless Brazil simply doesn't have the ability to set up this kind of tech....

<comment><USER38> I also live in China.

1\. In China the system is set-up for that. The little web-cam and the system are integrated with a push of a button, and the process is very quick. In Brazil they didn't have anything. They were taking pictures with off-the-shelf digital cameras, and I read an article saying that they did not even have a system set-up to transfer the pictures out! It was really something implemented overnight, clearly just to piss people off.

2\. Sorry if I was not clear, but my point about the hassle was not much the picture itself, but the fact that Americans were singled-out and placed on a different line. This is borderline racist IMO.

Note: Brazil eliminated this stupid policy a while ago. I mentioned it just as an example.

<comment><USER40> Se my comment above, you completely ignore the reason for that policy.

<comment><USER38> As a Brazilian, I am well aware of the reason for the policy. Two wrongs don't make a right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> There is also a really interesting (scarifying-wise) discussion about apathy, existentialism and generally missing purpose in America's daily life, in the later comments to check out (scroll down 1/3, i.e. a mile).

</comment><comment><USER42> Don't come to America. USA debt is $200 trillion. <http://www.blacklistednews.com/?news_id=10626></comment>


Ask HN: Did the tax department go after you, startups? - <AUTHOR>

Early stage startups typically have little to no revenue at all.  Many startups don't even have a revenue model in their early years.  The founders may not take a salary.  But startups do have expenses.   Have you had to deal with the tax department when they are suspicious about your business being no revenue for a long period of time while having expenses.  Do they understand the startup scene where a company may not even know how to make money.  How do you explain to them? <comment><USER2> Yes.

No/don't care.

Hire expensive lawyers and accountants.</comment>


Amazon is becoming more powerful than we realize - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/s/2069/amazon-is-becoming-more-powerful-than-you-realize-2093d6860886 <comment><USER2> Just a note, Amazon is not responsible for Seattle's poor decision making when it comes to city planning, the housing crisis and their poor decisions when dealing with (or choosing not to deal with) the homeless situation in Seattle. They have done plenty of horrible things, and the article is totally fair to point those out, but it seems beyond the pale to blame Seattle City council's failings and poor governance on Amazon. As for the roads, Seattle is really three small towns jammed together, so the city planning was a nightmare, then there was a few city corruption scandals, etc etc etc and now the police are told to not enforce vagrancy laws and I think everyone is caught up. None of that has anything to do with Amazon.

<comment><USER3> Amazon isn't solely responsible for Seattle's poor city planning (rather, Seattle, Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond, Tacoma, etc.), but they're certainly responsible for ~50% of the influx of high-paid workers, which has increased housing demand, and that has _certainly_ impacted Seattle.

<comment><USER4> you are saying they should not have created this many jobs?

<comment><USER5> There is probably an ideal amount of high paid jobs in a particular area. Too many will push up local property price inflation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a related, but somewhat tedious read: [https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust- parado...](https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox)

Excerpt: _Amazon controls key critical infrastructure for the Internet economy—in ways that are difficult for new entrants to replicate or compete against. This gives the company a key advantage over its rivals: Amazon's competitors have come to depend on it._

<comment><USER7> Also, from the Abstract:

> the current framework in antitrust—specifically its pegging competition to > "consumer welfare," defined as short-term price effects—is unequipped to > capture the architecture of market power in the modern economy. We cannot > cognize the potential harms to competition posed by Amazon's dominance if we > measure competition primarily through price and output.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> As soon as Amazon becomes close to too powerful, they will be broken up.

It happened to Standard Oil (way back when), AT&T, even Microsoft got spanked handily over Netscape.

Amazon will not become 'too big'.

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

</comment><comment><USER9> On the one hand, Amazon deserves much of the success it's had. They've changed the game in both online shopping, and in infrastructure management.

Most liberal societies implement policies to create an environment of diminishing returns, to help curb the ability of companies to get "too big to fail". They also implement policies to keep the environment competitive for new companies.

Tax systems that create an environment of diminishing returns seem to be a good approach. If Amazon were paying the amount of taxes that would normally be warranted for a company of its size, this situation would be less frightening. But they've been able to take great advantage of the fatal flaw in our current approach to capitalism: aggressive reinvestment and expansion.

There is no reason to suspect that Amazon won't succeed in fully vertically integrating their supply change through private ship, air and land delivery. There is no reason to think they will not succeed in aggressively expanding into more markets, like music production, tv and movie production, audiobook production, etc. And there is no reason to think they will not aggressively seek to automate as much as they can to further augment their already substantial lead in online retail.

None of these things are inherently bad. They create good products, good services and are a general boon to society. But we need to put in some limits, whether by better tax policy, or by taking a more aggressive stance on anti- trust.

It's unfortunate that these sorts of debates often devolve into "Capitalism vs Socialism", reductionist arguments. The truth is capitalism is a fantastic tool. But unchecked capitalism has serious flaws, and regulation and unions can help to keep things in balance.

</comment><comment><USER10> I pretty much believe this is how tech will evolve in general. A small group of big companies will completely dominate tech, consolidating talent, power, and money. They have so much cash that they will buy out, or copy and dismantle their competitors. Even in the valley, so called cradle for tech innovation, the way of thinking for a number of years has been to create tech and sell it to a big company. This is the end game for all capitalist societies in general, in every area, the consolidation of everything by the few over the many.

</comment><comment><USER11> This article makes Amazon sound about as powerful as my impression was. Which is way too powerful, btw.</comment>


Yarn-based Cloth Simulation - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.cornell.edu/projects/YarnCloth/

<comment><USER2> In the oldest video is easier to spot the difference between the naïve elastic algorithm and the new variant.

The newest videos don't have a side by side comparison, so it's more difficult to understand where is the improvement.</comment>


Letter from Da Vinci to the Duke of Milan applying for a position - <AUTHOR> http://brucesterling.tumblr.com/post/59667145879/leonardo-da-vinci-needs-a-job

<comment><USER2> He didn't actually complete very much while he was there, though (this was a recurring problem for him which only got worse in later life) -- his contribution over sixteen years was a couple of paintings [including, it must be said, the famous Last Supper, which would rapidly deteriorate after completion] and assistance with various pageants.

His one attempt at something lasting and challenging, a giant bronze statue of his employer's father on a horse, was delayed many times, lying unfinished for years, and finally put to rest by the French invasion. The seventy tons of bronze set aside for it were appropriated for cannons, and the clay model was used as target practice by the victorious French.

<comment><USER3> Had the Duke administered the 1% HR personality test it would surely weed out this Da Vinci guy.

<comment><USER4> Reference for those who haven't seen it: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6288763](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6288763)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Brilliant. Notice that he doesn't dwell on his "qualifications" or his accolades, the letter is basically:

1\. I know as you do that there are many who claim to be able to bring you new stuff, but as we both know, they are almost all just rebranding the same old stuff we already have

2\. I can do the following important things for you:

a.

b.

c.

...

3\. If you are skeptical of my seemingly optimistic claims, I'd be happy to come and show you test versions which I'm sure will convince you of their worth.

I wonder what a modern tech version of this letter would look like?

<comment><USER6> My thoughts precisely. It's a good model for any job applicant aiming for any non-mindless job. The thing to keep in mind is: don't just make a list of your skills unless it's obvious how they relate to the job you want. It's always best if you show you've put some thought into what your target company really needs and where it's pain points are.

As an employee you're still an entrepreneur in a sense, selling your services, and your prospective employer is your potential client.

<comment><USER7> A researcher applying for a research job doesn't list their skills (well, maybe as a minor point), they list projects, publications, along with experience. The CV often looks more like a portfolio.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interviewer: So why did you leave your last job?

Da Vinci: Well, my boss was captured by the French.

Interviewer: What!?

Da Vinci: Uh ... What I mean is I was looking for new growth opportunities, and Venice is obviously the employer of choice in this industry.

</comment><comment><USER9> If it worked for Leonardo da Vinci, maybe it could work for me. The next time I'm looking for a job, I'll try this:

"Most Illustrious Proprietor, Having now sufficiently considered the specimens of all those who proclaim themselves skilled developers of applications of business, and that the invention and operation of the said programs are nothing different from those in common use: I shall endeavor, without prejudice to any one else, to explain myself to your Company, showing your Management my secret, and then offering them to your best pleasure and approbation to work with effect at opportune moments on all those things which, in part, shall be briefly noted below.

1\. I have a sort of extremely light and strong functions and modules, adapted to be most easily ftp'd, and with them you may pursue, and at any time combine them with others, secure and indestructible by standard mean time to failure of hardware and denial of service, easy and convenient to compile and catalog. Also methods of unzipping and storing the data of the customers.

2\. I know how, when a website is besieged, to shard data onto the cloud, and make endless variety of mirrors, and fault tolerant disks and RAIDs, and other machines pertaining to such concerns.

3\. If, by reason of the volume of the data, or the structure of the btrees and its indexes, it is impossible, when conducting a search, to avail oneself of sub-second response time, I have methods for benchmarking every process or other function, even if it were interpreted, etc.

4\. Again, I have kinds of functions; most convenient and easy to ftp; and with these I can spawn lots of data almost resembling a torrent; and with the download of these cause great terror to the competitor, to his great detriment and confusion.

5\. And if the processing should be on the desktop I have apps of many machines most efficient for data entry and reporting; and utilities which will satisfy the needs of the most demanding customers and users and consumers.

6\. I have means by secret and tortuous scripts and modules, made without leaving tracks, to generate source code, even if it were needed to run on a client or a server.

7\. I will make secure firewalls, safe and unattackable, which, entering among the hackers with their utilities, there is no body of crackers so great but they would break them. And behind these, software could run quite unhurt and without any hindrance.

8\. In case of need I will make big properties, methods, and collections and useful forms, out of the common type.

9\. Where the operation of compiling might fail, I would contrive scripts, functions, routines, and other parameter driven processes of marvellous efficacy and not in common use. And in short, according to the variety of cases, I can contrive various and endless means of data entry, reporting, and storage.

10\. In times of low revenue I believe I can give perfect satisfaction and to the equal of any other in maintenance and the refactoring of code public and private; and in guiding data from one warehouse to another.

11\. I can carry out code in Javascript, PHP, or C, and also I can do in network administration whatever may be done, as well as any other, be he who he may.

Again, the intranet app may be taken in hand, which is to be to the immortal glory and eternal honor of all your customers of happy memory, and of the illustrious house of Google.

And if any of the above-named things seem to anyone to be impossible or not feasible, I am most ready to make the experiment in your data center, or in whatever place may please your Businessperson - to whom I comment myself with the utmost humility, etc."

<comment><USER10> I wonder how Da Vinci would feel to know that 500 years after he wrote this letter, it would be parodied by future men and their magical supercomputer tech.

<comment><USER11> Or that he was portrayed aiding and making weapons for assassins in a video game.

<comment><USER12> While there's a lot that is rather farcical about the historical backdrop behind the (phenomenal) AC games, Da Vinci working on the development of weaponry is not exactly one of them.

<comment><USER13> In fact, he preferred the manufacture of weapons of war to the production of works of art; Da Vinci considered himself an engineer over an artist (and damn, was he an artist!).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Something that strikes me is that Da Vinci got the job mostly as a combat engineer, hired to destroy enemy forces by any means possible, but ended up creating art of various sorts and increasing human knowledge in many domains. The military appeal he provided seemed only interesting during the hiring process and is not what lasted across the ages.

<comment><USER15> Only historians care which family controlled some town in any given year. The rest of us can't even recall who won the hundred years' war, which certainly sounds like it would have been a big deal at the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> What's really impressive to me is that Da Vinci deftly sells the benefits and features of his employ. Yes, he says he can build cannons, but more importantly, he tells the Duke _why_ , "with which to hurl small stones like hail, and of which the smoke causes great terror to the enemy, so that they suffer heavy loss and confusion."

That's boss. If you're the Duke, you're getting pretty excited about taking the meeting.

</comment><comment><USER17> mmmm.., I can see a new format for my resume...

Most illustrious lord, seen and considering the experiments of all those who pose as masters in the art of inventing instruments of technology..

1\. I can construct delivery systems that are as beautiful as functional, with which to pursue your business while being assured they'll equally resist the largest loads or the relentless attacks from malicious characters from cyberspace.

2\. I can show you how to improve the craft..

And if any of the aforesaid things should seem to anyone impossible or impracticable, I offer myself as ready to make trial of them in your park or in whatever place shall please your Excellency, to whom I commend myself with all possible humility.

</comment><comment><USER2> People interested in this might also like his self-promoting letter to the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, a little later in life: [http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/22/leonardos...](http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/22/leonardos- bridge-part-2-the-bridge-for-the-sultan/)

Best link I could find at short notice, unfortunately, the letter excerpt is two paragraphs in.

</comment><comment><USER18> Would love to see a citation to such letter. Does anyone knows where to find a scan of the original?

I have seen that letter many times around the Net, but never a link to anything that could prove the veracity of it.

<comment><USER19> I think this one: [http://www.theladders.com/career-newsletters/leonardo-da- vin...](http://www.theladders.com/career-newsletters/leonardo-da-vinci-resume) (click on the image it's high resolution)

one of the sites citing the original text and the modern Italian "translation" [http://www.scudit.net/mdcurriculum_leo.htm](http://www.scudit.net/mdcurriculum_leo.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> reminds me of nikolai tesla attempts to sell tech to rich investors or the military.. such is most of human history. quite a lot of the best and brightest in search of funding to pursue their research turn to the military industrial complex rulers aka generals and plutocrats. while the emergence of the internet has opened up a third avenue, how many phds languish on wall street or the nsa.

</comment><comment><USER21> be happy you live in a time where the gatekeepers are crumbling all over, so you can just focus on your craft, whoever and wherever you are, without having to suck up to others

</comment><comment><USER22> da Vinci isn't a surname and shouldn't be used as one. It'd be like calling the Duke of Edinburgh "Of Edinburgh".

See Wikipedia for more information.

</comment><comment><USER23> He definitely lack the kind of ego of engineers of our times.

<comment><USER24> Indeed. Incredibly humble of one of history's greatest painters to simply state he can paint as well as any man.

<comment><USER25> > I can further execute sculpture in marble, bronze or clay, also in painting > I can do as much as anyone else, whoever he may be.

He's saying he can paint as well as even the best painters. (Which was true.)

"No matter who you put in the wrestling wring, he's at best an even match for me."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Pretty cool to see that after 16 years in office, an "hostile takeover" (e.g. invasion) took out his employer - Lots of parallels with today's world. :)

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm surprised the French were successful despite the technology and engineering Da Vinci brought to the table.

<comment><USER2> It was largely his employer's fault.

Ludovico Sforza, Leonardo's employer, was actually a regent ruling in the stead of the rightful Duke of Milan. When the young Duke came of age, Ludovico refused to hand over power, so the rightful Duke got the King of Naples to support him.

In an unfavourable position, Ludovico panicked and appealed for help from outside Italy, inviting the French in with promises of support for their King's claim on Naples. In the ensuing chaos (which included him turning against the large French army), his challenger (the real Duke) was poisoned and the King of Naples (the real duke's sponsor) died. It looked good briefly, until the French king died. His successor, Louis XII, turned out to be related to the recently-assassinated young Duke (which importantly meant he had a hereditary claim to Ludovico's position).

Ludovico had by now irritated almost everyone. He had set a precedent for French inclusion in Italian warfare, irritated most of his neighbours (including the Pope) and betrayed the French army he had promised to support.

When the French -- already a dominant military power -- came for Milan, they had the backing of both Venice and the Pope. Ludovico just fled, Milan barely attempted to defend itself.

Leonardo stayed in French-occupied Milan for a while, before fleeing to Venice to take on some work there. Ludovico would be captured later, during an attempt to re-take Milan from the French with mercenaries.

Edit: The point involving Leonardo is that even if he had been capable of coming up with something crazy that made Ludovico more likely to win a few battles, the political situation was just too poor for victory to seem plausible. Ludovico sensibly fled rather than struggle against poor odds, Leonardo was never called on to help him fight the French.

<comment><USER27> Wow, what a great response. Thank you for sharing that...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> A little disheartening to realize that Leonardo is basically applying for a post in the Sforzan NSA.

<comment><USER29> Not really... I know the NSA is topical and all, but they do not handle weapons development, civil defense engineering, and ship construction.

If anything he was really applying to be a defense contractor.

<comment><USER30> Now I want to see a painting by Northrop Grumman. It's even a good name for a painter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I feel like this pops up here once every quarter.

</comment><comment><USER32> "Stay thirsty, my friends."

<comment><USER33> I think it's somewhat beautiful that the only response you thought appropriate, concerning one of the most brilliant minds ever produced by humanity, was to quote a television commercial.

Regardless, I'm sure Leonardo would be proud of the comparison.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> hope this makes it to the front page, so sick</comment>


A 16 year old on why blogs and websites may lead to a narrower world view - <AUTHOR> http://mmoorejones.com/2011/05/11/why-the-internet-may-lead-to-a-narrower-world-view/

<comment><USER2> His assumption that people read the whole newspaper just because they paid all of 50 cents or whatever for it is such a huge leap...the whole post is predicated on that being true and it's actually not...

Besides that, he has a point - reading only things that you agree with leads to narrow-mindedness, but it's not something that's new to the Internet era. It's been around for quite some time...ref: religion.

</comment><comment><USER3> In Brin's 1990 novel "Earth" a character had her news reader (blog reader, twitter client, or whatever else the future calls it) specially configured to include random articles, in order to reduce this sort of bias error.

<comment><USER4> If I didn't already end up with random other junk on my normal feeds, that would be a really good idea. The major events all somehow make it into my feeds and streams, though... Even here on HN people post a lot of articles that don't fit the site's theme... And many get voted up despite being a complete violation of the rules.

Sometimes, I'm thankful... Most times I'm not.</comment></comment>


Show HN: SuperCoco – A better way to learn Spanish - <AUTHOR> http://supercocoapp.com <comment><AUTHOR> OP here. This is the language learning app that I've always wanted: no typing and tapping, lots of listening and speaking.

Would love to get feedback from HN community!</comment>


Show HN: GodList, Get hired as a Team - <AUTHOR> https://godlist.co/ <comment><USER2> Clearly this is a bootstrapped project but to get initial traction you are going to need to add some more info.

1) Consider explaining your process. Once you know the team how do you pitch them who do you approach. Are you only looking for engineers? What's your fee and who pays it?

2) Do you have any companies that have expressed early interest in this platform? See if you can get their permission to show up as 'beta partners' with a logo on your splash page for social proof.

3) Explain the constraints. Are we expected to be hired as a team of contractors, or all as employees?

4) For companies: let us know what value this adds, what fees we pay and how you screen the candidate quality. Also let us know how you bridge risk. What happens if I have a great team with one bad employee and I left him go, am I losing that team?

5) About page. No one wants to give their information out to a webpage that doesn't tell me who is running it. Let me know who you are and what your experience is in this industry. If you don't have any that's fine, explain why you see this as a problem and why you can fix it.

6) Godlist seems like an odd name, your idea of a-team is better, but right now your site has both names. Stick with a coherent messaging.

7) Be transparent, tell us how many companies/teams you work with and how many you place. If the answer right now is 0 that's ok but be transparent. If you are not showing it because its 0 everyone is aware of that anyway and it lowers the sites trust.

Interesting concept and good luck with it, I think you can add some value to the industry as teams that already know they work well together can come in and be handed specific projects and hit the ground running. You should make your messaging clear that it's not 'get you and your friends hired' but rather a concept to bring efficient and complimentary teams into the workplace for specific project capacity. This is a pitch that refines the type of teams that should apply and makes a clear value add proposition to the businesses that you want to work with (and I assume take a finders fee for).

</comment><comment><USER3> Nowhere does the website explain what it is/does?

At list this page scrolls: [http://adventurega.me/bootstrap](http://adventurega.me/bootstrap)

<comment><AUTHOR> You create a team of people you want to work with, we find companies that are willing to hire you as a team based on the team's skills and experience.

<comment><USER3> These are people I already know? Or others on the site who are interested in forming a team?

What if my team is too large/small to be hired? How do we know what kind of teams the company is working for?

Can I be part of many teams?

Do my team members all have to be real, or can I wear multiple hats?

This is contract work? Remote working?

What's your cut - companies pay for access to the list of teams?

Do teams/members get ratings & reviews? If my team sucks, can we just change our name and find another sucker?

You really need a better website that explains how this works and why I would join...or why/how my company would use it.

I don't see any portals for companies/individuals to actually find and hire teams?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "God" in a company name isn't a good idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're thinking about changing the name to a-team

<comment><USER5> Who gets to be Mr. T?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think a good idea might be to have a test:test account available for anyone in order to assess the platform first. In the same time start redesigning... EVERYTHING :)</comment>


Record surge in atmospheric CO2 seen in 2016 - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41778089 <comment><USER2> >"Today's CO2 concentration of around 400 ppm exceeds the natural variability seen over hundreds of thousands of years,"[0]

That's the part that opens and shut's the "debate" surrounding human-cause climate change. When you have that much data, combined with the fact that we build and use machines that spew carbon there can not be any other explanation for the Co2 levels. Case closed.

[0]: [http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/carbon-dioxide- co2-...](http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/carbon-dioxide- co2-atmosphere-environment-climate-change-global-warming-un-a8026931.html)

<comment><USER3> More importantly, we know with a high degree of certainty that human global emissions tip the earth's overall carbon output/downtake balance to net output (by a few dozen gigatons, I believe), which the models say is enough to trigger the increase to 400ppm over the past century or so.

<comment><USER4> And we know it's humans who made the increase of CO2 from the measurements of the carbon isotopes in the ice cores, which stored the state of the air from the earlier times. Human burning of the fossil fuels changes the isotope ratio exactly: it is certain that just humans, burning the fossil fuels, are those who change the CO2 concentration through the years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A positive feedback loop through methane was always the nightmare scenario, and now it seems to be happening.

It's probably too late to stop catastrophic warming simply by cutting emissions. We still need to do so, because it can always get _worse_ , but it's time to look seriously at terraforming as well.

<comment><USER6> Do you mean terraforming Earth or Mars? Handling global warming will probably be easier than terraforming Mars.

<comment><USER5> Earth. It's the same technology set, more or less, but aimed at cooling it down rather than heating up Mars.

I suppose the best option would be carbon capture, if it isn't too expensive, but I rather suspect it would be.

<comment><USER7> It is not too expensive if we were to use nuclear reactors to power it. (Yes, including hiked commissioning and decommissioning costs.)

Combined with solar and wind for peak of course because why not.

There are currently no other options. Renewables alone are not enough to even power civilization at current level. (They get somewhere shy of 60% in an impossible best case.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I feel really helpless, one person alone is essentially powerless, only governments and corporations are big enough to make a difference but they don't because they don't "believe" it or have no incentives to do anything. (And no, boycotts are pointless). So essentially we are screwed and the people who will come after us will either have to come up with a technology to get CO2 out of the atmosphere back to 290-300 ppm or will have to live with a much more hostile environment than today.

I'm extremely pessimistic right now.

<comment> J-dawg Recently I've been reading various books about how to avoid and control excessive anxiety.

One piece of advice that I keep seeing is that I should not worry about things outside of my direct control. This idea is also a central component of stoicism.

How then, should one process terrible news like this? One the one hand, the world is not thinking about climate change enough (certainly politicians aren't).

But on the other hand, it seems impossible to maintain good mental health if one spends too much time thinking about these things. Part of me wants to stick my head in the sand and just get on with life (which seems to be what many people do anyway). How can I read news like this yet remain optimistic and positive?

Maybe global warming deniers, rather than being stupid or brainwashed, are just instinctively better at protecting their own mental health?

<comment><USER9> The problem is that anxiety is warranted in this case. You can't do anything about solving the problem for everybody, but you can potentially save your own life:

\- Work like a madman to get into the 1%.

\- Move to a region that is self-sustaining and is little impacted by global warming.

\- Buy guns, tools and a farm.

<comment><USER10> > Buy guns, tools and a farm

Honest question: in the event of some kind of widespread collapse of civilization, there will be hundreds of millions of starving people. For the purpose of this question, I don't think it matters much whether its a 'fast' or 'slow' collapse.

Assuming you have some kind of self sufficient farm and a bunch of guns and other defenses, does it seem likely that you can keep what food you have and what food you can produce in the future from a large number of starving people?

<comment><USER11> It's not like hordes of people are going to come at your farm like a zombie invasion. The starving people in this scenario will be scattered, scared, and lacking the ability to share information and coordinate themselves.

<comment><USER10> You could be right...but I encourage you to think that through very carefully. Even in most worst case scenarios of climate change killing most food production, it's a slow process, taking quite a few years.

The people who might eventually come to take by force what someone has as a result of exceptional planning and execution could be the same people who have been politely asking for some extra food for years. And those hungry people have been thinking about it and talking to other hungry people about it for a good long time.

Also: the local government and pseudo-government entities might insist on redistribution. And that redistribution might be entirely legal.

<comment><USER11> Sure, but honestly I don't plan for the worst case scenario. I could wear a giant airbag around my body when I drive but I don't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Frustrated with lack of government action, I became a vegetarian. Technically, pescatarian – but very rarely, because overfishing, mercury, etc.

We need government action on this, and I don't have illusions that my vegetarianism will make a dent in the problem. But, I believe in taking the actions you can.

I've also become an advocate for permaculture food production. I will talk at length about it to anyone who will listen. [1].

We waste a ton of carbon making food. Even if you just cut down on meat consumption, you'd be reducing your carbon footprint pretty significantly. But it's not just meat vs vegetables. It's also the way we've centered our food production around monocultures. Or how we demand fruit that's out of season in January, that gets shipped and trucked across the globe. (Again, guilty – I have kids and sometimes you just need to convince them to eat _anything_ besides pasta, but that's another story.)

Maybe for you it's not vegetarianism, but something else you can change in your own life. We may not fix the problem with our individual changes alone – but I do believe our individual efforts can create positive momentum towards progress.

1: [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16441733-restoration- agr...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16441733-restoration-agriculture)

<comment><USER13> I agree with you about government action.

That said, if you work for a company, rally together with your like-minded coworkers to push for change within your organization. Even small companies can have an outsized impact on both mindshare and environmental direction.

I belong to a group broadly devoted to environmentalism where I work, and we push on things from renewables; having less meat and more vegetables at lunch and dinner (we're very lucky to have catered food); and bringing in guest speakers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am a computer engineer so I know nothing of nature :)

But, it boggles my mind why so many people don't believe global warming can be man-made. I know you can have disagreements, scientists can be wrong, a lot of things can contribute to things heating up, an so forth. But to be 100% sure that its not man-made, I dont get it. Is it because these deniers grow up in a eco system so large that they dont sense human interference, is it pure denial or ?

<comment><USER11> Keep in mind that there are many viewpoints which are covered under "climate change denial' \- some of which are more reasonable than others.

Some people don't believe that humans can have any impact at all on the larger environment

Some people think maybe humans are having an impact, but it is super tiny and dwarfed by other natural phenomenon

Some people think humans are having an impact, but it isn't worth doing anything about

Some people think humans are having an impact, but are suspicious that any economic response will have the intended effect.

<comment><USER15> A lot of climate change denial isn't actually complete denial that the climate is changing, but rather the poking of holes in the science and claiming that the confidence level of that science has been grossly overstated by the media for political and ideological ends.

Unfortunately, when viewed from a "who benefits" perspective, global warming theory does not look good to your average libertarian small-government cynic:

\- Climate change researchers are virtually all academics.

\- Academics are strongly incentivised to make the grandest, scariest claims possible because that is what unlocks large streams of grant money.

\- The claim they're making in this case is literally "the world is going to end unless you give us lots of research money".

\- They have been wrong before, c.f. global cooling.

\- Many of the proposed solutions look suspiciously like excuses for vast government power grabs to monitor and micro-manage every aspect of one's life and business. Such people tend to assume the powerful are always looking for convenient excuses to become even more powerful still, and "we must take away your trucks and your meat against your will to save the world" looks like the ultimate power grab.

These concerns are not entirely meritless. A typical example of the genre can be found here:

[https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/ocean-acidification- yet-...](https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/ocean-acidification-yet-another- wobbly-pillar-of-climate-alarmism/)

I haven't looked into the claims in depth but they sound plausible, in particular, the notion that certain kinds of papers showing negative results don't get published, the notion that entire fields of study that appear to have hundreds of peer reviewed papers can nonetheless fall apart when subjected to rigorous meta-review. We have seen this in other scientific fields like psychology so it is not implausible that it could happen in climate science as well.

Ocean acidification is not the same thing as regular global warming. But you can see why doubt sets in given the alignment of interests involved. For people who have lost their confidence in the academic establishment, climate change is effectively invisible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > 2016 saw average concentrations of CO2 hit 403.3 parts per million, up from > 400ppm in 2015... "The largest increase was in the previous El Niño, in > 1997-1998 and it was 2.7ppm and now it is 3.3ppm, it is also 50% higher than > the average of the last ten years."

It sounds a lot less alarmist when you put it this way. We're talking like 0.6 part per million. If you look at the graph in the article, it's basically in- line with the past 60 years.

<comment><USER17> Here's my attempt at visually extrapolating from that graph. If it's a new trend it looks like a very significant change to me.

[https://imgur.com/fys3MqG](https://imgur.com/fys3MqG)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> It might be a good time to reiterate that fracking (in the USA) hockeystick'ed in the last 5 - 10 years. That, naturally, drove down the cost of oil, which naturally helped to not deter (pardon the double negative) oil consumption.

Cheap energy was great for the ailing economy, but it mortgaged Mother Nature's future.

</comment><comment><USER19> Developing transportation beyond oil is a moral imperative.

How long will it take us?

[https://firstname.lastname@example.com/the-moral- technology-6413ca...](https://email@example.com/the-moral- technology-6413ca8449c9)

</comment><comment><USER20> As we approach the third decade of the 21st Century, how is most electricity on the planet generated?

Coal.

<comment><USER21> According to "The Shift project Data Portal"[0] coal accounts for 39% in 2014 (which is no doubt lower now considering the rise of solar and wind in the last 3 years). Carbon based fuel types are at 66% according to the same source, however take note that coal produces almost two times the carbon emissions of natural gas, and diesel almost 50% more than natural gas. [1]

Also you need to consider that in G-7 nations mains electricity use is actually declining. And in G-20 it has only gone up by 0.1% in the last year. [2]

And lastly consider than non obvious sources of global warming sources are things like cattle which globally account for nearly 18% (2006 UN Food and Ag Report) which is more than global transportation. [3]

So singling out coal is nowhere near a big win as your comment implies.

[0] [http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Breakdown-of-Electricity- Gene...](http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Breakdown-of-Electricity-Generation- by-Energy-Source)

[1] [https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11)

[2] [https://www.enerdata.net/publications/reports- presentations/...](https://www.enerdata.net/publications/reports- presentations/global-energy-trends-2017.html)

[3] [https://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to- glob...](https://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to-global- warming-1562144730)

<comment><USER22> Found the coal shill.

Look. We have a carbon budget problem. When you have a budget problem, you need to make a budget. Nobody with real problems ever solved them by looking at all of your outlays, trimming the biggest one and claiming victory. You have to trim every single one that doesn't represent a reasonable fraction of the whole.

The opposite of "Singling coal out" is not "give it a free pass". It needs to be cut. Along with everything else. It is indefensible that it is 40% of the energy mix but 60% of the carbon footprint. Full stop.

<comment><USER21> I strongly support reducing greenhouse gas emissions, both CO2 (which has very long term effects) and CH4 (which is more powerful greenhouse gas but shorter term effects, CH4 as a higher potential energy state compound decomposes in the atmosphere readily but typically to CO2).

I think coal has no place for future electricity generation investment. But you can't shut down the plants overnight; a more feasible option would be an accelerated phase out over 5 to 10 years. Natural gas also should be phased out but probably over a 10 to 20 year period.

Currently today for large segments in the world solar and/or wind is now cheaper than coal. There are some places where any of solar, wind, geothermal, or hydroelectric are not an option but these are a very small minority. Hopefully molten salt reactors or fusion reactors will fill the void in such places.

Having said that just removing coal from the picture won't mean we'll make the necessary targets to keep warming to within tolerable limits. Coal for electricity production is a sizeable chunk of the problem but by no means the whole picture. Even on the issue of coal there is still cement production and steel production to worry about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Are there plant species that might not really thrive in the current environment but will begin to thrive once the CO2 level increases a bit further?

<comment><USER24> I've thought the same thing. It would make sense but would be great if someone with real knowledge could respond.

<comment><USER5> All forms of underwater plants will do better with more CO2, especially the ones that also grow above water. Perhaps not including seaweed.

I don't know how much effect that will have, given seaweed is mostly it, but planted aquariums typically need to artificially inject CO2 into the water to get decent growth rates. The exchange rate with air is deeply unfavorable, so there'll be barely any CO2 in the water otherwise.

The exchange rate also worsens as temperature increases. I'm not sure how it'd work out overall.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> How is that solar shade coming along?

</comment><comment><USER26> Why such focus on CO2 when it is a small proportion of the greenhouse effect? Water vapor is much more significant.

</comment><comment><USER27> At the risk of being overly anecdotal, I find it interesting to see the evolution of people in my life who are anti clean energy movement.

First they denied climate change. Then they moved to saying changes were happening but it was normal global fluctuations. Now they are telling me that increased carbon will stimulate growth and help feed the world.

I find it amazing. I dont truly know if global warming is a thing as I'm not a scientist studying this. I do know the vast majority of scientists are screaming we are heading for trouble. Even if they are wrong, why would we take the chance. I find people fighting a change to improve carbon and other global warming causes dumbfounding. Even if the scientist are likely wrong, the downside/cost of pursuing green tech is reasonably limited and why would you take the chance on something so profound.

<comment><USER28> >Even if they are wrong, why would we take the chance

Because the economic consequences of fossil fuel regulation could be massively deadly or at least disruptive as well, that is why people and companies spend millions of dollars lying about it.

The balance of power of nations and corporations would be totally upended.

<comment><USER29> We're headed that direction anyway as the tech curves for wind solar and storage mean that fossil fuel energy generation is likely to be more expensive in 15-20 years.

We could have gotten here sooner if we had invested more heavily, sooner in these technologies. As it is we had a few forward thinking states like Germany to thank for where we are, with spot prices of wind and most solar being cheaper than coal, and often cheaper than natural gas.

This totally upends the few existing players that were once thought to have unassailable power. But now that companies that are heavily invested in natural gas are treating coal as their competitor and enemy in the political landscape, things are changing. Those natural gas heavy fossil fuel companies are actually asking for a carbon tax!

As solar and wind become bigger economic forces, we will likely start to see more consolidation and see fewer player with stronger political force to compete with natural gas. The nuclear industry has no power here, they let fossil fuel driven companies control their fate, and they have no industrial savvy to build an industry, and instead spend all their time tilting at windmills of weak political forces, and unable to build and deliver reactors when they do have eager customers.

It will be super interesting to see what happens with Perry's coal NOPR that's being evaluated by FERC right now. Has FERC been stacked with enough coal partisans, or will the rest of the energy industry win out?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Hey! Billionaires of the world - there are now 1400 of you [1]. How much would it cost to, say,

A) buy the entire amazon rainforest, so that it doesn't get chopped down anymore? (Yes, it's not just that easy, needs monitoring and patrol, etc.)

B) Solve nuclear fusion,

C) build massive arrays of solar panels (or fusion reactors) in order to desalinate water and eventually reforest the deserts of africa?

Once I'm a billionaire myself I hope to help with at least one of those three things. Until then, we must ask them nicely to act, rather than just watch their capital asexually reproduce.

[1] [https://boingboing.net/2017/10/27/new-gilded- age.html](https://boingboing.net/2017/10/27/new-gilded-age.html)

<comment><USER31> I upvoted you because I agree with the "spirit" of what you wrote, but something is nagging me: Once free energy (in the form of massive solar panel fields or nuclear fusion) is available, would not it be actually worse?

\- True we would (in theory) no more need coal/oil, but that would be useless for most transport means as we would have pollution made by producing batteries as well as with old abandonned leaking electric cars?

\- For the Amazon rainforest, I learnt that it is something that came and went several times during the hundred of millenia since it exists. Why do you expect it to have an impact on CO2 rate or the climate? After all if the problem is the Co2 we could attack it directly by transforming it in food for example.

\- There is at least an ongoing project in Sahel to create a long wall of trees, but the main problem is that people burn bush/trees for cooking and they raise goats. Goats tear off grass, on contrary to other cattle. Those two reasons explain well the desert progression, in Sahara at least.

Another problem is that the West of Sahara is infested with personal mines.

What I would propose (actually I proposed it in the Global challenges shape prize [0]) is for UNHCR to create artificial towns in those areas. It not only would provide work and wealth to people there but it would change their way of living. This is not a pipe dream, China is already implementing a similar policy.

[0] [https://globalchallenges.org/en/our-work/the-new-shape- prize](https://globalchallenges.org/en/our-work/the-new-shape-prize)

<comment><USER30> Oh! That's an interesting idea. I hadn't considered providing additional population / infrastructure, as an economic incentive to "regreen" an area. You would still need some massive efforts around planting / watering the new vegetation though. So these "new towns" would be in addition to newly forested+grass areas?

<comment><USER31> Yes, not so long ago there were marshes where is now the Chad lake. The megalake Chad was reached by Romans who called it "lake of ippopotamus".

It is a node of watercraft transport between the West Africa, the Golf of Guinea and the Congo to the South.

Actually all the places between CAR and Mali could be much greener. There is even a (quite old) project to make this area a much wetter place:

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Most comments say we must cut down our emissions, but will YOU do anything different after this article? I'm honestly asking how can _I_ help?

* I'm already a minimalist. Small apartment, no useless crap around (decorations, lots of clothes, printed books...), which require energy to produce & transport

* Can't convince friends to do the same

* Work from home

* No car, using public transport & Uber when needed

* Voting has no effect

So, what exactly can we do this week, besides just saying "Yep", and just go on until it breaks? Genuine question.

<comment><USER33> To those feeling powerless about this, [http://worrydream.com/#!/ClimateChange](http://worrydream.com/#!/ClimateChange) is one of the most well-researched, well-written, and inspiring pieces written on this exact problem--"what can a technologist do about climate change?".

<comment><USER32> Thanks Oisin!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> So how deep into the consequences are we going to get before the debate over its reality ends?

<comment><USER35> I fear that an entire generation of older Americans simply will _not_ accept climate change is real. The question is how much political power they will have in the coming years. We might still be having these debates in a decade. Sadly.

<comment><USER36> _I fear that an entire generation of older_

Ageist nonsense. The older generation grew up in a time when they repaired things. The younger generation buy a new phone or laptop every year and chuck the old one in landfill. The old generation made and repaired clothes, young people buy clothes made in sweatshops halfway around the world and wear them for one season then throw them in landfill. Older people ate food grown locally, young people love imported foods like soy and quinoa. Who are the REAL deniers? Look at actions not mere words.

<comment><USER37> Surveys have shown fairly consistently over the years that (at least in the US) the denial of climate change is larger in the older cohorts.

I'm not sure why those older generations would be so keen to repair their clothes but not their planet, my own theory would be decades of propaganda from the likes of Fox has divorced them from reality and therefore their own self-interest but maybe they just want to torch the world on their way out.

<comment><USER36> _Surveys have shown fairly consistently_

Oh yes, younger people will always SAY the right things, social media has taught them that, but then jet off on holiday, or buy the latest phone when their old one was perfectly good... Look at tangible actions, not virtue signalling and you will see the truth of what I say.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> > It is urgent that we follow the Paris agreement and switch rapidly away from > fossil fuels

I think everyone, even skeptics deep down agree that climate change is real. However, giving billions, if not trillions of dollars to an international climate fund run by who the hell knows is definitely not the correct approach. Businesses and people need short term incentives to switch, not just mandates. Until scientists further develop not only cheaper, but more convenient and efficient energy solutions, fossil fuels will continue to be used.

<comment><USER39> At this point, I think we just need to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies. If we just made people pay for the _actual_ costs of such fuels, rather than letting them pollute for free, renewables would wipe the floor with them.

<comment><USER36> What subsidies? For every £1 you spend on petrol in the UK 80p is tax. If we paid the actual cost people would drive gas guzzlers 'cos why not.

<comment><USER40> > What subsidies?

Getting to dump waste products into the atmosphere for free. That 80p is nowhere near the true cost of that.

<comment><USER39> Yes, exactly. People don't pay for the consequences of the pollution they generate. If they did, fossil fuels would be much less popular.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to track real people impressions? Not bots. - <AUTHOR>

User agents, IP addresses, and browsers loading javascript are all methods I've heard of to measure whether an impression is a real person. Is there a checklist, good guide for lessons learned, or a toolkit out there you would recommend? <comment><USER2> Just a suggestion: If you want to post the same question again, don't post the same question. Ask what you really want, and explain why existing tools don't meet your needs. Make it clear that you've investigated existing offerings, and share your findings.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is there a reason you cannot just outsource this problem to AWstats/Webalizer/Google Analytics/etc? It's a hard problem, and those packages have done quite a bit of work to solve it.

(From experience, switching from - IIRC - AWstats to Webalizer reduces your traffic by a lot, as the latter's robot detection algorithm catches more robots. IIRC - it's possible that it's the other way round...)`

<comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunately, I need a solution that can track metrics for each individual customer and display results to them. Not an overall site tool.

<comment><USER3> grep "^/$CUSTOMER" access_log | awstats?</comment></comment></comment>


The rule of 3 in time management & productivity. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.belimitless.co/post/73416815446/the-rule-of-3 <comment><USER2> I though it was (1) Don't have kids, (2) Don't have kids and (3) Don't have kids. No? :)

<comment><USER3> You say this in jest, but I also don't understand how people chose to have a full-time job (even worse, a startup) AND kids (not judging anyone, I just do not understand it). There clearly aren't enough hours in a day to manage both as well as they deserve and not live a stressful life. Before you reach for that downvote button, this is what I am personally doing:

\- try to become financially independent (with the sweat and all-nighters that go along with it, when needed)

\- if (and only IF) I ever manage to do so, start a family with the good conscience that I will have the means to be there as a father

\- if not, rinse and repeat until I do

Does it make any sense?

<comment><USER4> No, it doesn't make sense. Your comment is naive and/or jerkish. You should feel bad about yourself for posting it.

<comment><USER5> This must be facetious. If not, please explain. OP's thoughts seem rational to me.

<comment><USER4> Face-rational moralizing about people's lives and especially reproductive choices is, as a general principle, nearly always jerkish.

"Only have kids once you're independently wealthy" qualifies as rational only on HN or Reddit.

<comment><USER3> How is it different from something like "I don't buy a house I can't afford"?

<comment><USER4> There are contexts (say, the comments section of a story on foreclosure) where "I don't buy a house I can't afford" would be a full-on raging asshole thing to say. But you went further than that:

"I also don't understand how people chose to have a full-time job...AND kids"

You clearly implied that holding any full time job and having kids was irresponsible. Because "I don't understand how [something about mores]" is a construction that American English speakers use to point out things they consider irrational, dumb or otherwise undesirable. You even anticipated that your comment would make people mad ("before you reach for the downvote button", "not judging anyone"). Because you went a good sight further than "I don't buy a house I can't afford." I think my initial judgment of "naive and/or jerkish" stands.

<comment><USER3> Except I'm not an American English speaker.

Anyhow, no "jerkishness" intended, this was mostly an observation after yesterday's thread "Where do you find the time for side projects?" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7117131](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7117131) where many parents chimed in on how they squeeze family time here and there between working and juggling side gigs, great for them, but I could not do it without burning out, and I would owe it to my family not to risk that.

So long as I want to work long hours and risk my livelihood building things on the side and use my free time hacking, fine, I'll be on my own. The day I'll be able to afford a family (money-wise but particularly time-wise), I'll do so.

<comment><USER4> "Full time job" -> "side projects". I appreciate the shift.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This ensures that you finish at least the top three tasks everyday. A good start.

There is a subset of people who have more than three tasks with equal priority to be done on a daily basis. They will still be overwhelmed, since the carried over tasks over a period of time will be too much to handle for the "role of 3" way.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is a variant of David Allen's Getting Things Done (GTD) methodology. Instead of three items, he recommends always knowing what the most important task is for any project, and doing that.

Definitely worth a look.

<comment><USER8> The biggest part of GTD which has really helped keep me organized and achieving my goals, is recognizing your memory can be fairly terrible at remembering things when it is important to remember them. So everything I need todo gets written down. Then I will stop stressing about my todo list and forcing myself to remember. He calls it "mind like water".

With this technique + kanban for my personal life (todos, open source projects, baby books, etc) my wife is 1000% happier.</comment></comment>


Debugging an evil Go runtime bug (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://marcan.st/2017/12/debugging-an-evil-go-runtime-bug/ <comment><USER2> Hector Marcan is a wizard. The "hash based" differential compilation technique is inspirational.

</comment><comment><USER3> Discussed at the time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15845118](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15845118)

<comment><USER4> A highlight from the comments:

>> That was Captain Ahab level persistence. I wonder how long it took him.

> I was one of the spectators on the Prometheus thread. It took him 2 days. It > was insane

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> After slowly reading this with inquisitiveness and looking up a lot of things, I'm really curious to know the years / level of low level systems programming and experience that this kind of debugging and write up takes. I am humbled by the knowledge of the OP, and deem myself not worthy!

</comment><comment><USER6> Someone should publish a book of these stories. I would buy it.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is nuts</comment>


The Complexity of Songs (1977) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/arvindn/misc/knuth_song_complexity.pdf

<comment><USER2> Url changed from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complexity_of_Songs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complexity_of_Songs), since HN prefers original sources.

The pdf says 1984 because the article was republished then.</comment>


1000's of photos from the same moment in time - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/03/blogs/a-moment-in-time.html

<comment><USER2> A great example of where Flash has been used for no reason at all. This could have been made much nicer in html/javascript.

I'm using OSX with a resolution of 1920 x 1200 and the pictures are tiny in the middle of my screen. It also looks like the quality has been compromised to enable the flash to keep its file size down.

Great idea, could have been implemented better.

Edit: Its all about the photography. I want to be blown away by the pictures, not struggling with the implementation.

</comment><comment><USER3> and there's always a picture of some old homeless dude, staring at you like he wants to say something,always, in any 'artsy' photo gallery. i hate photographers

<comment><USER4> it's a manipulative technique but homelessness and mental health problems are so hard to face up to, so it's also evocative.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Maybe it is server load, maybe it is Flash, maybe it is shoddy coding, but something is causing this to chug to the point of being completely unbrowsable.

</comment><comment><USER6> Such an interesting idea, such a terrible execution.</comment>


High Dietary Sugar Reshapes Taste to Promote Feeding Behavior in Fruit Flies - <AUTHOR> https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(19)30492-9 <comment><USER2> This is one epic study. Thanks.

</comment><comment><USER3> What does an obese fly look like?

</comment><comment><USER4> A bit clickbaity. "A high sugar diet decreases sweet taste sensation and blunted sweet taste promotes overconsumption and obesity", but that only applies to sugary stuff, and not to any kind of food; I'm sure it could apply to everything (like people who have to put too much salt in food because they've gotten used to it).

<comment><USER5> I'd assume that as well, though there is mentioned that Sucralose and fat doesn't have that effect:

"To probe whether taste deficits were due to high dietary sweetness, we examined the taste responses of animals fed a sweet, non-caloric sucralose diet. However, taste responses to sucrose remained unchanged in these flies (Figure 1C, dark green) and there was no fat accumulation (Figure S1F). Similarly, flies fed a calorically dense (1.4 calories/gram as the 30% high sugar diet), but not sweet, lard-supplemented diet accumulated fat (Figure S1G, lime green), but had normal taste responses (Figure 1C), indicating that sweetness or excessive calories alone are insufficient to lower sweet taste sensation. In contrast, only sweet and nutritious diets such as those supplemented with D-fructose, D-glucose, and sucrose promoted a decrease in sweet taste responses (Figure 1D)."</comment></comment>


Very realistic CGI - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19765-is-this-the-most-realistic-cgi-youve-ever-seen.html

<comment><USER2> The artist behind this, Alex Roman, has produced a 12-minute CG piece (the "Third and the Seventh", briefly mentioned in the article) that is absolutely amazing:

<http://vimeo.com/7809605>

He apparently quit his job and worked fulltime for a year to create it. It is, I think, the most amazing work of art I've seen created by an artist in my lifetime. I've watched it perhaps 20 times. (Sorry for the hype, I find it impossible to talk about this any other way.)

</comment><comment><USER3> _Kneale believes what makes Roman so good is "sheer, raw, talent". For instance, he uses tricks such as reducing the depth of focus to draw attention to certain details, which also reduces the need to carefully reproduce every last blemish on each piece of fruit in view._

I don't think you know what the word "talent" means.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's difficult to formalize what "realistic CGI" or even "CGI" means. Most of us probably have a loose definition that's something like "the rendered output of 3D models that looks like something familiar in the real world," but that's insufficient.

One could take 100 bitmap frames of video from a camcorder, then use a computer to generate 100 identical or nearly identical bitmap frames. This would be realistic by definition, but not very impressive. Even more absurdly, one could use a computer to generate some abstract visualization, then construct a nearly identical scene in the real world and claim the CGI is realistic.

And yet, CGI that uses 3D scans of objects, motion capture, or scanned/photographed textures probably fits our loose internal definition.

<comment><USER5> CG has always been and will always be a hack I think - debating the best CG is kind of like debating the 'most realistic miniature'. The more real elements you include (ie. real sunlight, real objects, photographed background plates) the less there is to offend your eye.

To me, the tools are getting so good (GI, HDRI lighting, MoCap) that 'seamless/not seamless' is soon going to be the only judging criteria. Of course along with visual aesthetic which will always occur in film whether you're using a physical camera or virtual.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Somewhat disappointing. The subject matter was not a difficult one. Not to say it wasn't well done, but it was not as challenging of a subject as a person or animal would be.

I think Sofronis Efstathiou sums it up nicely in the article. Nice job, but nothing groundbreaking.

</comment><comment><USER7> No. Most of the advancements in rendering today made possible even for relatively normal users to achieve realism ( ie. <http://www.maxwellrender.com/> ). Most realistic CGI is the one I haven't seen.

<comment><USER8> That looks nowhere near as good as Roman's work. It doesn't look real, most of the renders they show are obviously CGI to my eye.

If you're still doubting, just checkout Third and Seventh, it's amazing.

<comment><USER9> How do you feel about Vray then? <http://www.vray.com/>

<comment><USER7> Or Indigo [http://www.indigorenderer.com/category/image- galleries/best-...](http://www.indigorenderer.com/category/image- galleries/best-indigo) and many others, you still need skill though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I looked at the girl spinning around and was trying to look for errors but then the sony logo appeared... and I was looking at an advert... well played sony ;)

</comment><comment><USER11> Reminds me of Photorealism paintings (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorealism>).

Interesting how the most advanced shading algorithms are almost able to describe the neurological bases of what we PERCEIVE as real.

</comment><comment><USER12> I believe it would be cheaper if they just shot it live.

<comment><USER13> That's an odd thing to say without knowing how much they paid for the CGI version.

<comment><USER8> It says in the article, 10 weeks work of him and an assistant.

<comment><USER13> Which says nothing about what it cost.</comment></comment></comment></comment>