Ask HN: Were we ever future-obsessed as we are now? - <AUTHOR> It seems like right now we're on the major cusp of an AI revolution, but honestly, it seems like were more future obsessed than we've ever been.<p>Is this me just being young? Was the internet boom or smartphone boom the same? <comment><USER2> I'd say we're in many ways less future-obsessed than we used to be, at least when it comes to the distant future.

You can see numerous examples ranging from magazines dating back to the 1800's (and before) of all the wacky inventions they pictured denizens of the year 2000 using (rocket packs! nuclear-powered cars! pneumatic transport!), and what life might be like (through the lens of the time). Readerships enjoyed and appreciated reading about the future and giving their imaginations fertile ground to romp.

Futurist was actually a job title.

I think now we're too busy or easily distracted to care much about the possibilities of the distant future. Most of our thoughts on the subject are now doom scenarios involving climate change, collision with an asteroid, running -out- of atmospheric CO2, or the Sun eventually encompassing the Earth.

Then again, maybe there's just a big opening for someone with the right marketing skills to fill an unmet need. I think I could be a futurist.

</comment><comment><USER3> Who is we?

I was old enough to have been a young teenager when Netscape was released and connected to the web via a BBS (already had Usenet) and Trumpet Winsock. I would say up until 1998 the Internet boom was met with scepticism by the general public. Most people weren't even chatting on AOL. It wasn't until broadband became more commonplace (2000?) that I think the general public became obsessed with the Internet.

As to smartphones the iPhone (specifically the 3G) was the device I had been waiting most of a decade for after seeing my friend's Palm Pilot with Internet access in 1999 or 2000. I'm probably old enough that I discount the "smartphone boom" as I viewed it as the natural progression of existing technology. Also am slightly disappointed that the original premise of the iPhone was web apps on the phone through the browser but that quickly was replaced with native phone apps.

tldr: I think a very small percentage of people are future obsessed about the AI revolution. In the HN echo chamber it might be more but the majority of people don't give it a second thought outside of, "NO SIRI! I SAID WHERE IS..."

I'm not old enough to say but I imagine the magic behind the beginning of space exploration and the race to the moon could have been the peak of future obsession.

<comment><USER4> > I think a very small percentage of people are future obsessed about the AI > revolution. In the HN echo chamber it might be more but the majority of > people don't give it a second thought outside of, "NO SIRI! I SAID WHERE > IS..."

Ditto. Outside of HN, I barely ever hear people talking seriously about AI. Perhaps the OP is more farseeing than I am, but to describe the world as "on the cusp of an AI revolution" still seems a little farfetched to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> We were always this future-obsessed. Take electricity, for example, arguably the most significant innovation of the late 1800s. In 1883 Darmstadt University of Technology, MIT, and Cornell started teaching Electrical Engineering as a distinct field of study. In 1889 at the expo in Paris (now- famous for the Eiffel Tower which debuted at this fair), there was a large pavilion with various machines [1][2] including electrically-powered moving platforms suspended from the ceiling that shuttled visitors across from the mezzanines [3]. Two years later in 1891 there was an expo held in Frankfurt specifically on electrical technology [4], where several electrical innovations were demonstrated, and two years later at the 1893 Chicago world's fair, there was even more electric features, including motors, generators, lamps, spotlights, and the whole fair was illuminated by electricity [5].

This is, of course, the same time period featured in the xkcd titled 'The Pace of Modern Life' [6], which takes contemporary newspaper quotes lamenting that people are always in a hurry and rarely stop to greet strangers and instead spend their commutes on the trains with their noses buried in newspapers, showing that today's critiques about people lost in their smartphones are more than a century old.

So yeah, I'd say we've always been obsessed with the future.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galerie_des_machines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galerie_des_machines) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galerie_des_machines#/media/Fi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galerie_des_machines#/media/File:Interior_of_exhibition_building,_Exposition_Universal,_Paris,_France.jpg) [3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galerie_des_machines#/media/Fi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galerie_des_machines#/media/File:Galerie_des_machines._Les_ponts_roulants.jpg) [4] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Electrotechnical...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Electrotechnical_Exhibition) [5] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_Columbian_Exposition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_Columbian_Exposition) [6] [https://xkcd.com/1227/](https://xkcd.com/1227/)

</comment><comment><USER6> There's always something to anticipate around the corner, because the future is actively marketed to you. Oftentimes this marketing precedes the actual goods being of value - for example, VR went through a hype cycle circa 1990-1995, then disappeared for a while, because it really just wasn't doing very much yet, back then - and the headset and motion sensing tech was conflated into the onrush of CGI imagery, interactive 3D scenes, digital video, and internet technology. Most of that stuck around and consequently became ordinary. When the technology is actually the future, it becomes pervasive and ordinary very quickly. When it's a hype bubble, it crashes after a while and a bunch of companies fail.

That was the dot-com bubble: even though the internet was a big deal, pets.com and Webvan were not viable internet companies as they took on something the ecosystem wasn't ready for. They did, however, anticipate, and market to, a future where their business became viable, in the form of today's Amazon. 1990's Amazon was purely a bookseller, and perpetually viewed as sitting on a knife-edge.

Now we have a second hype cycle for VR, and while it's much better stuff this time, that doesn't mean it's actually the future. The hype around AI is similar. There was hype over previous AI techniques, too: expert systems, for example, had a period in the 80's where they were promised to do everything, assuming "everything" meant encoding a huge decision tree. Now it's the neural networks that will do "everything". NN also had a hype cycle in the 90's, but without the data and computational power, they weren't able to achieve the results we're getting today.

Developments in AI today are enumerated in achievements that become banal moments after you first hear of them: Watson beat a Jeopardy! champion. AlphaGo beat a top-level Go player. We can detect cats in images. Cars can self-drive a course better than trained race-car drivers. And so on.

It's good to be excited about the future. The marketing hype is not evil, it's necessary - it creates a dialogue, focusing people to think in terms of new technology. It's not the same as its realization, which tends to be more of a "one morning I woke up and realized I was in the future" self-reflection.

<comment><USER7> Fantastic comment.

> The marketing hype is not evil, it's necessary - it creates a dialogue, > focusing people to think in terms of new technology

Why do you think marketing hype is necessary, and it is not evil. Our most important breakthroughs happened at a time of little marketing hype.

A curious mind is a curious mind without needing to hype it up.

<comment><USER4> > Our most important breakthroughs happened at a time of little marketing > hype.

I think what he meant was that a marketing hype pushes more people to get to grips with a new technology, and thus speeds up its development. The actual technology obviously has to have been invented (the breakthrough was there) but the hype pushes it further towards maturity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Late thirties here, I expected we'd be in flying cars and live in big glass bubbles by now. Technology is moving fast but still too slow for my taste.

And basically I feel like that's it for my lifetime. There will be incremental changes from here on out. I really hope I'm wrong though and some huge breakthrough in energy or astrophysics or biology or whatever knocks me on my ass.

<comment><USER9> The average driver having access to flying cars sounds like a nightmare. Let's perfect self driving cars first before my klutz of a niece has access to flying missiles.

<comment><USER7> If we have flying cars, we might not need to perfect self driving. Because autopilot for planes exisit....

<comment><USER9> Yes. However, airplanes also need help from a multi-billion dollar agency, schedules planned far in advance, propogation of delayed or early arriving flights throughout the whole system, scores of ground and tower air traffic controllers to assist in taking off, landing, taxiing, and mid-air collisions, and the pilots, I imagine, need to learn a voluminous amount of laws, regulations, signals, etc.

Assuming flying cars travel at the roughly same altitude as helicopters, even if I didn't take all of the above into account, I have serious doubts as to whether autopilot could handle flying through Manhattan by itself.

There do exist personal flying devices for the ultra-rich. But if you look at how inefficient our current system is and try to put as many planes in the sky as there are cars on the ground....not looking good.

Plus, imagine you live in NYC or LA. You'd barely get any sunlight on the ground with all the planes in the air. I thought flying cars would be cool too. Then I looked at traffic conditions in LA and said "If this is the best we can do on the ground, then I don't want to see flying cars in my lifetime. The Futurama tube looks much more practical."

<comment><USER7> I was thinking about something like antigravity..So cars can have six degrees of freedom...So no need to take off/land in the conventional sense...I believe movies like Blade Runner and Fifth element featured cars like that.

In that case, manual driving will be mostly like sailing a ship. Equipped with a gps, the car can maintain a course. And with a radar with a sufficient range, it can alert incoming bogies so that user can take proper action...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> William Gibson stated his famous maxim about the future already being here way back in 1990. Just last week, Lagos, Nigeria celebrated its own "Startup Week". Currently there are over 2000 technology accelerators spanning the globe. But the "future" you and I are living in barely appears in the halcyon dreams of the vast majority of Earth's citizens!

Stanford economist Paul Romer once theorized that breakthrough technologies don't really become productive for a generation. That lag time has shrunk to about a decade.

So instead of obsessing over the "vertical" invention, think about what it means to solve the "horizontal" problem. That in less than ten years time, something you take for granted today could be at the fingertips of 4B+ people ;)

<comment><USER9> The future as depicted in various fictional sci-fi works is more or less here. Rail guns, check. Autonomous killing machines are not quite there, but the unmanned ones are becoming ubiquitous. VR, check. New, synthetic drugs appearing with increased frequency, check. Self driving cars, check. Advanced gene editing techniques, check. Elon Musk promised us interplanetary spaceships by 2020. The only staples of sci-fi missing are aliens, AGI, and sustainable fusion.

Gibson said it best. "The future is already here, it's just unevenly distributed."

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> _> It seems like right now we're on the major cusp of an AI revolution_

It seemed like that in 1980, as well, and then this happened:

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

I make no predictions around AI, although I'm skeptical it will work well outside of specialized, rules-heavy environments. Been wrong before, happy to be wrong again.

My sense is we are less future-obsessed than people were in the 1950's, during the blow-off top of the atomic age. People seem more concerned with the environment, sustainability and so forth, Moore's law is slowly grinding to a halt and technical innovation, in general, has slowed down.

Culture churn has definitely increased since the 90's, however. I attribute this to us finding ourselves at the end of modernism and post-modernism, with nothing left to deconstruct, strip away, transgress or mock. This, coupled with the internet, is leading to a blow off top in culturally combinatorial attempts to avoid a return to tradition (unthinkable) or facing up to end- state nihilism (unbearable).

It's not all bad: [https://www.youtube.com/user/NewRetroWave](https://www.youtube.com/user/NewRetroWave)

</comment><comment><USER12> I feel like now is a the first time in a long time where the emerging technologies of today are looking to have a dramatic impact in the near future, and this probably gives birth to a lot of people thinking about tomorrow. I think this is a good thing.

Peter Thiel talks about this in his book, which was published in 2014, saying the 60's was the last time people were optimistic about tomorrow, illustrated by the professions people were getting into.

That was two years ago and I feel like two years later we're just starting to see the proverbial jet packs at the end of the tunnel. To start I'm sure that's bound to have more people entering machine learning rather than web development

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm still waiting for my flying car... It's well after the year 2000 and I was promised flying cars!

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzm6pvHPSGo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzm6pvHPSGo)

</comment><comment><USER14> Look at the movie 2001 released in 1968. Commercial space flights. A full AI. Living on the moon. And people pretty much thought all that was inevitable (so disappointed it didn't happen). To me this point in time seems less future obsessed.

</comment><comment><USER15> Are we future obsessed? I am not.

<comment><USER4> I think in general, as a society, we are. Although as other posters have pointed out, our "future" has shrunk from trying to predict the next 100 years to predicting the next 10.

<comment><USER16> I go a step further and say we're still trying to predict the last 10.</comment></comment></comment>


DOOM Level Generation Using Generative Adversarial Networks - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.09154 <comment><USER2> Not really answered in the paper... were those levels fun to play? The "Levels Evaluation" seemed a little lackluster too.

Back in early 2000 I ran a Quake server that generated levels that were decent. It would build a new one ever 15 minutes so when playing you would always find yourself in a new map regularly. I spent time tweaking it for fun and diversity which were the interesting bit. I didn't want to play the same level type over and over with guns just slightly shifted, but to play a wide range of experiences some of which were very surprising.

<comment><USER3> More to the point: where can we download the WADs?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> ai making doom levels... I would never have believed this if someone told me about it back in 1995 when a friend and I were making our own levels to play over our modems.

It'd be fun to do an open source project to make a never ending generated level and add multiplayer. that'd be pretty amazing. maybe add some hand crafted variation engines that people could upload to compose game servers from too.

</comment><comment><USER5> related: [http://oblige.sourceforge.net/](http://oblige.sourceforge.net/)</comment>


CPython internals: Ten-hour codewalk through the interpreter source code (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://pgbovine.net/cpython-internals.htm <comment><USER2> I'm a Python developer who wanted to learn more about the CPython internals. I watched these videos a couple months ago and found them helpful.

<comment><USER3> Would you say it's worth going through with a rudimentary knowledge of C or will I be wasting my time?

<comment><USER2> I think it's worth it. I have a rudimentary understanding of C, but I still gained from it. The first few videos are about the project structure and the main Python loop. You get to disassemble some Python code into bytecode and see what's really going on. Don't let the lack of C expertise stop you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> 2017: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13825225](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13825225)

2015: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10483857](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10483857)

</comment><comment><USER5> I wish more projects has walkthroughs like this. I'm not very interested in CPython internals, but there are other projects I'd love to see explained.

</comment><comment> brian-armstrong It would take less than 10 hours to gain a similar understanding if you just sit down and read the source. The CPython source is surprisingly small. It's not without its warts, but it's laid out well enough.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, this videos should help mostly in dealing with the trickiest parts like the async modules implemented in C, which is most efficient than reading then code in this case.</comment></comment>


How Americans Spend their Money (pictocharts)  - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/02/10/opinion/10op.graphic.ready.html <comment><USER2> That is frightening: only the richest fifth save money. Or to put it another way, instead of saving, the poorer four-fifths live as much like the richest fifth as they can.

I bet this was not always so in America, and I bet it is not so now in China.

<comment><USER3> In a consumer culture, where entertainment, experience, and stuff is what life is about, why would anyone save? What are you saving for?

I would imagine with multiple huge revolutions in recent memory, people in China might have a reason for a different outlook. It is actually totally backwards, because a poorer nation can expect to grow at a much faster rate than a developed nation -- you just need to take off the brakes in the system for it to happen. If you ignore the shaky history, you'd have to be pretty dumb to save money when the economy is growing at 10% annually for a decade (unless that savings is in the form of investments, but it usually isn't)

<comment><USER4> If you turn off the TV for a few minutes, you'll realize that "entertainment" and "stuff" is not "what life is about", and experiences can be had on the cheap.

<comment><USER3> I'm talking about trends in society, not my particular views. I don't think anyone can say "what life is about" (including you), but I think my comment was fair. Look at what people spend their time and money on, and you'll see what they care about. The richer people get, the more things become about experience, as opposed to consumer good consumption.

"experiences can be had on the cheap."

You're right. Back to the original point: why would people save if their priorities are about consumer good consumption, and then good experiences once they have all the stuff they want?

More generally, I think the bias towards saving is a too abstract view about macroeconomic conditions. Credit is actually really, really cheap these days.

Things are really cheap, and experiences can be too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I won't speculate on the nytime's possible editorial status on the question of class politics, but the bulk of the disparity has to do with the fact that young people tend to go into debt, adults tend to earn and save, and old people tend to divest.

<comment><USER6> Agreed. A couple years ago I was a married student with a kid and a $17K stipend, taking out $XX,000 in loans. Now I'm not borrowing any more money (well, except the house), paying back tons every month, and earning many times what I was then. In two years, I moved from the 20-40% to the 60-80% quintile just by graduating and working. So I'd agree that those bottom two quintiles are distorted by students (not sure how much though)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> the article is actually about how consumption -not income- is the best measure of financial well-being.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10cox.html?_r=1...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10cox.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)</comment>


Report: 51% of web site traffic is 'non-human' and mostly malicious  - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/foremski/report-51-of-web-site-traffic-is-non-human-and-mostly-malicious/2201

<comment><USER2> The server logs for my sites reflect a great number of bots as well.

EC2 especially is home to a great number of bots that scan and probe sites for vulnerabilities. We completely blocked EC2 and bot traffic fell, but then users complained that they couldn't pin pictures from my site. It turned out that Pinterest uses EC2 to grab files when users pin pictures... so we had to turn EC2 access back on unfortunately.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Incapsula offers a service aimed at securing small > and medium sized > businesses.

No wonder they are telling people that there is a problem. Reminds me a bit of all those anti virus and firewall software companies.

<comment><USER4> In other breaking news, advertising companies report that 100% of website traffic wants to buy _my_ product!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> log analyzing the last month access approximately 1/3 of our web traffic is generated by crawler bots.

<comment><USER6> 51% of zdnet.com is PR fluff churnalism.

Only 49% is legitimate banner ads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is it only considered malicious if it disobeys robots.txt?

</comment><comment><USER8> What was the name of that company that would post bad Yelp reviews then contact the company offering to even things out by posting positive reviews in exchange for cash?

Not sure what made me think of that...</comment>


Ask HN: Why Apple laptops are predominant laptops on every hackathon I go? - <AUTHOR> I've got 10 years working as a Software Engineer on Windows machines, usually Dell laptops.
But I was surprised to notice that most of the people coming to hackathons work on Macbooks - at least in my area - London, UK.
About 2-3 years ago I was blown away when I noticed that all my co-workers(20-30) were using Macbooks, except one other guy, IT consultant as myself.
Am I living and working in a bubble?
Are there any stats about Mac/Linux devs vs. Windows devs? <comment><USER2> Try to find a more solid, ubiquitous Unix-like environment that "just works". This is especially so if you're deploying entirely onto a Unix-like platform, such as a Linux flavor or BSD.

The Linux distros, for all their good, requires too much handholding and prodding to get a productive desktop development environment working. Windows, too, requires too much handholding, and you're liable to just use a VM for development.

<comment><USER3> >The Linux distros, for all their good, requires too much handholding and prodding to get a productive desktop development environment working.

At least you CAN get a productive environment. The OSX window manager really really sucks and you can not configure much. Why do not Apple add X11 manager support ?

<comment><USER4> Because folks can instead use [https://github.com/ianyh/Amethyst](https://github.com/ianyh/Amethyst) if they want a tiling window manager like xmonad. It is pretty easy to install and it works well.

<comment><USER3> i don't want a tiling one, i want a configurable lightweight one like fluxbox

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I while ago approached my boss and told him i can't stand Apple laptop any more due to plethora of technical glitches, sporadic loss of bluetooth connectivity, sluggishness (MacBook Pro), necessity of hard restarts and just general inability to clearly see what's going on on my laptop.

Luckily it was an easy process to switch to something that works much better and without Apple brand telling me how i need to work and to see the world. I'm not coming back to Apple laptop. (Apple iPhone is totally different and perfect device).

If I need to do Linux development - I use dedicated server / SSH and whatnot.

\--- Back to your question - some environments do require Apple hardware and cultural fit could be an important factor to blend in and not be criticized.

</comment><comment><USER6> Try to find a laptop that combines:

\- powerful Unix-like shell and internals for when developers need to work

\- no-brainer UX when developers do not want to have to work

With some bonuses such as:

\- retina display that doesn't mess up every other app's windows

\- a trackpad with multi-finger gestures that actually works

It can be done. Quite a few laptops are now getting there.

<comment><USER7> Yes you are right. Long back I asked a lot of people why they use Mac rather than other machines and Most the people said they became productive and more better because of certain features that Mac provides like smoother touchpad and the operating system is more optimised with respect to the hardware,so that the system through put is higher than average when you compare with any product. also Mac won't get old with in couple of years. I know lot of older plastic MacBook still runs and people still trusting the device for their daily use. I am developer converted to designer. And Mac help me in the transition buy providing good and affordable tools and as everyone started I used windows in my begin then switch to Linux and after that to Mac and never went back. I not saying I became a fan boy, but I trusting this product a lot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's been a long long time since I've seen a developer using a Windows laptop. I don't think you're living in a bubble....it's like that everywhere. Every student in my undergrad CS program was using Macs, everyone at my work uses Macs, every place I've interviewed provide Macs to their employees (including huge companies like Google and Facebook).

</comment><comment><USER9> About 6 months ago I looked for a an alternative to a MacBook. Price was not a factor. I came from an old thinkpad T400. Keyboard was great.

What I wanted was a damn trackpad that was awesome. I spent a lot of time in different stores trying various laptops and their trackpad. Nothing came close. So I ended up with an Macbook. All in all they are solid workhorses that take a lot of abuse. The biggest gripe is that updates tend to make everything more unstable and my battery life is going to shit with El Capitan.

</comment><comment><USER10> How many of your coworkers deal with C/C++ code and not JS and other "web tech"?

The way i see it, the return of the Mac has coincided with the rise of the Web. This because the web started as a document layout format, and thus formal courses found themselves in the same group as "media production" (print media in particular).

And that world has been a Mac bastion since the earliest day of gray scale screens and Photoshop 1.0.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not many, actually they all worked with web stuff(RoR,Javascript) and elastic search, while I was working with Microsoft Asp.NET and other web stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Most non-Mac laptops are designed to be as cheap as possible. That means, of course, they break a lot.</comment>


Ask HN: How would you prepare for a PM interview at Google? - <AUTHOR> Besides "cracking the PM interview" book, what tips do you have to come up strong during a Product Manager interview process at Google? I'm coming from a tech background (so I'm not worried about the coding challenge). Thanks for any tips! <comment><USER2> Make sure you have a least two answers for every question. My interviewer didn't like my prepared answer, and without a backup I had to improvise... I'm pretty sure that conversation is what sunk me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Was during your first round?

<comment><USER2> On-site. First round was a phone screen.</comment></comment></comment>


The New Faces of Coke - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/the-death-of-the-sugar-industry/the-new-faces-of-coke-62314047160f <comment><USER2> There definitely are some shady endorsements happening here, but I really don't see a problem with this one:

 _"Sometimes only the real thing will do when it comes to soda, so I am a big fan of the new Coke mini can! It is real soda classic, but it's in a cute portion-controlled can that keeps my bubbly treat to only 90 calories!"_ \- Sarah Bedwell

I would argue that this is actually the kind of endorsement we should be encouraging. It re-frames a soda as a treat that should be consumed in moderation instead of guzzled from a supersized bucket. Ice cream is worse than soda, but it doesn't get nearly the negative attention because everyone knows it's an unhealthy treat.

<comment><USER3> The thing is that isn't what happens and Coke knows that.

First they can sell the smaller cans for more money for the same amount, which doesn't matter from cost of making it, but does matter to the amount someone will consume.

It's the same rationale behind 99% payouts of slot machines in the casino. It just allows someone to play longer.

Soda is loaded with sugar and nothing else. It has to be extreme moderation to not have an effect on someone's health (relative to what we think of as normal now). Coke is trying to reframe soda as somehow ok.

One way to do that is to have small cans and say 'no problem they cans are obviously tiny'. Someone will buy them and drink as much as they want anyway because what they want isn't to take a long term view of their health, they want a rationalization. That is what Coke is offering and it does happen to be what people want.

<comment><USER4> It seems like you're suggesting that people are buying the small cans of Coke based on endorsements like this one, and then chugging three cans in one go to make up for the super-sized drink they'd otherwise have gotten.

What exactly is that assumption based on?

It's been abundantly demonstrated that smaller servings do help people follow through on efforts to reduce their food intake. I don't see any reason Coke should be different.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "When you're watching your favorite Food Network show and Coca-Cola is used as an ingredient, do you know that Coke is paying the chef? It never occurred to me."

Why wouldn't it occur to someone that a brand-name product used on television has been paid for? Especially when every other product used has been conspicuously genericized, labels covered up and whatnot.

Also Coca-Cola as a glaze for food doesn't strike me as particularly better or worse than using barbecue sauce or ketchup or anything of the other sugary things we eat every day.

<comment><USER6> The striking thing is this:

        virginia willis and 9 others recommended

The author actually misspelled the name in the article (it's Willis, not Wills, as it appears in the article)

Also, Coke has been around as an ingredient for a long time in BBQ because BBQ sauce has to have... sugar.

<comment><USER7> "Also, Coke has been around as an ingredient for a long time in BBQ because BBQ sauce has to have... sugar."

and acidity. it's kind of perfect.

<comment><USER8> From now on, I shall think of coca-cola forever as a BBQ precursor substance.

<comment><USER9> They have been marinating ribs in coke overnight in places like the Caribbean now for decades. We were doing it in the mid nineties and I always thought it was a traditional recipe. One night in coke, then another night in a Jack Daniels BBQ sauce, makes for some good ribs.

<comment><USER10> I wonder, does the acid in the soda help tenderize the meat? Or is it purely for the flavor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> One cannot help but wonder if the Soda industry is/will become the Tobacco industry of 50 years ago.

<comment><USER12> While not limited to the Soda industry, this sentiment is expressed pretty vividly (even comparing testimony, marketing etc.) in the documentary Fed Up[1]. Worth a watch if this sort of thing is interesting to you and currently available on Netflix.

[1] [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2381335/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2381335/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> When there's strong suspicion you once hired militias to attack and intimidate unions [0] [1], paying off health experts feels a bit tame. It's still interesting to see how they went about it though, pushing the idea that exercise is more important in weight loss than your diet is pretty sneaky (and a patent lie).

[0] [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/24/marketingandpr....](http://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/24/marketingandpr.colombia)

[1] [http://colombiajournal.org/colombia73.htm](http://colombiajournal.org/colombia73.htm)

</comment><comment><USER14> > [...] making herself available as an expert for news outlets. If a story > says something negative about artificial sweeteners, Flipse said she might > contact the PR agency and ask, "Do you want me to do something about that?"

What does "do something" mean? That statement reads like a fairly blatant request for a bribe.

</comment><comment><USER15> First, a quick aside. I was surprised to see this, way to go Medium! [http://i.imgur.com/XwJRGKV.png](http://i.imgur.com/XwJRGKV.png)

Now onto an actual on-topic comment:

This comes at no real surprise to me. I'm certain Coke isn't the only soda company to be paying people off. Let alone the only company. It's nice the author researched enough into the people and the not-so-subtle advertising going on; but really... anyone with public outreach is a potential advertiser and if they're mentioning a name-brand product, you'd likely win a bet that they received a donation in some form or another.

The problem should be that these sorts of implicit bribes are legal in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER16> I drink a fair amount of diet coke/coke zero, so I've looked into aspartame more than a few times, and I have never come back concerned. I haven't seen a study that points a serious health risk to consuming aspartame found in a consumable amount of diet soda, yet it remains controversial, scary, and evil, as this article indirectly implies. This is a common belief too.

So, if the science refutes claims of danger, yet the belief persists, why shouldn't Coke promote its safety? It is one thing if a company is promoting bunk research to get away with something, but I really don't see the problem here.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, the aspen tame thing really got me wondering about the ethics here. It is one of the most attacked substances, yet it appears basically harmless.

If we assume it is in fact harmless, then it is actually quite ethical of Coca Cola to spend money defending it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This article is basically an ad for a company that makes anti-tobacco and anti-sugar ads as a service. And _somebody_ is paying them for that. Why won't they reveal the truth behind their anti-Coke propaganda?

Seriously, there's a difference between lying and product placement. Using Coke as an ingredient in barbecue sauce is completely different than saying "sugar helps me lose weight", and this article doesn't care. It's lazy at best.

</comment><comment><USER19> Breaking News: The Suit is Back!

[http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

</comment><comment><USER20> Reading this article made me want to get a glass of Coke from the fridge.

</comment><comment><USER21> Great convo ya'll, thanks for sharing the article.</comment>


Star Wars home of Anakin Skywalker threatened by dune - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23375344 <comment><USER2> Was I the only one who thought Paul Atreides was going to come and kick Anakin Skywalker's butt?!

<comment><USER3> My first thought was that Herbert's estate was suing Lucas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's from Episode 1. Why does anyone care?</comment>


Google's common Java, C++ and Javascript library for phone numbers - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/googlei18n/libphonenumber

<comment><USER2> I guess it's news that it's on GitHub?

        Google's phone number handling library (code.google.com)
        284 points by wslh 37 days ago | flag | comments

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8574080](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8574080)

<comment><AUTHOR> The news is that I found it after giving up on trying to use regexes to parse what our users think their phone numbers are, and I thought it would be useful for other devs. I don't remember seeing it here, but maybe it was in the back of my mind when I was looking for solutions.

Thanks for the link to the older discussion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Google also made a library for handling mailing addresses: [https://github.com/googlei18n/libaddressinput](https://github.com/googlei18n/libaddressinput)

</comment><comment><USER4> It seems quite strange to me that one should "[m]anually port any changes of the Java code to the JavaScript code" when updating the JavaScript library; the JavaScript version is so heavily Java-fied that there's hardly any point it being written in JavaScript in the first place, so couldn't they just have used GWT?

</comment><comment><USER5> Also a great Python port which we use heavily: [https://github.com/daviddrysdale/python- phonenumbers](https://github.com/daviddrysdale/python-phonenumbers)

</comment><comment><USER6> 2014 and the "Best of the Best" still check in dependencies as JARs into the SCM.

<comment><USER7> Pardon me, but that's what I would do. Why does it make you grumpy?

I'd rather not rely on some package server (and whatever provisions they may have in place to allow library authors or DMCA claimers to remove packages) for my build to succeed. I'm pretty sure javac is going to be available in 10 years, but not equally sure about all dependencies. Why take that risk?

Don't forget, the people who made "don't commit binaries" a holy command _actually meant_ "don't commit files generated from other files that are also in this repo".

<comment><USER6> You can (and should) run you own internal proxying package server that never deletes things. Like you should run your own CI server or SCM server.

So you have a library in your project added as a JAR in your SCM. Everything seems fine. We'll actually you missed the source JAR so debugging is going to suck. You'll have to find the web page from which you downloaded the JAR. Find the matching source JAR add it and configure your IDE. You could have gotten that for free. At one point you realize that your library is a little old and you wonder what the current version is. So you go to their website check for the current version, download it, hopefully don't forget the source source JAR, update your IDE configuration. You could have found out which of your decencies are outdated and what their current version is on the command line with one command. The rest could have been a one line change in a build file. And this is the simple case when your dependencies don't have any dependencies themselves. Where you don't have a dozen JARs checked in and you no longer know what is there why. And if you want other people to use your library they need it in some package server that meets whatever requirements this server may have (source JARs, Javadoc JARs, GPG checksums, metadata, …).

<comment><USER7> Thanks for answering. Admittedly, it's been a while since I used Java, but what keeps one from using the dependency manager (e.g. Maven) but still committing the jars? Isn't that way simpler than running your own proxy, with effectively the same result?

Maybe my lack of recent Java work is is where I misunderstood. On .NET, _all_ packages, including debug info and docs, go in a folder called "packages" made by NuGet (the .NET package manager). If you simply choose to _not_ .gitignore that folder, you'll always be able to build even without an internet connection. Keeping the packages up to date goes exactly like it would go if you _would_ ignore the "packages" folder.

I'd do it like this with Node.JS too, except that Node's very deep node_modules directory tree hits Windows's (ridiculously screwed up) MAX_PATH length and therefore Git chokes on it once you have more than 0 Windows devs on the team. Which is a bit sad given how deliciously cross-platform Node is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I need this so badly for golang.

</comment><comment><USER9> Yet somehow they can't figure out how to display phone numbers in Sheets...</comment>


Ask HN: PG on Mixergy - YCom "cut off age" is 38. Isn't it a shame?  - <AUTHOR>

It seems that most successful founders are males. Nobody dares to count it as a "cut off". And off course I'm not going to start talking about race, but you get the idea. Why Age? Opinions? <comment><USER2> It's not a shame: it's an opportunity for another person to startup a Y-combinator clone but without the cutoff.

Every limit you put on your business is an opening for a competitor. Why should this be any different?</comment>


Billionaire Hedge-Fund Manager Warns a "Revolution" Is Coming - <AUTHOR> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/ray-dalio-capitalism-revolution <comment><USER2> Around the time of Occupy Wall Street I was predicting that we would either see populists start winning elections and/or a violent uprising sometime in the next couple decades.

I still think we'll continue headed in that direction until we start to heal some of the fractures in the US and start to find some common ground and work toward common benefit rather than strictly towards short-term selfish interests.

<comment><USER3> Each country will experience what you said, even both sometimes or one being the cause of the other.

Look at France with the Gilets Jaunes ( uprising ) and the soon to be followed populists winning the elections ( I sincerely hope not ).

Altho' I don't think capitalism is at cause here but definitely part of the problem and the solution.

<comment><USER4> The term 'populist' used to just mean popular. It was synonomous with democracy. We've somehow repurposed it to mean something that's closer to authoritarian and bigoted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> His linked essay is the real thing, the Vanity Fair article is basically worthless, except insofar as it provides this link: [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-how-capitalism-needs- refo...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-how-capitalism-needs-reformed- parts-1-2-ray-dalio/?published=t)

</comment><comment><USER6> Hedges mentioned that when capitalism is in doubt, the panacea "answer" that often turns into a wedge-issue is whether to replace the previous socioeconomic order with more fascism or more socialism. Anomie and angst get channeled into convulsions leading towards yet another civil war along these lines; dividing-and-conquering on the similar issues and concerns as almost a century prior. Paraphrasing what someone once said: _history is doomed to repeat itself about every 90 years._ I feel like we're repeating the late 1920's, to a degree, with growing nationalism and hate directed at minorities.. which inevitably leads to World War if not civil war.

<comment> grayed-down Where are you writing from? I should hope it's not from Milwaukee, WI

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> ...in the USA. The essay is very US-centric, and confuses the economy of the US with capitalism to the point that it's not clear to me which of the points apply to capitalism, and which are just a critique of the US system.

<comment><USER8> > The essay is very US-centric, and confuses the economy of the US with > capitalism to the point that it's not clear to me which of the points apply > to capitalism, and which are just a critique of the US system.

Well, first off, the US system among the most capitalist, if not the most capitalist, of the mixed economies of modern developed countries. Any critique of capitalist relevant at all to the modern world as it exists is naturally going to be especially applicable to the US and often less applicable to most other modern "capitalist" economies which are, by and large, mixed economies with more distance from capitalism than the US.

But second, the essay itself _explicitly_ is not about "capitalism" but about the specific manner he has seen "capitalism" evolve to work in America.

And, finally, the specific evolutions he points to are all evolutions in the American mixed economy in the direction of capitalism in the narrow sense, that is, toward he behavior of the dominant economic system of developed industrial economies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries against which the broad evolution to the modern mixed economy throughout the developed world throughout the 20th century was a reaction.</comment></comment>


Zylch – A simpler social media experience - <AUTHOR> http://zylch.co/

<comment><USER2> Finally, a site even I could have launched :)</comment>


Facebook to Open New Data Center in Ireland - <AUTHOR> http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/facebook-to-build-200m-data-centre-in-meath-1.2508628 <comment><USER2> Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Intel, Tableau, Netsuite are all investing in 100 Million+ data centres in Ireland this year.</comment>


How artists fare in the new music industry (in relation to the old) - <AUTHOR> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/secrets-new-music-industry-old-music-industry

<comment><USER2> I think the EFF is making a good argument here, but I'm wondering whether it really addresses the point at issue. The key sentence is the following:

> The domain seizure debacle, ... depend on (a) the traditional entertainment > industry's yowling wail that "piracy" on the the Internet is injuring the > livelihoods of artists and (b) the US government's chronically uncritical > acceptance of those complaints.

Do they? Is the US govt. doing what it does based primarily on the belief that, in doing so, it is helping artists? Frankly, I doubt it. When Congress passes some draconian copyright law, I imagine they are thinking about industry campaign contributions, not helping struggling artists.

If I'm right, then the EFF's argument makes us all feel good, but doesn't actually help anyone. Of course, I could be wrong. Any thoughts?

<comment><USER3> The argument "congress is corrupt!" could work in electing new congress members. It's unlikely to work in getting a current congress to change its behavior.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great read -- Like ggchappell it's probably about keeping lobbyists happy hence campaign contributions coming. Very happy the individual artists are doing better however.</comment>


We should host the Olympics in the same place every time - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/28/we-should-host-the-olympics-in-the-same-place-every-time/?postshare=1821439596233823 <comment><USER2> I think this is a piece of learned trolling, satire designed to provoke us into thinking hard about what the IOC really is.

The IOC profits from the selection process as much as it does from the games. The bribes, the payments, everything involved in this horrible "competition" fills their coffers with money.

If the games were held in the same place every year, there would be no bribes to rig bids. There would be no construction companies and other contractors to pony up black bags full of money to ensure their place at the trough.

There would also be no pressure on governments to pretend the games are a success. Every country hosting the games is under enormous pressure to brag about how wonderful the games are. They spend hundreds of millions promoting the games that they spend billions supporting.

All that would go away if the games were held in a permanent facility.

<comment><USER3> The local politicians in my city that lured the IOC here through bribes were all later parachuted into lucrative foreign service diplomatic posts and various IOC connected director positions after. That's the true legacy of the games, the politicians raise their profile, network with the world's elite and move into international politics while the rest of us pay for their promotions.

Having the winter olympics in Switzerland only would make sense, easy to secure, neutral country, no forced relocation of "undesireables" like when Beijing shipped every Mongolian migrant laborer out of the city, or when my government mass imprisoned as many homeless as they could by picking them all up for unpaid fines.

No country would have an edge with exclusive track access for months before allowing competitor teams in to practice either.

<comment><USER4> Better yet, do what you can to ignore and shun these corrupt proceedings. The Olympics depends on people treating it as something special. Same for FIFA. Mock people wearing Qatar shirts, just as you would someone promoting homeopathy.

<comment><USER5> > Mock people wearing Qatar shirts, just as you would someone promoting > homeopathy.

I don't this ending well. First of all, the athletes should not get involved in any of this politics stuff. Second, it is well known that all the World Cup and Olympic Games tournaments post 1990 (at least) were awarded based on corruption, even the 2006 World Cup hosted in Germany. So, I don't see any reason to single out the Qataris.

<comment><USER6> Have you not read about what is going on in Qatar??

<comment><USER5> Of course I have. But where do we stop? Should we also ban the USA from organizing a future World Cup tournament because of its disastrous foreign policy which has caused unnecessary deaths numbering more than 1 million people in the last 15-20 years? Should we ban Russia from hosting the 2018 World Cup because of its Ukraine policy? And so on and so on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 'How about selling a permanent site in Greece for the Summer Olympics ? An uninhabited island would be ideal, not too far from the coast accessible by ferries as well as planes.'

'The original Olympics was held in Olympia, Greece for 800 years. The changing site is a modern phenomenon used to spread support in the early stages of the modern Olympic movement. Why not return the Games to their real roots?'

Good arguments (if ever that would even matter to the people in charge ;-) and great idea.

<comment><USER8> The original Olympic games were held in honour of Zeus (God) so really the games should be held in the Mount Athos region of Greece an autonomous monastic stare in Greece.

What better place to hold games originally religious in nature from Greece than this region?

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

<comment><USER9> > The original Olympic games were held in honour of Zeus (God) so really the > games should be held in the Mount Athos region of Greece an autonomous > monastic stare in Greece.

I don't follow the "logic" here at all. What makes Mount Athos more appropriate than, say, Olympia, the traditional site of the Olympic games?

<comment><USER8> User Gys (above) suggested an uninhabited island but the Mount Athos region is pretty sparse 126 sq miles and 1800 people living there, still technically Greece but not Mount Olympus although sort of near it (100 miles away).

I don't mean literally on Mount Athos but in the autonomous region.

Plus being an autonomous region I thought it may more sense financially for taxes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'd be all for it. A permanent site can rely on repeat business and a permanent economy can grow around it. A sort of Mecca for sports.

The current process is a shambles. It's basically about telling the world how prosperous the host is, and for the IOC members it's all about milking the process for money. You end up building a ghost town someplace every four years at huge cost.

I suppose the same arguments apply for the winter olympics. They have mountains and snow in Greece too, so how about building twin sites?

<comment><USER11> Wouldn't having it in the same place every time make it more expensive/difficult for people to go see the games live? When the location changes every time, there will be a different set of people who go watch the games because it's nearby, but who possibly couldn't afford to (or wouldn't want to) travel to the other side of the world for them.

<comment><USER10> I don't think distance is all that big a deal. Sure, you can't just drive there if it isn't near, but for most people the Olympics is a once-in-a- lifetime experience that they're willing to take a week off to visit. No different from any other trip, eg people will come to Paris from Australia just to see the Eiffel tower and the Notre Dame. Why wouldn't they fly to some other town to see the Olympics?

And let's face it: you have to be from a wealthy country to be able to do this in any case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is a really good idea.

\- Olympic construction could only be a real benefit to a permanent location

\- Greece is the only logical location

\- Greece could use the stimulus

I spend a lot of time in Tokyo but plan to avoid the city during the 2020 Olympics. High prices and crowds, a mess. And presently the upcoming Olympics completely distorts the market for construction, for facilities that will hardly be used after 2020.

And its a great idea to develop tourism in Greece. Assuming the Greeks like it, I'm all in favor.

<comment><USER13> Greece for summer, maybe Canada or Norway for winter?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Or alternatively, why must the Olympics be held in one place at all? The infrastructural burdens of large events are massive. The World Cup distributes this burden throughout cities and even regions.

<comment><USER15> The World Cup requires a country to have 10-14 stadiums when only 2-4 games are played a day. There's no reason for more than 4 stadiums.

<comment><USER16> For most European countries this is not a problem. Each club which plays in its countries top division already has a big enough dedicated football stadium.

It becomes a problem when you let FIFA bribe BRIC or even third world country politicians (or vice versa). Then you get stadiums located in deserts or rainforests without a club nearby that is even remotely capable of filling it on a weekly basis.

I like what the UEFA (Europe's FIFA) is doing here: Bigger countries get to host the European Championship on their own, smaller countries share it, lately Poland + Ukraine and Switzerland + Austria. From 2020 on the Cup will not take place in a single country anymore, instead cities will apply on their own, which is of course impractical for the World Cup or even continental cups on bigger continents.

<comment><USER17> > For most European countries this is not a problem. Each club which plays in > its countries top division already has a big enough dedicated football > stadium.

Most in this case is maybe 5-6. Even in rich football countries like Germany, not every 1st tier club has a 40k+ stadium.

<comment><USER16> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_football_stadiums_in_G...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_football_stadiums_in_Germany)

Edit: Sorry, I read your comment to quickly, thought you were saying, that there are only 5-6 stadiums that big in Germany.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm glad Boston too a stand and bowed out. I'm just hopeful SF can withstand the temptation. LA, well, it's a lost cause anyway.

My hope is Boston's decision gets people to scrutinize the Olympics because as claimed, it seems the benefits are outweighed by the opportunity loss of the diverted funds, etc.

For an example of the waste produced by hosting these large sporting events one only needs to look at the past world cup in Brazil --stadiums in the middle of very low population density. A total waste of capital and labor.

<comment><USER19> Los Angeles could actually do the Olympics I without loosing money, or building all new venues, as they've hosted twice before, 1932 and 1984.

<comment><USER20> Plus they're about to build a massive new NFL stadium. They wouldn't lack for venues most likely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm sure the IOC will be all for greatly reducing its massive profits and increasing its now nonexistent costs!

</comment><comment><USER22> Barcelona '92 was handled pretty well. The facilities are still used, the built housing was sold after the games, and tourism augmented significantly. It could be the exception to the rule.

<comment><USER7> This article is about the costs involved. How do you mean 'handled pretty well' ?! I think you have no idea what you are talking about and did not bother to spend a few seconds to look for facts ?

'The cost of the Barcelona Summer Olympics was USD11.4 billion (in 2009 dollars). The cost overrun was 417 percent in real terms. This compares with an average cost of USD5.7 billion (in 2009 dollars) for other summer Olympics over the past 50 years for which data are available and an average cost overrun for these Games of 252 per cent. Cost here includes only sports- related costs and thus does not include other public costs, such as road, rail, or airport infrastructure, or private costs, such as hotel upgrades or other business investments incurred in preparation of the Games, which are typically substantial but which vary drastically from city to city and are difficult to compare consistently.'

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Summer_Olympics#Cost_and_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Summer_Olympics#Cost_and_cost_overrun)

<comment><USER17> The Olympics are more than the direct cost of infrastructure or tickets sold.

Barcelona was hugely changed by the 1992 Games and was transformed into one of the richest cities in Europe and one of the most visited spots on Earth. It's significance, quality of life and wealth grew because of the event.

That's the point of most Olympic events, as former London mayor Ken Livingstone said it: It's not about three weeks of sports, it's about getting funds to rebuild your city. A lot of them don't pull it off, but Barcelona for one did it fine.

<comment><USER23> > _The Olympics are more than the direct cost of infrastructure or tickets > sold..._

I don't think that anyone would argue that Barcelona was a success relative to other Olympics, but it still left much to be desired.

Gys is taking issue with the claim that Barcelona was handled "pretty well" in an absolute sense considering the fact that the sports-related infrastructure went WAY over budget.

Maybe things worked out overall for the economy, but I submit that incremental value from investments in public infrastructure and what sounds like capable governance made the difference. You have to wonder if these changes could've happened without the burden of financing the sports side or hosting the olympics.

<comment><USER24> The timing in Barcelona was very special. Spain had only recently become a democracy again when they were awarded the game. There was a lot of political capital available to be spent and a real need to turn a page.

The games in this case were a catalyst but not the reason for most of the expenses. Same as the Expo in Seville which was also in '92.

<comment><USER23> Indeed. Many didn't (and still don't) realize how fractured the Spanish state was, going into recent times (i.e. post Franco ~1975).

Somewhat related...it was interesting to learn how Spain's triumph at the 2010 World Cup became a unifying, transcendent event for the country, politically.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So much waste would be reduced no null. Instead of being left with unmaintained and useless infrastructure similar to case of Beijing: [http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/ghosts-of-olympics- past?...](http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/ghosts-of-olympics- past?articleId=USRTR30UOB), facilities could be renovated continuously for fraction of price, that could eventually be covered solely by cash inflow of hotels and advertising.

</comment><comment><USER26> having the olympics costs a country X amount, and earns a country Y amount.

for some reason I think most people put Y at 0, and say that the country has wasted X (talking only about the 'price tag' of hosting). I can't tell whether people doing that are being dishonest to support a narrative, or whether they actually think that hosting an olympics earns a country nothing.

you can argue that Y is often or always less than X, but I rarely see Y even acknowledged.

<comment><USER27> I think in this case the author is well-aware of Y:

"Though Olympic boosters say the Summer Games allow a city to showcase itself to a global audience, only two Games, both in Los Angeles, have ever made a real profit"

<comment><USER26> you can see here plenty of articles citing profits for ~50% of olympics: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games) (estimates obviously don't include a bunch of intangible costs/profits).

I'm sure you could construct a list that shows no profits ever, and a list that shows massive profits every time (using the same level of evidence for both sides).

the primary issue is that it's extremely difficult to measure costs/profits for something as massive as an olympics. the secondary issue is that people tend to support their 'sides' narrative (keynesian or otherwise).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I think we should use the Olympics as a honey pot for politicians who care more about their own egos than their constituencies. Anyone who applies for it faces life in prison because it will just cost their city huge amounts of money and ruin most people's everyday lives.

</comment><comment><USER29> Both Olympics and World Cup antidemocratic means for corruption, but are justified with a phony belief in nationalism and keynesianism.

Brazil was the perfect example of how these events can hurt citizens and the economy:

[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin- america-33942279](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-33942279)

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/1...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/10133833/Brazil- World-Cup-protests-teenager-dies-as-a-million-people-take-to-the-streets.html)

</comment><comment><USER30> May I just Godwin this thread by noting that this is not a new idea: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Stadion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Stadion)

</comment><comment><USER31> Are the Olympics even relevant anymore?

When I was a kid, I can remember people getting excited about the Olympics. People would sit glued to their TV screens, it would be a big deal.

Now it just seems meh, like people have more pressing things to worry about. The story seems the same for every country that hosts it:

\- Yay we got the Olympics!

\- <insert controversy here>

\- Oh no! They most certainly AREN'T going to be ready for the Olympics!

\- <insert controversy here>

\- <insert sudden turnaround here>

\- These Olympics were a fantastic success!

\- <insert years of debt here>

It's a shame too. Maybe having them in one place would take away a lot of the distraction.

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra Olympics were created to hold nations together, to be a common child of all countries.

If you put them in the same place, you might as well cancel them. They no longer have any point besides vice and bad taste.

</comment><comment><USER32> Would people care less about the Olympics if it was in the same place each time? One of the things I actually like about the Olympics is that you get to see these countries.

</comment><comment><USER33> "According to a 2007 report from the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), it was estimated that Beijing might see up to 1.5 million local residents displaced due to the preparation for the Olympic Games. "

paraphrased to

"1.25 million people lost their homes during the Beijing Games. "

Western media are really seizing every chance to bash Chinese govt.

<comment><USER20> If a million people were _displaced_ by the Beijing olympic games, then the Chinese Government deserves to be bashed for it.

<comment><USER33> You are absolutely right. But shall we agree that _displaced_ is not the same as _lost homes_ , and the latter is more emotional and less factual?

<comment><USER34> It's hard to talk facts when the chinese government refuses to share the statistics on evictions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Here is another good article from former rower Charles Banks-Altekruse on this topic: [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/opinion/01altekruse.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/opinion/01altekruse.html)

</comment><comment><USER36> The investment in infrastructure will usually benefit the locals for years.

Doing the math on infrastructure is not that simple. Ex: How much would it be worth, if one million people saved 30 minutes every day? Or that you live in a city where you can practice virtually any sport on the highest level!?

</comment><comment><USER37> It's not the location, but the permanent corporation that is the problem. There needs to be change in the personnel who run the IOC after every olympics.

Why not have all medal winners vote in a new board after every olympics? Gold gets 3 votes, silver 2, bronze 1. Secret ballot.

</comment><comment><USER38> Greece hosted the Olympic games at Athens on 2004, so the vast majority of the facilities already exist. They would probably need some renovation, but there should be no need to build new ones.

</comment><comment><USER39> How about doing the exact opposite? How about having very poor/small countries organise the Olympics but with the entire cost covered by the world's most wealthy ones?

</comment><comment><USER40> Is "Olympic Games" copyrighted? Even if so, what's to stop the Greeks from claiming prior art, and establishing an Olympic Island themselves, sans-IOC?

<comment><USER41> A phrase/name can't be copyrighted and prior art is irrelevant to copyright. Nothing stops them from claiming it, but it's a non-sequitur so there is really no reason to claim it.

I don't think any individual or organization is stopping Greeks from establishing their own Olympic Island.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Politicians are weak.

An Olympics allows them to be strong.

The idea that the 'lost money' would/could have been spent on something better does not follow.

</comment><comment><USER24> Pretty sure that last city that got a positive ROI from hosting the games was Barcelona. And that was 23 years ago.

</comment><comment><USER43> Hosting the Olympics also many side effects: \- improved infrastructure \- increased tourism \- stadiums, hotels, training grounds \- good way to get people into doing sports

just to name a few. Hosting Olympics on a small ireland would mean we give up all of these benefits. While hosting the Olympics costs a lot of money, income from tourism and media attention surely makes up for it (correct me if I'm wrong).

<comment><USER44> > Hosting the Olympics also many side effects: - improved infrastructure - > increased tourism - stadiums, hotels, training grounds - good way to get > people into doing sports

I would I imagine that sinking £9.3 billion into road or public-transport improvements would have a bunch of favourable side effects too. The magnitude of those effects compared to what else could be done with the money matters.

> While hosting the Olympics costs a lot of money, income from tourism and > media attention surely makes up for it (correct me if I'm wrong).

At least going by this table:

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

8 profits 10 losses

Far from an exhaustive analysis, but as far as back of the hand stuff goes it looks like a questionable call from a financial perspective....

<comment><USER45> You're not quoting a profit or loss. You're quoting a budget and actual expenses.

If Apple decides on a $1b budget to create the iPhone and it turns out it ended up costing $2b, that's not a 'loss' of $1b, and if it turned out to cost $500m that's not a 'profit'. It's merely going over budget or under budget.

Profit would require you to actually look at the revenues of the iPhone, too. You're basically quoting R&D / Investment budgets+costs, and not looking at all at the outcomes, e.g. the effects it has on a city's infrastructure and standing in the world. (and how that affects everything from tourism, improved diplomatic relations, export of national products & culture, cheaper access to finance etc)

Not that I don't agree with your larger points. Studies have been done to measure those outcomes, too, and very often the costs of the Olympics are still not worth it. Although a lot of these things are really tricky to measure, and some are intangible and possible to measure but difficult to express in financial terms. (what pride for example must the Chinese have felt in 2008, I'm all too familiar with the many human rights issues but this was an absolutely spectacular event that must have inspired hundreds of millions of Chinese on some level.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Or a short list of places that rotates. Two stadiums, for example, isn't much worse than one.

</comment><comment><USER47> In Athens?

<comment><USER48> that might help fix their economic problems...

<comment><USER49> But why the world should fix their economic problems?

<comment><USER48> Because it is part of the world. Because it would take the burden off of other countries.

A family lives or dies by how they treat their shitty uncle.

In the end I believe people are essentially good. Not that they eventually do good things. That's a measure for time and luck.

<comment><USER49> So the whole "family" has to pay for the uncle's drinking and drug habit? I am not gonna pay for your "belief".

<comment><USER50> Frankly, the benefit to Greece, whatever it may be, would be a mere side effect in my opinion. The point of moving it to a permanent location is to prevent damage everywhere else. It's an interesting game-theory-ish problem where on one hand, you think, "why should they benefit?" but on the other hand, under the existing system, it's possible that _nobody_ benefits (other than the people directly involved in the corruption).

The thought of the Olympics coming to my town makes me want to start threatening politicians with recall referenda and/or thinking about selling my house and leaving. Most likely I'd just leave town for the duration and rent my house out for an ungodly monthly sum.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


"I Quit" 1 Year anniversary - <AUTHOR> http://www.emadibrahim.com/2009/03/09/i-quit-1-year-anniversary/ <comment><USER2> I've just passed my five year anniversary. I would do it again, but the financial instability is still extremely stressful, particularly as I enter my mid-thirties. It's always feast or famine.

My observations:

1\. Pay off debt as quickly as you can. When you're broke again, you'll be grateful you did.

2\. Never put all of your eggs in one basket. When you only have one or two major sources of revenue (or clients), you're as dependent as an employee, but considerably less secure.

3\. No matter how unnecessary it may seem, have a real, legally binding contract for any work you commit to do. I thought I did. I was wrong.

4\. Budget for marketing. You can't depend on viral marketing alone.

5\. Have health insurance. It's expensive and you can't afford it, and I know you're young and healthy, but when your appendix decides it's time to come out, you'll be on the hook for about $22,000.

6\. If you're working from home, set boundaries. I won't work past 8pm, and I try to take one day a week off.

Ideally, you'll have some brilliant idea, already live frugally, have no debt, and a craft a bulletproof plan. Realistically, nothing can prepare you for the experience.

<comment><USER3> do you (or anyone) have recommendations regarding health insurance for "private contractors"/small (2-3 employee) businesses?

<comment><USER2> I'm currently on a small business HMO plan through Blue Cross/Blue Shield. I'm in Massachusetts, though, so I can't necessarily recommend it if you live elsewhere (insurance here is compulsory, rates are partially regulated, etc). The one advantage of being on a small business plan here is that you're covered the day your first check clears. In contrast, individual plans generally have a 6 to 8 month waiting period during which you pay premiums but receive no coverage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _Overall, I am glad I quit my job. Other than the fact that I am broke, I learned and accomplished a lot and ready to take Yonkly to the next level._

Personally, I think this is awesome, but it also should serve as a warning to those that are afraid of financial troubles. Most people who go this route truly do have to risk it all, so if you arent ready for that you should find a way to transition. For me -- living on the cheap while doing your own thing is great, and the only way to really motivate.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree. It is very risky. When I made that decision, I basically told myself "what is the worst that could happen?" The answer was "lose my house and rental properties, declare bankruptcy, screw up my credit score". Then I thought "that's not too bad." I graduated in 1999 with zero money and got to where I am, so I can probably do it again in half the time.

<comment><USER4> Right on!. I'm with you. However, probably not recommended with kids or medical problems.

But for everyone else, as long as you can get over the ego parts -- you will have to give up going to nice places for dinner, driving nice cars, having big houses, new toys, vacations etc, all the way to bankruptcy, as you said -- then it is worth it.

<comment><USER5> i think a lot of these fears are played up by society in order to induce good worker bee syndrome. losing your material wealth ain't shit in the face of freedom. programmers have the most in demand skill in the world right now. if you go broke you can always come back. as Borat said to the chicken: live your life!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Living on the cheap is one thing, going into huge credit card debt will follow you forever. :( Sounds like a gleeful story of doing it "your way" but a massive cost.

I think the blog post is a bit in denial because you haven't really said anything about any future out comes you see happening next.

What is the credit card debt? How much do you think you'll make on the book after publisher fees/whatever other costs. The web 2.0 service is cool does it have any plan for profit?

Congrats on the engagement and doing your own thing, I just wonder if you'd do it all over again or if you'd try and bootstrap your own efforts more so that you could avoid the financial black eye ya got here and still make something your truly passionate about.

<comment><AUTHOR> Will I do it all over again? Absolutely :)

I am not sure I can discuss the book fees but it is not substantial. Probably enough for 2 or 3 months of living expenses.

Credit card debt is huge. Think of a number. Then double it :)

Yonkly is already profitable. It covers its operating cost and more.

Thanks.

<comment><USER7> Let's say you're carrying $50K of credit card debt. Do you realize how much it costs just to service that debt? If your revenue is not greater than the minimum payments (just over the cost of interest) on that debt plus your living expenses, then you're a dead man walking. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul works until you've max'd out your credit lines, and right now from the sounds of it you're accelerating toward that limit faster than you realize.

Focus on your cash flow. You need to be able to service that debt and pay for your cost of living. If you don't want to take a salaried job, start focussing on your consulting gigs. Preferably, find gigs that pay more. If that's not enough, take more of them (but be sure you can do the work).

I wish you luck. But it sounds to me like you're starting to realize you're in over your head and you're a bit shell shocked. I've been in your shoes, and I had to make some tough choices that involved temporarily moving back in with my parents until I got my finances under control, and working my ass off to the point where I barely got enough sleep. Thank goodness I didn't have mortgages to carry though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Congrats on making it this far. Maybe we should start a meetup or support group for hackers who quit their jobs to find their entrepreneurial selves.

I just had my one year anniversary six days ago. Oh how time flies. I left the military to venture out on my own, finish graduate school, and see what happened.

I'd love to tell the rest of the story but I have to go catch a train. If you get a chance, consider writing about the ups and downs of the process. I know in the beginning it really ate me that I wasn't making progress fast enough. Time, progress, and a sweet spot for pain helped :) but yeah... its an interesting process.

<comment><USER9> I just passed my 7th year of self-employment and have been through many ups and downs. I have learned a lot but still have a lot of questions. I don't comment much on HN, but I respect and trust this community quite a bit. I think a support group is a great idea. Anyone else?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Well its still a good inspiration story and it may fly in the face of rising unemployment and horrific economic playground happening out there right now.

Major props for laying the story down, not enough people do that.

Overall I still feel you need 1 or 2 more bankable deals under the table to help you pay off the debt and getting back into the green of things.

Luckily you got into the ad model biz when you did because that is a dying model of profit. Covering operating costs and groceries is good but you should probably try to weave it into a sale or use it as a spring board to get a consultancy gig. Meanwhile the book keeps you a bit above water but well.. you're outa ammo.. start working on book 2 asap and get some additional green in that door or the stress of debt will eat the love of your life.

</comment><comment><USER10> i know it is for all of you to downvote - but no fixed income, 2 houses, credit card debts, looking for investment , ppl find it inspirational...

i just don't feel like filing taxes this year

</comment><comment><USER11> A bit off topic, but I notice you have both huge credit card debt and rental properties. Isn't that just a losing arbitrage?

<comment><AUTHOR> yes. Did I mention that I am bad at managing my finances. Plus I thought the houses would go up and I would sell and make a $100k off each. Enough to finance my startup for 2+ years. It didn't work out that way though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's been 1 year and you're broke. Where do you plan on spending your time, on Yonkly and the book? Do you have any other next steps?

Great story and congrats on your engagement!

<comment><AUTHOR> I am doing small consulting jobs here and there that barely pay the bills but I am mostly focused on Yonkly (the book is almost done). I am also in the process of talking to investors and if things work out then it will be 110% Yonkly.

<comment><USER13> How much time are you spending on the marketing aspect of Yonkly? If you aren't and started spending an hour or two a day -- seriously attacking it, you might be able to get ramen profitable quickly.

For instance, the site doesn't quickly drive home why I need your service. It kind of muddles around. If you tightened things up, starting an affiliate program, did some AdWords, etc. you might be able to focus on the project 100% once it pays the mortgage.

Google 'yonkly' -- it's strange what it comes up with. That type of thing needs to be fixed. Just a couple ideas, hope this helps -- I launched my web service last month and we are already ramen profitable.

<comment><AUTHOR> There is just not enough hours in the day. I do need to focus more on marketing but I am not an expert. Can you recommend anyone that will work for equity? :)

I googled Yonly and everything looks. What exactly are you referring to that needs to be fixed?

<comment><USER14> The google description of the site is:

Yonkly - Create your own network stephp elmagnifico domnanou wmshaxpere yonkly eibrahim venturedig troygoode eonian ... domain yonkly chinese sbepstein allenwang allenwang1981 rmarley ...

I'm guessing that these are usernames of your users, but I'm not sure why they're being used as your Google description. See if you can fix this and replace it with a description of what Yonkly is, and I'd bet your search engine traffic will increase dramatically

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks for the heads up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I just quit a lucrative job in Vietnam and will be moving back to the Bay to seek a marketing position with a tech company. Obviously not a good time, I know. But like you, I've found a path I'm excited about pursuing and need to move on and make it happen. It's only been 2 weeks since I quit - and have some plans to travel and live in Vietnam while I begin the job search. Not a bad place to be while you're jobless and seeking! It also works because I'm single and have no debt. I hope my 1 Year post won't include me being broke, i.e., I hope I find a job, but sounds like there may be some more payoff coming to you with Yonkly and the book. Thanks for sharing such a personal story. Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER16> I think Yonkly is a really cute (as in clever) idea and could get some traction. Have I wonder if the author has looked getting investors on board.

Maybe if people had revenue sharing or just the ability to monetize their, um, "yonks" they could have enough incentive to make the service take off.

<comment><USER16> Oh, from the site: "Monetize through Ads"

I like the ability to show a thumbnail in the posts.

<comment><AUTHOR> One of our clients is <http://photographersjournal.yonkly.com/home> and they have a ton of cool photos. Check them out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Thanks for sharing this. Very inspirational.

Where are you hosting your site? Are you hosting at Dreamhost (whois data)? I don't see anything on their site about ASP.Net apps. If not, where are you hosting it or are you doing it yourself in a data center?

Thanks.

<comment><USER18> Dreamhost doesn't support ASP.NET that I know of, but you can create CNAME records to point elsewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The more I read these stories, the more I appreciate the patio11 approach.

<comment><USER20> I just keep thinking to myself, "here I am working so hard at improving my programming abilities so that I can create more ambitious applications, and this guy is making a small fortune selling a freakin' Bingo card maker."

<comment><USER21> Its more of a small fortune cookie than a small fortune. Maybe something along the lines of "90% of the important stuff happens outside of the IDE."

On the plus side, it proves what you want to do is achievable, right? Make program, improve lives of customers, get paid for it.

<comment><USER19> I really appreciate your contributions to this site. Your experience is outside the norm and you put forth the effort to share it. That's valuable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Congratulations on becoming "Ramen Profitable". If you decided to email 5 enterprises everyday about "Yonkly For Businesses", I bet you would do even better. Great work.

</comment><comment><USER23> Very cute puppy.</comment>


A modern JavaScript framework to rapidly create embeddable widgets - <AUTHOR> http://technology.capillarytech.com/2014/09/22/sharingan-a-modern-javascript-framework-for-plug-n-play-widgets-part-1/

<comment><USER2> Is there a demo of the framework in action?

<comment><USER3> Hi, I'm Souvik the author of the blogpost. This was just a warm up post. A demo is coming right up in the next part! Meanwhile do lemme know if you have any questions :)

PS: I had no clue this was HN'ed, thanks Google Analytics.</comment></comment>


On the mathematics of evolution - <AUTHOR> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=156877&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=13153263

<comment><AUTHOR> In my opinion, it is rare to find such high-caliber comments on /. these days. Here's a transcript:

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----

First two minor points, then I'll get to the real subject, the math of evolution.

 _theory is a theory my friend_

Every field of science is a theory, my friend. Everything from the theory of the atom to the theory of zymosis (that's fermentaion). You may as well try to attack relativity as being "just a theory".

 _sortof like the unprovable assumption of evolution?????_

What unprovable assumption of evolution? Evolution fundamentally says that if if you have heritable variation and mutations and selection pressures on that variation then you will get evolution over generations. This is trivially observable fact. There is no genuine scientific dispute over biological evolution exacly because there is so much evidence that cross checks and cross validates across so many feilds, both current observations and study of prehistorical evidence left behind. Trying to even scratch the surface of this mountain of evidence in this post would be hopeless. If you are questioning the quantity and quality of the evidence, I suggest you either crack open a text book on the subject or at least browse the talkorigins [talkorigins.org] website. It's all well documented if you actually question the issue. If you don't truely question the issue and you instead simply reject the entire subject on non-rational grounds, well obviously you're not going to be swayed by something silly like actual evidence and actual science.

Anyway, the real issue I wanted to address was this one:

 _the sheer numeric improbability of evolution_

Correction, the sheer numeric CERTAINTY. There's powerful mathematics to evolution, powerful effects going on that you don't hear about in the common explanations of evolution. The common idea of evolution is as a sequence of individual beneficial mutations, like climbing a ladder. If that's how evolution actually worked then critics would be right, it would have been mathematically impossible for evolution to produce the incredible complexity we see today.

To show the true mathematical power of evolution I will first abandon that "ladder climbing" of beneficial mutaions. In fact lets assume that every single mutation that occurs is either neutral or harmful. I'll demonstrate that we still get the real and powerful mechanism of evolution, the math of evolution.

A good place to start is with the common complaint of creationists that mutation and evolution "cannot create information". Well in the initial mutation phase they are right. When a mutation occurs it introduces noise, it tends to degrade information. But look what happens the moment that mutation gets passed on to an offspring. That mutation is now no longer random noise, it now carries a small bit on information. It carries a little tag saying "this is a nonfatal mutation". The presence of this mutation in the offspring is new and created information, the discovery and living record of a new nonfatal mutation. Over time the population builds up a LIBRARY of nonfatal mutations. This library is a vast accumulation of new information.

That information actually undergoes even more processing and synthesis. Over generations beneficial mutations would obviously multiply, but we're assuming there are none of those here. However entirely neutral mutations will also tend to accumulate and multiply. Nearly harmless mutations would also accumulate and multiply to a lesser extent. Somewhat harmful mutations will even accumulate, and extremely harmful-but-nonfatal mutations will pop up and disappear at the rarest frequencies. So not only do we build up a library of nonfatal mutations, the mutations get tagged with a tagged with a frequency, the percentage of the population carrying that mutation. Each mutation is tagged with a measurement. Every mutation now carries a cost/benefit information tag at the population level. The best ones have a high percentage representation and the most harmful ones have a near zero representation percentage. Our library now contains far more valuable and sophisticated newly created information.

The individuals in the population are on average going to carry a roughly stable load of harmful mutations, a roughly constant "cost" in harmful mutations. Individuals loaded with more than the average cost are generally going to die and remove a more-than-average load of harm out of the population pushing the average up, and individuals with a less than average load will multiply and pull the population average upwards. The cleansing effect of selection removing "damage" from the gene pool will automatically scale to offset the exact rate that mutation is causing "damage". Harm/cost/damage will be weeded out by selection at the same rate it is added by mutation. Neutral mutations will steadily accumulate in the library, and negative mutations will remain at a roughly fixed level constantly measured and scaled by the cost of each. Some mutations will dissappear while new ones appear.

The real power in evolution is the recombination. Every offspring contains a random mixture of mutations from that library. every offspring is a test case searching for a jackpot beneficial combination of mutations. Lets assume an individual has a million random mutations across its entire code. There are 500,000,000,000 mutation-pairs being simultaneously tested within that individual in parallel. Perhaps one is a mutation creating a toxin and another mutation for mutant skin pores. Either mutation alone may be harmful, but the pairing could be breakthrough protecting against predators.

There are 160,000,000,000,000,000 mutation-triples. Each individual is also testing all of these triples in parallel. One mutation might be for a toxin, a second might might crank up production of that toxin to fatal levels (which would ordinarily a fatal evolutionary dead end), and the third might be a costly and ordinarily useless anti-toxin. The triplet is now a breakthrough, either a powerful defense against predators or a weapon for a predator to use, or even both at once.

Each individual is also testing 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 mutation quadruples in parallel for free. Maybe those four mutations individually yeild useless proteins and enzymes, but the chain of four together may yeild a new breakthrough digestive pathway.

Each individual also tests a near infinite number of mutation pentuplets and mutation sextuplets and more. Each individual actually acts as a test of a near infinity number of possibilities and it does this testing in parallel and it does so for free. This is called implicit parallelism. It astronomically multiplies the power of evolution to search for jackpot breakthroughs.

Another point that I raised and haven't actually applied yet is the fact that each mutation is present with a frequency percentage in the population. The measurement of the cost/benefit of that mutation. When you want the most efficient search pattern you want to minimize wasted effort and minimize your costs and maximize your return-on-investment for your available resources. Well each offspring is an investment of resources, a test effort. When you are investing your effort looking for a payoff you want to expend most of your effort on the mutations that have paid off the best in the past and the least effort on the almost-fatal mutations. You mostly want to test combinations of good stuff with good stuff, and you almost never want to bother testing two nearly fatal mutations that will most likely combine to cause a dead offspring and a wasted investment. However you do still want to make a very rare test of two nearly fatal mutations because it _might_ just be a jackpot payoff. In mathematics this exact investment-of-effort and search pattern had already been studied and a mathematical optimization pattern found. And guess what? By an almost staggering coincidence the evolutionary population frequency on each mutation in the population and in the offspring exactly matches and produces the mathematically optimal and most efficient search pattern for the next generation of offspring. You invest lots of effort and lots of offspring on testing the best mutations and groups of the best mutations and you invest exactly the right level of very rare testing of really bad combinations that will probably be fatal but which _might_ just find a jackpot payoff. Mutations at all levels are tested proportionally to the measured cost it impose on the host.

So evolution has a nearly infinite multiplier on its search power and it just happens to invest its search effort in the mathematically optimal most efficient search allocation. Two fairly deep and powerful mathematical results that are hardly apparent in the usual way evolution is explained.

A further point is that once some beneficial mutation or combination of mutations is found, evolution then searches that vast library of stored nonfatal mutations. Most new breakthroughs will be extremely crude at whatever it is they do, and they will probably come with harmful side effects. A set of limbs might be mutated into some useful form for getting some new food source, yet be horribly mutated and otherwise dysfunctional. Evolution then searches the library for mutations that combine to further improve that new breakthrough, and it also searches the library for mutations that will repair or offset any harmful side effects of the breakthrough. A search for ways to further improve the mutated limbs for the new purpose, and a search for modifications to repair problems caused by these malformed limbs.

Evolution is very rarely a simple ladder-climb series of beneficial mutations. Evolution is an information processing system building vast database of information and synthesizing complex measurements of that information and doing an incredibly powerful search and mining of that information database to discover and refine improvements.

And this fits in perfectly with punctuated equilibrium. During the quiet phase the library is accumulating new mutation contributions and measuring those mutations into a percentage of the population, and then when there is a breakthrough discovered or there is an environment shift then evolution goes into overdrive. It mines the database for contributions to the new development or to adapt to the new environment. The frequencies of all of the mutations also get re-measured to re-weigh their cost/benefit ratio in light of the new development or in the new environment. Not only can this radically shift the frequency of vast portion of the genes and mutations in the population, it can quite easily trigger the discovery of other independent breakthroughs. If the population underwent heavy selection pressure, if most of the population was exterminated or displaced by this change, then the gene pool gets decimated. Much of that accumulated library gets wiped out along with the losing majority of the population. With a depleted library in the new population you are naturally going to see little change and progress. You see a stable population, equilibrium, until that library can be very slowly rebuilt through accumulation of new mutations.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----</comment>


Program Development by Stepwise Refinement (1971) - <AUTHOR> http://sunnyday.mit.edu/16.355/wirth-refinement.html

<comment><USER2> Here's a PDF version on the author's site: [http://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/Articles/StepwiseRefin...](http://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/Articles/StepwiseRefinement.pdf)</comment>


Veeder – Google Reader, News, Weather and Trends. Android KitKat Transparent UI - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.veeder.world

<comment><AUTHOR> Let me know what you guys think. Reviews, feedbacks, suggestions and requests are always welcomed. Thanks for reading.</comment>