Why most resources don't run out - <AUTHOR> http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/why-most-resources-don%27t-run-out.aspx <comment><USER2> There's a seemingly reasonable fallacy embedded in the argument that so far technology has been able to dig us out of the holes that it itself digs: That past performance is indicative of the future. Of course, the past often does predict the future -- yet, we can't bank on it, because there are sometimes qualitative shifts, and exceptions.

The problem with hoping that technology will solve climate change before it happens, is that we're gambling something we can't afford to lose. So, it may well be the case that we do solve the problem -- but what if we don't? There are limits to technology, after all.

To me, the danger in placing excessive faith in technology is that it can bypass our critical thinking. For example, right now our own technology (nuclear weapons, or biological weapons as that technology develops) is the greatest threat to humanity's existence. So while technology is a great thing, it may well be our species undoing rather than its savior -- at least until (if) we survive long enough to colonize other planets or enhance our own morality such that we can handle the responsibility our technology demands.

<comment><USER3> If there is a subtle fallacy embedded in the idea that innovation will always save us, there's a blatant fallacy in the idea that we're inevitably doomed because we're absolutely guaranteed to continue on our current course with no changes until we consume all the resources that we are consuming in the current static snapshot of the world. Looking back over the past couple of hundred years of us overcoming challenge after challenge, and drawing the conclusion that it is absolutely certain that can't happen more, is simply an absurd position to take on a rational basis.

If you do not wish to completely flip to the "everything's going to be peachy keen!" side, hey, fine. I'm not even sure anyone's really advocating that. But trying to salvage the panicky pure-ecologist view is in my mind frankly irrational. The one guarantee in life is change, and projecting out the present conditions into the indefinite future as a static precondition is always wrong. Mind you, it may be wrong because the nuclear exchange of 2021 wipes out 98% of humanity and not because the Happy Fun Solar Company solved all world energy problems in 2025, but still, change is inevitable. And what's going forth into the future is not mindless automata who passively experience challenges and fall over dead at a feather's push... what's going forward into the future are several billion human beings, which for all their faults, are still the cleverest things in the Universe we know about.

By the way, trying to mitigate the fact we've overcome challenges by pointing out that there are still challenges in the world is just another way to try to dodge dealing with the fact that we _have_ overcome challenges. I absolutely, positively guarantee you that if we survive another 20 years, that there will be even _more_ challenges. I forsee no day coming where the human race can just sit back and declare total victory over challenges.

<comment><USER4> > there's a blatant fallacy in the idea that we're inevitably doomed because > we're absolutely guaranteed to continue on our current course with no > changes until we consume all the resources that we are consuming in the > current static snapshot of the world

Perhaps, but it's already getting to the point of "too little, too late" as far as convincing people climate change exists, not to mention our current infrastructure is heavily invested in ignoring climate change. So continuing on our current course is bad, yes, but deviating at this point will only delay the inevitable. There are a number of cascading changes set in motion already.

And while I don't think humanity will be extincted by climate change, we'll certainly get our "hair mussed." As in, large amounts of drought/flood displacing millions of people into already crowded areas that don't have the infrastructure to support the influx...meaning plagues, food/water shortages, etc.

And to say, "technology will find a way to fix it!" is the bigger fallacy. We should be ready for a nice big shitstorm 50-100 years from now that no amount of scientists or computers can fix. After all, as much as we like to think of ourselves as little gods, we're really just apes with shiny toys. We've made it this far, but when you think about it, we've been through one ice age, a handful of plagues, and zero mass-extinctions. Not a big list. We're a blip on the geological radar, and we can disappear as fast as we came. We need to remember this.

<comment><USER5> > we're really just apes with shiny toys

No, we are incredibly intelligent people who have invented amazing things.

50-100 years from now climate change will be viewed the way nuclear winter is viewed now.

In the language of the article you are an ecologist because you believe people will accept changes without doing anything about them.

<comment><USER2> We surely have invented amazing things -- and we are intelligent -- and yet our brains aren't that far removed from our ape ancestors.

These brains of ours really are not well-suited for considering really-long- term abstract uncertain problems that require altruism to solve (e.g. the environment as the tragedy of the commons, or solid agreements between nations to dismantle nuclear arms).

The thing is, it is hard to be objective about our limitations as a species: being that we are a member of our species we are each a bit biased. Overcoming that bias, to see humanity in its current state as basically a selfish tribalistic society, is challenging.

Note that I mean selfish in the larger sense -- that generally we devalue human lives with increasing distance from our own birthplace, country, class, time, etc.

<comment><USER5> See, when you say "shiny toy" you imply someone gave you the toy - you use it, but can't make it and don't know how it works. But we invented all we have, so we can rightfully be proud of it.

(I am aware you didn't invent that saying (I don't know who did), but you used it without thinking about how stupid of a saying it actually is.)

> and yet our brains aren't that far removed from our ape ancestors.

OK, that's just so ridiculous as to verge on absurd. Our brains are so far removed from an ape that you wouldn't know we were related if all you could observe were actions (rather than form and shape).

> are not well-suited for considering really-long-term abstract uncertain > problems that require altruism to solve (e.g. the environment as the tragedy > of the commons

Any yet somehow we have solved that over and over. And humans are the most altruistic of all the species - witness how we rush to help when there is a disaster, or how much charity we give - or that we invented of concept of charity in the first place!

> or solid agreements between nations to dismantle nuclear arms).

We haven't done that because we don't want to do that, not because we can't. And we don't want to for very good, thought out reasons, not because of some brain lack. You might disagree on the reasons themself, but you can't claim there were no reasons.

> Overcoming that bias, to see humanity in its current state as basically a > selfish tribalistic society, is challenging.

And presumably you have done so? And you have one of these flawed brains? You seem to have a contradiction here. Not that I agree with your analysis anyway. You are trying to use tribalistic as a negative but it doesn't have that meaning. And we are not selfish, we are competitive. Selfish would imply hurting others for no gain of your own and while some individuals do that, as a whole we don't.

> that generally we devalue human lives with increasing distance from our own > birthplace, country, class, time, etc.

We don't devalue them because they are far, but rather we don't believe we have the ability to do anything about their lives, so we ignore them. The closer someone is to you the more likely you are to help - is that your point? But people don't help more because they are more similar - people help more because they have more ability to do so.

<comment><USER2> The way I would interpret the phrase 'apes with shiny toys' (although it was not me who used that phrase in this thread) -- is that we are slightly-evolved apes who have become infatuated with our technology. Thoreau said: "Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. They are but improved means to an unimproved end."

It's just that technology is far from a panacea, and it creates as many problems as it solves. Worse, the problems it creates can be of greater magnitude than its solutions. For example, arguably technology on its whole became a net loss once we invented nuclear weapons -- until that point, we never were a push-button away from extinction.

The tragedy of the commons is far from solved; one example is that the environment is a commons that industrialized nations abuse (and whether it will have a devastating effect on our future is yet to be decided). It is great that we have made moral progress as a species, and that we do have charity; yet how far has our morality progressed when we have food enough to feed the world yet starvation continues?

No, I'm not claiming that I've entirely overcome the bias of my brain, only that I'm aware that human brains were evolved to suit cave-man conditions, not the modern world that we've invented around us; cultural and technological evolution have outpaced natural evolution in our lineage.

Finally, I entirely disagree with your assertion that we devalue lives in other countries because we don't have the ability to affect their lives; of course we can affect the lives of people in other countries -- through charity as you yourself point out, and in the way that our politics affect other countries.

For example, to most Americans, American civilian lives are worth much more than civilians in say Iraq or Afghanistan; not because Americans cannot affect Iraqi or Afghani lives -- we have and continue to do so (e.g. the civilian casualities in Afghanistan dwarf the losses of Americans in 9/11)[1].

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_\(2001%E2%80%93present\))

<comment><USER5> I apologize for saying you were the one who said that about the shiny toys.

But wow do we come from different viewpoints. Are you sure we both have the same type of brain? :)

> slightly-evolved apes who have become infatuated with our technology

You still think we are more or less similar to apes? I'm having a hard time responding to this because I just can't understand how you think that way. The difference between humans and apes is not just a matter of degree, it's a matter of kind. Apes have more in common with mice than they do with humans, despite how different they look to mice, and how similar to humans.

We aren't infatuated with technology - the use we have of technology is put to solving the same problems we've always had. How to connect with people, and how to live.

> For example, arguably technology on its whole became a net loss once we > invented nuclear weapons -- until that point, we never were a push-button > away from extinction.

We still aren't. Or are you under the mistaken impression that nuclear bombs could cause human extinction? All the bombs ever created couldn't do that, even if carefully detonated (they could cause devastation, but not not extinction). We have a greater capacity to cause disasters, but an even greater capacity to solve them, as a whole a net win. And did you loose sight of the fact that we made these bombs - and only used them twice? That speaks volumes about humanity. I bet you would have never predicted that if you were asked a few decades ago if we would use them.

> evolved to suit cave-man conditions, not the modern world that we've > invented around us; cultural and technological evolution have outpaced > natural evolution in our lineage

The modern world was not thrust upon us by an outside force, we _created_ it because it suits us. We don't need to "evolve" to match it - we created it exactly the way we want.

> For example, to most Americans, American civilian lives are worth much more > than civilians in say Iraq or Afghanistan; not because Americans cannot > affect Iraqi or Afghani lives -- we have and continue to do so

You have not made your point. Our president can affect Iraqi lives, but any individual person on the street can do nothing about it. We read about sectarian violence between two religious sects (Suni, Shi'ite) that to non- Muslims appear identical and just can't understand why they even fight, much less do anything about it.

<comment><USER4> At the risk of engaging in a futile argument, I feel like I have to interject.

> Apes have more in common with mice than they do with humans

No, apes are social, tribal creatures that inter-communicate vocally and via body language. They use tools and manipulate their environment to make their quality of life better. They have territory and fight to the death to protect that territory. If you were to ask me what species this describes, the first thing that would pop into my head is "human."

If I were to say to someone "You're ugly and your mother's a whore" most people would have a sudden increase in adrenaline, followed by a wave of uncontrollable anger. Many times, this anger would drive us to do something like lash out physically or verbally. The emotions and feelings we experience throughout the day control us and shape our experience, just like they do an ape or a dog. Our difference from other mammals is really only defined by our ego, or our very basic awareness of self. Our awareness of self is rudimentary at best, yet our egos over-inflate it's abilities and importance.

We've created the environment around us as does a rabbit burrows into the ground. While the materials we fabricate and build with are unique, all we are doing is constructing shelters to feel safe.

Your example of nuclear bombs and having them for logical reasons is, in my opinion, incorrect. Our logical reasons for having weapons that _could_ wipe out all of humanity can be reduced to little more than an alpha ape beating its chest at another. Rationalize it however you want. Most of our behavior, even on the macro level, is controlled by our inherently tribal instinct.

We have not transcended our animal nature, not in the slightest. We've only fooled ourselves into thinking we have. Language, technology, government; take these away and you've got apes. Even then, language and government are not unique to humans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This view is so childish it is only taken seriously by those who already agree with it.

> Ecologists can't seem to see that when whale oil starts to run out, > petroleum is discovered

But not before many types of whale were nearly wiped out, and may yet go extinct.

> or that when farm yields flatten, fertilizer comes along,

What? Fertilizers have been known for centuries. Modern fertilizers are hardly a panacea. They come with costs of their own.

> or that when glass fiber is invented, demand for copper falls.

This has nothing to do with any of the other arguments, and demand for copper is still high enough that people are stripping it out of vacant buildings via breaking and entering. Risking injury, jail time and even death.

> But optimists see economic growth leading to technological change that would > result in the use of lower-carbon energy. That would allow warming to level > off long before it does much harm.

It's pretty obvious if you look objectively at the data that "much harm" has already been done.

This blog post is the epitome of biased garbage.

<comment><USER7> Not to mention that modern fertilizer is petro-chemical and it is very much limited by the finiteness of those resources.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > But thanks to fracking and the shale revolution, peak oil and gas have been > postponed. They will run out one day, but only in the sense that you will > run out of Atlantic Ocean one day if you take a rowboat west out of a harbor > in Ireland.

As an economist, how can the author not see that the hidden environmental costs are growing? As markets demand natural gas within a cost range while resources are limited, the solution becomes to pass this cost off on the environment. The environment doesn't have a powerful advocacy and can't fight back.

I am disappointed that economists buy these models so readily without doing real accounting as to _all_ costs. I think this is a problem in modern economics — we can easily measure monetary costs through accounting and prices, but other costs are hard to measure so the model treats them as residuals. Then, they run predictions with their models that completely ignore environmental costs. Don't argue markets don't have a cost on the environment when you've failed to include environmental costs in your models.

<comment><USER9> The author's view is terribly shortsighted. "I'm going to run out of money next month" versus "I'm going to run out of money next year". Same outcome.

His fallacy, and it's a common one, is thinking that because the problem may be postponed past his own lifetime, that it doesn't matter. What about a hundred years from now? A thousand? Ten thousand?

I for one don't relish leaving my descendants a future in which environmental equilibrium is reached by starving or shooting a few billion surplus people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Two fundamental arguments of the thesis that we will not "run out" of natural resources for productive purpose have been made eloquently in:

\- The Ultimate Resource by Julian Simon [1] --the human mind has limitless potential to select and pursue the use of materials; and

\- Capitalism by George Reisman [2] -- the phenomenon of price responds to actual supply and demand, and prompts profit-seekers to develop and switch production accordingly.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691003815](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691003815)

[2] [http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0084RU67S](http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0084RU67S), see Part One, Chapter 3

<comment><USER11> > _The Ultimate Resource by Julian Simon [1] --the human mind has limitless > potential to select and pursue the use of materials_

Only if those materials exist in the actual world first. So not that limitless after all. (And that's if we indeed accept that the mind's potential is "limitless", which is non-scientific mumbo jumbo).

> _Capitalism by George Reisman [2] -- the phenomenon of price responds to > actual supply and demand, and prompts profit-seekers to develop and switch > production accordingly._

Says nothing about resources "not running out" \-- just about distribution and demand of them, when they are available. A tribe of capitalists in a desert without water would still die of first.

<comment><USER10> Have you read either or both of these books? you seem to be arguing with straw men.

<comment><USER11> I'm arguing with the very phrases used here supposedly to describe the gist of each book.

If those are accurate, then there's no point in reading the books at all (like I wouldn't read a book described as "the best arguments why the Earth is flat").

Now the descriptions might not be accurate, and those could be excellent books. But, alas, the only information I have had to judge whether I should read those books comes from the OP introducing them with those descriptions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Interesting to dovetail that against the recent top article here that we are reaching the end of the antibiotics era. I hope we have a replacement for fossil fuel when the time comes, but I worry about too much "rational optimism". Tragedy of the Commons is a real thing, and Pangloss was sarcasm, not a role model.

</comment><comment><USER11> "Rational opimist"? Sounds rather dellusional to me, one of those guys that made a religion out of science and/or technology.

> _" But here's a peculiar feature of human history: We burst through such > limits again and again."_

Yeah, just like Bertrand Russel's inductivist (and rational optimist) turkey:

The turkey found that, on his first morning at the turkey farm, he was fed at 9 a.m. Being a good inductivist turkey he did not jump to conclusions. He waited until he collected a large number of observations that he was fed at 9 a.m. and made these observations under a wide range of circumstances, on Wednesdays, on Thursdays, on cold days, on warm days. Each day he added another observation statement to his list. Finally he was satisfied that he had collected a number of observation statements to inductively infer that "I am always fed at 9 a.m.".

However on the morning of Christmas eve he was not fed but instead had his throat cut.

</comment><comment><USER12> \- Catastrophes happened in the past that killed lots of people. Technology did not always save our ass

\- Read "Collapse"

\- What about resources like housing? It sounds to me as if housing in SF has run out? Build lots of skyscrapers everywhere? Then what about sunlight in your apartment?

<comment><USER13> > What about resources like housing? It sounds to me as if housing in SF has > run out? Build lots of skyscrapers everywhere? Then what about sunlight in > your apartment?

I think in a tradeoff of "There's literally no more room for anybody to live," and "I have to go outside to get sunlight," I'd choose the latter.

<comment><USER12> Sure, but I don't think it really qualifies as "see, science solves every problem". And what if there are houses everywhere? There will be time slots for rooftops. After a certain size of the houses, there will not be enough rooftops for everyone to get sunshine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Finally. Someone who makes sane and balanced points rather than take a binary position.

<comment><USER9> Ugh, I _hate_ the "balanced" argument for "middle ground".

If one person says 2 + 2 = 4 and another says 2 + 2 = 6, the truth is NOT that 2 + 2 = 5.

<comment><USER15> At least he included multiple positive stories of government interference. If the free market says something nessesary is not worth it, tip the scales to MAKE it worth it. Tax hikes on polluters and non renewables and tax cuts for going free would go a LONG way. Too bad it won't ever happen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> You want to settle a dispute between economists and ecologists? Ask a physicist: [http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/about-this- blog/](http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/about-this-blog/)

<comment><USER9> Or ask a cartoon physicist on xkcd.

[http://xkcd.com/793/](http://xkcd.com/793/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Just because things have worked out in the past doesn't mean they always will. Despair might actually be the correct response: [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/magazine/its-the-end-of- th...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/magazine/its-the-end-of-the-world-as- we-know-it-and-he-feels-fine.html)

</comment><comment><USER18> Time lag is a critical issue that needs to be accounted for. If we assume that innovation will mediate the worst effects of global warming then we neglect the possibility that forcing conditions created today may have consequences that manifest themselves over the next 20 or 50 years. Global warming is not like any problem that humanity has ever had to confront and it's dangerous to wave away the scale and complexity of the problem as something innovation will eventually rectify.

<comment><USER4> Yes, but the free market will invent time machines and we can go back 50 years and warn ourselves. The free market will save us.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think if you combine vertical farms with nuclear fusion the skies the limit. As long as we can get fusion to work. otherwise we better hope solar and battery prices drop enough to leave coal in the dust.

<comment><USER20> Our environment can't handle the damage by the time we get fusion to be useful for us or solar/battery become efficient/cost effective. We need to be thinking for today, as in right friggen now. Everyone I have ever seen or heard talk about this issue is always proposing the solution won't be too far away because of X.

NO IDIOT. We have the technology to stop all this right bloody now! One of which is so overlooked it's offensive. Latest Gen Nuclear fission should be replacing coal plants en-mass. The fact that it's not is so disheartening that I just want every coal lobbyist to choke on his own toxic waste...

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think if you combine vertical farms with nuclear fusion the skies the limit.

</comment><comment><USER21> So in short: The free market will save us.

<comment><USER22> It always has.

<comment><USER4> The world climate is collapsing (hypothetical scenario).

The proponents of free market say:

"The market will adapt to fix the problems causing climate change!"

What really happens:

"I've built a mask that lets you breath the Earth's new poisonous atmosphere!"

"Well my mask lets you breath twice as much air per minute!!"

"My mask does all this !but! shows an interactive map of the next sulfuric acid rain storm so you can find your way to our nearest BioShelter2000. Buy now, and you get a month BioShelter pass, letting you stay for free up to 4 hours per day, including use of the bathroom!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Must man destroy everything?

<comment><USER24> yes. [http://www.npr.org/2014/02/12/275885377/in-the-worlds- sixth-...](http://www.npr.org/2014/02/12/275885377/in-the-worlds-sixth- extinction-are-humans-the-asteroid)

<comment><USER23> No. Our species must make the small evolutionary step to change general behavior or die. I am willing to make every ethical change to make that possible and I think I would like to live in that world.

<comment><USER24> You're a bit of an idealist, which I admire. I don't think the human race will die any time soon, but the same can't be said for countless other species of plants and animals that we are CURRENTLY wiping out. Our environment is getting a little crappier every day. I really hope as a whole we can follow your lead and make some changes. But my expectations are low.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


GCC 9.2 Released Fixing bugs and improving stability - <AUTHOR> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-08/msg00092.html <comment><USER2> Changelog: [https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-9/changes.html](https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-9/changes.html)

I haven't checked yet, if this is a usable version for C. 9.0 and 9.1 had to be blacklisted in most of my x86-64 projects because of huge optimizer regressions.

<comment><USER2> No, 9.2 still broken for me. The strlen and strncpy fixes were obviously not enough. [https://github.com/perl11/cperl/commit/c0b59c82b053a3434cf3c...](https://github.com/perl11/cperl/commit/c0b59c82b053a3434cf3c20d36d1a3406421bc3d)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Has anyone tried the hamster ball robot? - <AUTHOR>

You know which one I'm talking about, http://xkcd.com/413/. Although nowadays it would be a Raspberry Py instead of EEE, and it would make friends with Siri instead of Roomba. But the Python bit would stay the same. ;-) <comment><USER2> [http://web.archive.org/web/20110318004846/http://www.prism.g...](http://web.archive.org/web/20110318004846/http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~adonnan3/4180/)

The original site seems to be gone.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clickable link: [http://xkcd.com/413/](http://xkcd.com/413/)</comment>


Ask HN: does anyone know when the Everyblock code is going to be released? - <AUTHOR>

According to http://everyblock.com/about/faq/ and http://holovaty.com/writing/everyblock-future/ Everyblock's grant ends today (June, 30), and the team is supposed to release the code under the GPL license. Is anyone actually informed and know when this is going to happen? Those pages are kinda vague and do not set any real timeline. <comment><USER2> Good catch. Here it is now, as I'm sure you've noticed:

<http://blog.everyblock.com/2009/jun/30/source/>

=>

<http://www.everyblock.com/code/></comment>


Gadaffi's Mass text messages - <AUTHOR> http://www.smartmobs.com/2011/02/24/gadaffis-mass-text-messages/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SmartMobs+%28Smart+Mobs%29

<comment><USER2> This is very similar to the plan Mubarak executed* during the protests in Egypt. People will see right through this, will likely forward to take credit but will ignore the advice. Either way there's no going back after killing your own people with mercenaries.

* Vodafone: Egypt Forced Us to Send Text Messages: <http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=12830205></comment>


Supler: Web forms development made easier - <AUTHOR> http://www.warski.org/blog/2014/12/supler-0-1-0-complex-forms-made-easier/

<comment><USER2> "Functional Reactive" form library?

[https://github.com/softwaremill/supler](https://github.com/softwaremill/supler)

This buzzword has gotten entirely out of control. Outside of marketing, though, I _really_ like the idea of having a nice DSL for form building. Supler can take a lot of advantage of that.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's on purpose, of course ;). But it's not only marketing: functional as in preferring immutable data structures, and reactive as in changing the form in response to user input.

Let us know what you think about the DSL itself.

<comment><USER2> I think the DSL itself is great. I have a project where I'd like to use something like this in anger and I'll revisit when I get to engage on that peoject.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This looks like a well thought-out project, but I am unsure how it would realistically fit into an actual project. It claims that "it does not tie you to a web framework", which I guess is technically true... but the amount of setup involved on the server basically makes this thing its own framework (in terms of having to manage it on the back-end). And if you're already using a framework then it most likely includes its own form generation/processing system.

Seems to me that a more practical "framework-agnostic" form library would be one that is completely on the front-end, and assumes a REST-like API exists on the backend that it can communicate with.

<comment><AUTHOR> We would be fine using existing frameworks and their form handling systems, but all of them feel very heavyweight. Either the backing objects need to be of some specific form, or the communication protocol between the server and the client is weird, or the generated markup is a mess.

With Supler, we want to make it easy to customise the form, the form's markup and associated Javascript (to add any dynamic behaviour), so that you don't have to hack the framework, but instead so that you can use our library to generate the base and then customise further.

One of the main points of Supler is that it takes care of both the frontend and the backend, so I don't think it would be possible to keep it entirely on the frontend. E.g. you define the form once, and you have partial validation on the frontend, and the same full validation on the backend (without having to repeat yourself).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Reminds me of react-forms[1] a little. Both use immutable data in some way, both have an idea of schema based generation and validation.

I've been wanting to try it in a project but just need the right one. Wonder what server side separation in scala brings that node couldn't.

[1] [https://github.com/prometheusresearch/react- forms](https://github.com/prometheusresearch/react-forms)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the pointer, React-forms as well as React this looks very interesting, however I think the focus there is mostly on frontend, while we are trying to approach the problem both on the frotend and backend sides.

Otherwise there are some similarities between the projects.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Misread the title and thought it was about ASP.NET's WebForms, to which I thought, "Wow, something to make it easier? I'll take anything!" ;] (Current client is a major WebForms project, but luckily v4.5.)

Couldn't be much further from that...

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe we should target a .NET DSL next then ;)</comment></comment>


Behind Tech's Shine, Some Warnings Signs Appear - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/03/technology/tech-warning-signs.html <comment><USER2> Its still unbelievable to me how much these phones cost. It feels like a bubble itself, but a bubble of consumer spending. Someone tell me I'm wrong, but it feels like eventually people will realize that they don't need the newest phone to check facebook and instagram.

I think we've reached the point where consumers no longer need a "faster" computer (at home or in their hands), but we've been trained over the last 30 years to just think newer=faster and faster=better.

I had a Galaxy S4 that I bought in 2013 that I was still using until a few months ago. The main reason why I bought a new phone was I wanted to change networks, as the S4 was locked into the sprint network. If the S4 would work on any network, I would probably be able to use it until both my batteries had degraded enough to affect functionality. Who knows, that could have been another 2-4 years.

<comment><USER3> This is sound logic, but people still pay $1000 for a handbag or $400 for a pair of sneakers. People are idiots.</comment></comment>


Internal Reactions to Googler's Manifesto Show Anti-Diversity Views Have Support - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywpamw/internal-reaction-to-google-employees-manifesto-show-anti-diversity-views-have-support <comment><USER3> To describe it as "anti-diversity" kind of proves the manifesto's point - <USER2> one political side controls the debate. Because the manifesto clearly states it is _for_ diversity, including diversity of gender and race (and even suggests ways to try to improve things there).

It's fine to disagree with it - it has many flaws and inaccuracies, to be sure - but we can do that with honesty and fairness. Not just for the author's sake, but for our own.

<comment><USER4> It is entirely possible to claim to be for something while actively doing things that are negative for it. The author didn't get to decide if his manifesto is anti-diversity any more than the KKK get to decide if they are racist.

I haven't read the manifesto, so I'm not saying it is anti-diversity, but your post appears to assume they can't be lying or wrong about that.

<comment><USER5> _I haven 't read the manifesto_

I have. The response labeling it "anti-diversity" is a pathetic and dishonest attempt to dismiss the entire thing. The "manifesto" is an honest attempt to start dialog, the shrill propaganda from the likes of Gizmodo and Recode are dishonest attempts to drown out that dialog with name-calling and rhetoric.

They can of course claim technical correctness by equivocating about what they mean by "diversity" but it's not like anyone reading that filth really cares about what words really mean. You could say it was "anti race and gender diversity for diversity's sake." You could say it was "anti race and gender diversity as religion." It's opposed to taking inequality of outcome as ipso facto evidence of discrimination.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm a closeted conservative in tech, hence the throwaway account. Some of what the manifesto said is overly broad or wrong headed, in particular at least from my perspective generalizing views held by conservatives on climate change and similar issues, but one thing in particular stood out:

The left and by extension Google do not tolerate diversity of viewpoint or worldview. Diversity of race or sex is viewed as critical but real diversity, that of the lens through which people view the world is to be stomped out with prejudice. If you don't agree with the leftist secular view you are a bigot. If you are religious you must apologize for your bigotry and convince others it is only a social activity or something private that won't affect how you behave or what you believe in other spheres.

As a conservative orthodox Catholic and a devotee of Saint Josemariá Escrivá, I feel like I have to hide my faith and my views. If people understood that my devotion to doing my work as perfectly and as generously as I can is driven by my desire to serve God and mankind they would be shocked and disappointed. Even worse, my views on the existence of an absolute unchanging morality would be viewed as bigotry even though I don't advocate discrimination and am willing to happily work beside those who believe and practice differently. It is not enough that we work side by side and treat each other with respect, I must believe and accept leftist dogma in my heart or I am a bigot and I am unfit to write code, work with others, or function in a management role.

From my perspective the exclusion, demonization and intolerance from the left for those who dare to merely believe and live their own lives differently is terrifying. I don't know how we come back from the current state of things to a liberal, open society where diversity of belief and viewpoint is prized.

</comment><comment><USER7> The problem isn't what this person's views are. The problem is that you aren't allowed to have a nonconformist view. Precisely what diversity and tolerance are supposed to bring. "We have people from all backgrounds provided they parrot exactly the same view of the world!" Is hardly diversity.

Invariably whoever wrote this will be flogged, and the moral busybodies inside google will gain a little more influence as other people with non-conforming views duck their heads down a little lower.

</comment><comment><USER8> The guy made some great points. A pragmatic, fresh look at diversity programs is a great idea and open discussion is what we need.

Vice, wried (and I'm sure The Verge will be on that list too) should be ashamed of themselves. The author is obviously pro-diversity, and all this does is prove the manifesto's point.

</comment><comment><USER9> Google is full of PC people, poor guy

</comment><comment><USER10> They seem to draw a line between men and women because of "biological differences".

I wonder what they think about affirmative action for men of different races.

<comment><USER11> One point of view: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The author of the manifesto declares conservative bias to be pragmatic, by its nature.

Pragmatism, insofar as it is in opposition to idealism, is the absence of a guiding philosophy. Anyone who puts themselves on one side of the liberal/conservative spectrum is an idealist.

This Mary Sue bullshit is unforgivable, and I could not read on.</comment>


Marvin Minsky on Education and Reprogramming One's Mind - <AUTHOR> http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/OLPC-5.html

<comment><USER2> I found the logic of this essay to be less than stellar. He rejects early animal-based experiments on learning, but says that Cybernetics is a more promising arena. But he doesn't address his original complaint, that human minds are different than those experimental subjects.

He also made some logical leaps without citations for his sources, nor explanations of the logic used to reach his conclusions.

I get his main point - that people need to become self-aware and teach themselves techniques for their own self improvement. But how can a 6 year old do that? They are simply not yet developed. The human brain is not done developing until one's mid-twenties. That needs to be accounted for when proposing educational changes.

The fact that he presented that had the most substance was that "genius" was strongly correlated with early childhood environments that encouraged very active use of the child's own imagination.

From all of this,I'd be much more apt to draw the conclusion that to improve education, we should just all throw out our TVs.

<comment><AUTHOR> > But how can a 6 year old do that?

At least many 12-year-olds can learn to self-modify if they are taught properly. Some of the research in this area are summarized in "Outsmarting IQ: The Emerging Science of Learnable Intelligence" [http://www.amazon.com/Outsmarting-IQ-Emerging-Learnable- Inte...](http://www.amazon.com/Outsmarting-IQ-Emerging-Learnable- Intelligence/dp/0029252121)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> One of the fathers of AI discusses education in a series of essays for the One Laptop per Child project. This last essay about psychology and learning to think is especially interesting, in my opinion.

The last section on "How it can help to think of oneself as a Machine" could really make a difference if we find ways to deploy the ideas to the mass. For now, applying the ideas to oneself can potentially change our own productivity significantly.

For other essays in the series, see <http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/>

<comment><USER3> Would that be father of AI as in father of the flying car?

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, that depends on your definition of AI, of course. But using some definitions, we are having it in several forms like search engines, self- driving cars, and question-answering machines.

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

<http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/01/ibm-watson-jeopardy/>

Meta: snark does not contribute to civil discussion.

<comment><USER3> Personally I think that it is unnecessarily agrandising language. That AI has since improved independently of Minsky does not really have anything to do with it.

Also it can be a fine line between having civil discussion and becoming an echo chamber where vigorous disagreement does not occur. Not that my original reply was the finest example of disagreement to grace this site.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond? (1982) - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/ <comment><USER3> Wow, absolutely brilliant. I can't believe this article popped up on HN's front page tonight. I just got back from looking at engagement rings with my girlfriend.

I've known about this monopoly for a while, and so has she. Heck, one of the first movies we watched together when we first started dating 7 years ago was Blood Diamond. Here's the conversation we had while in the jewellery store tonight.

Me: "Sweety, I really don't want to buy you a diamond. I really would rather buy you something that at least has some more value associated with it, like a sapphire."

Her: "Well, I've always pictured a diamond ring. That's what everyone gets."

Me: "Well, what do you like about the diamond that the sapphire doesn't give you?"

Her: "I like the sparkle."

Me: "Ok, that's fair. What about moissanite? (Link: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moissanite>) It's supposedly even more sparkly and brilliant than diamonds."

Her: "What's it made of?"

Me: "You know how diamond is just carbon? Moissanite is silicon and carbon in the same type of crystal structure."

Her: "And it's natural?"

Me: "Well, it can occur naturally, but it's extremely rare. So the ones you buy are usually created in a lab, but are more brilliant than a diamond, but actually cost less. I can apparently get a 1.5 carat stone for $800."

Her: (annoyed) "I don't want something fake!"

Me: "Oh, so it's not about the sparkle then?"

I swear, De Beers has probably pulled off the greatest marketing stunt in the history of humanity. The fact that it's so ingrained in our minds, to the point where a smart, educated, and informed person like my girlfriend still wants a diamond even after knowing all the issues with them, is fascinating.

Honestly, as a community of people in the startup ecosystem, we could stand to learn a thing or two here.

<comment><USER4> She even _told_ you her true requirement, which is to look good for her girlfriends. (Watch what happens when ladies announce an engagement or look for the ring shot on Facebook, then tell me I'm off base.)

You did not sell her a product which would make her the envy of her girlfriends. "Cheaper than their rings" is the opposite of a victory condition. Don't sell cheap. Sell authentic, sell natural, sell one-of-a-kind, sell meaning, sell status, sell a story, etc.

<comment><USER4> P.S. If you understand the thing she is trying to buy, you don't have to sell her _a ring_ at all.

There turns out to be an arbitrage opportunity in social status for, say, middle or upper-middle class Japanese women. Anybody can buy rocks, but nobody can buy a man vacation, so a man who demonstrates ability to take long vacations must be able to buy virtually unlimited amounts of rocks. Regardless of whether I can afford rocks, I can afford long vacations quite easily, so we announced a small rock and a long honeymoon on the same day.

It's absolutely _unreal_ how effective that was. All relevant stakeholders believe I'm unreasonably well-off. Ironically, this caused them to _sharply_ upgrade their estimations of what the (quite modest) ring must be worth.

<comment><USER5> Brilliant example. There's another social signal that's relevant across cultures regarding wedding rings: the design of the setting. The complexity and attractiveness of _how_ the stones are set is what people notice, above and beyond the stones themselves. (The only thing people tend to notice about the stones is the size and quantity.)

My wife wears a moissanite ring, which she loves. The deciding factor was that we could afford a unique custom-designed setting if we went with moissanite. The same ring with diamonds would have been more expensive by at least a factor of ten.

My wife worked in high-end bridal in NYC for a few years, and rings were always a topic of conversation. The amount of times prospects noticed the stones in her ring were moissanite: zero. The setting sends a stronger signal, and it's less expensive. To echo patio, people who saw the ring assumed I was unreasonably well off, when the true total price was less than the latest MacBook.

Paying up for "perfect" diamonds is a complete waste of money from a signaling standpoint. Spend on the setting and design, not the stones.

<comment><USER6> Unfortunately, if you do ever want to sell, the setting is essentially worthless. Almost all of the cost of the setting is in the labor, and, as the article explains, those who buy "used" jewelry are almost certainly going to part it out and melt it down. (That is, unless you're talking about really high end estate jewelery.) So, for the $3-10k you'll spend for a nice setting, you'll probably get back 20-50% of the price of the stones, and maybe 60-80% of the spot value of whatever metal you choose, which again, is far, far less than the cost of the setting.

This isn't to say that you're not right on from a signaling standpoint, just that if you think you might have the need to resell the ring in the future (or perhaps borrow against it), you're better off getting a better stone than a fancier setting.

<comment><USER7> Do engagement rings have a large resale value anyway? This is a whole article about the marketing push for diamonds. I can't imagine what "second hand ring" would say....

<comment><USER6> That's sort of the point. The ring itself is only really worth whatever the metal weighs because nobody wants a "used" ring. So if you sell the ring to a jeweler, he is almost certain to melt it down and recast it. Whatever you paid for the craftsmanship/design of the ring is literally melted away.

The stone is another story. It's very easy to resell/reuse good stones, although as the article indicates, the value you'll be able to recoup isn't exactly great.

<comment><USER7> Yes that's true, but I'd presume a lot of what you pay for in a diamond ring initially is not the cost of raw materials, but the symolism, and hence a diamond ring would lose value.

I was thinking you'd lose money either way if you went with diamond vs. non- diamond, so "you'll lose value" is not a compelling argument for non-diamond.

<comment><USER8> Everything about a wedding is front-loaded to an exreme. From photos, to flowers, to cars - when it's a wedding the price is loaded. It's a complete rort, everyone knows it is going on, yet - there it is, everyone just pays up. Because nobody wants to be seen to be cheap.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's a fascinating piece, for a number of reasons. The first, and perhaps most interesting, is that the story behind the De Beers cartel is _well known_. Perhaps not in this depth, but still, it's no secret. Pretty much everyone knows they exercise a monopoly on diamond production and distribution, artificially keeping prices high. And yet, nobody takes the red pill and opts out of the illusion. Call it the power of the diamond industry's marketing. Call it adherence to tradition (created by the diamond industry's marketing). Call it what you will. But it's a powerful force. Consumers know it's a lie, and they choose to live the lie.

Second: a major prediction made in this article _did_ come to pass, but it didn't have the predicted effect on diamond pricing. A serious contender to De Beers emerged in the early 2000s in the form of a multinational, "breakaway" cartel. Yet, both cartels -- and all other minor, independent players in the market -- seem to be acting in concert to keep supplies artificially low, and prices artificially high. In fact, the rate of price increase is at its highest in modern history. Economics tells us that this shouldn't be the case, especially given the emergence of new market entrants. And yet, the rate of price increase took off at _precisely the same moment_ as the entrance of the new competitors. (Source: <http://www.ajediam.com/investing_diamonds_investment.html>)

What could be causing a major, year-over-year price increase in the face of new competition? Well, one guess would be that the two cartels are colluding in some way. Perhaps they've made an arrangement to fix prices or production. Or perhaps they've carved up the map, and reached some sort of non-competition agreement in each other's territories. Perhaps both. Ordinarily I'd call these ideas paranoid. But the history of the diamond business tells me that we can't put it past these guys.

<comment><USER10> Free markets always tend towards monopoly/oligopoly/cartel structures in the long term - because the firms that do so retain their pricing advantage (profits) and the firms that don't - die.

I have to think that the idea of free/natural markets has to be one of the greatest tricks ever pulled by anyone at any time (next to communism). Markets are artificial and restrictive for a reason - they're created by governments for the benefit of the populace - they are probably the most unnatural constructions ever created in human history (next to the corporation/government).

It is in the interests of market participants to maximise profits (to survive/grow). Efficient markets are the enemy of profits. Hence, market participants will make markets less efficient as a function of their incentives - if they can. It may seem more efficient in the short term - i.e. price wars - but in the long term - after the field is cleared - prices always rise in some form or another.

Free/natural markets are probably one of the greatest lies ever sold.

<comment><USER11> I think you've got this wrong. Any firm that defects from the cartel will tend to gain market share at the expense of all the firms that remain in the cartel. Thus, its really the firms in that remain in the cartel that die. So the whole thing looks a lot like a Prisoner's Dilemma game played between the firms looking to cartelize.

Now, they might do things like sign contracts between each other to prevent defection, or buy each other's stock to make defection less profitable than profitable than playing along, but then you have to worry about disruption from outside the cartel. Or you could forcibly cartelize industries like FDR tried to do with the National Recovery Administration if the government really wants an industry to be profitable when it wouldn't otherwise be.

And when I think of successful cartels in history I think of DeBeers and OPEC and... well, those are the only two I could name that lasted longer than a few years.

<comment><USER12> > And when I think of successful cartels in history I think of DeBeers and > OPEC and... well, those are the only two I could name that lasted longer > than a few years.

Another would be drug cartels. They keep prices artificially high so that everyone gets a share of the profits. But cartels in general always have players that "cheat" by independently lowering/raising the price. If a player is caught cheating, the cartel usually punishes the rogue player by excluding them from future pricing meetings and use their market share to kill the player both figuratively and literally when drugs are involved.

<comment><USER11> Nah, the problem with drug cartels is that they aren't cartels, as can be seen by the body count they're racking up against each other south of the border. They aren't cartels at all in the economic sense of the term, but rather firms competing against each other.

<comment><USER9> The term "cartel" arguably _did_ apply up until around the death of Pablo Escobar, and the subsequent usurpation of power from the Colombian producers by the Mexican distributors. For the most part, the drug trade really was a single, multinational, price-fixing monopoly (or at least a cooperative oligopoly) under Pablo's reign.

[I'm not trying to give the guy any credit or praise for his actions, though.]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> 3 Days ago Rohin (<http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=rohin>) the co- founder of Pricenomics posted the article: "We Need a Warby Parker for Mattresses" (<http://priceonomics.com/mattresses/#industry>) to which I responded: "We need a Warbly Parker for Diamonds" (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4522922>).

Niggler posted a comment to this Atlantic article (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4523063>) and then submitted it as a new post that didn't get traction because I am guessing of his new status (green name text) in the HN community.

Olalonde (<http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=olalonde>) who is an old hat commented on the article, but didn't get that many up votes or reply's (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4525901>), but submitted the Atlantic article (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4535611>) that Niggler found and brought to the HN community.

Now this great article from 1982 is on the front page of HN.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually, I posted this article just after reading the story about Russia revealing a secret diamond field containing "trillions of carats" <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4534468> (I don't recall reading niggler's comment or yours honestly). I think that's why it got so many up votes. In fact, it seems this article is regularly submitted on HN: [http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=Hav...](http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=Have+You+Ever+Tried+to+Sell+a+Diamond&sortby=points+desc&start=0). Now that I think about it, I think I first discovered this article through HN 2 years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Sorry but is this the real reason why somebody buys a diamond? The number one reason why anybody buys anything expensive is because they wish to make a statement for that moment. Now if you go by what this article is trying to convey is the value of diamonds in the investment per se. No body I know buys diamonds as an investment.

My father once gave me a gift which his father gave it to him. Which is basically a wrist watch that automatically winds a spring inside while a person is walking. That watch is practically useless by today's standards. But that is totally besides the point. He gave it to me because that has some 'emotional value' and the fact that it was expensive at that time, and his father went through a lot of work to buy him that has some sentimental value attached to it. That is the whole reason behind its existence, He gave it to me because it means something to him. Many of my friends have asked me if I want to sell it, but I've turned them down. It looks awesome and is a jewel.

My mom also wears a diamond, and she has told me once she passes away that is supposed to given to me and never to be sold to anybody else. No, De Beers didn't whisper in her ears not to sell it. Its just my dad gave it to her and that diamond reminds her of her days when she was young, and the moment when it was given. That thing reminds her of those days. She just doesn't want some other women to wear it.

You can argue these things in the investment per se. But you don't give the diamond to your girl and that moment is gone forever. You can earn that money back again, but you can't earn that moment back. She won't have that diamond with her which she can remember you gave it to her.

As nerds we can argue about rationality, but what is that worth to human sentiments?

Besides you can expand this argument to everything around. And the only way to live will be to live frugal.

<comment><USER15> That my all be true, but at the root of it, I find the concept revolting. I mean demonstrating your economic viability as a spouse. It is actually the most unromantic thing ever, because it means at the end of the day you marry for economic reasons, not for love. Which is OK, but then don't pretend for it to be romantic.

As for remembering a moment, I don't see why something expensive is required. You could as well collect a special looking pebble from the beach and have it remind you of the romantic sunset you watched together.

<comment><USER16> Isn't it possible to love someone because they are the kind of person who is considered economically valuable by society? Such a person is romantically desirable because they offer more resources and their offspring are more likely to survive to adulthood.

(sort of an evolutionary biology / Ayn Rand-ian concept, of course, but I see this kind of reverence for 'the best' coming from some people)

<comment><USER15> That's what usually happens, I guess. I remember from an old Steven Pinker book that there is a theory that love is a necessary craziness, because without it we would constantly be looking for better mates (the rational thing to do). That would explain why falling in love makes people do silly things, because they demonstrate "I am crazy, therefore you can trust that I will stay with you".

<comment><USER16> Yes, a person who approaches matters of the heart with the brain of an economist is generally considered pretty cold-blooded.

Not to say that 'normal' people don't _ever_ do such things, but they are often confined to desperate situations (war zones, disaster zones, economic depression, etc).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Great read. Amazing what wealthy interests can do to a market. I had to smile at the ending:

"By the mid-1980s, the avalanche of Australian diamonds will be pouring onto the market. Unless the resourceful managers of De Beers can find a way to gain control of the various sources of diamonds that will soon crowd the market, these sources may bring about the final collapse of world diamond prices. If they do, the diamond invention will disintegrate and be remembered only as a historical curiosity, as brilliant in its way as the glittering little stones it once made so valuable."

As the diamond market hasn't collapsed 30 years on, De Beers must still be doing something right.

<comment><USER18> I've held a plastic bag of raw Australian diamonds -- they look like dirty grainy sand. Almost all of the Kimberley pipe's output is industrial quality, not gem quality, although the pink gemstones are very nice.

Australian gem quality output was never going to seriously disrupt De Beers, just challenge them a bit. That was known at the time, and I'm slightly perplexed why The Atlantic's article says what is does.

</comment></comment><comment> ngm-hn Most of the article seems critical of the diamond industry. Have they not done people a service by providing them with a nice product that they can enjoy?

There are certainly moral problems with how they built their empire, but why are clever marketing and aggressive pricing bad things? The former is simply how you tell people about new products. Remember diamonds went from being owned by almost no one to being owned by lots of people. If those rings make them happy, then why is it our business?

How is DeBeers marketing any different from Apple marketing?

Of course, the article _does_ do a good job in warning people that their diamonds may have little resale value. But that's a risk most buyers are willing to take. After all, most non-divorced people _don't_ sell their wedding and engagement rings.

<comment><USER19> It's bad because it's a vertical cartel, from mining to distribution. Cartels are illegal in that it limits the free market using artificial price controls. It's the artificial price controls that are illegal. Apple faces competition from Android, RIM and Win8. DeBeers diamonds do not face any competition from any other diamond producer because they spent 50 years establishing their network for "gem" quality diamonds. DeBeers is beyond marketing. Why did the U.S. government go after Microsoft? Standard Oil? Why did the U.S. prevent AT&T from merging with TMobile?

<comment> ngm-hn Well no, that argument does not work. Apple is the monopolist supplier of iPhones. And it charges whatever price it wants for iPhones. If DeBeers is a sole (or near sole) supplier of a product, then Apple certainly is.

Further, DeBeers must face the same competition that Apple faces. In these comments, we see lots of people looking at other gemstones (sapphires, etc) in place of diamonds. The other gemstone producers compete with DeBeers in the same way that other smartphone producers compete with Apple.

I'm not sure it's helpful to reason from the fact that something is illegal to why it is wrong. Sort of like the joke about the three storekeepers in jail: The first charged higher prices than everyone else and was convicted of price gouging. The second charged lower prices than everyone else and was convicted of dumping and cutthroat competition. The third charged the same prices as everyone else and was convicted of collusion. Laws will be made against all kinds of things, and there are many incentives (e.g. law firms revenue) to make laws against very profitable enterprises.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This article is regularly submitted to HN, but it's good reading every time. Winning the war against the marketing of the diamond industry will be hard, but a start is to keep spreading articles like the following:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-weissman/7-reasons-why- you...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-weissman/7-reasons-why-you- shouldn_b_1720870.html)

7 REASONS WHY DIAMONDS ARE A WASTE OF YOUR MONEY

 _I've been in the diamond business for over 10 years. I've traveled all over the world buying and selling diamonds. I've passed through most of the major airports across the United States with about a million dollars worth of diamonds in a leather wallet stuffed inside my pants. I've bought and sold diamonds in Dubai, Mumbai, Moscow, Hong Kong, Paris, Stockholm, Tel Aviv, Madrid and Barcelona. Even today I am involved on the fringe of the diamond business, running a diamond education site helping would-be buyers.

Considering my deep personal involvement in the diamond business, my opinion might surprise you -- diamonds are a terrible waste of your money._

Even if this article doesn't convince your female friends, it'll spread some awareness and cause more people to view diamond engagement rings with a bit of doubt.

When I shared it on Facebook, I got likes from only male friends and arguments from a female friend. This was slightly unusual because such topics normally get a few likes from female friends. I guess there's a serious uncertainty among my friends about throwing away the valuing of diamonds that's been strongly ensconced in the minds of wider society.

Fundamentally, a large part of the worth of diamonds comes from their cost and the sacrifice they represent. This in turn is a conspicuous signaller of value, when women show their diamonds to friends ("look how much he loves me"). So any alternative to diamond rings has to show a similar level of value/worth. We have to try to beat diamond marketers at their own game - <USER2> equally powerful anti-marketing.

I'd advocate an approach of laying the groundwork early by sharing such articles regularly, and when actually in a relationship, offering a display of value that she appreciates (e.g. memorable trip to Europe, endowment to a cause of her choice, a custom-designed gemstone) in tandem with asking her to consider other gemstones, perhaps one in her favorite color. If the ground's been softened by our combined anti-marketing campaign, she might be willing to select and customize a stone that she genuinely finds beautiful and accept your specially planned trip (maybe extend it to Asia too, to up the friends'-envy quotient).

Or at least I hope as much.

</comment><comment><USER21> "A diamond is forever."

Translation: Please, please, please don't resell it. You'll screw up our cartel.

<comment><USER22> Nope, not a problem at all. Because very few people buy used.

<comment><USER23> So where _do_ all the old ones end up?

<comment><USER24> I bet quite a few end up in coffins.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> After some terrible early experiences with gold diggers, I am now very happy to be with a woman that despises any and all status symbols, and instead of buying them invested some money in gold and silver bullion early on, as part of a diversified portfolio. She routinely spends the money that status- affected women waste on social symbols on travel, sports, fitness and healthy leisure. My advise to all startup entrepreneurs is simple - plan your mating like your startup - lean and goal-driven. Identify your goals, budget, deadline and overall strategy. If you cannot meet the woman that meets your demands where you are, travel and diversify.

</comment><comment><USER26> Relevant: [http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global- News/2012/0917/Russia-...](http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global- News/2012/0917/Russia-reveals-shiny-state-secret-It-s-awash-in-diamonds)

<comment><USER27> Those are tiny, tiny diamonds that could be useful for industrial purposes but will never be useful as jewelry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> A classic, I read it first almost a decade ago.

My advice, take her on a trip to Paris and Versailles instead... or climb Mount Everest if you're more adventurous. We have great memories.

<comment><USER15> Try not to get her killed, though. Hasn't climbing Mount Everest something like a 20% mortality rate?

<comment><USER22> According to Wikipedia there have been 4.3 fatalities for every 100 summits (generally decreasing over time), but that can't really be meaningfully expressed as a mortality rate because the fatalities include people who never reach the summit (and may not even have planned to). What can be said is that of those who successfully reach the summit, 1.1% die during the descent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It appears that the diamond market has reached its peak, and is on its way out: <http://www.economist.com/node/21538145>

The Oppenheimers have sold their entire stake in DeBeers - they've cashed out. They went from producing 80% of the global market (in the 90's) to 35%; clearly, the writing is on the wall, and without strong centralized vertical management, the diamond market will collapse.

Time to short diamonds.

</comment><comment><USER29> The discovery of the South African diamond mines in 1870 and its impact on the diamond industry seems to be a good analogy for what the music industry is going through today. In both cases there is rapid shift from scarcity to abundance, and in both cases, the supply side of the market try to save their businesses by engineering artificial scarcity. Somehow I doubt the record industry in its present form will fare quite as well though.

</comment><comment><USER30> I got my wife a moissonite ring. I took it to a jewelry store once to get it cleaned. The person there went on about how beautiful it was. I said it was moissonite and she quickly said we don't work on moissonite and handed the ring back and left. Everyone assumes it is diamond because it is double refractive and actually brighter than diamond. Only a gemmologist would know the difference.

</comment><comment><USER31> The Russians just announced that they have a huge amount of quality diamonds on their territory in some site that they haven't started exploiting yet.

To profit they basically have to ape De Beers and create a huge demand in Europe or Asia (I think diamond engagement rings are that big only in the USA)

<comment> guard-of-terra I think that most of diamonds sold Russia are mined in Russia (Yakutia probably).

Still they are expensive and luxur-ish. I guess Russian jewelers are just riding the world-wide hype wave, not interested in disrupting or "harming" the market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> So which of these "predicted" events actually happened?

<comment><USER33> The diamond cartels continue to prop up a fake market fed by the product of human misery largely by convincing people that diamonds have always been a clear symbol of social status and of devotion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> The story is from 1982. Yet still timely.

<comment><USER35> A little odd though: "the quality of the diamonds, measured in dollar value, had declined by nearly 100 percent." I wonder how that was calculated ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> One-page, seizure-free view:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/1982/02/have- you-e...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/1982/02/have-you-ever- tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/)

</comment><comment><USER37> If you want a ring that shimmers brightly with color, is unique from stone to stone, and actually has value, try opal.

The only downside is that it's not as tough as diamond, so you have to take some care not to damage it, although this can be mitigated by the way it's mounted in the ring.

</comment><comment><USER38> Another fantastic bit of information about the history of the diamond trade, courtesy of Frontline, circa 1994: <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6186684678299366197>

</comment><comment><USER39> Well, it is a perceived value, but we all perceive it.

Like someone pointed out, it is not an investment. It is a demonstration for your future marriage. She wants to see how much she's worth to you.

Buy the ring. If you indeed have moral issues, buy the conflict free one.

</comment><comment><USER40> Previous good discussions on this:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1405698>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1110283>

</comment><comment><USER41> Can't believe its on the front page, given my comment a few days ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4523063>

</comment><comment><USER42> Fantastic read. Bernays (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays>) was also an interesting character.

</comment><comment><USER43> Similar article, although a less historical perspective:

<http://harpers.org/archive/2010/06/page/0059>

(warning: paywall)

</comment><comment><USER44> Generation after generation of brain wash, there is nothing you wouldn't believe, such as Kim Jong Il is the savior of the world.

</comment><comment><USER45> on another note (also on todays HN homepage!)

"Russia reveals secret diamond field containing 'trillions of carats'" <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4534468>

</comment><comment><USER46> By fallenapple ( from showdead):

Ha, they quickly stuck a date in the title. ;) I was going to comment this is a "pre-internet" story. The film Blood Diamond came to mind as I was reading this, and the "Diamond District" in New York City. Lots going on behind the scenes in the "diamond industry". This is a superb lesson in 1. artificial scarcity and 2. how consumers can be conditioned to accept new symbols (a diamond is just a rock; but what does a diamond "mean"?). Both are principles that, for better or worse, apply to how business is done on the web.

<comment><USER47> > [...] but what does a diamond "mean"?

"I would hurt poor people for you."

<comment><USER48> So it's just like buying a smartphone?

<comment><USER47> If you're buying someone a smart-phone so it can look pretty and symbolize your love, then yes, exactly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> So... why is there no second-hand diamond marketplace? Lots of people would want to buy cheaper diamonds and there has to be people wanting to sell theirs.

<comment><USER48> Good question. There is a second-hand diamond marketplace. But the discount you get is proportional to the extra effort you must exert to get the diamond you want. Do you want a 2 carat triple-A GIA certified round brilliant with VS1 clarity, >I color, and an HCA score under 2? Good luck. You'll spend months tracking that down. And you better know what you're doing or you could get scammed. Or you could go to a diamond wholesaler and get what you want, right now, no hassle, and pay the associated overhead.

<comment><USER50> So there's an opportunity here, for a market facilitator. Hire a few qualified gemstone appraisers, set up an auction site and take a small rake off the top.

<comment><USER51> Even better, write some image-processing software that can automatically grade diamonds more quickly and accurately than human appraisers.

<comment><USER52> Diamonds are already largely graded automatically. DeBeers has invested heavily in grading equipment that can specifically distinguish natural from artificial diamonds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Is it me or is the article way too long?

<comment><USER33> It is just you. That article is a classic in long-form investigative journalism.

<comment><USER21> God how I miss that.

Where can I find 100's more like this, _on the web_?

<comment><USER33> Easy: Longform.org.

Slate aggregates and curates some of these:

<http://www.slate.com/articles/life/longform.html>

<comment><USER21> Sweet. Thanks.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


OPA: A live memory debugger for C programs - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvkn9Xz-xks <comment><USER2> That awesome 3d interactive debugger Eskil demoed the other day has been released, with source: [https://twitter.com/quelsolaar/status/793322537266610176](https://twitter.com/quelsolaar/status/793322537266610176)

</comment><comment><USER3> You mention you wrote most of the parsing yourself. Is there any reason why you didn't use something like LLVM to do the heavy lifting?

</comment><comment><USER4> Looks awesome! Hope I'll get around to play around with this some time.

Also: Props for your GDC Europe talk a few years ago! (better Nate than lever..)</comment>


The Real Issues Going to Mars - <AUTHOR> Physically sending a space ship to Mars isn't the issue.  It is life support.  Astronauts lose something like 2% of their bone density per 30 days on average in zero gravity and they also have serious issues containing and mitigating CO2 levels in space.<p>Rocket ships are cool - but life support is the real issue. <comment><USER2> I agree that is where the long term focus ought to be.

Do you know if artificial gravity, nutrition and shielding will solve most of the problems?</comment>


Hiring Data Scientists Step 1: Stop Looking for Data Scientists - <AUTHOR> https://towardsdatascience.com/hiring-data-scientists-step-1-stop-looking-for-data-scientists-9eb282a0f96b?lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_feed%3BBx%2B8vsh8RDWBJMBVPM5c2g%3D%3D <comment><USER2> Dead on that data science job descriptions reveal how poorly companies understand what needs doing on their data and how to ask for it.

I don't agree the answer is to just look for personable, inquisitive people sans PhD and treat them sanely. In the long run few companies are capable of such magnamity and calm. You are typically not doing these nice people any favors, dropping them into a messy pile of data and high expectations.

The solution is defining the task you need done and hiring something more specific than a "data scientist".

I have seen Facebook "data science" roles that were just entry level SQL Analyst / dashboard "developer" roles. OK, why not just ask for a "business analyst" or "marketing analyst"?

Other "data science" roles are just ETL development jobs; if ETL sounds boring to you, just call this "Software Developer - Data Engineering".

In the rarest of cases, someone justifies a need for an actual ML developer. Ask for an "ML engineer" and pay the sky-high salary.

Of course, asking for a DBA is so unsexy that nobody dares do it, and all of the above people - SQL analysts, ETL devs, ML devs - are way less productive than they could be.</comment>


Building A Node.js Server That Won't Melt - <AUTHOR> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/01/building-a-node-js-server-that-wont-melt-a-node-js-holiday-season-part-5/ <comment><USER2> This is definitely neat; it's a simple, clever way to fail somewhat- gracefully.

Interestingly, this is one piece of a broader strategy for building scalable web applications, addressed in Matt Welsh's thesis (SEDA):

<http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~mdw/proj/seda/>

If you haven't taken a look at the ideas in SEDA, it's definitely worth the time. Most modern web apps incorporate at least some pieces of it to great effect.

<comment><USER3> That's a very good technique! I did not even know about the event loop lag until now... It feels good to get a daily education from Hacker News!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4>
      // check if we're toobusy() - note, this call is extremely fast, and returns
      // state that is calculated asynchronously.
      if (toobusy()) res.send(503, "I'm busy right now, sorry.");

Saying it is calculated "asynchronously" seems pretty confusing in this context. Maybe "is cached at a fixed interval"?

<comment><USER5> Side note: caching at a fixed interval is a great way to save CPU cycles. If you're serving 100req/s and you had to grab the current time within 1sec accuracy for them, you could have 1/100th the amount of Date calls by getting the time each second instead of each request.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why you would do this, instead of putting your node server behind a more battle tested proxy, like Varnish or HAProxy, and limiting the number of simultaneous connections.

<comment><AUTHOR> Our problem is the the number of simultaneous connections we can support isn't static, it varies depending on the _type_ of traffic bursts (i.e. New vs. Returning users).

But agree that a higher level proxy is useful - because this way your overloaded application doesn't even need to deal with traffic (we hope to use toobusy to have applications instruct the routing layer to temporarily block / reroute traffic in times of load).

<comment><USER6> The reason that I asked that is I feel that most applications end up needing something at that layer eventually anyways, but not knowing exactly what level of traffic results in too much load is a good reason to do this.

<comment><USER7> It seems to me that letting the computer calculate when it's in trouble is preferable to have a human guessing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you are writing server software, I recommend Michael Nygard's book _"Release It!: Design and Deploy Production-Ready Software"_. Measuring event loop lag sounds like Nygard's "Circuit Breaker" pattern to avoid cascading failures.

The book's examples and text are all Java, but the lessons are applicable anywhere. He offers many scalability patterns (resource pools) and anti- patterns (runaway log files) with interesting stories from his experience debugging real systems. I especially liked his story about debugging a crash in an Oracle DB driver that caused unexpected Java exceptions to be thrown from java.sql.Statement.close(), which quickly blocked a DB connection pool.

<http://michaelnygard.com/>

</comment><comment><USER9> This is great to see! IMO it's something that should be configurable and built into http in node.js.

IIS [1] and other mature web servers like nginx [2] or apache [3] do this kind of thing for you and provide simple configuration on it.

[1] <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/943891> [2] [http://serverfault.com/questions/412323/nginx-503-error- in-h...](http://serverfault.com/questions/412323/nginx-503-error-in-high- traffic) [3] [http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mpm_common.html#maxrequ...](http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mpm_common.html#maxrequestsperchild)

<comment><USER10> Apache's MaxRequestsPerChild directive is not at all about limiting load; it says after serving N requests (or N connections in a keep-alive setting), the worker kills itself and another may be spawned in its place (subject to spare server/thread config). This mostly helps keep slow memory (or other resource) leaks in check by starting fresh every so often.

Did you mean to link to MaxClients[1]? MaxClients sets the maximum number of simultaneous connections; any additional connections will be queued by the OS socket api (subject to listen backlog, etc).

I think waiting to accept sockets that you can't handle is a better solution than either accepting a socket to return an error message, or (much worse) accepting a socket that overloads your system. Unfortunately, sometimes it can be hard to set MaxClients to the right value that isn't so big that you get reduced througput, or too small that you don't use all your resources. (One thing that does help you get to the right number for MaxClients is to set MinSpareServers to the same value as MaxClients; you will avoid issues where MaxClients is too big and you start swapping during high load, but you don't notice it because things are fine with a small number of servers).

Sorry, that was way too much information.

[1] [http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mpm_common.html#maxclie...](http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mpm_common.html#maxclients)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a neat little technique and the fact that the developers did this puts nodes.js higher in my stack of "technologies to consider".

A harder problem is to solve the same "melt-out" problem for the entire gamut of servers that are usually found in large serving stacks (various web servers, relattional and nosql db servers etc). The users are usually not the developers of these pieces of technology and there's never enough dev- bandwidth available to actually implement self-tuning techniques like the one mentioned here.

For such situations I once came up with a "little" trick to limit the damage in sudden overload situation. It allows the admins of said servers to tune the threadpool and request queue lengths in an intelligent way (with the help of historical performance data that most shops _should_ have). I mentioned it in this discussion thread here: [http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Whats-generally- used-methodol...](http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Whats-generally-used- methodology-threadpool-4145762.S.79451272)

</comment><comment><USER12> Forgive my ignorance, but I thought the whole point of Node.js was not to meltdown.

Are there some recommend resources I could learn more from about the out of the box scaling vs tactics and strategies that benefit growth? I love learning how this problem is tackled anywhere. :)

<comment><USER13> There's only so much load any piece of software running on a given and finished set of resources can handle properly... Once limits are reached, things will misbehave.

<comment><USER12> I agree completely, have lots of experience in complex hosting.

With all software having it's limits (assuming hw is relative) has a starting and ending point of when you need to start tweaking it, and in what direction. I was hoping to read more about that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've been looking for a solution for this, every time I had used 'nodemon' it couldn't handle the load, even if it was quite insignificant... perhaps I had misconfigured something, but I'm pleased to find this, good timing!

</comment><comment><USER15> Instead of returning a 503 page it could attach a ticket (by cookies) and say: "Your request will be solved in 55 seconds, be patient". The time calculation is based on statistics in the last 10 minutes or 1 hour...

<comment><USER16> The problem is not the lag before resolving the request, it's the lag the user finding out that the request will not be solved. Underlying this is the fact that the server simply does not have enough power to resolve all requests, so some must fail.

The trick of using event loop lag is pretty neat, but the general strategy is IMHO a must have for any service. By aborting early and somewhat gracefully, the user knows ASAP, receives a controlled message that suggests she should not quickly retry, and the server can avoid trying to do part of the work for the request that is not going to be completed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is pretty cool. It seems like 10 seconds is still a pretty long time to wait for a response when connections over the max limit are being dropped. Is there a reason for this or some way to tune it?

</comment><comment><USER18> Using event loop lag is pretty clever. I think I first learned about event loop lag the hard when trying to do DOM animations that relied on setTimeout intervals without checking the current time.

</comment><comment><USER19> It'd be interesting to experiment with pairing this to a proof-of-work system (e.g. Hashcash) to smooth the transition between toobusy and !toobusy. With an additional signalling mechanic, it could help the surge against peers in a cluster when one server begins to struggle.

Though you'd need a custom client, so maybe for appcache'd webapps or mobile apps, but not typical webapps. Or browser vendor participation (not serious (ok, half serious)).

</comment><comment><USER20> And what happens when there are too many requests to handle even this way?

</comment><comment><USER21> Great tip! Can you explain how you figured out the 200 request/sec limit?

<comment><AUTHOR> That was specifically for the example server - if each request uses 5ms of processor time, (1000 ms / s) / (5 ms / req) == (200 req / s)

[https://gist.github.com/4532177#file-application_server- js-L...](https://gist.github.com/4532177#file-application_server-js-L3-L20)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> But will it blend?

<comment><AUTHOR> like, make you a smoothie? Or do this: [https://github.com/lloyd/node- toobusy/blob/master/toobusy.cc...](https://github.com/lloyd/node- toobusy/blob/master/toobusy.cc#L26-L27)

<comment><USER23> A joke, I believe: melt vs. blend

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> i thought node.js was fast as hell bad ass rock star tech that would never melt.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzkRVzciAZg>

<comment><USER25> well it's still pretty bad ass and rock star that you can measure server load by looking at "event loop lag", that's actually really neat... how do you do that with threads?

<comment><USER24> "how do you do that with threads?"

how should I know? :)</comment></comment></comment>


Systems Performance: Enterprise and the Cloud, 2nd Edition - <AUTHOR> http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2020-07-15/systems-performance-2nd-edition.html <comment><USER2> I bought the first one five years ago and it is still excellent and valid, so this one will be excellent too.

I have to see what the differences are, but I'll probably buy this one too.

</comment><comment><USER3> I am unreasonably excited about this. Gregg is a treasure.</comment>


Ask HN: Identifying target market before you have a market - <AUTHOR> Hi guys, was wondering if any of you had any insight on how to look at this. My startup is basically a service that lets you share links by creating a link blog.
We're starting to promote, and I started wondering: well, what kind of people do I target to use this? Bloggers? People who use competing/overlapping services? Even if I wanted to try and lure Digg'ers for example, I'm troubled because I don't know what kind of people they are, or have to find them specifically enough.
It lead me to wonder how services like Twitter, Digg, and Reddit promoted early. They really didn't have anybody specific to target, so how did they get people to try their services? At the earliest stage when you have no users and nobody knows your product. How, and who, do you get the word out to?
Thanks <comment><USER2> It seems you have three questions, how do you find who your costumers might be, how do you reach them, and what do you say to them.

Keep this separated as it makes easier to research :)

I'm going to suggest something for your first question, which is your submission title. How do you identify your potential market? The simplest way is to think what problems you are solving, and then come up with people who have this problem, and preferably who would pay money to avoid it.

</comment><comment><USER3> one suggestion is to use some sort of ad platform, for your service I would just suggest reddit, google and bing.. try to cheaply target certain niches, with customized ads. That way if you see out of the many campaigns you will be creating you can see what gets traction based on location, demographics.. etc.</comment>