It's Official: Consciousness Is Not Unique to Humans - <AUTHOR> http://charbonniers.org/2012/08/20/it-is-official/ <comment><USER4> Meh, the title is not what this declaration is about. The meat of the declaration is this line " _The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states_ ", which in layman's terms means 'you don't need a fancy brain to have self-awareness'.

(actually 'affective states' means 'emotions' in laymans terms, but in this given context, it's meant to mean 'self-awareness')

It's clear from the document that they already consider primates, cetaceans, and elephants to be in the 'self-aware' group with humans. This has generally been accepted for some time, both from the angle of behavioural studies and that of comparing the complexities of brains. What this declaration is really about is recognising the rather surprising result that some birds can do the behavioural part while not having a similarly complex brain.

Some of the other stuff in the declaration is incredibly humdrum and clearly visible to a layman. Animals are known to experience emotions - seen a happy or scared dog? An angry bird defending it's nest? The question of whether animals experience _emotion_ is different to the one of _self-awareness_. Similarly, it's obvious that pharmaceutical compounds affect animal awareness - because vets use things like that all the time to sedate animals for surgery. Or if you want mood-altering evidence, check out catnip. Euphoria? vets have drugs for that too.

The only new thing here is "we recognise that self-awareness can be present in birds, which means that you don't need a fancy brain (neocortex) to have it". The stuff about emotion not necessarily being in the neocortex is very old hat, and was in textbooks when I did my degree nearly 20 years ago.

Personally, I'm also not fond of 'consciousness' to mean 'self-awareness' or perhaps 'sentience', because it conflates heavily with anaesthesiology. A vet can knock a dog out for an operation, after which it regains consciousness, but not consciousness, because while it was conscious before the operation, it wasn't conscious... :)

<comment><USER5> In the last paragraph, you said a dog is not conscious. How do you define conscious here? Why do you think it isn't?

I define conscious as 'having qualia'. I see red, but also, I notice the 'redness of red'. One may consider this a sort of reflexive/recursive self awareness. I am thinking, so I know I am thinking about thinking.

I am interested to hear why you believe a dog is not conscious.

In my opinion, a positive test may be if a dog can count to infinity. Successor functions in mathematics might be an indicator of the presence of the recursive thinking necessary to conceptualise constructions such as "the redness of red" or "thinking about thinking", and these are necessary to understand the infinity of the natural number line. So 1 == S(0), 2 == S(S(0)), 3 == S(S(S(0))) and so on.

<comment><USER4> My last paragraph is intentionally supposed to humourously expose one of the difficulties in using 'consciousness'. I think the term is extraordinarily difficult to define, so a good start is removing it from easy conflators.

My gut response is that it's the 'thinking about thinking' or being able to think in a 'meta' fashion that makes up self-awareness. That you can observe your own actions from a hypothetical third person view. Animal minds are of course a black box - dogs could theoretically be far more intelligent than the smartest humans, but it may just be that their brains don't allow them to express themselves appropriately. As they're a black box, we're reduced to things like the mirror test to try and approximate an idea.

Ultimately I think the real answer will be that consciousness/self-awareness is not a binary thing, but a sliding scale. I think the biggest block in discussing these concepts is the next link in the chain: the unwritten assumption that once something is 'conscious', it has a 'soul' or 'special essence' of some kind and therefore can't be morally farmed/eaten/whathaveyou. Because the label of 'conscious' carries this weight, it becomes a sacred label we have to be cautious about applying. An interesting paradox, in that scientific observation might suggest other animals are capable of consciousness, but there is no scientific evidence to suggest that consciousness is particularly special in a moral sense, yet the latter is largely taken for granted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One day about a year ago, I woke up and had a single thought pouring through my mind - "It's better to assume everything has a consciousness until you can prove it doesn't".

At this point in human history, we are standing at the top of a pyramid looking down, wondering what else could be like us. What else could feel things like we do? This is a poor way of attacking the problem though, we only know what we (internally, as an individual person) experience. We never really question when someone says 'I'm happy'. What if it feels like something completely different? It's easier to hear 'happy' and relate to how we feel 'happy'. But that's not necessarily true.

We stand at the top of a pyramid, wondering if other animals, plants, forests, ecosystems, planets can experience. Think of someone who views the world entirely differently than you with essentially the same genome. Now think of what makes them happy, sad, how they see a piece of technology, what they think of when they're alone, or with their best friends, hard right? Now imagine you are completely different species, or groups of species working together, you will never, ever know what kind of experiences could be felt inside the 'mind' of a planet, or a forest).

It's odd thinking that people still hold the belief that humans are the only beings privy to a consciousness, we barely know what that word even means.

<comment><USER7> According to your realization, let us assume that mosses - or even stones - <USER2> your fingers - have consciousnesses. We can't prove otherwise. So what follows, what kind of respect does a moss or a stone or your finger demand? If you question what makes a person happy, how do you hope to know what makes a stone or a moss happy?

<comment><USER8> You could think of it in terms of minimal states, sunshine and moisture might make moss happy. But happy for moss is only a very mossy kind of happyness and so is just a fairly simple form of cellular _"Woo!"_ and not a lot else.

<comment><USER9> At that point, "conscious" means nothing more than "exists", and we already have a good word for that.

I do think we should give animals far more credit than we do. Personality seems like it would be heavily related to and influenced by/influences consciousness, and most animals express personality to some degree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As someone with a computational neuroscience background, I am not sure I agree that those are the right authorities to decide on consciousness in animals,

> cognitive neuroscientists, neuropharmacologiests, neurophysiologists, > neuroanatomist and computational neuroscientists

Don't get me wrong, it's great to have their input on this topic. But to not include philosophers of mind for example seems very wrong. In particular because consciousness is very hard to define. The definition there involves "affective states" and "intentional behaviors" which in themselves are also extremely hard to define.

edit: Also, how about psychologists studying animal behavior, ethologists, etc.

<comment><USER11> This article is as absurd as if it had said: "It's official, scientists have discovered the meaning of life!"

The gall of these scientists to claim that not only can they definitively say what consciousness is, but that they can prove that something has it is astonishing.

<comment><USER12> > The gall of these scientists to claim that not only can they definitively > say what consciousness is,

That isn't what they say. The author of the article is editorializing, and the HN title needs to be changed. (puts up mod alert spotlight).

What they say is what consciousness is _not_ , that is, it does not require a complex brain, that's not a prerequisite. They don't say very much about what it is, just its prerequisites. Buried in their supporting arguments, they state that "birds appear to offer" "parallel evolution" of "near-human-like levels of consciousness". As a non-biologist I am not entirely sure what exactly is meant by that, but it is not within a hundred miles of a "proof".

<comment><USER11> Yeah, should've known the article would grossly misrepresent the claims of the scientists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a political statement based on speculation, not a scientific breakthrough based on evidence. And what it's really about is animal rights (and perhaps grant money for 'consciousness' research). Scientific and philosophical footwork are entirely lacking here, and the body is a random committee with no special authority to declare anything.

Among the weird suggestions of this document are that birds show a "parallel evolution of consciousness," implying that our common ancestors (ancient amniotes, lizardy things) were not conscious; also that whole classes of amniotes are not conscious. The idea that reptiles and possibly certain kinds of mammals are unconscious automata, while we and birds are conscious, is at least worth raising an eyebrow over.

<comment><USER4> Nice hand-waving dismissal. You clearly haven't been tracking recent scientific research in the area - corvids and parrots have been shown to have these responses for quite some time now. The rest of the stuff in the declaration is humdrum stuff that has been accepted for decades.

Yes, it may be political, but that's most likely because the field doesn't have any layman-recognisable heavyweights like CERN to say "professional opinion on the matter says -foo-".

 _The idea that reptiles and possibly certain kinds of mammals are unconscious automata_

This is why I think the term 'consciousness' has a problem with conflation, because it leads to responses like this. Just because an entity does not have the 'consciousness' they are talking about does not make then an 'unconscious automata'. You're mixing terms from different contexts.

<comment><USER7> You clearly know little about the field if you have never talked to a bird researcher (neurobiologist, ethologist, psychologist) who would question the cavalier application of the word 'consciousness' to more-or-less arbitrary bird behaviors.

The behavior you are talking about is not 'latest' or even new. But I can point at any behavior to indicate anything, if my concepts do not have any real relationship to explaining how the behavior is produced or its evolutionary function. Which consciousness doesn't.

You are hand-waving at "latest research" to solve an actually insoluble problem: of nailing down what consciousness is, and also of developing philosophical consensus around that concept. Apparently you think that a random committee vote will do the job. That is the only recent development here, and it isn't scientific.

What you have is some fairly arbitrary experiments with a note attached to them saying 'consciousness!' The issue of consciousness was never about this.

"Parallel evolution" implies that the feature at issue was not present in the common ancestors, and probably isn't present in all the descendants of those common ancestors. This is a deeply weird assumption for which there is NOT scientific evidence. Yet it made its way into this hokey little document, making it abundantly clear that its claims have not seen any serious kind of review.

Your complaint about "conflation" is the tip of the iceberg - consciousness is such a vague concept, and so well detached from observables, that you will _never_ see an end to such problems. In the "best" case you will choose some behavior (such as preening in a mirror) and flatly assert that it is consciousness - while you will get others to agree on the preening you won't get them to agree on the consciousness, leaving you with a pile of data concerning just plain preening.

<comment><USER4> _bird researcher ... who would question the cavalier application of the word 'consciousness' to more-or-less arbitrary bird behaviors_

Yeah, despite all your defensive text, you haven't actually been tracking recent research if you come up with a statement like this.

Ironically, you call as your line of authority some of the kinds of professions who signed the declaration you later denigrate. I guess you could go 'No True Scotsman' on them and say that they're not _real_ neurobiologists...

 _In the "best" case you will choose some behavior (such as preening in a mirror) and flatly assert that it is consciousness_

Seriously, you're simply strawmanning something you don't like. 'Flatly assert'? Utter strawman.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _> On July 7 the _Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness _was signed by a group of recognized authorities (cognitive neuroscientists, neuropharmacologiests, neurophysiologists, neuroanatomist and computational neuroscientists)._

This, to me, significantly _cheapens_ the message. Imagine a group of recognized "authorities" in mathematics coming together to sign the proof of an important theorem in an attempt to further bolster its truth. It almost makes me doubt the truth (or importance) of this statement.

<comment><USER4> It shouldn't. Mathematics is lucky in that it's an entirely logical field where things can be absolutely proven. Not even Physics has that advantage. Psychology is a discipline full of minefields and gotchas - experience is very important here.

<comment><USER14> "Mathematics is lucky in that it's an entirely logical field where things can be absolutely proven."

A professional mathematician should confirm this, but my impression is that most of the interesting bits of math are fairly informal and creative-- rigorous proofs only come long after the fact, if they come at all, and really just amount to dotting _i_ s and crossing _t_ s that few people double check anyways. Absolutely proven is a bit stronger than is warranted, and at least some other fields can produce statements that have the level of "truth" that a mathematical statement has.

<comment><USER9> The point is that the proofs are actually possible. Even physics requires "proof by statistics".

<comment><USER14> My point, though, was that mathematics is also a field filled with minefields and gotchas where experience is very useful. Moreover, that mathematicians are more than glorified theorem provers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The word "consciousness" needs to be used very carefully. There is no scientific experiment that anyone can do that would demonstrate anything "experiences" events. In fact, scientifically speaking, you can only be certain that you yourself are experiencing something.

This is of course more of a philosophical area than a scientific one. Do most humans perceive "red" as the same experience? It's not really something that can be tested. Sure, you can measure how sensitive cone cells are to certain wavelengths and compare that among groups, but I'll never know if my red is your blue.

The scientific document itself does a decent job of staying out of the philosophical questions. Science concerns itself with reproducible, testable predictions. Using a word that has strong connotations with philosophy (also words like "qualia") should be discouraged in scientific practice simply due to the controversy it would generate that would detract from further progress. Studies of "synaptic activity patterns" is perhaps a better description.

<comment><USER5> > In fact, scientifically speaking, you can only be certain that you yourself > are experiencing something.

I ask someone 'you know the redness of red', they nod knowingly. Thus I know they have experiences.

<comment><USER16> Suppose for a moment that, unbeknownst to you, the reality you experience were a giant, perfect-fidelity sim. Suppose, further, that everyone in the sim but you is an "NPC" — that is, you're the only "real" person there. Again, you don't know this.

Now, suppose you asked one of these NPCs about the redness of red. It nods. Is it somehow suddenly conscious because it could nod sagely in response to your question?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from > experiencing affective states.

There's no basis for falsification, the claim revolves around denying a negative, there's no testable positive claim, therefore it's not science. And saying "it's official", apart from replacing evidence with authority, adds nothing except to sound like law or politics rather than science.

<comment><USER4> It's denying a positive, not a negative. "Previously, it was thought you _had to have_ a neocortex. Now, we see evidence that you don't". Corvids and Eastern Grey Parrots don't have a neocortex, and they still perform well on experiments we apply to other animals around the concept of consciousness.

The sentence you're quoting is a triple negative, not a double negative, perhaps that's the problem.

<comment><USER17> > The sentence you're quoting is a triple negative, not a double negative, > perhaps that's the problem.

I see a double negative: "The _absence_ of a neocortex _does not_ appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states."

The above relies on the negation of a negative state -- the absence of a neocortex.

In any case, to refute the claim would require some heavy lifting -- an objective definition of consciousness, an objective _measure_ of consciousness that somehow evades issues like the Turing test, and a handful of other obstacles. And consensus -- general agreement on the meaning of these terms.

That's why it's philosophy.

<comment><USER4> _preclude_ is the third negative.

edit: There are testable positive claims - things like the mirror test. Yes, it is hard to define consciousness, but dealing with things that are hard to define doesn't mean something 'is not science'. Like I said above, we worked for a century with a model of the atom that we _knew_ was wrong, yet we did a lot of good science with it. People didn't run around saying 'oh, the atom is just _philosophy_ ', they accepted that there were shortcomings and took that in as part of their work.

<comment><USER17> > There are testable positive claims - things like the mirror test.

Yes, but the problem with the mirror test (and all similar tests) is not the observation but the conclusion -- one in principle could program a computer to recognize itself in a mirror, but have no other properties we assume define "consciousness".

On could in principle create a list of properties of consciousness, then have a devil's advocate program a robot to display all the required properties -- just to prove a point.

In DARPA road races, robot cars manage to avoid each other and fixed obstacles, mimicking the behavior of human drivers. It's only a matter of time before a car will pass a sort of "Turing test" and be indistinguishable from a (sober) human driver, i.e. be "conscious".

> dealing with things that are hard to define doesn't mean something 'is not > science'.

In fact, yes, that is a legitimate argument for calling something non-science. If independent observers cannot agree on their terms, if similarly equipped observers cannot draw the same conclusion from a given observation, this prevents the consensus on which science depends. Science is, after all, ultimately a shared, falsifiable theory about the world, therefore deconstructive post-modernism (the idea that all observations are subjective) cancels science.

> People didn't run around saying 'oh, the atom is just philosophy' ...

They had the right to do that until there were unambiguous observations, and testable theories about the observations, on which different observers could agree. Until then, atoms _were_ philosophy.

Aristotle once claimed that women were inferior to men because they had fewer teeth -- hard to believe but true. It remained philosophy until someone started counting teeth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> That's not exactly official. If you need a signed deceleration then that's very good proof that you have no actual science to back you up.

<comment><USER9> Or that there is plenty of science in a form that most people don't (or won't) understand and so a declaration can make it digestible.

<comment><USER17> > Or that there is plenty of science in a form that most people don't (or > won't) understand and so a declaration can make it digestible.

But there isn't. This sort of thing isn't scientific because empirical, falsifiable tests aren't available. So instead of scientific evidence, we have a panel of "experts" declaring something so. It's philosophy, not science, and, all else aside, science is to be preferred.

<comment><USER4> That is _not_ what science is. Science is 'robust observation and reporting'. This includes, but is not exclusive to, empirical, falsifiable tests.

From what you're saying, exploratory experiments are not scientific, and neither are entire fields like Taxonomy.

<comment><USER17> > Science is 'robust observation and reporting'.

No, that is stamp collecting. Science is not merely observing, and it is not merely theory-creation. It is both. Observations (descriptions) lead to theories (proposed explanations). The explanations must be testable and falsifiable.

> This includes, but is not exclusive to, empirical, falsifiable tests.

No, that's not optional. Without falsifiable tests, astronomy and astrology are indistinguishable. Therefore empirical testability and falsifiability are essential to any definition of science.

> From what you're saying, exploratory experiments are not scientific, and > neither are entire fields like Taxonomy.

That's correct. Let's say I claim that stars are actually tiny dots pained on a huge glass bowl in the night sky. Shall we stop there, or shall we test my claim?

Let's say I claim that life was created by a supreme being, and natural origins are a myth. Shall we stop there, or shall we test my claim?

Let's say I claim that women are inferior to men on the ground that they have fewer teeth than men do (Aristotle actually made this claim, and it stood unchallenged for centuries). Shall we stop there, or shall we test my claim?

Ideas must be compared to reality, and if reality disagrees, they must be discarded. When reality-testing proves a theory false, a scientist abandons the theory, but a pseudoscientist abandons reality. Take your pick.

<comment><USER4> _Shall we stop there, or shall we test my claim?_

You're missing my point. It's _not_ about 'stopping there'. It's about robust observation. The best observations we can make are treated as correct until we can come up with something better. We used the _known wrong_ model of the atom for a long time, but it was the best we had, and we learned a lot in doing so. Your "shall we stop there" argument is utter strawman nonsense, and not what I am arguing. Robust observation allows someone coming along later with better info, because it makes the observation _more robust_. I have no idea where you pulled this "stop as soon as a claim is made" crap from.

So you're saying that classification like taxonomy, the periodic table, and even SI units are 'not science', because these things are not due to a tested claim? If they're pseudoscience (as you are implying they must be, since they're all just 'claims') then isn't all science that uses them inherently suspect as a result?

 _Ideas must be compared to reality, and if reality disagrees, they must be discarded._

Which doesn't contradict what I said. _Robust observation_ agrees with this sentiment exactly.

You're trying to paint me as a crazy pseudoscientist, but you're working from a faulty perception of what science is.

Here's another example: in medicine, there's a lot of work done on case studies for diseases with a low number of victims. It's just not viable to run double-blind studies with such low n, and repeat those studies until you find an answer. Case studies are a way of doing robust observation: "In previously similar situations, this was done, and this happened". It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. It's following scientific principles of do something, observe, report faithfully.

Similarly, the Mars exploration robots are out there looking at stuff for the first time. They are exploratory science. What would you have them do to make them fit your narrow vision of science - launch a robot into empty space to provide a control group representing the 'null hypothesis'?

<comment><USER18> Correct, taxonomy and SI units are not science, but they are not psudo-science either. The periodic table is though - it has an actual testable criteria: That this is the full list of elements, and there are no "in between" ones.

Observations are part of science, but they are not science in and of themself. Just because you used one doesn't make your science "tainted" as you seem to think.

But to declare that the observation is the complete package is wrong.

Those case studies are called "case studies" for a very good reason: They are not science. If they were science then the exact cause of the disease would be known, instead only correlations can be found - this can lead to science, so it's part of science, but it's not the end result, it's a lower level category. (I hate using the word science this way, but I guess it makes my distinction clear.)

There is no such thing as "exploratory science" unless you mean the science of how to design an exploration. What the rover is doing is called cataloging. From a catalog you can gain scientific conclusions, but not directly. For example you can see that this type of rock is found in this situation - <USER3> you find another location and predict the type of rock.

We want to know "what is on mars". Just because that's not a science in and of itself doesn't make it bad. If it were science you could develop rules and laws from it. And maybe we will - like ideas on planetary formation. But right now the rover is doing history - we want to know "what happened" not "what fundamental rule can we learn".

Again, this isn't a bad thing. But it's not at the same level as hard science.

<comment><USER4> _If they were science then the exact cause of the disease would be known, instead only correlations can be found_

Again, your definition of science is too strict. Do you really think the known faulty model of the atom was 'not science'? We didn't _exactly_ know how the atom was pieced together, yet we had a theory that was best fit. The idea that a theory has to be an absolutely perfect fit for it to be 'science' is garbage. Case studies do form part of science in that properly done, they represent our best informed knowledge on the matter.

Also, cataloguing is definitely science. Science is about trying to collect information that is as true as humanly possible, and catalogues definitely fall into that basket.

But in particular, I find it weird that you consider taxonomy as 'not science', but the periodic table as 'science'. These two things are one and the same: a human-ordered list of natural phenomenon. We chose the way we arranged the elements in the periodic table, just like we choose the way we arrange species in taxonomy - each list being grouped in a way that makes the information more digestible to us.

<comment><USER18> The model of the atom was testable - that's how they knew it was faulty in the first place.

> Science is about trying to collect information that is as true as humanly > possible

No, that's history. Science is about collecting reasons why things happen, or at least the _exact_ cause effect relationship. It is NOT about collecting "what happened". Simply recording what happened in the past is history.

> These two things are one and the same: a human-ordered list of natural > phenomenon.

Not even close. Human ordered? The periodic table is not human ordered. The periodic table is fundamental to the structure of the universe. Taxonomy simply records that this thing happens to be related to this. The relationships are historical accidents, not fundamental properties.

I'm quite surprised that you think the periodic table is human ordered. That shows a very large gap in your physics knowledge. If you skipped physics it's possible you were never exposed to how science should really be done, and all your experience is with what they call "soft sciences".

<comment><USER4> The way the periodic table is arranged depends on choices made by humans. It could just as easily be a simple list (your first description was 'all elements nothing between') with no groupings. What distinguishes elements is the number of protons - the choice to then arrange the periodic table by other attributes is a human one, just like the choice to label creatures with six legs 'insects' is a human one.

 _and all your experience is with what they call "soft sciences"_

Ah, the meat of the problem. You're prejudiced against disciplines outside of physics.

<comment><USER18> > the choice to then arrange the periodic table by other attributes is a human > one

No it's not. The arrangement is determined by the structure of the atom - specifically the electron orbital. I'm assuming you didn't know this? It's not arbitrary at all, elements in the same column are very similar chemically, and can take each others place in many chemical reactions.

> Ah, the meat of the problem. You're prejudiced against disciplines outside > of physics.

Prejudiced? Really? If you are going to practice science you have to do it properly, physics does, so do many other disciplines. Some don't. It's not because they are evil - they have no other choice, they do as good a job as possible with the limitations they have. I don't hold it against them, but at the same time they don't have the same status as those that do, the results from those disciplines can never be considered definitive. And for many of them, it's not science, it's history.

And you appear not to even know any physics, and so you think everything is like what you know, and have no idea how it can be when done properly. It's a form of the Dunning–Kruger effect - you don't even realize what you don't know, so you think everyone doesn't know.

<comment><USER4> To beat a dead horse (been away a few days), the periodic table is still chosen to be grouped that way. I know what you're saying about the structure of the table, but it's still been chosen to be arranged that way, just like declaring 'six legs = insect' is in taxonomy. Similarly, the 'horned' appearance of it is a human decision to help with the grouping. You could just as easily have H and He right next to each other and each new line representing a shell be arranged the same way. The problem is that you're not seeing the forest for the trees.

Perhaps another angle: if the periodic table is defined by the structure of the atom, why is there no representation of neutrons? Neutrons are part of the atom, and though an element is able to have differing numbers of neutrons, there is no indication of this in the layout of the table.

 _the results from those disciplines can never be considered definitive_

You seem to have a lexical problem here: in one breath, you demand that science is _definitive_ ("it can't be science if it's not"), but in another you state that _defining things_ is cataloguing, not science.

 _And you appear not to even know any physics,_

I know a moderate amount of physics (certainly enough that hollywood films drive me nuts, and I spent several years as a medical scientist), mostly in the form of chemistry, but you're showing all the typical signs of someone who is clueless about the actual practise of "soft sciences" and is running off prejudice.

There is plenty of good science in fields like psychology; just because the brain doesn't work like particle physics doesn't mean that you can't have the falsifiable hypotheses that lutusp demands. There is plenty of shoddy science in psychology as well, sure. But that doesn't mean that you can simply discount the good stuff - that's a logical fallacy :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've always been fascinated by the societal implications of "i think therefore I am" when demonstrated for mammal other than humans. For one, can one justifiably continue to eat their meat if we consider the reverse role, where we would exist, consciously so, only for a superior species to consume our flesh for nothing else than it's nutritional value.

</comment><comment><USER20> Really? I'm seriously confused.</comment>


Systemd service sandboxing and security hardening 101 - <AUTHOR> https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/systemd-service-hardening.html <comment><USER2> Didn't know about this. This is the sort of stuff why I like systemd so much.

So many useful tools possible by doing things in a declarative way.

</comment><comment><USER3> "The exposure score is entirely based on a service's utilization of security features provided by systemd. It doesn't consider security features built-in to the program or enforced by access control policies like Security-Enhanced Linux (SELinux) or AppArmor. Nor does the score in any way evaluate the risk factors of a program or its configuration."

So an SSH config with PermitRootLogin Yes with passwords allowed, with an unpatched vulnerability, but that uses systemd, will be marked as _safer_ than a locked down SSH config that is kept updated but which doesn't use any systemd features.

Is that an accurate statement?

<comment><USER4> The article is about a tool to examine the declarative service configuration provided by systemd. It does not examine services for "unpatched vulnerabilities". Nor does it examine ssh configuration options. It only examines declared sand boxing config in systemd unit files.

If you want a vulnerability scanner and generalize config analysis tool, this isn't it.</comment></comment>


Business lessons from India's dabbawalas (99.9999% accuracy) - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11707779 <comment><USER2> This strikes me as another in the long line of "Wow, weird non-white foreigners must be able to do absolutely impossible things!" thinking. c.f. the obsession with Japanese management in the 1980s. We do darn impressive feats of engineering here but they're not magic.

One error in 6 million deliveries? _Come on_. Has there ever been an attempt to measure the error rate in any sort of statistically rigorous fashion? It should be really bloody simple -- interview 400 customers chosen at random, ask if they've had something not delivered in the last month, last six months, etc. (This will not have nearly enough resolution to detect the difference between 99.999% and 99.9999% accuracy but, _ahem_ , I think we won't quite need to be that exacting.)

[Edit: Other sources cite the error rate as 1 in 16 million. Multiple different numbers which all stand for "arbitrarily small" do not give me confidence in the strength of this urban legend.]

</comment><comment><USER3> Article sounds condescending.

Did the "management gurus" compare that alleged accuracy to FedEx's and USPS's? A person who you know takes a low-value article and coordinates with approx 10 others to deliver it within a few miles by sheparding it on a commuter train. Wow, brilliant! Compare this to Fedex and USPS where hundreds of random strangers cooperate to safely deliver very high value goods through bureaucratic hurdles like customs across countries reliably. Or the systems the USPS has to prevent theft of high-value articles like DVDs, million+ of which are mailed every day.

<comment><USER4> > Compare this to Fedex and USPS where hundreds of random strangers cooperate > to safely deliver very high value goods through bureaucratic hurdles like > customs across countries reliably.

Having dealt with Fedex and UPS in Italy, I think I'd willing to take a chance with the Indian guys. True story: my dad sent me my birth certificate via Fedex, and after a week it still hasn't arrived. Finally, I get a call from Fedex, telling me it's been held in customs until I agree to pay the import duties. "Import duties, WTF?!" was esentially my reaction. It turns out my dad had declared a value of $40 for the shipment, which was, in effect, the replacement value of the document if it had been lost. After a bit of hemming and hawing, the Fedex guy admitted that the resale value of the birth certificate was zero and shouldn't be taxed, and it showed up a day or two later. It bears repeating that I was not talking with an Italian customs official, but Fedex, who are supposed to, as you say, "cooperate to deliver goods through bureaucratic hurdles".

<comment><USER5> And? He wrote $40, so that's what they believed. You explained it was paper and they delivered it. Sounds like a success story to me.

<comment><USER4> The contents were clearly labeled, and it took more than a week to deliver something that was sent via Fedex's express service - it should have been there in a matter of days, so I didn't get what I paid for in any case. I had to argue with them (it actually took more than one phone call) that there was no resale value. I've used Fedex a lot in the US, and here in Austria, too. Compared to their usual service, this was no success story.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article is rambling and lacking substance. Wikipedia has some more information:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabbawala></comment>


101 Hiring Hacks for Startups [Slideshare] - <AUTHOR> http://www.slideshare.net/recruitloop/101-hiring-hacks-for-startups

<comment><USER2> Why I stopped reading at hack #2:

      "Offer Unlimited Vacation"

Everyone talks about this, but it's pretty obvious by now that it's a rhetorical ploy with no substance.

Ditto for "20% projects."</comment>


Ask HN: What are your thoughts on pair programming? - <AUTHOR> Does your company have pair programming as an habit? <comment><USER2> I worked at a place that had pairing stations at separate tables in the team area. We were supposed to pair when doing any coding.

In practice we paired when doing difficult stuff. It worked well.

Tips:

Don't pair at your desk. Use a pairing station.

Pair for a task, short if possible. If not, timebox.

Pair for short periods!

Train yourself to be productive while pairing. Don't relax. A short period of hard work.

Pick a consistent pairing time and make it a habit. Such as after standup, after lunch, whatever. Some times when you would not be productive solo, like after lunch, you can be productive in a pair. Experiment.

Failure modes:

Long, unproductive, exhausting pairing periods. People will quit.

That one guy that nobody wants to pair with. Happens, sorry.

Sitting there twiddling your thumbs while your pair partner writes an email. Only pair for coding / debugging / testing! Don't pair at your desk.

</comment><comment><USER3> I used to work at a company where we did a lot of pair programming and enjoyed it a lot.

As a fast touch typer I preferred to be the one at the keyboard. I sometimes like to sketch things out first to test my initial idea.

I think pair programming can be extremely effective and fun when done in an ambitious work environment with open minded people who can work well with others. I much prefer doing pair programming than not since it's an opportunity to discuss requirements/design/solutions and also a kind of code review before the actual code review.

Coding on your own hides wrong assumptions, incorrect thinking, lack of teamwork/collaboration, misunderstandings and code quality issues which could likely to be found in pair programming sessions before a code review. It can be a great synergy when trying to solve complex problems where two people balance up different aspects of problem solving.

</comment><comment><USER4> It is cool for a really hard algo or for bringing up a new guy to speed. To do it 100% of the time? That is torture. I would not work in those conditions.

</comment><comment><USER5> Sure I'll do it...on a white board to solve a problem, or reviewing a spec.

Pair programming glorifies the task of programming as overly difficult. Solving problems can be difficult, programming them shouldn't be. Solving a tough problem in a code editor is not a good idea, IMO.

</comment><comment><USER6> If someone has questions that are hard to answer without having the machine in front of them to point things out, sure, I or they will pull up a chair, and we'll both take a look at it.

But all day pair programming would drive me crazy.

</comment><comment><USER7> I know a lot of great devs who think very highly of PP, but as for me, it doesn't work well at all.

I just haven't had a great experience with it, though I remain open to trying it again.

<comment><USER8> I would agree. For most things, I don't find it very useful. Maybe if you're trying to learn how to use a tool, it can be worth sitting in, but for the plain mechanical tasks of coding, it's a waste of at least one person's time. If you're debugging something, you have to work at quarter speed or less - worse, if you've actually invested the effort to learn how to use your tools efficiently - as you'll be bouncing around too fast for anybody without a telepathic link to keep up with.

Bull sessions waiting for those slow-as-death Keurig machines everybody has replaced their good old drip pots with to finish making a tiny cup of coffee are just as good a use of your time, really.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Some people think pair programming consists of one person sitting with another person at their disk taking over their workstation and having them just watch. This is actually horrible and hurts the body because looking at the screen for a long time in a weird position aches. I had this happen at an internship of mine before. I loathe that experience.

</comment><comment><USER10> I wouldn't like mandated pair programming but I find it always productive to pair up with someone* (informally) when solving a new/difficult problem.

* someone I know and like.. I imagine being paired with a person you disliked would be awful

</comment><comment><USER11> I think it is good in scenarios where the problems are sufficiently difficult.

</comment><comment><USER12> It is something I've wished I could do. In fact, I am considering only working at a company that does pair programming.</comment>


How AI/AGI works – my layman theory - <AUTHOR> http://digitalmind.io/post/AI-AGI-theory <comment><USER2> > _That's why instead of trying to encode the abstract values to maximize for, > we encode very specific goals.

\- Make 100 paperclips (utility function is "Did I make 100 paperclips?")_

That's probably a good idea. But humans would still have to set the goal in a way they _know_ that the resources will be enough to achieve that goal.

Otherwise, if the AI is at 90 paperclips (or 90 million), and it runs out of resources, it could think "I'm out of resources - what now?! Oh, look, a human nearby. Let me throw it in the paperclip convertor to reach my 100 paperclip goal."

Or the instructions could say "Out of resources > alert humans, and suspend activity immediately."</comment>


Show HN: Automating Web page screenshots with PhantomJS and Python - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/yaph/webshots <comment><USER2> Can I ask what you use it for? Regression testing? A web directory?

<comment><AUTHOR> One use case is to create lists of web pages, similar to a category listing in a directory. Another thing I want to do is process the images for color information and see if I find something interesting.</comment></comment>


Sobriety startups shaking up the 12-step model - <AUTHOR> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-02/inside-the-new-sobriety-start-ups-shaking-the-12-step-model/10671650 <comment><USER3> After years and years of struggling with alcoholism and AA, I got sober with naltrexone using the "Sinclair Method". I followed the treatment plan for a few weeks and at the end quitting drinking was easy and obvious. That was just over ten years ago and I haven't had a drink or gone to any meetings since.

I'm only one person and I'm fully aware that the plural of anecdote isn't data. However, the experience was so drama, and more importantly self- loathing, free and so effective, that I can't help but feel bitter towards the proponents of AA who insist on it being a monopoly... especially those in positions of power in the criminal justice or public health systems because from my perspective it's a malicious and vindictive stance.

<comment><USER4> Anyone know if there is something similar to quit smoking? Tried to quit cold turkey 20 times at least, usually can't get past the first day.

<comment><USER5> Vaping did it for me. For some reason that I ignore, you can then, as a second step, quit vaping very easily (at least for me, it was much easier than quitting cigarettes). There have been some studies about this, it's been speculated that it's because of the different way you absorb nicotine when vaping, as opposed to smoking. (Sorry I'm unable to find a link now but I will try later when I get home). I am now 2 years off the stinkies, and about 9 months off vaping.

<comment><USER6> 10 years ago I quit smoking. I don't recommend doing it this way, but I started chewing tobacco. I didn't like it, didn't care for the taste, but for some reason, it let me break the mental habits of having a cigarette every so often, and the hand movements, etc.

About a year later, I was planning on having Lasik eye surgery. They recommended no nicotine/caffeine for 24 hours prior and 7 days after. I gave caffeine up for the next year, and never picked up nicotine again.

There is probably a few reasons why you smoke. Just remember, you probably like all of them. Start to figure out how to remove and replace them. And keep trying to quit. At some point it will work.

I probably tried to quit 200 times cold turkey, 2 or 3 times with medication, and maybe a dozen times with patches.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hey all HNers that might be wanting to stop drinking, or have trouble staying sober even though you try!

The community in [https://reddit.com/r/stopdrinking](https://reddit.com/r/stopdrinking) is amazing and keeps me and many others on a sober path.

I've soon been sober for a year, and I was on a very destructive path. Would never have kept at it without that sub.

Here's how it helped me:

1\. In the beginning I was hurting and feeling really isolated - posting semi- regular helped me vent and people with more sobriety under their belt gave support directly.

2\. When I've been to occasions (weddings, birthday parties) that include drinking, I've been able to jump into the chat and find instant support telling me to not have the first drink.

3\. There's a daily check-in where you post to pledge today's sobriety. In the beginning I pledged each day.

4\. I have a badge by my name that keeps track of each day I've been sober. Having to reset that to zero is more motivating than you might believe at first.

5\. I now comment on other users posts, trying to keep their mood up and push them to not drink by giving them support.

Also, the community and mods are superb, kind people.

</comment><comment><USER8> It only hit me in the past few months how ingrained alcohol/drinking culture is in adult lives. It's absolutely everywhere (ads, sports events, festivals, workplace, nightlife, social events). It's actually crazy how lightly we treat this addictive, toxic substance that we joke about despite how many people it kills every year and harms directly and indirectly. At some point I was unknowingly drinking 4-5 times a week and thinking that was normal or OK. I've mostly just stopped and will only allow myself 1-2 drinks every few months on a vacation or social event with friends.

<comment><USER9> It used to be much more ingrained. Factory or construction workers used to drink during work, and if those old movies are to believe men would pour themselves drinks all the times.

These days it is mostly acceptable to decline alcohol.

<comment><USER10> It's interesting that you cite factory or construction workers. I'm a first- generation college graduate, who grew up around skilled (and unskilled) labor. I've never heard of this being prevalent, even from old-timers discussing how things used to be way back when. Quitting time is one thing... but the last environment on earth in which you'd want to drink alcohol is around power tools or heavy machinery!

My own first thought was "Mad Men"'s portrayal of _privileged office workers_ in the mid-20th century.

Of course, my second thought was my own office in the present day. Has this culture ever really gone away? I work for a tech startup, and there's a fully- stocked beer fridge and cocktail bar setup at all times. They're one of the first things that recruiters show off when I go on interviews to other similar companies.

Every single company event, or small group outing, basically revolves around alcohol. I'm not a teetotaler, but I am a parent in my 40's who has kinda lost interest in drinking, and I'm starting to feel alienated by that part of the industry's culture. I don't want to feel like I have accept the beer you're offering me in order to fit in with a team, or give up my evening with my family to go watch you stand in a circle and get shit-faced in front of your co-workers.

This is 2019, in our own industry.

<comment><USER11> _> Has this culture ever really gone away?_

It's possible I'm being naive as to what my coworkers are up to, but the "Man Men", 3 martini lunch culture has certainly gone away.

It's fair to complain that a company's social events revolve around alcohol, but, explicitly, when people talk about "company culture" and "good fit", internal company norms around alcohol are a huge part of it. There are workplaces that are basically a continuation of college frat houses, down to the levels of sexual harassment that make Uber look hospitable. There are also workplaces where everyone goes leaves at 5pm on the dot to get home to be with their partner/kids, and the Christmas party is a potluck with very limited amounts of wine.

Pick your poison. The recruiter is there to, well, recruit you, and they can't know how a given candidate feels about alcohol consumption, so if they too- gleefully show off their bar - push back! Ask how much people _actually_ drink - there's a difference between between zero and one beer after work with coworkers (I just drink a la croix/talking rain while my coworker who does drink, drinks a beer), vs drinking liquor to excess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you consider addiction as a psychological _and_ physical dependence on a chemical what healthcare professional would design a program like AA? Seven of the 12 steps involve God. It also reinforces the 'moral failure' stigma attached to the person. You drink too much for a reason, not because you are a bad person. It's likely due to genetic and environmental factors. ohh and you can die from withdrawal (unlike most other addictions).

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1360-0443....](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02203.x)

[https://www.aa.org/assets/en_US/smf-121_en.pdf](https://www.aa.org/assets/en_US/smf-121_en.pdf)

[https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/the- surpr...](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/the-surprising- failures-of-12-steps/284616/)

[https://www.inspiremalibu.com/blog/alcohol- addiction/7-thing...](https://www.inspiremalibu.com/blog/alcohol- addiction/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-delirium-tremens/)

<comment><USER13> > You drink too much for a reason

I don't think that's right. More than anywhere else, it seems like on HN there's an idea of the infallibility of human rationality. Would anyone in their right mind a) shoot dirty dope filtered through a cigarette butt, b) gamble themselves into debt with the mafia, c) overeat to the point they can't leave the house, d) play videogames compulsively for days on end, etc?

<comment><USER14> I think that was the point of OP's comment, since you cut the rest of the statement

> You drink too much for a reason, not because you're a bad person.

the reason here being predisposition, environmental factors, genetics, and/or current illness

<comment><USER15> So those factors listed essentially encompass your personality and dictate why a person does any action.

In that case, how do we hold anyone personally responsible for anything considering that the reason a person does any action is a result of their genetics and the environment they grow in?

Not criticizing, just wondering how others reconcile this.

<comment><USER16> My dad drank heavily while he was in the army. He swore off alcohol when I was seven, but I never saw him drink to alcoholic levels.

I think he drank to suppress the nightmares from serving in the front lines of two wars. I think he began tapering off when he left the army when I was three. I think he did so with no conscious plan. He just didn't need as much alcohol to push away his personal demons so he could sleep and he probably just naturally reduced it over time without really thinking about it.

I've got a serious medical condition. I used to take a lot of prescription medication. I've gotten off all the drugs. It's really normal for me to stop doing X slowly over time and not really notice it until later. It's common for me to only really notice a change precisely because I talk a lot about my medical stuff with my adult sons, so we periodically go over "Oh, yeah, you used to do X, Y and Z and you don't anymore."

I also spoke once with someone who had a lot of shame surrounding a DUI on their record. One of the stories they told me: They had surgery for something and when the doctors opened them up, they found one of the organs necrotic. This was unexpected and they expressed surprise that this individual was still alive. They removed the organ in the process of doing this other surgery. The individual quit drinking after that, but still saw themselves as a bad person and an alcoholic rather than someone who was managing a terrible and life threatening medical condition with alcohol until surgery happened to resolve it.

I'm convinced that this type of thing is much more common than is generally recognized.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It seems plausible that the complex set of control systems that govern our survival became intimately intertwined with various alkaloids over a few million years, "outsourcing" production of raw building blocks to plants. One example is the way in which sulforaphane from broccoli (via glucosinolate glucoraphanin) reduces symptoms of autism in the presence of myrosinase (present in mustard). [^1]

Specifically, on the topic of addiction: "Ibogaine-treated rodents exhibit attenuated opioid withdrawal symptoms, and diminished self-administration of a variety of drugs of abuse, including opioids, cocaine, nicotine and alcohol. Anecdotal evidence suggests that ibogaine is also anti-addictive in humans." [^2]

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials show that a single dose of LSD had a beneficial effect on alcohol misuse (OR, 1.95, 95% CI, p=0.0003). [^3]

As we get better at modelling our own bodies, hopefully we can start to selectively replace or suppress some of our out-dated control systems to reduce suffering and increase efficiency while retaining our survivability.

Citations:

\- [^1]: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5672987/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5672987/) \- [^2]: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4382526/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4382526/) \- [^3]: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22406913](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22406913)

<comment><USER18> "Reduces the symptoms of autism" isn't what you'd naively think it is. Autism symptoms are often more accurately described as "the sorts of things autistic people do while distressed." In other words, I suspect that the main effect is stress reduction of some sort, rather than autism reduction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I want to see data driven novel approaches to addiction management. The 12-step model has dismal success rates [0]. Virtually all of the novel programs and facilities either do not report a success rate or their reported rate is highly suspicious. There are some exceptions [1]. The global addiction market is $4 billion and growing [2]. Any company working in the addiction space should keep accurate records of their success rate and push to improve that rate, because beating AA/NA's success rate at scale would be worth a large portion of the addiction market.

[0] [http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/03/news/la-heb-sheen- aa...](http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/03/news/la-heb-sheen-aa-20110302) [1] [https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug- addic...](https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction- treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/evidence-based-approaches-to- drug-addiction-treatment) [2] [https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/addiction- treatme...](https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/addiction-treatment- market.html)

<comment><USER20> Very few studies have proper control groups.

[https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/10/26/alcoholics- anonymous-m...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/10/26/alcoholics-anonymous- much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/)

> In conclusion, as best I can tell – and it is not very well, because the > studies that could really prove anything robustly haven't been done – most > alcoholics get better on their own. All treatments for alcoholism, including > Alcoholics Anonymous, psychotherapy, and just a few minutes with a doctor > explaining why she thinks you need to quit, increase this already-high > chance of recovery a small but nonzero amount. Furthermore, they are equally > effective after only a tiny dose: your first couple of meetings, your first > therapy session.

<comment><USER21> > most alcoholics get better on their own.

These statements and studies show how little the average person, even a doctor, understands about alcoholics. Anyone who's attended an AA meeting or worked with alcoholics can easily tell you what's so crazy about these types of studies:

AA is full of people who, by definition, cannot quit on their own. Other than some court-ordered cases, every single person in AA has already tried and failed to quit on their own. It's a nonsense comparison.

You are comparing a group of people who have never tried quitting before, with those who have already spent years failing to quit on their own. Of course the first group does better! The second group is filled with more serious conditions. If they were able to quit on their own they would have never tried AA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> For something supposedly so good on it's own, religion really does try it's best to target vulnerable people. Naive children, desperate people, people who have lost someone, people sick with addiction (referencing the submitting to the higher power step).

Whatever helps during trying times I guess. It just seems to me if religion was so great on its own, it would be approached in a calm rational manner targeted at mature adults with no driving force behind it.

<comment><USER23> That's a pretty broad brush to paint all of religion with.

There are plenty of rational arguments for Christianity for those willing to do due diligence:

[https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/countering-a- dist...](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/countering-a-distortion- christianity-as-intellectual-suicide/)

<comment><USER24> > There are plenty of rational arguments for Christianity

No there aren't. Faith, by its very definition, is irrational.

<comment><USER25> The subject matter of faith may be irrational, but faith-based communities have benefits that ratheists miss out on.

<comment><USER26> All communities have benefits that those they exclude and other miss out on.

But I'm not joining a communist cell just for the comradeship.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I would consider myself to be an expert of sorts on AA. I was a member for over 20 years, attended at least 4000 meetings, have read everything ever published by AA World Services (and even held private study groups with folks to discuss these books). I served at every level except national.

I left AA when I became a christian 15 years ago. (Yes, I started AA young, as a teenager.)

All that is background for these strongly held opinions:

1\. AA is decidedly not christian. If anything, it is a mere cult with some christian trappings and actually some occult underpinnings. No one ever heard the gospel at an AA meeting. It's not synonymous with christianity.

2\. AA's recovery rate is abysmal, and actually less successful than just doing nothing about addiction. There is lots of room for providing much more effective help for people with addictions.

3\. The practice of forcing people to attend AA meetings under court order should be stopped entirely.

I know that most here are likely not christian and some are openly hostile. That's a completely different discussion than helping addicts to recover.

A good resource for the many failings of AA can be found at the Orange Papers site. It seems the original site is down, but I believe someone has mirrored it elsewhere. Lots of info on the strange origins of AA there.

</comment><comment><USER28> The christian part is a barrier for atheists and agnostics that would otherwise be OK with participating in Alcoholics Anonymous.

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

<comment><USER29> I'm not sure why, it may be a regional thing but I attend meetings in support for someone else and there are plenty of people who do not believe in God and state as such. I believe the third step even agrees, though I may be misinterpreting it: "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him."

The "as we understood Him", while most likely still referring to God, is what is used to mean whatever works for you even if it isn't God but something you can believe in as much to help you, which then opens the door for substituting God in the later steps for your version (or not) of him.

My personal opinion is that I find the program a bit cultish and don't agree that telling people they are helpless is the right way to help them, but that's my opinion and I respect that the program works for some people.

<comment><USER13> > I find the program a bit cultish

I have shared in meetings that I sometimes think AA/NA is a cult. Everyone understood. And over time I've come to see the importance of the word "Anonymous", which is found in the name (obviously) but also in the traditions, and means exactly this: that everyone is equal within the group. There is no "great leader", nobody that is "right", nobody that is "wrong". It is about sharing one's experience -- the things one has done, the actions one has taken -- which speak for themselves.

> and don't agree that telling people they are helpless is the right way to > help them

The actual word is "powerless", not "helpless". And this powerlessness describes:

\- the addict's inability to stop despite earnest and sincere desire.

\- the inability, once clean for a short time, to keep from returning to drug use

Before I started attending 12-step, I had read the Bible, Marcus Aurelius, Tao Te Ching, various self-help books, The Power of Now, How to Win Friends and Influence People, and on and on and on. I had within me all the beliefs and understanding needed to live in a good way, in accordance with my principles. In short, to live with dignity. And yet I could not live according to my own principles. This wasn't just about drug use...it was about being patient, kind, tolerant, loving, helpful. I think that's the root of the powerlessness talked about in AA/NA. What I've found is that, with the belief in a higher power, I'm able to go to bed with a sense of dignity most days.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> There's an extremely instructive lesson for programmers in the success and persistence of Alcoholics Anonymous. It's still around because:

* It's free * It's decentralized * It works

Is it the absolute best and most efficient method for treating addiction? Maybe not, but unless you have another method that works, which also does 1 and 2, it probably won't become as pervasive and long-lasting as AA.

How does this apply to programmers? Look at every dumb project that ever tried to "disrupt" email. That's a field littered with dead bodies. Email survives. Why? See above.

</comment><comment><USER31> The AA 12-step program was so strange when I accompanied my friend to one

I had no idea it was so religious

I found this to be a bug, not a feature

It is interesting to see other methods being tried instead of masquarading the 12-step programs longevity as absolute validation

</comment><comment><USER32> "The Sober Truth: Debunking the Bad Science Behind 12-Step Programs and the Rehab Industry" [https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B00FIMWI1O/](https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B00FIMWI1O/)

> _An exposé of Alcoholics Anonymous, 12-step programs, and the rehab > industry—and how a failed addiction-treatment model came to dominate > America._

> _AA has become so infused in our society that it is practically synonymous > with addiction recovery. Yet the evidence shows that AA has only a 5–10 > percent success rate—hardly better than no treatment at all. Despite this, > doctors, employers, and judges regularly refer addicted people to treatment > programs and rehab facilities based on the 12-step model._

> _In The Sober Truth, acclaimed addiction specialist Dr. Lance Dodes exposes > the deeply flawed science that the 12-step industry has used to support its > programs. Dr. Dodes analyzes dozens of studies to reveal a startling pattern > of errors, misjudgments, and biases. He also pores over the research to > highlight the best peer-reviewed studies available and discovers that they > reach a grim consensus on the program's overall success._

> _But The Sober Truth is more than a book about addiction. It is also a book > about science and how and why AA and rehab became so popular, despite the > discouraging data. Dr. Dodes explores the entire story of AA's rise, from > its origins in early fundamentalist religious and mystical beliefs to its > present-day place of privilege in politics and media._

> _The Sober Truth includes true stories from Dr. Dodes's thirty-five years of > clinical practice, as well as firsthand accounts submitted by addicts > through an open invitation on the Psychology Today website. These stories > vividly reveal the experience of walking the steps and attending some of the > nation's most famous rehabilitation centers._

> _The Sober Truth builds a powerful response to the monopoly of the 12-step > program and explodes the myth that these programs offer an acceptable or > universal solution to the deeply personal problem of addiction. This book > offers new and actionable information for addicts, their families, and > medical providers, and lays out better ways to understand addiction for > those seeking a more effective and compassionate approach to this treatable > problem. […]_

<comment><USER32> If a 12 steps program works or has worked for you, that's wonderful.

People who want to change so that they can handle their life without the trouble are welcome to attend.

There are many types of therapy. In art therapy alone, what've we got here: music, dance, writing, film, drawing, writing about problems and lists of solutions for each and for all of them (maybe only for yourself and then for others), etc.

Problem:

Solutions:

-

-

\- create a list of things that are reinforcing the [un]desired behaviors

\- create a plan for doing something different with/about identified triggers (problems)

(I just thought of this and decided to share)

Healing the underlying PTSD (and high blood pressure and very complex anxiety partly resulting from having adapted counterproductive coping strategies and defense mechanisms) is the objective of a number of randomized controlled clinical trials.

Developing evidence-based treatment programs requires randomization and controls. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence- based_medicine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine)

<comment><USER32> An evidence-based parenting book I read recently (Kazdin) strongly emphasised ABC for understanding behavior: Antecdents, Behaviors, and Consequences

It also emphasized that far more effective than punishment is _reinforcing the positive opposite_.

What do you plan to do with your time that has positive ROI (return on investment) for yourself, your family and friends, and/or your community?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> People who abuse substances are attempting to escape their reality because they feel powerless to change it. Educating people how to change their life is the cure.

That or changing society so people aren't powerless to fix their own destiny.

Until that happens the chemical people are addicted to is irrelevant. They can use any number of drugs to include sugar in a way that is detrimental to their health and will do so.

<comment><USER34> This is overly simplistic. People may start to abuse substances because of a feeling of powerlessness, depression or some other form of unhappiness, but once addicted, a person's life can improve and the use will continue until the psychological connections are broken and rewired.

<comment><USER33> Having been addicted I find complicating things to add to the issue.

Simplest method to fix it is to address the underlying issues starting with the biggest first.

As a note. You cannot fix this for other people they have to want to fix it and change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Ok, but how can I quit drinking Coca-Cola?

Tried like 10+ times now. It's not even Coke, it's sugar. Just such a powerful grip. Always relapse when a stressful time comes. Feels just the same as alcohol or cigarettes to me, but I don't feel justified in saying it's a real problem on the same level. I feel like it is though.

Anyone else?

</comment><comment><USER36> Most people with substance abuse problems "grow out of it" with no outside help at all.

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/arti...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/200405/the- surprising-truth-about-addiction-0%3famp)

Just from personal experience partying with lots of drugs and drinking in the rave scene when I was in my 20s and djing and promoting, the vast vast majority of people just got tired of it one day and quit — or it interferes with their jobs or their families and they did the right thing and stopped eventually.

12 steps's entire thing about how once you're an addict you're going to be one for the rest of your life is just wrong.

<comment><USER21> These articles are silly, and don't understand alcoholism. They give a few examples of successful ways that people have quit on their own, and since lots of people did it that way, then it must be more effective than treatment.

They miss the blindingly obvious point that every single person in treatment has already tried and failed those "self-help" ways. Treatment is a final, desperate, step for alcoholics, once all those self treatment methods have failed. You can't compare the two, and the first treatment has already failed for the second group.

It's like saying Tylenol is a more effective treatment than going to the hospital, because more people get better that way. Of course they do - <USER2> they have a less serious problem.

<comment><USER36> But 12 step is barely better than doing nothing at all, even in this groups.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Sobriety startup, that's a great idea! Fixing problems, and using the fast speed of startup culture. I'm not sure if they can fix it, but it seems like unique idea.

</comment><comment><USER38> The headline is misleading, it barely references 12-steps, basically clickbait.

<comment><USER39> What more would you like it to mention? I just read the article and it was about startups that are introducing newer and cheaper options for people who may have used the 12 step program, exactly what the headline insinuates.

Maybe it was changed since you commented?

<comment><USER40> 12 steps has a 10% success rate.

Naltrexone or nalmafene have a 75% success rate.

Why are we even having this conversation?

<comment><USER40> This is the COMBINE study:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2945872/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2945872/)

Thus, the results of the COMBINE study demonstrated that a pharmacotherapy, like naltrexone, when given with medical counseling that emphasizes taking medications as prescribed, can yield clinically significant outcomes (reduced drinking/increased abstinence) that are either as compelling, and under some conditions, more compelling than those observed with specialty behavioral therapy. One important implication of the COMBINE results is that naltrexone with MM can be delivered in healthcare settings where traditional specialty treatment is unavailable.

<comment><USER40> The foremost pronent of naltrexone (or nalmafene where it is not available) is Claudia Christian:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EghiY_s2ts](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EghiY_s2ts)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Demystifying Blockchain Not Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/arca/demystifying-blockchain-not-bitcoin-faab58336dd1 <comment><USER2> This is a pretty clickbait-y title. Bitcoin is the original use case for the blockchain, the most important use case, and possibly the only use case.

Most of what we hear hyped as blockchain products aren't public; they're just inefficient versions of private databases which defeat the whole purpose of having a blockchain.

Blockchains existed before bitcoin. Bitcoin came about because a safe digital currency is something humanity actually needs. Is there another blockchain product that we really need?

The most popular distributed app is Cryptokitties. I rest my case.</comment>


Facebook just got better with Github code commits in the open graph - <AUTHOR> http://gklst.tumblr.com/post/25203064955/facebook-gets-better-for-developers-geeklist-announces

<comment><USER2> I am really enjoying Geekli.st! Not only can I keep up on the latest and greatest technologies, but I can follow along with the prime thought leaders of said technologies. Seeing how they integrated Github with Facebook's social graph makes it even more amazing.</comment>


Sales of obscure game consoles vs. non-iPad tablets - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/2011/08/12/tablets-vs-obscure-video-game-consoles <comment><USER2> Last night I visited my uncle, a 50 year old rancher in Eastern Colorado. He wanted to show me videos of him calf-roping with a rodeo celebrity. I was very surprised when he brought out a Samsung Galaxy Tablet. This man is extremely computer illiterate and prides himself on ignoring modern technology. But wow did he love that tablet. He used it for everything (doesn't own a computer).

This incident convinced me that non-iPad tablets have a fighting chance. I'd like to see this exercise done again in one year. I believe non-iPads will gain more traction.

</comment><comment><USER3> Marco's source for Android sales: Daring Fireball.

Another source, reported by BGR, has Android at 20% of tablet market share.[1]

[1][http://www.bgr.com/2011/08/12/android-steals-20-of-tablet- ma...](http://www.bgr.com/2011/08/12/android-steals-20-of-tablet-market-from- ipad-over-past-year/)

<comment><USER4> Gruber bases his analysis on Google's biweekly publication of Android version distributions, observing that for the two weeks ending July 14th, only 0.9% of 'live' Android installations were running Honeycomb (Android 3.0 or 3.1). This is somewhat disingenuous, since the vast majority of Android apps run fine on earlier versions (as used mainly on smartphones).

But let's go with his Honeycomb filter anyway; the latest update from Google (August 1) shows Android 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 enjoying market shares of 0.4%, 0.7%, and 0.2% respectively, for a total of 1.3%. A 44% increase in Honeycomb tablet shipments in the space of 2 weeks seems somewhat unlikely, but a portion of that may result from 'back to school' sales; that's part of why I bought mine.

The market is going to look very different in a year. I consider myself and Android/Google fanboy, but when Motorola launched their Xoom last winter I rolled my eyes at the absurdly high price along with everyone else. It seems to me that the Honeycomb platform didn't get started properly until April, when Acer and Asus lunched products that competed with the Ipad around the $500 price point. Since then Samsung and Lenovo have released their own Honeycomb devices, and Asus claims to be selling 400k/mo. of its Eee tablet. Amazon's two forthcoming tablets are likely to sell well too, if the success of the Kindle is any guide. I see a 4:1 use ratio between iPad and equivalent Android tablets this time next year, maybe even 3:1 if Android products cluster around the $400 price point. It took Android on smartphones a few years to achieve market parity with Apple's offering.

As well as being good for consumers, this is good news for developers too. From never buying any apps for my Android phone, I'm about to drop $20 today (VPN/remote desktop, pro PDF tool, sketchbook). Although I only got the tablet last Monday (an Eee btw), it's already drastically altering my use patterns, and I feel safe in finally calling the death of the conventional PC. I find the device infinitely more satisfying and productive to use than any laptop I have ever owned, and can plug in a keyboard dock if I need to do a lot of typing.

RIM and HP are the big losers here; I can't see any reason to buy into the Blackberry OS or WebOS from either a consumer or business point of view.

<comment><USER5> There are probably more sales of non-Honeycomb tablets than Honeycomb ones so far. Non-Honeycomb tablets are still being launched right now, too. So yes saying all Android tablets are the ones with Honeycomb is definitely disingenuous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not including the Nook Color and other non-Honeycomb Android tablets (roughly estimated around 3 million and 4 million respectively, IIRC) distorts the results substantially, IMO.

Especially in a gaming context, my working definition of a tablet is:

1\. Does it have a touchscreen?

2\. Is it bigger than a smartphone?

3\. Can it play Angry Birds? (a)

The Nook Color and most other non-Honeycomb Android tablets easily qualify on all 3 points.

(a) out-of-the-box with no rooting/hacking/etc

</comment><comment><USER7> If the iPad was on the chart: <http://awesomescreenshot.com/0b2ii1916>

<comment><USER8> Can you add the Sony PS2 on there too?

150 million units!

<comment><USER9> Yea, here's a better one. Game consoles, both popular and unpopular, with tablets both popular and less popular :

[http://www.ryanwatkins.net/images/tablet-gameconsole- sales.p...](http://www.ryanwatkins.net/images/tablet-gameconsole-sales.png)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This graph is meaningless. A lot of the game consoles probably had a lifespan of at least one year (probably more). The Android tablets and the Playbook are at most half a year old.

Knowing this it does not seem fair to me to compare their total sales figures.

<comment><USER11> The Nintendo Virtual Boy "was released on July 21, 1995 [... and Nintendo] discontinued it the following year" ... so no - it really was a flop that sold more units than the playbook (to date).

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Boy>

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It wasn't that long ago when you could have shown a similar chart with Android phones.

<comment><USER13> The tech may be similar, but they're fundamentally different markets. Almost everybody needs a phone, but tablets are (currently) luxury items; and carriers play a far smaller role in tablets, and often none at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This data would be more interesting if put into context with the category leaders at the time. The ratio of lead sales console vs "obscure" console would be nice. Even better if you can normalize time (avg monthly ratio) or plot the ratio vs launch month. That would give some idea of the non-lead tablets are on a similar sales trajectory as non-lead consoles.

<comment><USER15> Some of them don't really fit in a given generation (the 32X was an addon to the Mega Drive/Genesis released in the later years of the console, the Mega-CD was an other addon released earlier to equip the Mega Drive against the just- released TurboGraphx16-CD, the VirtualBoy did not really fit in any category).

* The Jaguar was a 5th gen console, the generation leader was the PlayStation with ~100 million units sold. The Jaguar sold under 250000, or 0.25% of the leader, other major entrants of the generation were the N64 (33m) and the Saturn (10m)

* The CD-i was something of a hybrid console/media player (only time I saw it used was a driving school, fwiw), it's nominally part of the 4th generation whose leader was the Super Famicom/Super NES. The CD-i sold ~500k units, the SNES sold 50 million. 1%. The the other major entrant of the generation was the Mega Drive/Genesis with 40m.

* The 3DO Interactive was a 5th gen console, sold 2 million, 2% of leader (PS)

* The TurboGraphx16, I think calling it a failure is a bit of a stretch: it was a 4th gen console and sold 10m units (~20% of generation leader) while it was pretty much only available in japan, where it performed quite well indeed. Comparatively the Saturn bombed _much_ harder (and the Dreamcast did even worse, compared to its generation leader)

<comment><USER16> I wish they had added the Atari Lynx, and maybe some of the NeoGeo consoles.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> To finish the exercise include iPhone / iPod Touch sales vs. the biggest consoles ever released and the point is made.

eg: ~100m iPhones (most recent data I could find was through Q4 2010 for aggregate):

Then compare to the top gaming platforms ever shipped:

PlayStation 154.59 million

Nintendo DS 147.86 million

Game Boy/Game Boy Color 118.69 million

Sony PlayStation 102.49 million

By that measuring stick iOS wins big vs. obscure consoles, but it also wins vs. the biggest and best.

ref - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPhone_sales_per_quarter.s...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPhone_sales_per_quarter.svg)

ref - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best- selling_game_conso...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best- selling_game_consoles)

<comment><USER18> I think your logic is somewhat off, as you are considering playstation 1,2,3 to be different, while iPhone 1,2,3,4 are in the same bucket. Also consoles are generally a one per household thing. Phones aren't.

<comment><USER19> You make a good point, but PS1, PS2, and PS3 had different developer and third party ecosystems, and iPhone 2/3/4 do not, to the same extent. There's a confounding happening here to be sure, but it would not be accurate to square iPhone 4 off against PS3, iPhone 3G/3GS against PS2, etc.

<comment><USER20> While true on the Playstation platforms, the view of the iPhone ecosystem is extremely inflated. Either all iPhones offer a similar experience across the entire platform or not.

Most of my friends, with iPhones, have upgraded with each iteration of the iPhone. They would each be counted three times, were we to consider each iPhone iteration a separate platform. However, if we're being honest about the experience being compatible across the iterations, is the triple dipping really fair? Frankly, most of the same friends upgraded because they could (afford to) and need shiny objects and that phone-dropped blemish gone -- "The Apple Way."

I think you were going there, but I had to spell it out.

<comment><USER21> What happened to their old iPhone? If they sold it to someone who did not have an iPhone already, it seems fair to still count it.

<comment><USER20> That's fair, but I don't have a tone on that pulse -- guesstimate is they upgraded their wive's iPhones or have no interest/knowledge/time to make a few bucks on eBay. However, the premise of the argument is that there is too much grey area. It is disingenuous to rank all iPhone sales against a gaming platform; anecdotal results would lead me to believe a majority of smartphones are not used as gaming devices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wonder if marco reads HN? I'd be down for some action on longbets.com:

[http://martin.drashkov.com/2011/03/why-android-tablets- will-...](http://martin.drashkov.com/2011/03/why-android-tablets-will- dominate.html)

</comment><comment><USER23> So... a company's line of tablets that's been on the market for 16 months has sold more total units than a company's line of tablets that's been on the market for 6?

This is both new and exciting.

</comment><comment><USER24> It's not clear to me why some people seem so keen on seeing a single tablet seller. History has shown numerous times how monopolies are bad and how competition benefits the consumer immensely.

The tablet market is new and still mostly luxury. I wouldn't place any bets right now, even considering Apple's head start.

</comment><comment><USER25> A Future Shop representative told me only 5 HP WebOS tablets were sold in all Future Shop stores in Ontario.

<comment><USER26> That seems quite unlikely. If only because of HP's actual business presence in Ontario. Surely some of their Mississauga employees went to Futureshop... <http://welcome.hp.com/country/ca/en/contact/office_locs.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> From a "units" perspective it's interesting to see the comparison. However, I think the article presents a false comparison between apples and oranges.

Gaming consoles appeal to a limited section of the market and will generally ship less units than a mobile device. For instance, in a family of four, you might find four cellphones and only one gaming system. Simple fact. I think a more interesting comparison would be between tablet sales and mobile gaming device sales.

</comment><comment><USER16> Now I'm tempted to get a TurboGrafx 16.

</comment><comment><USER28> I see that as market potential, no?

Wait 'till 10 inch clone tablets hit $100 for xmas.

(ironically hitting the OLPC pricepoint goal)

</comment><comment><USER29> _I didn't include the iPad's approximately 30 million units on here because it distorted the graph's scale too much._

Too bad, seems to me like this graph is meaningless otherwise. The comparison is completely arbitrary.

<comment><USER15> The point of the comparison seems pretty clearly made:

"Here's a bunch of console you probably never heard about. They flopped. They completely failed.

Well these non-ipad tablets have done even worse so far. Enjoy the taste of unadulterated failure."

<comment><USER29> _I think the point of the comparison is basically: here's a bunch of console you probably never heard about. They flopped._

That's exactly my point. "Here's a bunch of [insert failed consumer electronic] you've never heard of without regard for disparate product life cycles or market environments". The data points are interchangeable so long as they follow the guideline of "consumer electronic that existed at some point in time and didn't sell well"

<comment><USER15> > That's exactly my point.

No, you said adding the iPad sales to the graph would make it meaningful. What meaning would it mean to the graph? It might change the meaning of the graph to "the iPad sells well, other tablets don't" but then the consoles included are meaningless.

The point of the graph is "these tablets don't sell for shit, here, compare to sales of stuff which didn't sell for shit either".

<comment><USER29> I was being sarcastic when I said that adding iPad sales to the graph would make it meaningful since a comparison of 2 to 30 doesn't require a graph for digestion.

 _The point of the graph is "these tablets don't sell for shit, here, compare to sales of stuff which didn't sell for shit either"_

Yes, a point that remains lost on me considering you could stack this year's tablets up against a myriad of 20 year old devices and make an equally meaningless comparison.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Android and other tablets have barely hit the market yet. This seems like a completely pointless comparison at this time.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm just surprised to learn that the VirtualBoy outsold the 32X and the Jaguar...

<comment><USER32> For all it's problems, it's a very immersive, unique experience.

Who knows, a few generations more it could have become small and portable. At the time, it looked like the future.</comment></comment>


Steve Wozniak has warned about killing off the headphone jack in the iPhone 7 - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-7-needs-headphone-jack-apple-wozniak-2016-8 <comment><USER2> I like my phone as thin as the next guy but not by sacrificing usefulness. I am in the market for a new phone but a headphone jack is a needed feature.

<comment><USER3> Bluetooth headphones are pretty good at this point. And wire free. Do you really need a jacked in headset?

<comment><USER4> Bluetooth headsets are more expensive, sound worse, and require charging. Amazingly, some people don't regard wires as inconvenient enough to be worth the tradeoff, and resent having the choice taken away from them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Woz Woz Woz. If you really want folks to listen to you, do something again. You probably don't need the money but frankly I'm tired of you popping up every couple of months or so poo pooing some Apple thing or another. It's tiresome and irrelevant.

</comment><comment><USER6> It's 2016 - let's simplify and push headphone makers to innovate and stop making headphones with cord. I'm really going to enjoy this change.

<comment><USER7> You're never going to get the same audio quality through wireless. Not even close.

<comment><USER8> What? Bluetooth is digital so it comes down to the DAC/AMP used, which can easily surpass what's in a phone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> They have to make back all that money they gave to Dr. Dre somehow.

</comment><comment><USER10> "I have cars where you can plug in the music, or go through Bluetooth, and Bluetooth just sounds so flat for the same music."

Is there any more effective way to kill your own argument dead than this? Surely Bluetooth doesn't downsample, compress, or otherwise process the underlying audio while it sends it, which means that this "bluetooth is bad" argument basically comes down to his subjective audiophiliac bias that's not been borne out by any scientific test?

<comment><USER11> Bluetooth does compress the signal as far as I can tell.

"designed to obtain a reasonably good audio quality at medium bit rates while keeping low computational complexity, having Bluetooth bandwidth limitations and processing power in mind " [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBC_(codec)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBC_\(codec\))</comment></comment>


Chrome VP: No More Cr-48s, Chrome OS Devices This Summer - <AUTHOR> http://www.thechromesource.com/chrome-vp-no-more-cr-48s-chrome-os-devices-this-summer/ <comment><USER2> Headline is a bit ambiguous: there _will be_ Chrome OS devices this summer (according to Google).

<comment><USER3> A semicolon instead of a comma would have made all the difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I just hope that some of the hardware manufacturers take some design cues from the Cr-48. The logo-less minimalist matte anti-chrome (ironic) is really doing it for me.

</comment><comment><USER5> I can't see many of these selling. And in saying that I'm not saying I don't think ChromeOS will succeed. I'm saying I can't even imagine a scenario where it does.

Unless Google does several MAJOR updates in the next couple months the Chrome devices will be feature deficient to the extreme. Windows netbooks can do 99% of what a PC can do. On a smaller screen and with a weaker processor but they can still do it. ChromeOS can barely handle reading an SD Card.

On the other side of the equation Windows netbooks can do everything a ChromeOS netbook can by simply installing the Chrome browser. The machine won't come on in 6 seconds but other than that a Chrome-based netbook has no advantages.

This could be overcome if Google had embraced the community and sought out advocates for web based computing (that's how Firefox spread virally). But they haven't done that. In fact what they did do was send a CR-48 to every hardware reviewer on the web only to have it panned over and over and over again. So instead of having ChromeOS fan sites they have Engadget and TechCrunch saying "this kind of sucks"

Given all that I just don't see these selling

Edit: I forgot to mention you have HP pushing WebOS on all its computers which has a lot of the advantages of ChromeOS and a lot more features to boot.

<comment><USER6> _I can't see many of these selling. And in saying that I'm not saying I don't think ChromeOS will succeed. I'm saying I can't even imagine a scenario where it does._

I can. I'll take the opposite bet. (Not an extravagant amount. I'm bootstrapping right now. Wanna give me odds?)

 _Unless Google does several MAJOR updates in the next couple months the Chrome devices will be feature deficient to the extreme._

Features aren't what matters.

 _Windows netbooks can do 99% of what a PC can do. On a smaller screen and with a weaker processor but they can still do it._

Yes, but how good is the netbook experience? Can Google do for a laptop-like form factor what Apple did for tablets? I think yes. In particular, Google seems to have recognized that, as far as security and cryptography infrastructure goes, the computing mainstream is in a state of _poverty_. As far as having workable security infrastructure in place, we are in a state analogous to pre-industrial nations physical infrastructure. (Or maybe the internet in the days when there were still BBS and AOL was up and coming.)

Google gets it. They're doing something about it in a walled garden of their own making. If they succeed, they're going to revolutionize owning a computer in a way that the interstate highways changed car ownership in the US. (And no, Apple doesn't quite get this yet. They get the walled garden part, but they are still a little incompetent with security.)

It's just hard to see for us right now, because we're used to the crappy way things are, just like people were used to driving on narrow, winding, poorly paved roads without seatbelts.

<comment><USER7> What would cause security to become such a huge selling point for the broader market, though, which mostly stuck with Windows back in the bad ol' days?

<comment><USER6> Wasn't Apple using security as a OS X selling point for awhile? It's all a part of the "it just works" selling point. Security for most computer platforms is a pain in the 4ss. One of the few where it's not: Google Chrome. I have to say that my Macbook and iPad do a pretty good job of "it just works." That's a far cry from my dad's Thinkpad, where Firefox and IE both have like 7 toolbars.

A lot of suboptimal user behavior is like those dogs in the cages with electrified floors. Everything/everywhere sucks, so you just lie down on it and accept the suck as normal. (The dogs in the experiment were eventually just lying down on the electrified floor.)

Basically, if you're to have a hope of delivering the highest levels of "it just works" then you're going to have to build some security infrastructure to support it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> (CR48 owner here.) I would not think many of these will sell either.

The device does what it is supposed to do very well--let the user live in the cloud. However it doesn't let the user do much when they are not connected. Understandable given the purpose of the device, but outside of the geek- culture you are not going to find a lot of people where this is acceptable. I can see this as a popular cult item or niche item, but not something with mainstream appeal.

<comment><USER9> > but outside of the geek-culture you are not going to find a lot of people > where this is acceptable

I would say the opposite, most non-geek people I know consider computers to be useless without an internet connection, geeks can always open a terminal and do some hacking though.

<comment><USER8> Right but many of those people will not want a computer that doesn't have Solitaire or MS Word.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just wait. ChromeOS netbooks are gonna be free, with a 3g contract. ChromeOS is dropping this year.

<comment><USER11> Netbooks are $300-400, while the usual subsidy from a contract is $150-200. Perhaps Google is willing to make up the difference via an advertising subsidy, but I doubt a Google user is worth $100 over 2 years. Also, the idea of getting a separate $2,000 3G contract for a netbook sounds like a terrible deal.

<comment><USER4> Doesn't that initial $300-400 include a WinXP (albeit crippled?) install? I think especially at this price range, that could be a significant differentiator.

<comment><USER12> In the netbook market, I believe Microsoft started paying manufactures to install Windows. There was a fast - and from Microsoft's position, _scary_ \- rise in Linux netbooks, and to counter that I'm pretty sure that OEMs were paid to install Windows, not the other way around.

<comment><USER13> What I heard is that they dropped the price of XP significantly, but not below 0. I'm having a lot of trouble believing that Microsoft would sell Windows at a loss.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I want a ChromeOS tablet, not a notebook. I'd gladly trade my iPad for a ChromeOS tablet with a touch interface and NaCl built-in.</comment>