How  Smart People Sabotage Their Success - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2018/11/5-ways-smart-people-sabotage-their-success <comment><USER2> > _4\. Smart people get bored easily. Being smart is not exactly the same as > being curious, but if you have both these qualities you might find yourself > becoming easily bored with executing the same behaviors over and over. Some > types of success stem from creativity, but other types come from becoming an > expert in a niche and performing a set of behaviors repeatedly. If you're > smart, curious, and have a love of learning, you might find you quickly lose > interest in anything once you've figured it out. The execution side of > performance might bore you, and you'd rather constantly be learning new > things. This can end up being less lucrative than finding a niche and > repeating the same formula, but that might seem too boring or unchallenging > to you._

I've been wrestling with this for most of my career so far. I think it's all about striking the right balance. If you're not constantly learning you will stagnate. At the same time, jumping continuously from learning one new thing to another (esp. if the things are not very inter-related) can spread yourself too thin: you need to "go deep" on some things to become an effective/valuable contributor.

I sometimes feel resentful of the amount of time I've spent as a software engineer dealing with what I often _feel_ is boring or pure B.S. (e.g. almost everything other than designing/building some novel complex system from scratch). But in reality looking back I see that a lot of that sh*t-shoveling has actually made me much better and wiser at my profession, despite how mind- numbing and boring it often was. So I'm trying to keep that perspective to get me through those really dull days when I want to just rage-quit and move to a rural commune :)

<comment><USER3> This part was also key:

"Solution: Try taking a 30,000-foot view of when it's worth tolerating some boredom to collect easy wins when it comes to your overall success. Instead of attempting dramatic change, decide when tolerating short periods (a few minutes or hours) of boredom could have a very beneficial impact on your success. For instance, devoting 5 hours a week to an activity that's monotonous but lucrative. Additionally, make sure you have enough outlets for your love of learning across the various domains of your life, including your work, hobbies, physical fitness, understanding yourself etc."

Doing work that's lucrative yet monotonous is one of the biggest struggles. I have in front of me a great strategy that I know will work, but I'm avoiding putting in the elbow grease.

Anyone know of a book that goes into this in detail? I know I'm procrastinating more by looking for a book to solve this, but at the same time, when I understand something thoroughly, I do it more often!

<comment><USER4> Not quite exactly about "lucrative yet monotonous", but _The War of Art_ is definitely an extended meditation on "putting in the elbow grease". It's not a manual of techniques about how to get things done, but it is inspirational for getting out of your own way, shutting up, sitting down, and writing.

It's written by someone who mostly writes movies, but it applies to anyone who does anything remotely creative, where your project has a lot of uncertainty and many opportunities to stall or talk yourself into giving up.

Highly recommended.

<comment><USER3> Great book - I love that one, anyone who creates should read it (code, writing, art, marketing) - I agree!

Agree that it's a meditation/mantra-like book that can be read monthly to refocus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I remember reading once that students who excel in high school (valedictorians and salutatorians) are _underrepresented_ as successful company founders, meaning that they occur at a lower rate than one would expect from chance alone. I think the hypothesis was that these people tended to develop a perfectionistic (or even people pleasing) approach, and that this strategy works really well for "doing what you're told". So they might often end up as a lawyer or a doctor, but they won't start the next big company.

As someone who did well academically early on without putting in much effort, I constantly try to avoid this trap of a "successful", but boring life. I think the problem with a lot of these people is that the first sign of failure total demolishes them, because their identity is strongly tied to "being smart" (like the article mentions). I know two people who became valedictorians in high school, mostly on natural talent. The first became a lawyer at one of the best law firms in the country, but she mentally cracked after a few years. She ended up quitting her job on the spot and stays at home now (and drinks way too much). The second finished his PhD and hasn't applied for a job in over a year. No one is really sure why.

I've had some personal hardships in my life (chronic injuries and death of close loved ones) that I think has put failure into perspective for me, otherwise I would probably respond the same way.

<comment><USER6> It's anecdotal, but I've noticed this a lot in the years since I've graduated from a "top-ranked" school.

I worked on Wall Street after graduating from school and burned out very quickly. I had a very high estimation of my own ability and importance and a desire to accumulate visible markers of success. I saw this in my peers too.

I've been working through these feelings personally and now feel much more well adjusted and resilient, but it's not been an easy journey, and sometimes I feel like I'm working through the baggage of being a former "top-performer" in a world that's just too big to really care about me (or most anyone).

Happy to share specifics if it'd be helpful to anyone.

<comment><USER7> The exact same thing happened to me. Went to a top-ranked school; did internships in finance every summer, despite loathing every one of them; and once full-time came began spiralling down.

I think the main issue that propels high-achievers into these careers is simply peer pressure. I was never happy in finance, my stomach churned as each summer internship approached, but I did it all because I couldn't imagine what people would think of me if I didn't get the next big internship or full-time offer. Did he get cut? Did he fail the interviews? Is he not smart? The pang of euphoria from getting the offer had to overcome the everyday loathing of the work and, of course, it never did.

Even if you don't believe most work in finance to be difficult, enjoyable, or even that lucrative you cling to the prestige attached to the name of your employer like in no other industry. When you ultimately work up the hutzpah to leave and see your friends moving on gaining new titles, different employers, etc. you still feel pangs of their relative prestige increasing despite all your internal protestations that you don't care anymore. It's insidious and comically absurd to try to explain to people (as I'm sure you've noticed). These vaunted colleges really do a number on many of their students.

Would be happy to hear more specifics of your story.

<comment><USER6> I chased the opportunities in finance for the money and the prestige. Once I got there, I realized that those things were less important to me than meaning in my work, work-life balance, relationships outside of work, etc. They were still important to me, just less.

I ended up accepting an offer with a more prestigious finance firm shortly after beginning work in my first job. When I quit my job, I also renegged on that offer, and remember feeling very free. I went through some depression after quitting, but it was hard to recognize it as that at the time.

I then took a strategy job in another city. I liked the day-to-day work, but was still not motivated by the industry we were in, mission of the company, etc.

I took some time off (which allowed me to reset somewhat) and then started searching for work at an early-stage mission-driven company. I was lucky enough to find one that was a good fit. I'm much happier now working with a purpose in mind, but the work is still stressful and uncertain at times. It's not my company, so I won't see as much upside in a liquidity event, but I also feel like my work volume/stress is more reasonable than the founders and I've got more freedom to leave in a bad situation. Given my early work experience, it feels very important to me to keep that freedom to move on (run away?).

Since leaving finance and my job immediately after, I've focused on the following things which have helped quite a bit: \- Reducing alcohol consumption \- Finding exercise activities that I enjoy and am willing to do several times per week \- Eating healthier \- Striving for 8 hours of sleep (which I rarely stick to) \- Meditating daily (which I rarely stick to) and with a group weekly (which I am pretty good about) \- Therapy as needed \- Seeking out mentors outside of work \- Communicating my wants/frustrations/observations sooner with people in my personal/professional lives \- Reducing work hours (I'm ok about this) and work stress (I'm not very good about this)

When I'm not doing these things, I definitely notice it. But I generally feel much better knowing the things that I can do to cope with stress, burnout, depression, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Currently working my way through "Grit" by Angela Duckworth, it has some interesting things to say on smart people and why they can often grow up into underachievers. In school, the more average kids have to study hard to achieve good grades and thus learn a strong work ethic. Smart kids can often "coast" through school and thus don't pick up the same attitude to working through boring, hard, or long-lasting work.

It's an interesting book and I'd recommend it to anyone wanting to learn more about the topic.

<comment><USER9> Interesting Idea: Find the smart kids that were up against massive cheating.

A local HS near me had a HUGE cheating scandal. It ended up on the front page of the local Big-City paper and some episodes of Dr. Phil. The story, as I heard it, was that the kids made a wiki for their classwork and tests. It worked ok the first year. But in the second year, all the kids found out that none of the teachers ever changed a single question on a test or HW. Hence, all the answers were already in a wiki, ready to be applied. This went on for a few years before they were found out. I think there were about 300 kids in the racket, but I'm not sure. HSs here are about 3k kids, so ~10% of the school.

I always wondered about the kids that were up against those cheater-kids. The smart ones that were trying to get into college (a huge motivator) yet were never clued into the cheating wiki. Likely, most of the smart kids just gave up in the face of near-perfection and massive cheating. But I imagine there were a fair few that kept on plugging away. I can't imagine what that did to their psyches, especially in those very formative years.

EDIT: Found the citation:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_Park_High_School_(Plea...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_Park_High_School_\(Pleasant_Hill,_California\)#Controversies)

<comment><USER10> Honestly, I don't see why the smart kids would care. I knew plenty of people who cheated frequently, some even got better grades overall than me. I didn't hold it against anyone though. I was lucky enough to be able to do most of the same assignments very quickly without much effort because it came easy to me. I'm not going to begrudge others the same thing.

The real problem is that most high schools provide a completely worthless education. They don't genuinely challenge gifted students or most anybody, at most they just a larger volume of work at them. High schoolers who can pass the entrance exams should just be able to go straight to community college. Community college, even for talented young people, can actually be a humbling experience for a whole host of totally different reasons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > 5\. Smart people sometimes see in-depth thinking and reflection as the > solution to every problem. Bright people are accustomed to succeeding > through their thinking skills, but can sometimes overlook when a different > approach would be more beneficial.

This really resonated with me.

One of the "problems" with over thinking things and "figuring out all the potential problems" is that when presenting the ideas/concepts/solutions one doesn't leave enough room for response by the target audience. You end up with responses like "well - you're really smart - you seem to have thought of everything". Often we really do want and _need_ the audience to have a chance to respond, poke holes, describe what they find to be useful / not useful.

<comment><USER12> I disagreed with that point, thinking through things means not making the mistakes later.

Presenting your data should spark questions or proposals or agreement regardless how much time you put into it.

I agreed with the first 4 points, but the last one seemed weak.

<comment><USER13> I read that point as sort of analysis paralysis where you just end up spending a lot of time researching and thinking through and not enough time taking action. For me, I've noticed there are times when I use thinking as a crutch to avoid actually doing. Often, doing, making a mistake, and then correcting is more expedient than analyzing all options to find the optimal one.

<comment><USER14> AB test have humbled me many times in the past and now accept that careful planning is overrated.

Instead of spending time trying to come up with the perfect idea, I work on finding the best way to test many half baked ideas.

<comment><USER15> Thank you for the AB test metaphor on this. I've been working through some overthinking recently, and I like the idea of trying to find the best way to test many ideas quickly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Reading that I can't help but think most people in the modern knowledge work classes probably identify with a lot of it. Doesn't everyone have these feelings?

This all seems very normal to me, but I'm definitely the target audience. High IQ that was praised from a young age, hated school but did well with no effort, hated team work all my life, value deep thinking as the solution to almost any problem, successful in my career by objective measure, and I feel like a failure.

I'd argue that everyone sabotages their sense of success by having poorly calibrated expectations. It isn't easy to honestly assess and accept your own capacity.

<comment><USER17> I think the article was written in such a way as to trigger the Barnum effect [0], since most people think of themselves as "smart".

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

<comment><USER18> Bravo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Read about Belbin team roles if you've never done so.

If you're someone that thrives on finding new things and learning them, revel in it, don't beat yourself up - that's valuable.

Others thrive on crossing 't's and dotting 'i's - and good luck to them, the whole point is that _teams_ succeed with the right blend of people.

[https://www.belbin.com/about/belbin-team- roles/](https://www.belbin.com/about/belbin-team-roles/)

Bottom line if you try to be perfect at _all_ dimensions, you're going to probably be unhappy: play to your strengths!

<comment><USER20> I feel like all too often that leads to an outlook where you assume whatever job you end up in must meet your preferences in all things, and it's a pretty brittle way to conduct your career. Sure, from an individual standpoint that would optimize your short term happiness, but I've found the ability to know what the role requires and be that person is a skill that's rewarding in it's own way (and often, but not always, requires a lot of growth to do it well since roles change over time).

And from a system level view, business needs don't necessarily match those roles in whatever ratio people happen to naturally occur at. I'm going to go out on a limb and say there is a gross oversupply of people who like starting things but not finishing them.

As someone who hires and manages people, if I could somehow tap into a foolproof supply of people who are primarily motivated to grind away at any problem given to them until it's finished, and have just enough sense to be effective, but not enough to start solving problems just for the sake of the novelty I could probably take over the world in about 3 weeks.

Luckily those kinds of people are almost completely absent from the human species and it's fairly difficult to organize and achieve arbitrary goals without a lot of politics and people skills in addition to simple coercion and/or funds and a plan.

<comment><USER19> Agree 100% - if you as an individual decide you're clearly a "Plant" and so don't _need_ to take care of details, that's bad. Or if you decide you're an "Implementer" and will never do well in a more creative, explorer style role, that's also bad.

I think the Belbin stuff's explicitly designed for managers though: if you have a team of "Implementers" and you know the concepts here, you might go out of your way to blend in a "Plant" to open the team's ideas up.

Much as an extravert might bring a nice element to a team of introverts. Although that could also backfire terribly depending on the personalities.

Obviously all of this has the same limitations and caveats as any other kind of pigeon-holing excercise but I think it's a worthwhile "stretch goal" when it comes to hiring, e.g. I need an accomplished JavaScript person _and_ as a bonus let's look for one that complements and rounds of our current team.

Also agree that team members who can grind away without fuss or drama and finish things are just generally worth their weight in gold. More of those please!

<comment><USER21> I think its M&P grades i.e. Professionals as well as as Managers.

When I did it I was Plant Shaper Chair for my top 3, later I did it at British Telecom the course leader said so you work at the Labs (aka UK version of bell labs) :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The phrase that comes to mind is: A students become professors, B Students become executives at large corporations. It is the C students who--perhaps lacking the traits to succeed in the previous two pursuits have no choice but to endure the risk/hardship of entrepreneurship--endow professorships and name buildings.

Examples of this:

1\. Founder of Kinkos (failed in school and had to repeat two grades)

2\. Billionaire Flavio Briatore

3\. Almost Billionaire founder of Jimmy John's subs

Another phenomenon I see often is what I'd call "The Video Professor". The founder of that company reaped a massive fortune teaching "dunderheads" how to use computers and operate simple programs like Word and Excel. Many of my techie friends would sneer and dismiss it as being "too easy" and fail to recognize the business opportunity therein or other many similar opportunities.

<comment><USER23> On the other hand, Jeff Bezos, the richest individual in modern history, graduated high school valedictorian and summa cum laude from Princeton. Anecdotes abound!

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Totally anecdotal, but I have 2 friends from the time of doing my PhD in Germany. The first one is a brilliant person, hard-working, always determined to get to the bottom of things, but is not very charismatic. The other one is totally relaxed, doesn't care about what he's doing at all, but is extremely pleasant, cheerful and willing to agree with everyone just to make them happy (and will forget what he said 5 minutes later).

5 years after graduation, the first one tried several positions from an architect to a senior researcher, couldn't stand the politics and infighting and ended up as a software engineer in a fairly conservative enterprise. The second one started as a sales consultant in a smaller place, shook a few hands and is now a project manager in a Fortune 500 company.

</comment><comment><USER25> > _5\. Smart people sometimes see in-depth thinking and reflection as the > solution to every problem._

This one really rang true for me when I was less experienced... yet for me, the solution isn't what they list.

For me it was to _talk to people_. Don't solve things too much on your own.

Spend at least as much time communicating as you do thinking, because it turns out 1) assumptions you'd never think to question turn out to be invalid all the time, and 2) other people suggest solutions you'd never come up with because they have a different thinking style and different experience.

Over-communicate even when it seems pointless, _especially_ when it seems pointless, because other people will point things out where you never imagined.

</comment><comment><USER26> honest question, has anyone ever improved their lives by reading articles of this flavor ? (e.g 10 things successfully ceo's do, 10 ways to increase your chances of building a successful company)

<comment><USER27> No, you are right: generic advice is garbage.

<comment><USER28> There are no silver bullets or precise instructions to life.

Most things must be dealt with generic advice (and it's still surprising how many get generic advice wrong, and do the opposite).

And most of what we do as people are not that unique anyway, to require any non-generic advice.

The hard part is sticking to the generic advice and making it work.

But there are no, or very few, shortcuts and precise step-by-steps procedures to success.

<comment><USER27> The alternative to generic advice isn't "precise instructions", it is specific advice.

Generic advice: if you want your startup to succeed, work had and focus.

Specific advice has to do with a situation. "I have trouble meeting my sales targets." Advice: "Hire a sales person." Q: "I don't know how?" Advice: "Do you have an HR network?" etc.

The hardest part is definitely _not_ sticking to generic advice. Generic advice is contradictory, obvious or both. (Stay focused on the big picture, vs. be detail oriented. They are both true at different times).

<comment><USER28> > _Generic advice: if you want your startup to succeed, work had and focus. > Specific advice has to do with a situation. "I have trouble meeting my sales > targets." Advice: "Hire a sales person." Q: "I don't know how?" Advice: "Do > you have an HR network?" etc._

The second advice is only useful if you've learned (or naturally follow) the first generic kind.

If you can't sit down and wort hard when its needed (but e.g. instead expect success to come easy once you've launched your startup) or if you can't focus (but instead try to do everything at once, or you're over the place, easily distracted, etc), whichever "specific" advice you're told to meet sales targets wont make much difference.

> _The hardest part is definitely not sticking to generic advice. Generic > advice is contradictory, obvious or both._

It being obvious doesn't preclude it being extremely important or it being hard.

The best advice for diet can be summarized as "eat food, not too much, mostly plants". All obvious parts, all very beneficial if followed. And yet, tons of people fail to follow through, and want magic "specific advice" ("do the avocado detox", "eat 80% protein and less of 50 grams of carbs each day" etc).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Seems survivor bias explains why many ostensibly successful people are boring. What is the anti-pattern in our organizations that produces leaders who lack competence and charisma? It's like somehow we've managed to collectively optimize against producing people others might actually admire.

Arguably much of what the author calls "relationship building," manifests in many organizations as "ability to conspire to undermine more talented and honest people."

Perhaps highly intelligent people do not belong in large organizations precisely because that particular talent is optimized for explosive growth and change that large orgs are necessarily structured to suppress in favour of stability.

One should recognize whether they are more of a fox or a hedgehog, and then decide where they belong. If you are really that intelligent, you should feel obligated to take outsize risks, because the success that comes from anything other than your talent will feel empty and dishonest. I also find that feelings of failure, shame, and regret are inversely proportional to the amount of risk I took. I wonder if that's generally true.

<comment><USER30> Easy to say "take risks", but many of the talented ones can not really afford to take any risks, those from poverty.

<comment><USER29> I'd say if you can afford it, it's not real risk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is a problem only if the person is bothered by their lack of "success".

For some, being a dilettante may precisely be the life that they want. The problem is that if you are perceived as "smart" people all around you will push you to "succeed" in traditional ways, either because they want a share of the profits of such "success", or because they see someone not doing the boring grind as a moral failure, or out of concern that the dilettante is "throwing away their potential".

I'd say that if you are "smart" then it should make your life freer and not more constrained.

</comment><comment><USER32> I don't like to think about it in terms of _smart_. I see supposedly smart people do stupid crap all the time. A better word for describing people with potential is _focus_.

</comment><comment><USER33> Been there. Done that. Have been trying to change my thinking by more thinking or some actions given prescriptions. It just doesn't work. Energy is neutral. It's how and where you use it makes the all difference.

All that this article is providing is prescriptions about how not to misuse it. The solutions given are just a prescription not really a solution. Few people might follow it successfully for few days or months and eventually get back to their conditioning. Or if they succeed in through the prescription given, they will attract other problems in their life. That's what Psychologist do, they help retrospect your life in little depth than you can and then help you persuade that you understood the problem and recognise the solution for it. But essentially what they have done is, either suppress it for the sake of ethics, morality etc. And convert the problems into some other problems unconsciously which errupts in your life after few months or years.

The very thing we are asked to drop through prescriptions or advices becomes difficult to let go of. In the very attempt of forgetting you have to keep remembering it, just to forget it. It keeps coming back to your mind. In order to forget, the more you will need to remember it the stronger that memory becomes.

What essentially they are suffering or fail to recognise is that "Knowing the path is not synonymous to walking the path". But it's easier said or understood by reading it than done.

If you seek permanent transformation, something fundamental has to be changed. Something which is the very root cause of it. Only inner transformation can help.

Dynamic meditation given by OSHO is dynamite to realease the mental and body energy blockages which cause such and various other types of hurdles. It helps you energy center to move from Body to Mind to Heart to Being.

[http://www.oshodynamic.com/five-stages.html](http://www.oshodynamic.com/five- stages.html)

Before adopting this meditation I have asked thousand questions about it's genuineness and how it works but none of that help. It is only by actually trying for few weeks I could see the change in my character.

Note: I am not associated with any OSHO's meditation centre or their work. I am just someone who tried it and found it useful.

</comment><comment><USER34> I've said that ambition beats smart any day of the week. I have seen it in my life multiple times. (Of course, ambition plus smart is a killer combo.)

</comment><comment><USER35> I've a colleague who can barely put a sentence together much less conduct and understand a complex analysis, yet this person has twice the umber of QUALITY papers as me..HOW? This person is really good at getting other people to do the work. Once I realized this I disengaged from this person's schemes, but I found it frustrating.

</comment><comment><USER27> devalue relationships, frustrated with team-mates, ego, boredom and over- reliance on one's thoughts.

It seems smart people sabotage their success in exactly the same way as dumb people.

<comment><USER36> They're just more clever about it

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I'm smart, but wouldn't say I am super smart...but I am pretty damn tenacious to perfect whatever I am doing...this makes people impressed with my work but frustrated at my slow pace...to the point where the latter is interfering with my career.

<comment><USER37> I've have the exact same problem. My tenaciousness has given me the ability to understand concepts and obtain skills beyond my "natural ability". But it doesn't make me fast at them.

Anyone out there successfully overcome this problem?

<comment><USER35> Perfect is the enemy of good.

So I guess know when it is important to perfect, but allow yourself to be mediocre when it doesn't matter...So I guess I work on determining whether the thing I am working on really needs perfection or not.

Note: I am a researcher.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I see the boring work as the way to finance the fun stuff. Helps a lot.

</comment><comment><USER39> Of course everybody here who isn't successful assumes it's because of their intellect...classic Hacker News.

</comment><comment><USER40> I highly recommend Marshall Goldsmith's What Got You Here Won't Get You There. [https://www.marshallgoldsmith.com/product/book-2/](https://www.marshallgoldsmith.com/product/book-2/)

Great book on overcoming smart people faults.

</comment><comment><USER41> The title is wrong. It should have been: How Intelligent People Sabotage Their Success.

But is all filler anyway. Current western societies are amoral. So dumb vs intelligent is out of the question. If you don't have any regrets about f.u.c.k.i.n.g people and luck is on your side, you win. And big.

</comment><comment><USER42> 1 and 3 are the focus of Carol Dweck's book Mindset, which I'm really enjoying. It's all about how valuing intelligence over effort is counterproductive.

[http://a.co/d/1mV8oQv](http://a.co/d/1mV8oQv)

</comment><comment><USER43> Contains a typo... someone should just figure out the top queries related to 1\. Fear 2\. Guilt 3\. Shame

And generate random buzzword articles... LOL ... that's a unicorn folks!

"Develop relationships with people who you trust to give you help constructive feedback."

</comment><comment><USER44> > people he outperformed at school who have now achieved more

This matter-of-fact tone irks me. It implies that the reader must see life as a competition ("outperformed", "achieved more") just to understand the sentence.

</comment><comment><USER45> Trying to beat the stock market, when it's incredibly difficult. Even actively managed mutual funds fail to consistently beat the market average.

<comment><USER46> That's called "thinking you're smarter than everyone else." That's not the same as _being intelligent_. You can read about and learn how to intelligently invest your money over the desired time period for the goal you have. And if you have a long time period, you can read that you're most likely to succeed by dumping it in a total stock market index fund!

<comment><USER45> I still think it's a trap that a lot of smart people fall into. I know a lot of really smart people who try to beat the stock market.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I feel like the suggested remedies are rather thin on details. It would be nice if the author provided some citations for further reading.

</comment><comment><USER43> Develop relationships with people who you trust to give you help constructive feedback.

Contains a typo... Don't listen to their pontifications folks!

</comment><comment><USER48> _5\. Smart people sometimes see in-depth thinking and reflection as the solution to every problem.

...

Which of these five patterns do you identify with the most? Try rank-ordering them. Are there colleagues or other people in your life who seem to fall into these traps?_

Err...how ironic.

More to the point, it seems like #5 should actually be about thinking and reflecting poorly. Taking a break from thinking about your career decision to solve a puzzle might help you think better when you pick it up again. It won't solve the problem directly.

</comment><comment><USER18> #5 is basically an overclocked mind running DFS.

</comment><comment><USER49> Title should be: How people who think they are smart sabotage their success.

<comment><USER50> I'd title it...How to Justify and Frame Your Success as Meritocracy In Light of People Much Smarter than you Not Succeeding Because They Lack Your Connections

<comment><USER51> or "Why it's your own fault you aren't successful despite your abilities and skills."

<comment><USER50> That's just it's...IMO it's saying if you are smart and not successful you have no ability or skills.

Which we all know isn't true. The lack of social mobility in the US has nothing to do with lack of ability or skills. Power and wealth are to concentrated and "success" is more dependent on access to those than being smart, having abilities or skills.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> As an aside, the font(and size) they've chosen for the copy in this article looks dreadful on a Win10/Chrome setup. Chrome tells me it's: "Garamond,Baskerville,"Times New Roman",serif". I don't know if it's using an embedded version of Garamond, or the one that ships with the OS, but I could barely get through the article.

<comment><USER53> Looks like your browser isn't picking up the web-fonts. Having disabled the web-font, the font-stack they've chosen is definitely a lot harder for my to read.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> "Smart" had nothing to do with any of this, other than to flatter the reader.

</comment><comment><USER55> This is why drugs like adderall are popular among people who get bored easily.</comment>


A new way to make steel could cut 5% of CO2 emissions at a stroke - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611961/this-mit-spinout-could-finally-clean-up-steel-one-of-the-globes-biggest-climate-polluters/ <comment><USER2> One thing that human space exploration/settlement teaches us more than anything is how to do everything without net carbon emissions. Solar power? Nuclear power? Both essential to and pioneered in part by space exploration. Same for fuel cell tech. On the International Space Station, CO2 is sucked from the cabin air, combined with hydrogen (produced as a byproduct of producing oxygen by splitting water, much of which was recycled from the air and waste water and urine) to make methane and more water.

ISS also is getting a plastic recycling machine that will be used to 3D print replacement parts from plastic waste and old parts.

Human spaceflight is like the Sustainability Olympics.

<comment><USER3> Right, some nice inventions are due to space race but just after two giant boosters worth of propergol were burnt. And making those things that go to space are not completely carbon neutral either.

<comment><USER4> Rockets seem like giant greenhouse gas emitters because they burn a lot of fuel in a short time. But it turns out, they're actually comparable with airplanes.

Random googling gives following two figures to compare:

"A jumbo jet (Boeing 747-400) flying from London to New York burns approximately 70,000 kilograms of fuel"[0]

Falcon 9 Full Thrust - Takeoff mass (tonnes) 549, Payload to LEO (kg) (from Cape Canaveral) 22,800 (expendable)[1]

So, roughly 70 metric tons of fuel for a London->New York flight, vs. 500 metric tons for a LEO launch. It's quite comparable. Now consider that there's _five orders of magnitude_ more flights than there's rocket launches[2]. Even if you take an order of magnitude off that to account for most flights being shorter than LHR->JFK, you still end up with space launches barely registering. And then some rocket fuels are non-carbon-emitting.

\--

[0] - [https://www.flightdeckfriend.com/ask-a-captain/how-much- fuel...](https://www.flightdeckfriend.com/ask-a-captain/how-much-fuel-does-a- jumbo-jet-burn/)

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Performance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Performance)

[2] - [https://garfors.com/2014/06/100000-flights-day- html/](https://garfors.com/2014/06/100000-flights-day-html/) says > 100k flights per day, and there's less than 1 space launch per day.

<comment><USER5> How can there be fuels that don't emit CO2? Don't they burn?

<comment><USER4> Combustion is exothermic oxidization; that's something completely unrelated to carbon. E.g. hydrogen burns in presence of oxygen, releasing water. Or magnesium burns into magnesium oxide. It so happens that most of the fuels we burn have carbon in them, but that's not a requirement.

<comment><USER5> Huh, yeah, when you put it that way I guess oxidization requires oxygen but obviously does not require carbon. I'd never thought of that, thanks!

<comment><USER6> It does not require oxygen either. Oxidization happens when a substance reacts to any other one that attract more electrons.

<comment><USER5> Ah, that I didn't know at all, thank you.

<comment><USER4> That's a little thing that they tell you in high school chemistry classes (remember "reduction–oxidation reactions", or "redox"?), which you then promptly forget. I only remembered because of an unhealthy interest in home- made rocket propellants :).

<comment><USER5> > remember "reduction–oxidation reactions", or "redox"?

Clearly no :P Also I realized that, unless I have a specific problem I need to solve, I don't remember or like reading about things. I have been taught things in school/uni that I thought were terribly boring and was bad at, until I needed to solve a problem with that information and then I had to re-learn everything. Kind of a waste of time, but I can't change my brain!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Excerpt: "NASA had offered a quarter-million-dollar prize to the first research team that could figure out how to extract oxygen from the moon's surface, a precondition for establishing lunar bases. Sadoway proposed using an electrolytic cell—which produces an electric current to break down compounds—to extract oxygen from lunar rocks. The by-product was molten metal, a realization that led him to explore the possibility of using a similar approach to process metals back on Earth."

Two for the price of one! (Well, potential solutions to problems that is! One, how to generate oxygen on other planets, and two, how to smelt metals on this one while generating less carbon emissions. Well played!)

<comment><USER8> Interestingly, this is exactly the process used in Andy Weir's new novel Artemis and makes oxygen the least of the problems of the moon city that the novel is named after.

<comment><USER9> I highly recommend the audio book version read by Rosario Dawson.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> From the article:

 _Until the product is actually built and tested at commercial scale, it's too early to say how well or affordably it will really work._

 _Moreover, merely producing a green version of a product for around the same price won't be enough to transform the industry, given the billions of dollars in sunk costs in steel mills that can operate for decades._

 _Even if the perfect technology came on the scene today, it'd probably be several decades before we could effectively transition to it_

Talk about playing the long game...

I wonder how much cheaper their method would need to be, given the above. Would it be faster/cheaper to develop perfect scrubbers to retrofit onto existing mills? (Funded through donations, and/or to sell to offset carbon taxes.)

Still good to have this new technology available to transition to down the line.

<comment><USER11> I read a retrospective paper by a Norwegian group that worked on electrowinning iron from mixed sulfide ores. Taking iron sulfide waste and converting it to sulfuric acid and iron sheet. I think they were getting 4.25kwh per kg. Nop idea if that is good or not but at $0.15/kwh that's $640/ton.

I thought about that over the last few years because it's aqueous process so should be able to run intermittently.

Edit: Paper

[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.843...](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.843.3769&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

<comment><USER12> 640$/ton won't be profitable as that's about the current price for high end steels.

OTOH, I remember industrial electricity prices to be closer to 7-10cents per kWh, so it won't be that far off what we have now.

<comment><USER13> Energy prices are going to be key here. The mistake would be assuming they are a constant though. They've been trending down and lately coal has been considered on the expensive end of the spectrum. Those prices have been trending down due to clean energy prices dropping. Both solar and wind are now winning bids on price that used to go to coal plants. Also as coal plants shut down and coal mines are closed, coal might actually get more hard to get (i.e. more expensive). Some recent solar plants are delivering power well below the prices you cite (I've heard prices going as low as 3-4 cents/kWh).

I could imagine most steel plants are big enough that they'd want their own infrastructure in any case. So, for a future steel plant based on this stuff with its own cheap energy supply, it might end up being cheaper and cleaner. That could end up being really disruptive.

<comment><USER14> Energy prices and the price of carbon dioxide emissions, especially in Europe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The steel industry isn't really as "conservative" as is being portrayed here. In the past 30 years, the amount of recycled metal being used has skyrocketed, and entire companies have come to power because of it. Sure, big old U.S. Steel is behind the times, but that's true for any industry.

<comment><USER16> > Sure, big old U.S. Steel is behind the times, but that's true for any > industry.

U.S. Steel operates integrated mills, which make steel from raw materials. "Mini-mills" make steel using electric arc blast furnaces to recycle existing steel.

If you need very high quality steel, you have to get it from an integrated mill. Everyone else can use the recycled stuff. The real benefit that you are talking about is the fact that recycled steel quality is improving enough to be useful in more applications.

PS - U.S. Steel is converting their Alabama mill to an electric arc blast furnace (they may have finished by now).

<comment><USER15> >If you need very high quality steel, you have to get it from an integrated mill.

This just isn't true anymore. Process control has improved a lot since EAF mills were first created.

EAF mills also provide more flexibility because they can make much smaller batches. This allows for more niche alloys to become accessible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> TL;DR: This is a well known technique, but isn't used because the economics don't work out.

This technique looks nearly identical to the technique used to make aluminium from aluminium oxide.

The only difference is it needs to happen much hotter (1500C vs 700C).

The process uses a _lot_ of electricity, so much that it is the main cost of aluminium production.

The process, when used in steelmaking, would use 824.2 kJ/mol of iron(III) oxide, producing 111.6 g/mol of iron. That works out to 7.42 kJ / g, or 2 kwh per kilogram of steel. Price varies widely worldwide, but with the cheapest electricity in europe that works out to about $0.10.[1]

Thats lots of electricity for the refining process, and it seems likley that 0.7kg of coal [2] works out far far cheaper at $0.05 [3].

[1]: [https://1-stromvergleich.com/electricity-prices- europe/](https://1-stromvergleich.com/electricity-prices-europe/) [2]: [https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-coal/how-steel- produced](https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-coal/how-steel-produced) [3]: [https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/coal- price](https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/coal-price)

<comment><USER18> Looking into those calculations, I see the current average energy used to make 1 kg of steel is about 10 thousand BTU [1] - about 3 kWh. 75% is consumed in blast furnace and "About 50% of an integrated facility's energy input comes from coal, 35% from electricity, 5% from natural gas and 5% from other gasses [2]"

Your estimate of 2kWh per kilo would look very promising for this process. Also the comparison of electrical price, with the price for raw coal surely begs some adjustment.

[1] [https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-does-it-take-to- produc...](https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-does-it-take-to-produce- steel)

[2] [https://www.worldsteel.org/en/dam/jcr:f07b864c-908e-4229-9f9...](https://www.worldsteel.org/en/dam/jcr:f07b864c-908e-4229-9f92-669f1c3abf4c/fact_energy_2016.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> At a stroke*

*Not including the time required to retool the entire Earth's iron smelters into electrolytic smelters and build out associated electric infrastructure needed to accompany the exponential increase of a country's energy intake.

<comment><USER20> That's spinning too hard in the other direction. This is a technique for smelting. Once smelted and shipped, the metal is always going to be remelted anyway to mix and cast the final alloy. And in fact in the modern world the bulk of this work is done with electricity already in an electric arc furnace.

We're talking about a constant factor on top of a steel industry already very dependent on electrical power, certainly not (sigh) an "exponential increase of a country's energy intake".

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> "In the main approach to steelmaking today, iron oxide is placed into a blast furnace with coke, a hard, porous substance derived from coal... This and other steps in the process pump around 1.7 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually, ... And that's before taking into account the fuels required to fire the furnaces."

The coke _is_ the fuel that fires the furnaces.

<comment><USER22> Blast furnaces do not need fuel to create iron, the process in which iron oxide is converted to iron is endothermic but the coke itself is the fuel in the furnace. It actually is necessary to do this to produce carbon monoxide which reacts with the iron oxide.

<comment><USER23> It can get very complicated. There are a few different reactions which occur in a Blast Furnace some are exothermic some are endothermic.

BF is very simplistically a giant counter current reactor. Ore and Coke (the reactants) are added at the top at room temperature and hot gas (the "blast") is injected at the bottom and they flow past each other.

CO is not the only reductant that plays a role Hydrogen primarily from the humidity contained within injected gas also plays a role in the heat balance of the furnace.

Hydrogen is actually very efficient at reducing iron and avoids the CO2 byproduct. I know in the past some alternative ironmaking methods have looked into using things like hydrogen gas and natural gas (CH4) to directly reduce iron ore using a process abbreviated as DRI (Direct Reduced Iron) and for a while in the '90's this was marketed as a Blast Furnace alternative I haven't really kept up with technology.

I started my career as a Metallurgist (Materials Engineer) working at a Blast Furnace they are hugely complicated beasts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> black-tea Great! That means we can make more steel.</comment>


Google Correlate - Draw - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/draw?p=us <comment><USER2> This is a great brainstorming tool for doing light blogspam-style "journalism", if your readers don't know about it (which they probably don't). Draw something with a rather unlikely looking feature— a graph that strikes the reader as quite definitely not just random noise. See if you get anything interesting in return. If yes, conjure up a backstory, and write up a post in a confident, assertive tone, that closes with the graph as your "care to explain _this_?!" evidence nailing home your suspicion.

<comment><USER3> confirmation bias in its most unadulterated form. excellent.

<comment><USER2> In a way it's even an improvement on confirmation bias. With confirmation bias, you have a conclusion you want to sell, and selectively search for evidence that might support it. But with this suggestion, you search for interesting evidence, and then invent a conclusion that it might support, post-hoc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Seems like the typical "pre-Plus" Google project: limited usefulness, but interesting from an engineering standpoint.

Noticed that it still contains share buttons for two defunct Google services: Google Buzz and Google Reader

<comment><USER5> This was one of the many projects that got gutted by Plus, I'm surprised that it's still being hosted at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Bad news for "linux"

[http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id%3AWuHjnma...](http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id%3AWuHjnmaXanT&e=linux&t=weekly&p=us#)

Wow, I can share with Google buzz. /nostalgia

<comment><USER7> I tried the same curve and got open source and free software. This is rather depressing but it's predictable.

<comment><USER8> predictable? how so?

<comment><USER9> foss is a nerd thing. The general consumer has no idea what source code is in the first place, they often don't know what an application or OS is, they just click the thing on the screen to make facebook appear.

So it loses search percentage because it isn't becoming a mainstream concept, which is sad. People should care more about their software freedom but they don't even know what software is.

<comment><USER8> Right, I get why linux / FOSS in general adoption isn't high. But why declining?

<comment><USER10> The number of people, globally, using the internet, is still on that same near exponential growth curve that the first world nations were seeing in the late 90s. It really hasn't subsided; only gone to lower income brackets.

Heck, half of the US didn't have reliable access to the web until I _think_ 2002?

And these late adopters, they are both non-english speakers and non-technical people.

Additionally, the early adopters, let's take my parents, who had Prodigy in about 1990, are now using the web more for things like shopping and content consumption, then they did in 1998.

If they wanted to watch the latest TV show, they can do that now online, AND they know this. Compare that to 2004. That will be reflected in the search terms.

Also, there are internet phenomenons that are at the order of that which we have not seen. Psy's videos on youtube for instance; 1 ba-ba-billion+? That's insane.

So yeah, Linux is left in the dust. Also, it's much easier than it used to be - take that from someone who's been using it since 1996 (?)

I need to do a write-up some time soon of how good we have it now - for my own memory.

<comment><USER9> It isn't really left in the dust, the growth rate of tech adoption is just greater than the exposure rate of FOSS and related technologies. Which is sad, but since Microsoft is the primary conduit of traditional computing systems (and today it is Google) it is against both their interests to introduce users to open compute platforms.

I imagine what will happen is that foss and linux will pick back up in popularity over time when technology hits global saturation and the only difference is old people dying and new people entering the market. The younger crowd is more likely to inquisitively understand computers better and realize they aren't just a dumb tool to be used to view facebook.

<comment><USER11> "The younger crowd is more likely to inquisitively understand computers better and realize they aren't just a dumb tool to be used to view facebook."

Why would the younger crowd of the future be any more likely to want to understand the underlying workings of a computer than today's younger crowd who uses a computer to view Facebook? I would argue that, young or old, those who want to know how their appliances work will always be a small minority.

<comment><USER9> Todays facebook crowd didn't grow up engrossed in consumer computers and the Internet from infancy, but from their preteens. I imagine the millenials will, having grown up entirely exposed to pervasive international information sharing, be more inquisitive as to how the devices that dictate their social lives work.

I mean, it is just my impression, but my 10 year old half brother can sit down at a Linux box and install games he wants to play in wine without having any idea what he is doing. That is more praise of wine than my brother, though =P

My argument is that when you grow engrossed in this technology it is much more influential on your life and thus most inquisitive minds would find it much more relevant to learn what they actually are, versus the older generations who only recently adopted these technologies as an accentuation of old habits. For one it is a tool, the other it is a way of life.

<comment><USER10> Do you know how your refrigerator works? automobile? What about the mechanization of the lock on your front door? could you construct a radio from base components?

Alas, no. I think we will have a generation of computer programmers just as likely as we would have a future one of plumbers, electricians, home-builders, or even exercise and health specialists.

I think it may be the opposite. Yes, fewer programmers by 2050 than today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My first try, with a hockey-stick growth pattern starting 2007. Expected a match with "twitter," instead got "baby poop."

[http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id:iOj8ICadD...](http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id:iOj8ICadD9v&t=weekly&p=us)

<comment><USER13> I believe twitter didn't start seeing crazy growth until 2009 once they focus on activating their users and moving away from the idea that everyone needs to tweet to use twitter.

Google trends seems to confirm 2009 was when it started to really work too [http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=twitter#q=twitter&cmp...](http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=twitter#q=twitter&cmpt=q)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Spikes in 2008 and 2012: [http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id:pBuWinPLv...](http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id:pBuWinPLvPW&t=weekly&p=us)

</comment><comment><USER15> This one made me laugh.

[http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id:bnqK1ZVJS...](http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id:bnqK1ZVJSUt&t=weekly&p=us#)

</comment><comment><USER16> Pasta Salad spikes (July 4th anyone?) [http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=pasta+salad&...](http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=pasta+salad&t=weekly&p=us)

</comment><comment><USER17> 2011: [http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2385932,00.asp](http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2385932,00.asp)

</comment><comment><USER18> Anyone know why "bruising" and "brown spots" are common in the summer? Not as nice as the canonical answer of "ice cream"...

[http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id:UfmYZwmin...](http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id:UfmYZwminh7&t=weekly&p=us)

In case you're wondering what's popular in winter: it's lots of diseases!

<comment><USER19> Stone fruit (peaches, plums, apricots, nectarines) are in season in the summer and easily bruise and get brown spots when they overripen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Very useful for looking up what people care about: [http://i.imgur.com/puNZMco.png](http://i.imgur.com/puNZMco.png)

1\. (antidepressant drug) 2\. "county jail" 3\. "google" 4\. "detention center" 5\. (vinyl music database)

</comment><comment><USER21> This is rather awesome.

</comment><comment><USER22> This would also be cool if instead of search terms you could see stock prices.

</comment><comment><USER23> Apparently the internet was (comparatively) less funny between 2006 and 2012: [http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id%3AO6yJxan...](http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id%3AO6yJxanOGz_&e=funny+photos&t=weekly&p=us)

</comment><comment><USER24> Peak in 2005 and than a linear decline: "Linux firefox". [http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id%3AI9yHeUP...](http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id%3AI9yHeUPqUAK&e=linux+firefox&t=weekly&p=us)

</comment><comment><USER25> Power rangers dino thunder apparently made some kind of comeback.

[http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id%3AFlLikxM...](http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id%3AFlLikxMOjJe&e=power+rangers+dino+thunder&t=weekly&p=us)

</comment><comment><USER26> My first try got me "free Blackberry software"

[http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id%3AUbuw550...](http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id%3AUbuw550lo6b&e=free+blackberry+software&t=weekly&p=us#)

<comment><USER27> I got "blackberry support", spot on

[http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id%3AWbipmJ-...](http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id%3AWbipmJ- QHqq&e=blackberry+support&t=weekly&p=us)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I tried drawing a "hockey stick" graph and stopped too soon. Got wamu =).

[http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id:Bds44NUk_...](http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id:Bds44NUk_m3&t=weekly&p=us)

We miss you wamu!

</comment><comment><USER29> Make 100% on 2005, 2007, 2009, etc. and you'll have Cirque Du Soleil visits in San Francisco!

</comment><comment><USER30> Is the metric system cool now? [http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id%3AJrnBhwp...](http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id%3AJrnBhwp5wJG&e=cm+inches&t=weekly&p=us)

</comment><comment><USER31> Tried a downhill curve and I got yahoo.com [http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id:IwiF_9hYU...](http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id:IwiF_9hYUo3&t=weekly&p=ro)

</comment><comment><USER32> Staircase growth then major drop = Yahoo

[http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id:g1F7bodyg...](http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id:g1F7bodygJJ&t=weekly&p=us)

</comment><comment><USER33> [http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id:zmsMT3XqC...](http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id:zmsMT3XqC01&t=weekly&p=us)

ok, so porn links are allowed in this

</comment><comment><USER34> The implementation probably uses SAX (Symbolic Aggregate approXimation). [http://code.google.com/p/jmotif/wiki/SAX](http://code.google.com/p/jmotif/wiki/SAX)

</comment><comment><USER35> what happened to htomail.com ? ;) [http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id%3AZYTVOj4...](http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id%3AZYTVOj4sclQ&e=www.htomail.com&t=weekly&p=us)

. . . . . . .

Pulled from a search farther down in the comments section: Why was this a question... ever?

[http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id%3ApBuWinP...](http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=id%3ApBuWinPLvPW&e=what+is+the+difference+between+lcd+and+led&t=weekly&p=us)

<comment><USER36> That's a pretty legitimate question. At that time, LED TVs were starting to be marketed pretty heavily. I myself didn't understand what an LED TV was. Turns out it's an LCD but with an LED backlight, so it runs cooler and uses less electricity.

The question isn't really the difference between LED and LCD, it's the difference between an LCD TV and an LCD TV with an LED backlight.

<comment><USER35> Hmmm... I guess I was kinda drunk when I asked that question because I read: "What's the difference between _LSD_ and LED?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> The whitepaper describes an approximate nearest neighbor algorithm, but I thought this would use some form of signal decomposition...Discrete Cosine Transform or Fourier Transform.

<comment><USER38> If I recall correctly, that only works on periodic signals, and not all the Google keyword trends are periodic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Thing I found most interesting about this is - it allows you to 'Share' your results on _Google Buzz_ , _Google Reader_ and, most shockingly, Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER40> Very neat to find local trends. Try drawing a boom (immediate spike) at some point in time to find something that trended highly back then.

</comment><comment><USER41> This reminds me of the fun I had in high school writing "shell oil" on my calculator.

</comment><comment><USER42> Can someone elaborate on the method they use?

</comment><comment><USER43> I drew a penis, and it correlated with www.mail.google.com

<comment><USER44> Strange, in my case, it correlated with the NSA. Well, I may have drawn a bigger one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> "Please sign in to use this tool." That's all I see when I am not signed in. Too confident on Google's part that the people will always be signed in or do they actually need any personal info to use this tool?

<comment><USER46> Maybe it's a rate limiting thing? This is a relatively expensive search, and they probably don't want people to mechanically download all the graphs. The UI does support uploading your own time series data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> This is hilarious.</comment>


How much has Citizens United really changed the political game? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/magazine/how-much-has-citizens-united-changed-the-political-game.html?pagewanted=all

<comment><USER2> Just a minor nit with the opening paragraph - citizens united did not give corporations any rights. It merely reaffirmed the free speech rights of their _owners_. I.e., you have the right to free speech, and you can use your computer, your telephone or your corporation to further that speech.

Among other things, Citizens United protects the free speech rights of the _owners_ of computers, a topic we discussed here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4139590>

</comment><comment><USER3> Another good article is "Five myths about super PACs": [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about- supe...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-super- pacs/2012/04/13/gIQAGPnEFT_print.html).

</comment><comment><USER4> Here is an idea I just had. What if the PACs where required to list their 10 top contributors on any ad that they run.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is a really good report by the NYT about Citizens United actual impact on politics. It really cuts through the talking points that have been parroted by the left for a while now.

Ira Glasser, the former executive director of the ACLU (1978-2001) wrote a good piece about Citizens United here: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira- glasser/understanding-the-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira- glasser/understanding-the-emcitiz_b_447342.html)</comment>


HAML: the unforgivable sin - <AUTHOR> http://opensoul.org/blog/archives/2011/11/30/haml-the-unforgivable-sin/ <comment><USER2> I spend my days working concurrently on married Rails (with HAML) and PHP (with...PHP templates) applications, and I will unequivocally say that the HAML templates are cleaner, easier to read, easier to maintain, and easier to develop on.

HAML put me off at first because I thought exactly as this guy did - "Why do I need to learn an abstraction? It'll just slow me down. I know HTML well enough already." Once I actually started using it, my opinion there flip-flopped _insanely_ quickly. I guess I would say that if you find HAML too hard to read, you haven't spent enough time reading it. Most any form of data expression takes _some_ time to learn.

HAML makes me faster. A lot faster. Not having to track down where a closing tag was omitted, never accidentally crossing tag scope, and being able to trivially ascertain the selector path of a given bit of markup makes templating _fast_. I do a lot of it "the old way" too, and...it's just not as fun. It's frustrating, and slow, and it's not because I'm bad at it - I did it for years before HAML - it's because if you take the time to learn it, HAML is genuinely better.

Terseness is a feature. It's not just an abstraction for abstraction's sake - removing boilerplate and clutter that isn't really needed to concisely express an idea is a real, tangible, honest-to-god feature. It's why I sigh every time I have to maintain a config file in XML rather than JSON or YAML or even just good old INI format. It is _the_ primary selling point of Coffeescript. It's why Java is the butt of so many jokes. It's why people write DSLs.

Maybe HAML isn't useful to you. That's fine. Whatever you're most productive in, work in that. But it's just arrogant to proclaim from on high that HAML is an "unforgivable sin" and that anyone using it is worthy of nothing but scorn and contempt.

<comment><USER3> My love for haml was formed in about... 5 minutes. I took an existing template (had some free time) and ported it to haml. After eliminating about 30% of the typed characters/lines on that template, I realized how much less work it was to create a haml template vs html. Less maintenance, less syntactic bloat, the content just flowed. Mind you I have been writing HTML for 4 years now without any problems.

I no longer had debates (do I add a  tag here because I really don't f-ing feel like typing it) because it was trivial. It let me focus on content rather than the html.

Also zero possibility of someone screwing up indentation thus causing a 100 line file to become completely unmaintainable. Which happens VERY often in html unless the writer is disciplined to all hell.

Also: less characters + cleaner syntax = significantly easier to comprehend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When writing JavaScript or CSS, I find it much easier to determine how to select an element, since classes and IDs follow CSS (and thus jQuery, et al) selector syntax.

To wit, I find it much easier to derive 'ul#foo .bar' from

      %ul#foo
        %li "Hello"
        %li.bar "World"

Than from

Hello

World

Being able to more confidently and accurately pick selectors out of markup is, for me, a concrete win.

<comment><USER5> Consider haml to erector:

      %ul#foo
        %li "Hello"
        %li.bar "World"

      ul :id => 'foo'
        li 'hello'
        li :class => 'bar' 'world'
      end

I personally don't like haml's use of seemingly arbitrary keywords. Coming back to a project and having to reread documentation due to cryptic syntax wastes time.

<comment><USER2> What arbitrary keywords? "." and "#" are the existing CSS selectors for "class" and "ID", and I personally really like that I don't have to type them out all the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So HAML is bad because it is "purely an abstraction of syntax", but CoffeeScript is good because it adds things that are "extremely cumbersome to code by hand". I'd say the closing tags, quotes, attribute names, doctype declarations, etc that HAML removes are just as "cumbersome".

<comment><USER7> You failed to quote the rest of his premise: "CoffeeScript guards against common coding mistakes, like ensuring variables are properly declared within lexical scope."

I don't use HAML so I don't know, but does it provide features like that?

<comment><USER8> In a manner of speaking. Some things are difficult to do in HAML, which happen to be things you shouldn't be doing anyway.

For example, I don't know how to write multi-line Ruby code (with the exception of function calls) in HAML. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a way, but you can't just drop it in like you can with ERB. This means that if you need multiple lines of Ruby, you move the code a more appropriate area (model, helper, controller, etc).

<comment><USER9> You do multi-line Ruby the same way you do multi-line javascript or css:

      :ruby
        # ruby code goes here
      :css
        body { of-css: styles; }
      :javascript
        alert('and JS here');

":something" defines a language filter in Haml, and it reads the whole indented block through that filter, and sometimes wraps it in a tag (:css and :javascript get free %style and %script tags). Also available are :plain, :sass, :textile, :markdown, etc. [http://haml- lang.com/docs/yardoc/file.HAML_REFERENCE.html#fi...](http://haml- lang.com/docs/yardoc/file.HAML_REFERENCE.html#filters)

Or, if you're a bit masochistic, you can use the multiline character: "|" [http://haml-lang.com/docs/yardoc/file.HAML_REFERENCE.html#mu...](http://haml- lang.com/docs/yardoc/file.HAML_REFERENCE.html#multiline)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Personally I use HAML because of readability, I find that it's much easier to parse and see exactly what is going on compared to html with all the extraneous syntax...

Well, to each his own, and sometimes it's also a question of taste

<comment><USER8> I was thinking the same thing. When our team originally brought HAML to me, my initial reaction was similar. There's not enough value here to justify hitching the wagon to this (at the time) small project. Rather than react immediately, I took a couple of hours and converted some ERB templates to HAML. The end result was so much more readable, and because HAML uses document structure for interpretation, far more consistent.

So, I'd take issue with the author on the following points:

* I find HAML _more_ readable than HTML

* I find that HAML also gets you better structure and consistency in your view files

That's enough for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wow, there's no hyperbole in this title.

Come on, it took me less than a day to become familiar and comfortable with HAML (on first glance I would have agreed with the readability criticism).

As for usefulness, it has several features I find really useful:

1\. Using CSS style syntax to define divs

2\. Inline ':markdown', ':textile', etc. for content

3\. Really convenient way to inline javascript also great for UJS

4\. A much cleaner looking syntax for using helpers and in-lining ruby

I will partially give into the author's claim that it does require you be a bit more careful, the white space formatting bites me in the ass from time to time. I occasionally run into bugs that are a bit confusing with code blocks and helpers, however it isn't a big enough problem for me to want to switch back to ERB.

</comment><comment><USER12> I like HAML ( or even better SLIM <http://slim-lang.com> ) because it directly represents what HTML ultimately results in; a DOM. SLIM and HAML have a similar representation as to what you see in a DOM inspector.

</comment><comment><USER13> There are some more serious issues with Haml, Sass etc. that I wonder aren't brought up more frequently. One is simply tool support, in Firebug or Chrome developer tools I see HTML/CSS/Javascript not Haml/Sass/CoffeeScript. As soon as I start using any of those "add-on" languages, I cannot refer to the line numbers Firebug gives me for the various CSS classes, nor to the line numbers a JavaScript debugger gives me, in fact I have to debug something more or less different to what I wrote. In the end I cannot just know Haml/Sass/CoffeeScript, I have to know both HTML and HAML, both CSS and Sass, both CoffeeScript and JavaScript and switch between those languages frequently. Unless you have a very small / very simple codebase, I think this makes things not simpler, but more complex.

<comment><USER4> > As soon as I start using any of those "add-on" languages, I cannot refer to > the line numbers [...]

I can't say I disagree, but I don't think this is a serious impediment. Though Sass and CoffeeScript have recently pushed this sort of referential opacity into CSS and JavaScript, it's been an "issue" in HTML markup for decades: As soon as you introduce any kind of templating or conditional logic, you're handing the browser generated content that doesn't map directly to line numbers of files on disk.

In that vein, how is Haml different from ERB or Jinja2? The latter may superficially resemble HTML, but they _aren't_ HTML. An even stronger parallel could be drawn from Less or Sass's scss syntax.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Conciseness is the major benefit of haml. As a given template in haml is shorter than its equivalent in html or erb, then naturally each line requires more attention to read, there's more information in it.

So perhaps html is "easier" to "read", but in html you're mostly reading noise.

<comment><USER15> _but in html you're mostly reading noise._

To quantify: In your typical web-templates that contain little actual content you'll easily approach 50% noise.

Next time you re-arrange some HTML template, pay attention to the time you spend searching, counting and re-ordering all those closing spans and divs.

That's why people like HAML - it actually saves time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I use HAML, I disagree with the main point of the article. Not only that, this is an opinion piece, offers no actual evidence of HAML being harder to parse/read (which I find ridiculous) than HTML. My opinion piece? I love HAML, would not go back to HTML by choice. How are you going validate this opinion? Let's bring quality articles back to HN, no more FUD please.

<comment><USER17> Hell yes. TQuality has been lacking as of late. Maybe it's just that newbie illusion PG has talked about or maybe it's real. I feel it's real but hope its an illusion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> If HAML is an unforgivable sin I want to be a sinner.

Btw, HAML eliminates a class of errors (improper tag nesting) and I find it much easier to read. To each his own, but I don't get why such an opinion piece is front page on HN. Is this the new Proggit?

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't trust the opinion of anyone who finds HAML "infinitely harder" to read than regular html and erb. I felt totally comfortable with HAML after only a couple days of using it.

In my opinion it boils down to a vi versus emacs style flamewar. I'm going to use HAML, but if people are happy without HAML then more power to them.

</comment><comment><USER20> Yah, I'm skeptical of any language whose job is simply to make writing another language prettier. If the problems of the lower language leak through, then you have to be fluent in two languages for a single problem.

To all would-be language designers out there: Are you aiming to fix a perceived language deficiency or a problem-solving deficiency?

C, Perl, etc. are abstractions of the problem of programming, not the problem of writing assembly.

In contrast, HAML is an abstraction of the problem of noisy HTML, not an abstraction of the problem of page layout.

</comment><comment><USER21> Did I just see a syntactic tool derided for being only good at reducing and enhancing syntax? From a Ruby developer?

It's all about expressive code. There's nothing of value in a closing tag. Nothing. No information than cannot be carried with pithy indentation.

And as others explained well, Haml when used in conjunction with scripting languages encourages the removal of controller and model logic from the view layer.

It doesn't try to add anything else to HTML because what the hell would it add? HTML doesn't have lexical scope issues to fix. I can't believe this shoddy piece is blaming a simple tool for simply doing its simple but useful task.

</comment><comment><USER22> > But I feel it is infinitely harder to read.

I personally find it much easier to read. I don't usually read HTML code or HAML. By looking at both, HAML is much cleaner and easier to understand.

</comment><comment><USER23> "Typing is not my bottleneck in coding. Thinking is."

I love that statement.

</comment><comment><USER24> _"I still have to think about tags, ids and classes while I'm writing HAML. It simply provides a more concise syntax."_

So he wants macros, again proving Greenspun's tenth rule…

While I disagree that just having a better syntax isn't worth it all by itself, considering that we're talking about the utterly verbose nightmare that's SGML/XML, couldn't you do some of that with inline ruby, filters, partials, helpers etc?

</comment><comment><USER25> I know it's popular to hate on HAML but we use it on a large Rails app and love it. I guess I'm more surprised at the number of people that are desperate to type as little javascript as possible but are fine with overly verbose markup. I prefer terse markup and verbose logic, myself. There tends to be more gremlins hiding in the logic.

<comment><USER26> > _people that are desperate to type as little javascript as possible_

You've completely missed one of the author's most critical points. Verbosity isn't the problem. I actually hate CoffeeScript's syntax, but the language clearly reduces the thought-load of dealing with JavaScript. HAML really does nothing to reduce the thought-load of dealing with HTML, even if I might prefer its syntax to HTML's.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I completely agree that HAML and similar things are nothing more than syntactical sugar, and not all that good of sugar either. I personally use Handlebars, a Mustache variant, and have found it to be extremely helpful for cleaning up my templates without sugaring my syntax.

TL;DR - I got 99 problems but HTML syntax ain't one.

</comment><comment><USER28> I find Haml easy to parse visually and prefer it to HTML and ERb (except for pages that are mostly static content—Haml sucks for those). The only reason I don't use it in the _Rails Tutorial_ is that it's not quite standard enough. Neither was Sass, though, until Rails 3.1 added it by default, and the next edition of the book (due out soon) uses Sass throughout. Will Haml chart the same course? Stay tuned.

N.B. It's _Haml_ and _Sass_ , not _HAML_ and _SASS_.

</comment><comment><USER29> I don't have anything against HAML, and actually think the syntax is alright. Even gave it a spin some smaller codebases. But I have a hard time finding reasons to switch to it. Until I find a compelling reason to use it, HTML works fine for me.

Most arguments I see seem to primarily argue around ascetics. I'd welcome anyone to post their thoughts to help me sway my position.

To the author's credit, I immediately recognize the benefits of SASS and CoffeeScript.

<comment><USER30> One way I have found HAML functionally useful is that it was easier to move code around the page. There are fewer lines to move, so it's easier to remember exactly what you're moving, and I don't have to worry about forgetting to move the closing tag. You do have to re-indent after you move the lines, but you would do that anyway with plain HTML. I did a lot of moving code around the page when I implemented Photoshop designs, and I was thankful for that aspect of HAML.

I also used the embedded-Ruby feature to DRY-ly have variations on a page prototype. I was able to switch between four different versions of the page by changing just one variable at the top – I used case statements and a few Ruby helpers on the page to enable the appropriate sections and CSS classes of that version. That was for a static page not linked to any web framework – it was nice to be able to use code without having to set up a huge framework. It could have been messy mixing Ruby code with HTML in the same file, but since this was just a small one-off page, it wasn't a problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> HAML is great fun for me (so is Coffeekup). I'm assuming I'd love Slim/Jade as well but havent had the time to try it out.

Some people might not like it but for me those abstractions are way useful.

I wonder, with HTML5's eventually assendancy, whether the #id and .class div shortcuts will eventually be less sexy.

</comment><comment><USER32> I find HAML mostly just replaces Rails tag helpers.

instead of:

<%= tag "div", {:id => "city", :data => {:name => "Boise", :rating => "good"}} %>

I can do

#city{:data => {:name => "Boise", :rating => "good"}}

Which is basically the same thing. All haml does is encourage using a taghelper like syntax for everything.

</comment><comment><USER33> I disagree, I think HAML is so much easier to read. It's easier to see nested blocks and where everything lies. I even started nesting my html when I go back to update old projects in order to look more like haml.

</comment><comment><USER17> I think this is all about your workflow and a matter of personal preference.

The most profound piece of this post was the part where he mentioned that typing was not his bottleneck but thinking is. That's so true and it's what we should keep in mind when deciding to use one of these languages. Who cares which one of the cool kids are using it. What matters is "does this reduce mental strain while still achieving what I set to do with the same result I'd get with normal (HTML, CSS, JS, whatever)"? If the answer is yes then get out your compiler and start writing in HAML/CSS/LESS/SASS/SCSS/Coffescript.

</comment><comment><USER34> I have never really used HAML so I can't comment on it specifically, but I really agree with his point about typing not being the bottleneck. It's much more important to me for code and markup to be readable than to make it easier to write.

</comment><comment><USER27> People seem to worry far too much about the extra 5 seconds they would spend to write HTML versus HAML, when it introduces so many other problems.

First of all, there's WAI-ARIA. Try fitting that into HAML or Jade and suddenly it gets a hell of a lot more complex, pretty much negating all benefits.

Additionally, I find that people think too much of the DOM tree as a goal, when it's merely the way the browsers "think" of the page.

HTML is for making formatted documents, not for creating some abstract tree structure. Next thing you know, people will start representing HTML as a flowchart. (P.S. - PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO NOT DO THIS!)

Additionally, I'll openly say I don't like CoffeeScript. But that's not because of the features it adds, it's the syntax. This is also why I use LESS instead of SASS or Stylus: it took CSS and built on it, it didn't try to replace it entirely.

We're so far into abstractions today that any more will actually hurt us. Back when C was abstracting Assembly, it was important to make big leaps.

Now we iterate. We take what's been done and reinvent it.

So in summation: Don't Reinvent The Wheel.

<comment><USER32> HTML is for representing data. CSS is for formatting documents.</comment></comment>


Panel on language design (2004): Guy Steele, Paul Graham, Jonathan Rees, and John Maeda [.mov file] - <AUTHOR> http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dynlangs/dynlang-wizards-10may01.mov The video adds little to the audio, feel free to crank up the volume and clean your apartment while listening. <comment><USER2> I wish you'd posted some context, like which year it was.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point. Fixed.</comment></comment>


Offshore in central London: the curious case of 29 Harley Street - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/19/offshore-central-london-curious-case-29-harley-street <comment><USER2> Here's the list of all companies at 29 Harley St.[1] If you want to find accommodation addresses for companies in the UK, you can download the entire Companies House database for free and start analyzing.[1] I've done a little of this for SiteTruth, but it's possible to do a lot more.

The UK is much more open with this info than most US states. Some states have good info, such as CA and NY, and, surprisingly, FL. Nevada and Delaware, though, operate their state corporation registries like offshore tax havens.

I'm amazed that anyone would do a large transaction without buying a Dun and Bradstreet report. Business backgrounds are checkable.

[1] [https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner- pub-6032163821936851...](https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner- pub-6032163821936851:9188413724&ie=UTF-8&q=29+Harley+St&sa=Search&ref=www.google.com#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=29%20Harley%20St&gsc.page=1) [2] [http://download.companieshouse.gov.uk/en_output.html](http://download.companieshouse.gov.uk/en_output.html)

<comment><USER3> Thanks. I didn't know about that full data download.

For more in-depth information (e.g. company accounts), you can go here: [https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/help/welcome](https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/help/welcome)

This information is all on the public record, but was previously only available on payment of 1 pound per document. Now this trial service makes it available for free.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Astute Partners had to declare its shareholder, but that shareholder was a > trust in Liechtenstein, which does not reveal company ownership, so the > declaration was meaningless.

I'm inclined to think the blame here lies with Liechtenstein much more than it does with the UK.

Likewise with the final conclusion and the Seychelles. Short of disallowing foreign ownership of British corporations, what more can we do than insist that ownership is disclosed and hope that other countries will do the same?

<comment><USER5> Simple: require that beneficial owners (humans) are listed on the title at the Land Registry. These can be private but they must be real. No name, no sale.

<comment><USER6> The Land Registry registers land, not companies. Companies house registers _directors_ , but not owners. There is no general register of company ownership, and to create one would obliterate the bearer share (which may well be a good idea) and impose registration transaction costs.

I'd favour a more direct approach of simply banning UK nationals from having anything to do with companies in tax havens at all, from Panama to the Isle of Man. No loopholes, no registers to dig through, confiscation if found.

Land reform in Scotland is working on the "beneficial owner" aspect: [http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Transparency-of-land- owners...](http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Transparency-of-land- ownership-214f.aspx)

<comment><USER7> > banning UK nationals from having anything to do with companies in tax havens > at all

What if I buy a few shares in a publicly traded overseas company, and that company in turn buys a few shares of a company based in a tax haven? Short of making the UK an insular economy, this is not going to happen.

My take would be that the ease of setting up a business in the UK is a great thing for the business people, the general public, and the economy. It is sad that people end up with debts that will never be repaid when a company folds, but without the institution, there would be much lesser chance of a cheap product, gainful employment, or profit in the first place. When a company shields criminal activity, the courts readily bring the people behind it to justice, as the fine article itself mentions. The only going concern seem to be the undertaxation stories repeatedly reported in the press — good rage fodder for the financially illiterate, but they never hold much water under scrutiny.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Im in the UK - but this sort of thing must be quite common. There was an instance in Scotland -

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34445201](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34445201)

Which was linked to a $1Bn fraud in Moldova

</comment><comment><USER9> I had been reading that as Richard Branson instead of Benson for most of the article. Was very confusing.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is almost a perfect straight from template Graun piece.

1) Take something which is routine and well known to everyone except the Guardian's reader demographic (hysterically uneducable middle class outrage junkies).

2) Find an example of someone abusing it.

3) Blame it on Thatcher.

4) Profit!

3 is becoming increasingly tedious and of course when 4 actually happens, GMG are careful to use offshore vehicles to avoid paying any tax on it, which is OK when they do it, because reasons[0]

Guardian columnist strikes me as one of those middle class jobs at risk of being 'decimated' by cheap AI.

[0] [http://www.theguardian.com/help/insideguardian/2011/feb/22/b...](http://www.theguardian.com/help/insideguardian/2011/feb/22/blogpost)

<comment><USER11> Both the Grauniad and the Torygraph have got a bit cliche with more of their pieces. I suspect this is a function of the move online. Back in the days of newsprint I'd often alternate to give myself a somewhat wider point of view.

Meanwhile at the Torygraph

1) Take something which is routine and well known to everyone except the Torygraph's reader demographic (hysterically uneducable free market junkies).

2) Find an example of someone abusing it.

3) Blame it on Labour esp Corbin or The EU

4) Profit!

3 is becoming increasingly tedious

You've basically enumerated "how newspapers work".

<comment><USER10> It's worse at the Torygraph, they've gone all in on buzzfeed SEO lists. "40 things to know before you're 40" and the like. They're a bit behind the curve with leveraging the Twitter outrage mob for clicks, probably because hardly anyone ever manages to read to the end of one their articles without dying of boredom.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "a Dutch shipping company named Allseas"

Rather, a Swiss-headquartered offshore pipelay company</comment>


Want a great big hairy problem? Solve broadband - <AUTHOR>

Broadband, in the hands of the telcos, is keeping back the industry.
If somehow you can "solve" broadband, making it easy to get an arbitrarily fast Internet connection without using any sort of telco, then you can start booking your retirement plans.
It is the "unsolvable" problem like this that people aren't looking at, making it a wide open field for some genius who works out how to do it.
Home to home peer to peer laser mesh network anyone? <comment><USER2> Isn't this exactly what Google Fiber is trying to do? Along with more "out there" projects like Google Loon?</comment>


Apple Won't Be Serving Its Dogfood to Kids Attending Apple Coding Camp - <AUTHOR> https://slashdot.org/submission/6001925/apple-wont-be-serving-its-dogfood-to-kids-attending-apple-coding-camp <comment><USER2> > And while Tim Cook just touted Apple's new Swift Playgrounds iPad app as "a > powerful new way for kids to learn to code," the campers won't be eating > Apple dogfood this summer.

That's because the Swift Playgrounds app won't be finished until sometime in the fall.</comment>


Is Google censoring 'Falun Gong' voice typing? - <AUTHOR> https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/Googles-Voice-Typing-System-Blocks-Falun.mp4 <comment><USER2> I noticed the other day that Apple has added some weird censorship terms to their swipe keyboard. They used to just censor "swear words" like "fuck", but they seem to have added some additional phrases that I can't come up with a charitable explanation for. For example, of the phrases "black man", "black woman", "white man", "white woman", you can _only_ type "black man" on the swipe keyboard. If you try to swipe type one of the others, it will always change one of the two words to something else.

<comment><USER3> Wow I just tested that and you're right. That's a weirdly specific bug.

<comment><USER4> "Bug"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Well it's no use arguing if they're censoring it or not: it's pretty obvious they are.

</comment><comment><USER6> This need not be a directive set by google management, it could be individual speech annotators censoring the transcripts. I've worked with systems like this and remember a group of mormon house wifes not being font of curse words.

</comment><comment><USER7> I wonder if anything else happens on the backend when a user attempts to say these banned words...

While other nations are condemning China for their actions in Hong Kong, once again, we see Google developing solutions for authoritarian regimes under the guise of "complying with local laws". More like complying with authoritarianism. Instead of joining the world to put pressure on China, Google is enabling them. Pretty shameful, I think.

This probably won't score any brownie points with the US government while they are being investigated (unless the gov't actually wants Google to do anything to get more integrated with China for intelligence reasons, which I could see as a possibility).

<comment><USER7> The reason I wonder about what is happening on the backend:

[https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/14/17861962/google-china- dra...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/14/17861962/google-china-dragonfly- censorship-search-engine-phone-number-link-report)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> For what it's worth — my Chinese-speaking friend tried this on his iPhone using voice dictation _in Chinese_. He was able to voice dictate 法轮功 — 'Falun Gong' in mainland (not traditional) Chinese with no problems.

<comment><USER7> But what country does your friend reside in?

<comment><USER8> United States.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What if someone lives in Taiwan or the United States or Singapore or anywhere outside of the PRC? This is exactly the type of sociotechnical pressure the PRC wants to enforce over its diaspora.

</comment><comment><USER10> Falun Gong is a religious movement banned by the Chinese Communist Party.</comment>


Most creative way to display 42 - <AUTHOR> http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/21835/most-creative-way-to-display-42/ <comment><USER2> I can't compile the [1] Twelve Days of Christmas with 10.9.2 clang.

[1]: [http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~manuel/obfuscate/xmas.c](http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~manuel/obfuscate/xmas.c)

<comment><USER3> Doesn't work with my clang either but it does for me on Apple's LLVM GCC.</comment></comment>