Introducing the GoodWatch - <AUTHOR> https://goodwatch.org/posts/introducing-the-goodwatch/ <comment><USER2> I am sooo jealous of this. What an amazing project. Yes it would be front page on Hackaday but pleased it appeared here because HN is all about (IMHO) inventive and creative technology and its possibilities and applications. These sort of projects illuminate for the rest of us on what might be possible. Has inspired me to break open the boxes of parts i have and build something that works (useful or not remains to be seen), just to explore the possible. By day i work on Enterprise software, but ive had more inspiration moments when working on IoT wireless stuff at home than ever had in meetings, workgroups, or sitting in an office.

To the author and creator, a huge thank you for the inspiration, education. Like one other poster mentioned i too would like a quick donate button for this. I do use for other projects because i think its important to acknowledge people who make stuff like this. Whether is code or hardware, or sometimes even just ideas on KS, give a few bucks if you can to share the fun and inspiration and reward others.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a bit orthogonal, but if you're interested in the watch form factor, TI makes a really neat watch dev board for the MSP430 that has a built-in accelerometer and support for wireless sensors.

[http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/EZ430-Chronos](http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/EZ430-Chronos)

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure whether Chronos is still in production. In comparison to this chronos is large (it is significantly larger that you would expect from the pictures) and it's radio capabilities are limited (not to mention that it does not have keyboard ;))

TI also for a short time made more advanced version with bluetooth, sane industrial design and certified radio which was quite similar to Pebble.

<comment><USER3> It's definitely getting long in the tooth, but I believe a few places still stock them. Mouser & Digikey both have a handful in stock.

Mouser: [https://www.mouser.com/search/refine.aspx?Ntk=P_MarCom&Ntt=1...](https://www.mouser.com/search/refine.aspx?Ntk=P_MarCom&Ntt=182587955)

Digikey: [https://www.digikey.com/en/product-highlight/t/texas- instrum...](https://www.digikey.com/en/product-highlight/t/texas- instruments/ez430-chronos)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is one of those articles/projects where I really miss an established universal web-wide donation system. I just want to click a button on that page and send the author a few bucks as a Thank You for doing amazing things.

(And no, a Paypal link is not an answer to this problem)

<comment><USER6> Why doesnt paypal work? All they need to list is an email address, it's the lowest amount of work.

<comment><USER7> It forces me to create an account with them (even though people say it doesn't), and has repugnant policies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I miss posts like this on HN.

<comment><USER9> Came here to reply: "this is why I read HN.". Glad to see more people feel like that.

@author (if here). Thanks, fantastic read and an even better gadget. You made me feel "O my, I need this!".

<comment><USER10> If this why you read HN, I'd suggest checking out Hackaday, which gives you new content along these lines pretty much every day.

Would recommend checking out both the Hackaday blog and Hackaday.io. The blog covers news articles about hacks, and Hackaday.io is a place where a community of hackers share their own projects:

[https://hackaday.com/blog/](https://hackaday.com/blog/)

[https://hackaday.io/](https://hackaday.io/)

The main negatives I could say about Hackaday is the comment section on the blog is frequently a waste of time, and the UI of Hackaday.io could do with some improvements (IMO), but there's plenty of interesting projects to check out, and it's easy to ignore the comments section.

<comment><USER11> Hackaday is indeed great for finding out about neat projects. Don't read the comments, though. Everyone is _hobbying wrong_ and _they need to know it right now._

<comment><USER12> Post more Hackaday articles here.

<comment><USER10> You're capable of doing the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Oh my gosh this is amazing, such a labor of love. Everyone clearly needs a reverse engineered disassembler on their wrist.

<comment><USER14> I was going to leave a snarky comment about "reverse engineered disassembler" but then accidentally saw the username. What do you mean by that?

<comment><USER15> I would assume he's referring to the MSP430 disassembler built into the watch so you can reverse engineer the watches hardware, as it says in the article.

<comment><USER16> That was awesome but that is a reverse engineering disassembler (a bit redundant when the GoodWatch guy wrote the code to begin with but ...).

A reverse engineered disassembler would be a disassembler that has been reverse engineered itself, which was not what the article said.

It confused me, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > It also has a hex editor, because no proper lady or gentleman should be > caught in public without one on the wrist.

I'll hold this thought dear for the rest of my life, thanks for sharing this amazing project.

</comment><comment><USER18> I really wish the Oscilloscope Watch had made it through the hassle of production:

[http://www.gabotronics.com/oscilloscopes/oscilloscope- watch....](http://www.gabotronics.com/oscilloscopes/oscilloscope-watch.htm)

(Disclaimer: I'm one of the disappointed backers of his kickstarter campaign, which went nowhere...)

If there were another attempt at making a watch like this one, I'd definitely be a backer. I think this is really an ideal time for someone to start up an open-source, powerful watch platform ..

</comment><comment><USER19> So what's going on with those Hungarian words on the disassembler pic? :)

<comment><USER20> I want to know the answer to that as well. Judging from travis's callsign (and name) he is based in the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> In case anyone loves this type of thing but hasn't heard of PoC||GTFO, I encourage you to take a look: [https://www.alchemistowl.org/pocorgtfo/](https://www.alchemistowl.org/pocorgtfo/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> At first I thought this was a firmware mod for those calculator watches, but it's a new circuit board. Comparable in power to those TI msp430 developer watches, but with better UI possibilities.

</comment><comment><USER22> See also [https://github.com/carrotIndustries/pluto](https://github.com/carrotIndustries/pluto) , a replacement board for the ubiquitous Casio F-91W, also using a TI microcontroller.

<comment><USER23> That's pretty incredible, considering that f91w has such a small body.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Wow. Everything about this is amazing, including the nostalgia from leafing through KMart catalogues of the 1980s for all the Casio watches.

<comment><USER25> Casio Wrist Camera digital watch

Casio digital watch with built-in infrared remote for your TV

Good times. Actually not very useful but they looked so hot back then and I remember just laying on the floor looking at the pictures of such watches.

<comment><USER26> It was quite useful to drive your teacher crazy when changing the volume randomly of the TV.

That was so fun when I was a teenager.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Awesome project. I'm surprised we don't see more msp430-based watch projects. Bonus points for ham radio functionality. I'd be all over this if I didn't hate wearing a watch.

</comment><comment><USER28> Does anyone know what the apparently pocket-sized notebook computer is? The one in the picture about halfway through the post, with the watches draped over it.

<comment><USER29> GPD Pocket: [http://www.gpd.hk/pocket.asp](http://www.gpd.hk/pocket.asp)

<comment><USER30> well that's fucking sexy. now I want one.

<comment><USER12> It delivers what it promises -- an unbelievably small Windows PC -- but there are four annoying things about it.

First, the fan runs when it's charging. Every other device on Earth can charge silently when turned off.

Second, the keyboard is not just small but also oddly arranged. Maybe some people can adjust to it, but for me, dear lord do I despise the letter Q when I'm using it.

Third, there's something odd in the I/O that makes USB drives incredibly slow. The first thing I did was make a Windows 10 recovery drive on it (because I wanted to wipe it and run Linux). I kid you not, the operation took about 24 straight hours to complete. I haven't bothered profiling the system so I don't know where the bottleneck is. But it was a USB3 name-brand USB drive that I know is fast.

Fourth, they claim Ubuntu runs on it, but they took the typical Shenzhen approach of putting a modified binary on Mega -- in this case an Ubuntu ISO -- rather than upstreaming their changes or publishing source code. No way in hell am I installing a binary download like that as my OS. Maybe they are in the process of upstreaming and a future pristine Ubuntu distro will run on it. Meanwhile I'm stuck with Windows 10 (and no, I'm not happy with that, either -- I have no way of knowing it's not rooted, either).

<comment><USER30> > Fourth, they claim Ubuntu runs on it, but they took the typical Shenzhen > approach of putting a modified binary on Mega -- in this case an Ubuntu ISO > -- rather than upstreaming their changes or publishing source code.

Well, that makes this a no-go for me. Thanks for the info, seriously!

> No way in hell am I installing a binary download like that as my OS

Um, if you run windows 10 and install drivers from them, then you're running binary crap. (not to mention windows 10 is binary crap, but I digress)

<comment><USER18> Disregard the claim! I have a GPD Pocket and run Ubuntu on it, and it is freakin' awesome. Get the proper image - not the braindead one - from here:

[https://apt.nexus511.net](https://apt.nexus511.net)

Its a mighty fine device, my favourite Linux machine ever .. and all of the issues discussed are no longer an issue thanks to the GPD Pocket/Ubuntu community.

(Also see [http://reddit.com/r/gpdpocket/](http://reddit.com/r/gpdpocket/) for more up to date news on this delightful machine..)

<comment><USER12> Thanks, I'll give it a look. Last time I looked at the subreddit, there were various people working on Ubuntu respins, but none of the projects looked like a frontrunner yet for a low-maintenance build.

<comment><USER18> nexus511's dist build is wonderful - no worries whatsoever!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > It has ~5 years of battery life, knows days of the week for the next two > thousand years, and has a handy RPN calculator.

I wonder why two thousand years? All the common day of the week algorithms should work as long as the current leap year pattern [1] continues.

[1] (year % 4 == 0) && ((year % 100 != 0) || (year % 400 == 0)

</comment><comment><USER32> This is definitely the geekiest, most awesome thing I will see today. Fantastic.

</comment><comment><USER33> I absolutely love the work and the tone of this article. Very neat hack.

</comment><comment><USER34> So it will be possible to buy one ? It looks cool

<comment><USER35> It would be pretty cool for someone to step up and make a few of these, but they would need to be prepared to be mildly inundated with orders.

Someone should tell Casio about this, and forward them [http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi- sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/archv018.cg...](http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi- sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/archv018.cgi?read=139415) as an example of what can happen when insiders successfully pull strings.

In this particular case the poster in the linked thread worked deep inside HP and lobbied hard to get an SDK released and manufacture the calculator with a nondescript set of pins inside the battery compartment that permitted reflashing.

The result was the "WP 34s" firmware: [https://commerce.hpcalc.org/34s.php](https://commerce.hpcalc.org/34s.php) is a basic overview (unknown if clicking _Order_ works, email first) and [https://sourceforge.net/projects/wp34s/](https://sourceforge.net/projects/wp34s/) has full source code, details - _and emulators for Linux /Windows/macOS that Just Work™_, I might add.

This firmware was written from scratch - the SDK provided a functioning compiler and basic architectural info about the calculator, but no sample code. The above firmware was thus written entirely from scratch. It implements all standard functionality (re-implements, heh) as well as a number of advanced fan-built features (more info at the SF link above).

IIUC, the HP-20b is sadly no longer in active production, so getting one's hands on this interesting bit of kit is tricky. But despite the fact that this never really made headline news the whole venture worked perfectly. Thought I'd mention it.

As for what I think Casio should do: the TL;DR is that it's really, really hard to do things that are offensive or damaging from a business standpoint with a 8-char 7-segment LCD and a tiny keypad. This isn't a smartwatch with a full-color LCD. So there's that.

The real problem is that, well, what little market demand is left for wrist calculator watches is now split between the option of purchasing a smartwatch instead. So demand would be probably within the <2%-of-entire-market range.

But if there happen to have any active production lines still producing these calculator watches, I can totally see Casio being able to very cheaply swap in a PCB with something like what OP has created.

NB. Since I have no idea how far this comment could reach - by all means copypasta.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Mirror: [https://web.archive.org/web/20171216140013/https://goodwatch...](https://web.archive.org/web/20171216140013/https://goodwatch.org/posts/introducing- the-goodwatch/) (can't find a mirror w/photos)

</comment><comment><USER37> That's pretty cool, I plan to do something similar but with a cheap smartwatch, a lot o Chinese smartwatch are based on the same soc family, and usualy are pretty hackable.

</comment><comment><USER38> You are the Q for Dick Tracy.

</comment><comment><USER39> This is neat!

</comment><comment><USER40> Superb!

</comment><comment><USER41> >What if you're stuck in an hour-long SCRUM meeting and need to reverse engineer your watch's firmware with pen and paper to retain your own sanity?"

The worst of the worst meetings.</comment>


The 'consciousness causes quantum collapse' hypothesis (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Does_Consciousness_Cause_Quantum_Collapse <comment><USER4> This kind of thing has always seemed redundant to me. We already have a perfectly good understanding of how decoherence causes _effective_ collapse, by making branches of the wavefunction unable to interfere with each other. This follows automatically from the basic rules of quantum mechanics, without having to add any extra ingredients, and is absolutely necessary to get the predictions to come out right (e.g. in cosmology, where there were no conscious observers at all).

This article proposes to add an extra, ad hoc collapse mechanism determined by a system's integrated information, but what's the point? At _best_ , it will be a more complicated rephrasing of an effect that already happens automatically, in which case it is unnecessary by Occam's razor.

</comment><comment><USER5> This all fell from Eugene Wigner's ideas, [https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/experiments...](https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/experiments/wigners_friend/) \-- and he was convinced (quite rightly in my opinion) that "consciousness" causes wave function collapse. The only mistake there perhaps is thinking that consciousness is unique to humans (or any "living" thing.) Consciousness itself has traditionally been defined as a product of the brain; I think at some point we'll figure out that the formation of the brain is more likely the result of consciousness. This implies that everything is "conscious" (i.e. any quanta), and that consciousness is better defined as something that is capable of updating its state as a result of observation, rather than something uniquely human. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory) \- a more recent view on the nature of reality, moves in theses lines and is something I myself subscribe to. Ultimately I believe that reality is subjective from the ground up, that there is no such thing as objective reality. This is hard to comprehend since we are hard wired to state things objectively. It's a form of the "many worlds" view, except you must remember that the idea that there "are" many worlds is an objective statement, and in a universe that is entirely subjective from the observer's point of view, this utterance is not compatible with that view. It's a form of solipsism, yes, but a strict one nonetheless.

<comment><USER6> I don't think it solves anything, it just "moves the cheese" by referencing (requiring?) an undefinable "consciousness". In the spirit of Gestalt, let's break this down a bit further to try to find the fine line.

A person is a conscious being. What if said person is asleep or intoxicated and observes the The Double-Slit Experiment? What if person is sedated ("unconscious")? What if there is damage to the optic center of the brain limiting perception? What about those who believe they can see but are quite blind ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton%E2%80%93Babinski_syndrom...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton%E2%80%93Babinski_syndrome)) ? And what about those who can see but falsely believe they cannot?([https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-blindness- is...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-blindness-is-in-the- mind/)) Does this still impart consciousness upon the system?

What if one's optic nerve is severed but the eye is otherwise functional? Is a dissected eyeball sufficient to cause wave collapse. If not, what additional elements of the mind are required? How much additional processing is enough?

Must it be an advanced, self-aware mind with a complex eye as found in a mammal or a cephalopod? What about a single-celled organelle in plankton which can observe light and react? ([https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/plankton-s- eye-made-up-of...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/plankton-s-eye-made-up- of-organelles-study-suggests-1.3136018)) I think you're proposing that this is sufficient.

And what is special about just the visible spectrum of energy? What about radio waves? Does my Sony Walkman or a cat-whisker radio collapse the quanta? What about Infrared? etc? Do the leaves of a houseplant perform this act? What about physical vibration? Does a seismometer or accelerometer perform this quantum task?

>>consciousness is better defined as something that is capable of updating its state as a result of observation This is extraordinarily broad. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle would then seem to illustrate that every subatomic particle is conscious.

This seems a most unsatisfactory conclusion.

<comment><USER5> I'll not address your points individually, but instead deal with your final notes. Yes, I believe that every quantum entity may observe and cause wave function collapse _in their subjective view of the universe_. It's easy to believe everything is objectively real whether observed or not because our local views - when compared - are highly correlated/decohered.

If you find yourself talking about what it means to observe by breaking down how the eye works, then you're aligned with Wigner's thoughts on it. I am not; an observation in my world is akin to an interaction with. It does not mean "awareness" in the sense that a brain might acknowledge something detected by the eye.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems to be a far cry from explaining the Hard Problem of consciousness.

As for the meat of the text (pardon the pun, I just re-read "they're made out of meat" yesterday), my amateur understanding is that there may be some degree of quantum effects in the microtubules of the brain, but that decoherence is very localized and limited, thus unlikely to have broader impact on physical systems at large. To this end, it's unclear how a shared physical reality such as ours would allow for quantum effects from a measurement experiment, through the non quantum systems to the brain. Can someone explain the basis of the hypothesis presented by the paper in simple terms?

<comment><USER8> That's because he's not trying to explain it. The article is about quantum determinism. He offers two explanations, depending on how one views the source of consciousness, dualistically or physically. IIT doesn't explain consciousness. It's merely a correlation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Lee Smolin's book, "Einstein's Unfinished Revolution" is largely about particle/wave duality and an alternate theory that never caught on: the Pilot Wave theory. It's a Realist alternative to the Anti-Realist school of Heisenberg, etc.

As Feynman used to say, "nobody understands quantum physics". I really don't have a clue which theory is more "correct". But the book's interesting, and I recommend it.

Also, an exploration of consciousness and quantum physics is central to the Dalai Lama's, "The universe in a single atom". Another book I highly recommend. He's passionate about science, and it's a thought provoking book. In "The Profound Mind", he goes further into various philosophies, and has some really interesting things to say on consciousness, subjectivity, etc.

Quantum Mechanics attracts a lot of "woo". I didn't find the Dalai Lama's books to fall into that category — more philosophical than anything else. Just worth mentioning.

It's a shame, in general, how much pseudoscience surrounds Quantum Mechanics — the reality of things is plenty interesting and confounding on its own! [Edit: not at all meant as a judgement on this particular article; just following a train of thought.]

<comment><USER10> I thought pilot wave theory was disproved recently?

[https://www.quantamagazine.org/famous-experiment-dooms- pilot...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/famous-experiment-dooms-pilot-wave- alternative-to-quantum-weirdness-20181011/)

<comment><USER11> Just skimmed over, but this is only about the oil droplets experiment - <USER2> would have been a great macroscopic model/demonstration of pilot wave theory.

If it fails the double slit experiment - then simply it is not a good macroscopic model/demonstration of the Broglie-Bohm quantum interpretation. But AFAIK Broglie-Bohm has been already proven to be equivalent to all the other popular quantum interpretations (if you give up locality), so it has not been falsified at all (and actually can't be - as it gives the same experimental forecasts as the other theories)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As far as I understand - we can make a random number generator decide if the automated observation of the photons passing the slits happens or not and then the pattern on the screen will change from one to the other randomly.

So we're pretty sure it's not consciousness that causes the collapse, right? Unless the RNG or the camera is conscious :)

<comment><USER12> Panpsychism to the rescue! :p

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

<comment><USER13> Panpsychism is really something that makes sense to me. It's a really parsimonious way of solving the hard problem of consciousness without getting into dualism or assuming anything special about matter that makes up sentient beings. I really don't think that testing this could ever be in the realm of physics, though.

<comment><USER12> I certainly find it a compelling theory, and I agree that it's probably not testable. I lean toward consciousness being an illusion or simply non- existent. It kind of seems like we, by nature, reject this notion because it shatters our collective human psyche, but it wouldn't surprise me.

On the other hand we have a hard time even defining consciousness.

<comment><USER14> Consciousness is probably the only thing that _cannot_ be an illusion. Whatever you may think, the fact that you are having an experience is the only thing you can know for sure (all the content of your experience could be planted into your mind, but you at least know that you are experiencing it). You really can't know if anyone else really exists and is having an experience, or if its all a dream filled with impersonators created by your own mind, but you know first hand that at least one experience is happening (your conscious experience).

Perhaps "the self", or "the idea that I am a being with a consciousness separate from all the universe" is an illusion.

<comment><USER12> > Whatever you may think, the fact that you are having an experience is the > only thing you can know for sure

It seems to me that you're defining consciousness as having thought (please correct me if I'm wrong). I'm ok with that, but I think at a minimum you'd have to agree that any creature is capable of having thought and therefore possessing of consciousness. If not, let's say you'd argue that an ant is just reacting to chemical signals, I'd just say the same is true of humans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Sean Carroll mentions something to the effect that we are just part of the measurement. I personally feel more comfortable with that explanation as it seems detached from the human need to feel special.

</comment><comment><USER16> I just don't see why consciousness would require any sort of special physics. We live in a world full of emergent phenomena, and consciousness seems like it should just be another one of them.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is all neatly sidestepped by many-worlds: the wavefunction collapses that you observe send you down one trouser of time. It may look like you're influencing the world, but you're really just being dragged along by it. Non- sentient things are doing the same thing in the same way.

</comment><comment><USER18> There is no collapse. One can create pairs of entangled particles and send streams of these in opposite directions - left and right for example. When particles on the left are measured, it causes the so-called collapse of the wave function and that of its paired particle that went to the right. This means one can "collapse" the wave functions of one stream of particles (right) by taking measurements of the other (left). The thing is, the particles on the right behave exactly the same way regardless of weather their wave function has been collapsed. In other words, no one can tell if this collapse has even occurred. Why is it talked about as a discrete event?

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure I follow. Aren't entangled particles in superposition until they're measured? That would mean we have no way of saying they behaved the same way, until we measure them — at which point the "spin" of the particles will be random and opposite.

Also, "measurement" doesn't have to mean "by a human". Particles in effect "measure" each other when they collide — which is one theory as to why we don't see quantum effects at a macro scale — there's too much stuff colliding into each other, collapsing the wave function.

A book that's pretty fascinating in this regard is "Life at the Edge: The Coming Age of Quantum Biology". It explores how birds navigate the magnetic field via quantum effects that we once thought couldn't "survive" at a macro scale. Fascinating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Cixin Liu's book Ball Lightning brilliantly incorporates this phenomenon into the plot, for anyone interested in a sci-fi book recommendation.

(Of course, his Remembrance of Earth's Past trilogy is amazing too and required reading.)

</comment><comment><USER20> It seems to me that you can't think that consciousness causes quantum collapse, and _also_ hold to a purely materialist idea of consciousness. Because if consciousness is a purely material phenomenon, then it arises from a bunch of interactions of quantum systems. Then "consciousness causes quantum collapse" reduces to "a bunch of quantum interactions cause quantum collapse", which is kind of unhelpful.

To put it a different way: For this to make any sense, consciousness has to be something different. It can't be just material.

<comment><USER21> How many people believe in both CCC and materialism though? Virtually all physicists, who tend toward materialism, have rejected CCC; the people who believe in CCC tend to be panpsychists already. You're correct but kind of aiming at a strawman.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Even if true, there must be at least one other parameter, since consciousness does not determine the particular state the wave collapses.

</comment><comment><USER23> It's photography. (The Rise and Fall of D.O.D.O. Novel by Neal Stephenson and Nicole Galland)

</comment><comment><USER24> The concept that consciousness might cause quantum collapse is untestable. Quantum systems that have not been observed by conscious observers are fundamentally unobservable, by definition. Let me put that another way. No conscious mind will ever be able to observe anything about a quantum system that has never been observed by a conscious mind.

<comment><USER25> I mean, this is so far out of my wheel house I can't even claim to know anything about this stuff. But why couldn't a form of an unconscious camera exist? We could theoretically just look at pictures of the past from an unconscious camera and therefore never collapse the system?

<comment><USER26> I think the idea is that once you look at the picture, that's a mind observing the event. The system "collapses" when it grows big enough that a consequence of it affects you.

This should be similar to the idea explored by the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment.

<comment><USER25> Though we observe the effects of the double slit experiment on the wall with the interference pattern. Thereby not collapsing the system and taking a screenshot of the un-collapsed system?

I would argue the wall is an unconscious camera in my example. Because when observed during the experiment, the interference pattern disappears. But not if it's observed after.

Secondly, the more and more I re-read the parent comment. The less and less sense it makes.

>No conscious mind will ever be able to observe anything about a quantum system that has never been observed by a conscious mind.

That isn't really true in concept though, as in my example, we observed a quantum system at play that wasn't observed during its' "execution" so to speak. We literally wouldn't be discussing quantum experiments and quantum experimental phenomena if his statement was "completely" true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Does the question "can a computer cause quantum collapse?" have an answer?

<comment><USER10> Room temperature causes wavefunction collapse :) That's the whole problem with quantum computing :)

<comment><USER28> But saying a system is at room temperature is actually just a way of expressing your ignorance about a system's microstate. It's taking off your glasses and saying "I don't have any idea what this system is doing in detail, all I personally know is how much energy it has per degree of freedom in the system".

<comment><USER10> Wasn't it supposed to be conscious observation that collapses the wavefunction and not uncertainty?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Does the Earth or the apple cause the gravity?

<comment><USER30> Yes.

<comment><USER31> Not necessarily. All apparent casual connections are just an artifact of the timeflow, which on its own might be nothing but a consequence of a particular coordinate choice.

<comment><USER20> If I understand you correctly, the timeflow would be different with a different coordinate choice. That can't be right - the physical results would be different simply because of a coordinate choice.

<comment><USER31> The physical results might be the same. Imagine your universe is that of an empty 2D plane with a single unit circle in it and you use euclidean metric, but 1 of 2 coordinates you experience as time. From your perspective the life of the matter in that universe starts at T0 as a point, then grows to a line of length 2, then shrinks back to a point.

Now there might even be a "physical law", describing the evolution of that line as "time" goes (and I am sure there is a simple one), that has "cause" and "effect". But in the end no matter which direction you choose as "time", the law is the same.

Now I leave the question of how can you exist in this universe open (or rather obviously impossible in any meaningful sense), but there might be other more complex constructs, that permit "intelligence" along a certain dimension, and it is another question whether our universe is one of these.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Utter nonsense. Collapse is caused by interactions between particles, humans got nothing to do with it.

</comment><comment> jagged-chisel No.

"Observation" involves interacting with the system under test, thereby necessarily changing the system. It is this interaction that results in quantum collapse.

Yes.

With our consciousness, we become curious and ask questions. We devise experiments that lead to quantum collapse.

Is "consciousness" the only cause of quantum collapse? I guess that depends on the simulation we're in.

<comment><USER33> > With our consciousness, we become curious and ask questions. We devise > experiments that lead to quantum collapse.

You are mixing up intelligence and consciousness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> By Betteridege's Law - no of course not.

For a slightly better answer we need physicists rather than philosphers - <USER3> need to consider at what scale the quantum measures work - and what scale they're observing at.

<comment><USER35> What do physicists know about consciousness?

<comment><USER20> At least as much as philosophers know about quantum mechanics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This was brought up in the energy healing episode of Netflix's Goop docuseries.

The tools physics uses to measure elementary particles lacking the precision to not disturb the system being observed is a failure of the tools and not sufficient to reasonably imply that human consciousness has anything to do with the fact that observing a system disturbs the system under observation.

Far more interesting and grounded along these lines is Penrose's Orch OR; consciousness is a fundamental physical structure or law of the universe itself that our brains have evolved to access.

<comment><USER37> Goop being referenced on Hacker News in a conversation about quantum physics will likely be the most unexpected thing I experience today.

<comment><USER36> Point being is that the article posted is the same level of metaphysical woo woo.</comment></comment></comment>


Hyperloop One Becomes 'Virgin Hyperloop One' - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/12/hyperloop-one-becomes-virgin-hyperloop-one-with-virgin-group-investment/ <comment><USER2> The biggest problem people have with Hyperloop is because it certainly seems like Elon Musk just waltzed into the high speed rail debate and Dunning- Krugered some crazy scheme that doesn't look anything at all like conventional approaches to the problem and thus doesn't jive with any common sense we might have built up around different transport methods.

But that's kind of what Elon Musk does: he Dunning-Krugers himself into a new industry every couple of years, using a simplified, undergraduate physics level of analysis to find something that (to an optimistic non-field-expert) looks like a better solution to the problem.

And the most annoying thing of all is that he usually _succeeds_. Often in spite of his original idea being technically wrong. For instance, Falcon 9 was supposed to be recovered with parachutes... that didn't work, and people who were working on vertical landing rockets told them that, but at the time Elon just rolled his eyes and said "just use parachutes." But SpaceX/Elon found out the idea didn't work and switched to the "correct" solution and got it to work operationally (and with paying customers) much faster than people who had been working on the problem for years before.

The moral of the story is that it's often better to be able to execute fast even if you start out wrong than to take your time with the right answer.

<comment><USER3> This is also a good time to introduce the concept of survivorship bias. There's a fair chance that it was mostly luck, not ability, that it ultimately succeeded.

<comment><USER4> I used to think that about Musk, but his successes seem to be piling up. Specifically: Paypal, Tesla, and Space-X all seem to be rather successful.

<comment><USER5> SolarCity failed (and he had to buy it back himself with Tesla), Paypal was a success but it wasn't his, his part was x.com which was kind of a failure on its goal and had to sell (just because it sold for a lot of money doesn't mean it succeeded, in the terms of "success" we're discussing in this thread).

Tesla has yet to make any money and fails to meet its deadline, and it's yet to see how it will far now that the car giants are turning to EV (especially with many countries setting deadline in 2016 and 2017 about the end of non EV cars, which jolted all the big ones into joining).

Space-X is for me his one real success so far, it leaned on a lot of public funding to do it so it's really not the kind of things usual for HN, but they said they would re-use when everyone else said "can't be done" or "not worth it", and they're getting there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Maglev in a tube is a proven technology at full train scale. Here's the Chuo Maglev from the inside.[1] 500KPH in tunnels. They're not pumping down the tunnels, just plowing through on sheer power and money.

The Chuo Maglev makes the Hyperloop One look like a toy project. Watch the video. They have a production-quality train, with tourists and whiny kids riding it, going 500km/h. They've hit 603km/h in tests, but don't run it that hard normally. This is the first section of track between Tokyo and Osaka via Nagoya. Planned opening to Nagoya is 2027. Japan's Alps are in the way. They're tunneling straight through. Longest tunnel segment is 25km and it's being drilled now. 90% of the Tokyo-Nagoya segment will be in tunnel. Stations in Tokyo and Nagoya are under construction. The line will probably run 3-4 trains an hour each way, like the existing Shinkansen.

Hyperloop potentially has a higher speed to 900-1200km/h, but that may not be achieved in practice. The Chuo Shinkansen has a turn radius of 8km, and passengers don't have to be strapped in. Hyperloop would need 4x the radius to go twice as fast with the same ride quality. Laying out a route with a 24km turn radius severely limits where track can go.

Strapping everybody in and pulling 0.5G sustained is not going to go over with customers. Commercial aircraft usually stay within +-0.25G. Maybe 0.5G in mild turbulence, and customers don't like it.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ6dYhHIol8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ6dYhHIol8)

<comment><USER7> I'd separate:

\- longitudinal, predictable acceleration, where you can safely tell people to stay in their seats and all will be fine, I'm quite confident most humans would be comfortable with 1G horizontal that adds up to 1.5G diagonal: that's basically a roller-coaster; it's not too bad if you ease people into it, i.e. you minimise the jerk;

\- lateral, predictable acceleration, like one would expect in turns: not familiar with train technology enough to know if you could adapt pendular train to MagLev, but it seems like a simple enough hack to increase comfort significantly;

\- vibrations and turbulences: seem unlikely in a tube on rails, without a train coming in the opposite direction. Those definitely, customers don't like.

<comment><USER8> Lateral acceleration is much more annoying to deal with than longitudinal or vertical, even if it's constant. Perhaps they could tilt in bends to convert some of that lateral to vertical?

<comment><USER9> Yes, and with no windows, there's zero correlation between acceleration and visual cues. That's a perfect recipe for motion sickness.

<comment><USER10> Our local trains have cars that can lean a bit on their own. Bank the track a bit, lean the car as needed, the humans on board don't recognize a turn unless they're watching intently out the window.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The viability of Hyperloop One should not be the focus in the context of this article. That's not what this is about at all.

It's that Hyperloop One needed Richard Branson on board because Elon Musk is creating his own competitor now. This is an incredibly smart move to ensure the survivability of the business from a publicity perspective.

Branson has a history of doing things that people thought impossible or just a bad decision (like creating an airline company). Public perception is the name of the game at this stage, not just feasibility. From that perspective, Hyperloop One has effectively done one of the only strategic moves remaining at this point that ensures it has any chance of persuading a government to select them as a preferred vendor (or continue doing so).

<comment><USER12> Branson's missing a d from his almost nominatively-determining name — the guy's got a talent for self publicity over challenging the incumbency, which for the most part he hasn't since launching Virgin Airlines and Megastores, which were both back in the 80s.

<comment><USER12> Downvotes? Presumably not from Britons or anyone who knows anything about the guys history?

So what HAS he done then, other than brand anything he can then offload to third and fourth parties to run the businesses for him?

And don't say Virgin Galactic - that's just some clever peripheral branding to encourage the likes of the downvoters here that he is in any way novel or dynamic.

He's marketing clever, not strategically or developmentally-so.

<comment><USER13> He's worth $5 billion. He's a high-school drop-out dyslexic that started from nothing. He built a successful airline and record label, along with countless successful branded companies whose success partially rides on the vast effort he has put into building his own well-known brand - a substantial feat unto itself.

Yes, golly gee, what HAS he done.

<comment><USER12> I trust my respone to 'waegawegawe' pads out where I'm coming from.

He has a certain reputation here in Britain, however we here in Britain also have a certain reputation of shitting on people's success - I sincerely hope that's not how I'm coming across here.

Anyway, this is tangential nonsense, I'm sorry for diluting discourse!

<comment><USER14> > however we here in Britain also have a certain reputation of shitting on > people's success

That's okay, I appreciate you loaning us John Oliver. ;)

<comment><USER12> In a sense, I think you gave him to us. You often do :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Something I wrote a while ago.... w/ back of the napkin calculations.......

Why I wouldn't invest a money into Hyperloop

\- Stabilizing a single fault line risk pylon is more than $250K.

\- How many million are needed for vacuum pumps to evacuate 100+ million cubic feet of of pipe to 100 Pa?

\- Hot air discharge needs to go somewhere. For every 1 bar pressure, you need ~200 to ~400 cubic meters of volume which is larger

\- This seems very much like one of those Andy Grove Fallacies.

\- The hyperloop is a mega engineering project on the ground. Nobody on their team is a civil engineer. Looking at their team objectively, there seems to be a mismatch of competency.

\- At its core, the science i good, the cost-economics do not work. Das ist nicht gute.

<comment><USER16> When Musk first said that an LA<->SF Hyperloop could be built for 1/8th the cost of the equivalent HSR, I chuckled and then waited for the punchline, which still hasn't arrived.

It's a cool idea and I do want to see more prototypes and feasibility studies, but people need to get off the hype train (no pun intended) and be realistic about the cost.

<comment><USER17> Okay, we'll bookmark this for the future. Amtrak estimated a HSR/"bullet train" from D.C. to Boston would cost ~$151 billion. Since LA to SF will only be two stops, and we can assume Amtrak estimated at least 4 (Philly and NYC) let's bring the number down closer to $100 billion to make it even.

Do we think the Hyperloop costs are more or less than that? 1/8 of a theoretical $100b is $12.5b -- is $12.5billion for Hyperloop unreasonable? I have no opinion on cost personally, and I don't know economics, but this $151 billion from D.C. to Boston was floated by the established US player in rail infrastructure. Anything less than that number is fantastic, right?

<comment><USER18> You cannot compare D.C to Boston with SF to LAX. The east coast has much denser population so that you need more tunnels. LAX to SF HSR would not cost $151bn. Start and end are expensive but the part in the middle is "relatively" cheap.

<comment><USER17> Right, for comparison's sake I chopped off $51 billion bucks from the Northeast Corridor projection in the interest of balancing out the two.

Just because I felt like doing some more Google-fu, I found an article in the LA Times[0] that says a California HSR/bullet-train project is going to overshoot it's original budget (and deadline) of $68 billion. There's a lot of info out there about this project, and it's potential overruns, but let's forget all that and just stick to the original planned cost: $68 billion, so, about _half_ of the cost of Amtrak's northeastern bullet. Let's use that number for our comparison.

If we are going to hold Elon to his "we can do it for 1/8th the cost" blurb, then we are giving him like $8.5 billion to use for his SF/LA Hyperloop. Still, that doesn't sound unreasonable, right? He'll get a good deal on tunnel boring with his other company, and fuselage manufacturing can be handled by SpaceX. When it comes to financing, I don't think it's a major issue compared to other infrastructure works out there.

Like I said, though, I'm just going off the top of my head. I don't know finance or economics or vacuums or magnets.

There's a new LIRR train being dug in NYC called East Side Access. This is a commuter rail line, and is going to cost ~$10 billion or so[1]. Logistically these aren't the same, obviously, but if adding to the LIRR is worth ~$10b then surely the Hyperloop experiment is as well, right?

EDIT: Also, just for disclosure, I don't live in California and I'd probably never end up using the Hyperloop myself so I'm neither for nor against it versus any HSR. I just want to entertain the idea that cost shouldn't be the main focus of discussion IMO.

___

0\. [http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet- train-c...](http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-cost- final-20151025-story.html) 1\. [http://web.mta.info/capital/esa_alt.html](http://web.mta.info/capital/esa_alt.html)

<comment><USER19> > If we are going to hold Elon to his "we can do it for 1/8th the cost" blurb, > then we are giving him like $8.5 billion to use for his SF/LA Hyperloop. > Still, that doesn't sound unreasonable, right

I think boring company claimed it can bring down costs to 100 million dollars per mile (how? Just reduce tunnel size! SMH. Plus 100 million dollar a mile isn't too far from prices of current tunnels). Sf to la is 380 miles. That's 38 billion dollars just for the tunnel?

I think hyperloop is certainly feasible, if you spend hundreds of billions in it, the problems can be dealt with costly engineering.

If you think hsr will cost 150 billion, a maglev will be costlier, tunnels are extremely costly to build, but building a maglev in a vacuum tunnel will cost only 6 billion? How will cost savings of an order of magnitude happen?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> All of the Hyperloop development efforts are ignoring the elephant in the room: thermal expansion. If you do the math, the ends of a viable hyperloop track will have to move _hundreds of meters_ [1]. No one has yet advanced even a viable _idea_ for how to deal with that, let alone an actual design. Until that happens, the Hyperloop is vaporware.

[1] It's a trivial calculation. The thermal expansion coefficient of steel is about 10^-5. A typical run of, say, SF->LA is 600 km. Temperatures in the central valley range over about 100 degrees. Multiply everything together and the result is 600 meters.

<comment><USER21> Yeah, Elon Musk never thought about that because he was busy landing rockets.

Come on.. why do you think he did not think about that?

By the way, curves in the track can eliminate this when they can slide a little. And I can imagine there are more and better solutions.

<comment><USER22> Relevant: [http://www.commitstrip.com/en/2016/06/02/thank-god-for- comme...](http://www.commitstrip.com/en/2016/06/02/thank-god-for-commenters/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> When are we going to address the elephants in the room?

Just the tube alone:

      - largest pressure vessel in the world. How do you keep it at near vacuum?
      - Thermal expansion over such a large distance, especially if the top of the tube is warmer than the bottom.
      - Safety, how does an evacuation look like if the tubes are sealed?.

There are many more. Some how I feel like this is a "pipe" dream. Lots of marketing, very little engineering.

<comment><USER24> The CERN LHC tube is a 27km circle of vacuum and near-zero temperature, and they don't seem to have a problem with that (granted, they had some but it's solved now).

Frankly, yes, there may be issues, but I'm confident that the Human race will be able to overcome those.

<comment><USER25> The LHC's vacuum pipes are 6.3 cm in diameter..

<comment><USER26> What, really? What's with all those mega photos we see everywhere ?

<comment><USER27> This picture shows a cross section of part of the LHC. Those two yellow lines sticking out are the actual tubes. Everything else is equipment to manage the particles (detectors, containment, magnetic propulsion).

And for a sense of scale, a human can comfortably stand in that tunnel next to it.

Image: [http://www.tut.fi/cs/groups/public_news/@l102/@news/@p/docum...](http://www.tut.fi/cs/groups/public_news/@l102/@news/@p/documents/kuva/x194225.jpg) From here: [http://www.tut.fi/en/about-tut/news-and-events/tut-and- cern-...](http://www.tut.fi/en/about-tut/news-and-events/tut-and-cern- collaborate-in-development-of-particle-accelerators-of-the-future-x194226c2)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Just as a thought experiment, could the promotion of these "hyperloop" projects be a clever political ploy to misdirect/divert attention and prevent a viable high speed rail network from being built?

Elon's main business is electric cars and (one of) Branson's is airlines. So a reasonable competitor to both is fast and cheap(er) public transport along a major travel corridor in the USA.

This means that by promoting this alternative to high speed rail as faster, cheaper, better, they are undermining public support for a real project, which could mean its end.

<comment><USER29> Of all the problems facing construction of "viable high speed rail" in the US (they already exist in many other places), I don't think Hyperloop competition is among ... the top 50.

Practically anything _could_ be "a clever political ploy", but where's the evidence for this? Any in the absence of such evidence, why speculate?

 _Just as a thought experiment, could HN user daemin 's comments be part of a clever ploy to invent a fake persona to distract from a SECRET AGENDA?_ ;)

<comment><USER30> We're just building a new major high speed line in the UK, and you'd be surprised how often you hear people say that it shouldn't be built because the technology will be superseded by the hyperloop, or autonomous cars, or whichever. It's one of the major talking points, even if it isn't one of the major blocks.

<comment><USER31> Meh. The imminency of "Major New Technology Just Around The Corner" has always been a favourite argument for the anti-progress crowd.

EDIT to add: Before Hyperloop, it was Maglev.

And frankly, a significantly better argument against HS2 is that it's an impossibly expensive boondoggle.

<comment><USER30> > a significantly better argument against HS2 is that it's an impossibly > expensive boondoggle.

Nah, it connects most of England's largest cities, and will be 2/3rds of the network which will connect all of the cities of the North of England into something approaching a single labour market. Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham will be all be within 30-50 minutes of each other, with London within an hour and a half, with trains running between destinations 2 or 3 times an hour. The value of that is enormous.

<comment><USER32> It would have been politically a LOT easier of they'd built a Birmingham- Newcastle leg first

<comment><USER33> and probably better for the long term economy as well; the last thing Birmingham needs is a reason why London is a good base for doing business in Birmingham.

<comment><USER34> This is a pet peeve of mine. It hurts not just the other cities in the UK, but London as well. We don't alleviate overcrowding in London by making it easier to move to London. We alleviate overcrowding in London by making more other locations economically stronger.

That should mean strengthening a region around Birmingham, faster links connecting the Leeds - Sheffield - Manchester triangle + tack on Liverpool, and a wide orbital _around_ London improving connections between the towns around London that now are reduced to feeder/sleeper towns. There are towns around London that _has_ decent direct rail tracks, but where the fastest rail route is a 2x-3x longer journey in to a London terminal and back out again. Actually run direct trains, and you suddenly have new viable commuter regions that bypass the centre.

Only _after_ that should we think about making the links between these centres faster.

The problem of course is that many of these will need to be run at substantial losses for years before enough companies etc. will move/get established to change transport patterns, and it's so much easier to justify building more expensive routes where there is existing overcrowding.

Never mind that doing so just attracts more people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The original Hyperloop paper quotes its design pressure as "about 1/6 the pressure of the atmosphere on Mars" [1]. Martian atmospheric pressure is "about 0.6% of Earth's mean sea level pressure" [2]. So 0.1% of Earth's surface pressure, or a 1,000:1 pressure change.

To put that in perspective, the Boeing 787's GEnx-2B67, the most powerful GEnx engine variant, generates a 43:1 pressure ratio [3]. To get a sense of the engineering differences between 6:1 and 1,000:1, look at NASA's Space Power Facility [4].

The Hyperloop's thermal issues are a hard enough problem that they alone put this in the domain of materials science. That's the same category of problems separating us from a space elevator.

The Hyperloop always seemed like a transportation system not for this planet. The thermal issues, too, become trivial to solve on Mars: bury the tube. Mars does not appear to be too seismically active [5] and has no existing property rights to take into account [ _citation needed_ ]. (The lack of water also makes steel more viable.)

[1] [http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-201...](http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-20130812.pdf)

[2] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars)

[3] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GEnx](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GEnx)

[4] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Power_Facility](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Power_Facility)

[5] [https://www.space.com/418-marsquakes-red-planet- rumble.html](https://www.space.com/418-marsquakes-red-planet-rumble.html)

<comment><USER36> Some colleagues of mine also did a short feasibility assessment of the original white paper, and came to some similar conclusions. The propulsion system also made some assumptions about compressor performance that seemed too optimistic compared to existing turbomachinery.

That said, I have not followed closely enough to know if the hyperloop startups out there are following the original conception or if it has significantly evolved or not. I hear that they've ditched the compressor altogether, but that's got to have a pretty big impact on expected speeds.

<comment><USER35> > _Some colleagues of mine also did a short feasibility assessment of the > original white paper, and came to some similar conclusions_

Likewise. It sounds like above-surface (on Earth) is probably unfeasible given (a) security and (b) thermal concerns.

For security, we just contemplated debris from the track (or a bullet from an errant rifle) puncturing the tube. Hyperloop One is testing an 3.3m diameter and 500m long track [1]. That's 4,276 cubic meters [a]. "At sea level and at 15 °C air has a density of approximately 1.225 kg/m3" [2]. The air in the Hyperloop One test track thus weighs about 5,200 kg.

If we use the Hyperloop's original design spec [3], a puncture means air on one side at 1 atm expanding into the space on the other at 1/1,000 atm. This simplifies to a wall of air moving at just below the speed of sound. Since the speed of sound is about 330 m/s [4], the end of the tunnel will could hit with a pulse with about 140 megajoules of energy [b]. That's the energy in about 30 kg of TNT [5][c].

> _I hear that they 've ditched the compressor altogether, but that's got to > have a pretty big impact on expected speeds_

It currently sounds like a vactrain [1] with magnetic levitation [2].

[1] [https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/03/hyperloop-one-shows- pho...](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/03/hyperloop-one-shows-photos-of- its-test-track-being-built-in-nevada/)

[a] pi * (3.3 / 2) ^ 2 * 500

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

[3] [http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-201...](http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-20130812.pdf)

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

[b] (1/2) * (5200 / 2) * 330 ^ 2

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

[c] (140 * 10^6 / 4.184 * 10^9) * 10^3

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

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

<comment><USER37> _sigh_ another "deadly wall of air" theory ala Thunderf00t? Hasn't this been debunked already?

"A little bit of physics is a dangerous thing."

* A bullet or piece of debris would likely leave a hole much smaller than the diameter of the tube. A breach 1/10th the diameter of the tube will admit 1/100ths as much the air.

* Even if there _was_ a whole-tube breach, the "wall of air" will rapidly slow down and smear out into a gradual pressure rise due to friction with the tube walls. Pipes are not lossless! Within 5 km friction will have the air moving at highway speeds. So if you're so close that you can be killed by the air blast, you're so close that the pod can't brake before hitting the whole-tube breach (bad). In other words, "deadly pressure waves" don't increase your odds of dying beyond that of a regular "derailment" event.

* In the event of a breach (whole-tube or otherwise), sensors in the track will signal all the pods to stop and the tunnel to undergo emergency re-pressurization. So any "wave" won't get far.

<comment><USER35> > _ala Thunderf00t_

Just watched one of his videos on this--interesting and thank you for the pointer. Agree with you on his overstating the deadliness of pressure pulses. 30 kg of TNT is a lot of energy, certainly enough to knock your infrastructure out of commission for a couple days. The "everyone dies if the tube is punctured" argument is hyperbolic, though.

The materials science problem is the thermal expansion. And not the longitudinal one that Thunderf00t mentions. It's the transverse expansion. If these are above ground, the top will heat up relative to the bottom. That's a nasty problem to solve while maintaining the structural integrity to keep a giant vacuum with speeding capsules in place.

<comment><USER38> > It's the transverse expansion. If these are above ground, the top will heat > up relative to the bottom. That's a nasty problem to solve while maintaining > the structural integrity to keep a giant vacuum with speeding capsules in > place.

Right... you can probably solve that with a bucket of white paint. Worst case you cover it with an aluminum shield- aluminum does not absorb infrared radiation and will reflect 99.9% of ambient heat. Since the proposal included covering large sections of the tube in solar panels that isn't even a significant change.

<comment><USER35> > _you can probably solve that with a bucket of white paint. Worst case you > cover it with an aluminum shield- aluminum does not absorb infrared > radiation and will reflect 99.9% of ambient heat_

It's, unfortunately, harder than this. It's a similar problem to the ones we dealt with regarding rockets, standing fueled, on a pad. Both methods you propose were tried. The solution is to (a) paint it and (b) launch before the gradient becomes too big.

The stresses on the Hyperloop tube, when a capsule is rushing through it while it's containing a near vacuum, are comparable to those on a rocket nearing max Q [1]. The difference is with a rocket we take great care to maintain symmetry. With the Hyperloop, that isn't an option. That persistent asymmetry is what makes it a difficult materials problem, particularly if we're using any known metals (even wonderful light and thermally-conductive aluminium).

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

<comment><USER38> Dude, what. That's bullshit, _and_ the size difference will be on the order of dozens or low hundreds of microns. Not only that, but the distortion will be spread evenly across the tube because it's a tube. You're just asserting that putting the tube in shadow will somehow not block heat from the sun.

I'm also not sure you understand what I'm saying about an aluminum shield? Aluminum has an emissivity coefficient of .04. Thermal conductivity has nothing to do with it since it isn't touching the tube. It's purpose is just to not re-radiate infrared onto the tube.

<comment><USER14> I think what we have here is someone applying a known problem and solution space for one industry (rocketry) to another (civil engineering). A large vertical tube that needs to move quickly and under great stress may not allow for the same solutions that apply to a large horizontal tube that is relatively static.

Fixing a large enough solar shield above a rocket hundreds of feet in the air which has to get out of the way quickly before the rocket launches has very different requirements than fixing a shading structure above a vertical static structure a few tens of feet in the air. I'm not sure how this problem was solved in rocketry is necessarily indicative of how hard it is to solve in other circumstances.

<comment><USER35> > _I 'm not sure how this problem was solved in rocketry is necessarily > indicative of how hard it is to solve in other circumstances_

Very fair. The advantage a rocket has is you choose when it's rolled out. You don't have to design for the worst weather because you can always hide.

You can't do that for a static structure. The Hyperloop is an attempt to marry the challenges of rocketry to the standards of civil engineering. The advantage is you don't have to think about aerodynamics, which is good, because air is the worst. (You also get civil-engineering budgets.) The bad is you can't hide from the edge cases.

If you want to grapple with this problem live, rent (or borrow) a thermal camera and make a model. Aluminum or tin foil would probably work for something on the window. I've only done this upright, to simulate storing an unfuelled vehicle outdoors in "ready-to-launch" mode, but you'll run into similar problems with a horizonatal configuration. At first, the shade works. Then thermals develop. You can foam it, and that looks like it works for a few days. Then someone instruments the inside and, lo and behold, hot spots. Turns out foam doesn't really help with heat that recurs in the same place, day after day. (Our solution: slowly rotate it.) You could completely isolate the tube, which is what NASA does in its vehicle assembly building [1], but at that point you might as well (a) bury it or (b) have a fleet of Concordes flying on loop, because either will be cheaper.

I'm not saying it's impossible. But it's much harder than the pressure problem, which is itself hard to get economical. If you want the tube above ground, I don't think it works with existing materials. My criticism of the Hyperloop One project is they didn't bother solving these issues with models. (Note: this is how Elon did it with the Falcon 1.) Instead, they decided to build a maglev track.

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

<comment><USER14> So, to make sure I understand the problem correctly, you expect thermals to develop under shaded portions that still cause heat, and that to affect the structure's top and bottom heat differential to a degree that it would still cause problems? Is this different than oil pipelines because of the low pressure and lack of a heat transferring medium to even the temperature of the tube? I'm trying to figure out how this would affect a proposed hyperloop system, when it seems sufficiently solved for other above ground pipeline systems.

I can see relative size, inside medium, building material differences, shading structures and acceptable tolerances all affecting the outcome one way or the other, but I'm not sure to what degree each one would affect the outcome, so I'm not sure if it's actually as hard as you make it sound or whether a solution is known and achievable.

<comment><USER35> > _Is this different than oil pipelines because of the low pressure and lack > of a heat transferring medium to even the temperature of the tube?_

Most hydrocarbon pipelines run HTHP: high temperature, high pressure. This keeps their contents viscous. That, in turn, means heat emanates relatively uniformly from inside the pipe. For pipelines subjected to asymmetric expansion ( _e.g._ when starting up or shutting down), they "walk".

"Walking behaviour occurs as the pipeline is heated, and expands asymmetrically, until the point when pipeline expansion is fully mobilised. Expansion is 'fully mobilised' when a virtual anchor forms near the centre of the pipeline. The virtual anchor is then stationary, while pipe to each side expands away from the anchor as the temperature continues to rise. Once expansion is fully mobilised, walking ceases for that cycle." [1] As long as it walks laterally, pipeline owners tend to be fine with it

The solution to walking is typically _laissez faire_ (taking care to ensure the deformation occurs laterally, _i.e._ side to side, versus sticking a butt up into the water.) Needless to say, this isn't an option for the Hyperloop.

Granted, the contents of these pipes operate at 130º to 170º C. They're also narrower, resist a smaller pressure differential, face fewer such asymmetric events and don't face the stress of capsules periodically whizzing past inside them. Our tube won't displace by meters. Its displacement, moreover, won't be problematic on day one. But over time it will critically weaken known materials. Big, dynamically mechanically stressed, close to vacuum and above ground is hard.

[1] [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Bruton/publicatio...](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Bruton/publication/283290905_Lateral_buckling_and_pipeline_walking_a_challenge_for_hot_pipelines/links/5630da4608ae13bc6c353166/Lateral- buckling-and-pipeline-walking-a-challenge-for-hot-pipelines.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The engineering has never been a problem, vacuum-tube trains are an idea that's been around for centuries. [1] Removing friction and air resistance is a simple physics problem, and there are already operational maglev [2] trains so putting them in a low-pressure tunnel is not a major revolution.

The real issue is the _viability_ of such a transport because of the cost, complexity, and construction effort involved. We (in the USA) can barely build a high-speed rail line effectively so a Hyperloop competing with existing transportation options doesn't make economic sense currently. Take a look at what happened to the Concorde program for a similar example of great technology that just couldn't survive as a commercial service.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain)

2\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev)

EDIT: Yes, the engineering effort is not easy, but the science is pretty straightforward. We're not discovering new physics here...

<comment><USER40> "We can barely build a high-speed rail line effectively...'

There is no high-speed rail line in the United States. The nearest thing to high-speed rail is the Acela Express, which hits 240kph on 40km of track. But this is weaksauce by modern standards.

<comment><USER41> And honestly, if you want to solve the USA's environmental problems, 200kph commuter rail would probably be a better investment than HSR or Hyperloops.

<comment><USER42> Definitely agree that more, better transit would have a much bigger impact.

But I'd say the problem of commuter rail is frequency, coverage station locations, acceleration, level boarding, dwell times etc etc. Given that line speed is dictated by acceleration and dwell times, top speed is really far down the list of priorities.

Also, top speed of commuter rail is already up to 200km/h (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALP-45DP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALP-45DP)).

<comment><USER41> I guess it's just my own experience in Ontario - the GO transit trains look like they travel at about 110kph or so, and once you figure in their slow acceleration and frequent stops that means they're quite slow. Outside of the worst part of Toronto rush hour (which is notoriously bad) they're actually slower than the comparable coach bus from my area (Hamilton).

The overall average speed is a paltry 50kph.

When the train is slower than the coach bus, why even have a train?

<comment><USER42> The average speed is governed by acceleration and dwell time - the issue for GO is lack of electrification (which increases acceleration), and lack of level boarding (which decreases dwell time).

50km/h average is actually quite fast. I mean, a radius 50km from downtown is a huge area already. We have to densify inside that radius, not sprawl people further out because the trains are so fast. This means for example we need more stations, so that more developable land is within walking distance of service.

<comment><USER41> > This means for example we need more stations, so that more developable land > is within walking distance of service

That's what lrt and subways are for, not the big commuter GO trains.

<comment><USER42> That's the crux of what's wrong with commuter rail thinking in North America: "Serving the city is what the subway is for". Your original post, asking for 200km/h commuter rail, is a sign of it.

There's a meaningless separation of modes based on technology, and ascribing attributes to them. In Japan or Europe, the technologies are converging and so are the modes. Any infrastructure will have it's utilization maximized, and may function as what North Americans understand as 'commuter rail', subway' or 'light rail' all at the same time.

The result: more coverage, more service, better integration of services, more overall effectiveness, more ridership, less reliance on driving.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Despite the fact there are more billionaires than ever, it's funny how small the group of bold innovators are. It always seems to be the same few people.

<comment><USER18> I'd argue that Bill Gate's work has a better return of investment for society.

<comment><USER44> IMO, we need both types - Gates' work improves society in our current world, while Musk and Branson's investment kickstart the scientific and technological advances needed to further our civilization.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> When does Hyperloop One get a go on the Dubai - Abu Dhabi line?[1] That's quite feasible. Straight route across flat, open desert.

Hyperloop One is a maglev vactrain. It doesn't "fly" aerodynamically, like Musk's original plan. This means a more expensive track in the tube, but higher riding height. Musk's original plan required a ride height of 0.3mm to 1.3mm, which means a really smooth tube. Maglev clearances are typically 1-2 cm, which is much easier to maintain over many kilometers of tube. Also, only the track has to be flat; the tube can have seams and expansion joints, so it can be fabricated by standard piping techniques. Vehicles can draw power from the track; Musk's original design was battery powered. Maglev track is expensive, though. That's why maglevs are rare.

If somebody in Dubai has the money, there's no reason it shouldn't work. Japan already has 42km of maglev running, part of the Tokyo-Osaka maglev route under construction, with full-sized trains. That's mostly in tubular tunnels. Hyperloop One is easier than that.

Hyperloop One's test track uses a 3.4 meter tube, instead of Musk's original 2.4m tube. Maybe larger in the production version. Musk's very optimistic cost proposals are based on his undersized tube. Hyperloop One will work, but it may not be all that cheap.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fu-6IDp3Fo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fu-6IDp3Fo)

</comment><comment><USER45> I see so many negative comments about this, but in my opinion everything has to start somewhere. It doesn't matter how crazy and impossible it looks, it will be done eventually (and we have plenty of examples).

Maybe we will not teleport in 2 seconds across the globe or this project will die, who knows if we don't try.

A little bit of optimism doesn't hurt. Just saying.

And for Virgin, it's not my money, if they want to invest in a black hole sure they can.

<comment><USER46> It's been said before elsewhere, but HN is the place to go to find out why your project will never succeed. I've seen many successful projects crapped all over here when they were in their infancy / pre-success days. "Stripe?! 3% fees! So dumb. We already have lots of payment gateways. It's not hard. You just have to {list of many tedious manual steps}..."

<comment><USER47> My favorite is Dropbox. "Store all my personal and/or corporate files on some third-party server?! DOA."

<comment><USER48> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863)

> For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite > trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and > then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this > FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.

This sounds like such an insane proposition relative to the Dropbox we know today.

The top comment is being pedantic that it doesn't _technically_ replace a USB drive because you have to install software and have access to the Internet. Hilarious in retrospect.

If the biggest complaint someone can have is "you have to have Internet" you're doing OK.

<comment><USER49> > This sounds like such an insane proposition relative to the Dropbox we know > today.

Does it? If you used WebDAV then you can mount a share in Windows or Linux even over the Internet, and windows at least is good at caching it while you're offline for short periods. For someone who has their own always-on Apache it seems like this would replicate most of the use cases for Dropbox. I think the point that's being missed is simply that most people would rather see a few ads or pay a small fee than administer their own Apache, not that what Dropbox offers is technically so far ahead.

<comment><USER48> > For someone who has their own always-on Apache

I'm just guessing on numbers, but that probably describes <1% of the population. Most people think Apache is a word used only to describe helicopters.

<comment><USER50> A small point really, but I'm not sure most people would only think it describes helicopters. I am guessing most people would think it is a tribe of Native Americans.

I admit that it's just a guess, but it does seem likely.

Again, not a major point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Hope it fares better than Virgin Galactic which is at least eight years behind schedule (first commercial flights proposed for 2010).

<comment><USER52> Didn't Virgin Galactic go on hiatus after the test pilot died?

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> ....Are they going to rename it in the future based on the number of pods that have gone through its tubes?

</comment><comment><USER54> I see they are using the term "extremely low pressure tubes" instead of vacuum tubes.

</comment><comment><USER55> I know there are feasibility questions, but have you thought about how such travel could affect the course of U.S. politics?

One could feasibly live in Utah where land is cheaper, but still commute to California for work. This would both lead to a purpling of many red states, as well a providing a path for interior state natives to find good jobs in coastal city centers.

Knowing the status of American politics where highly populated coastal states are overpowered in the Senate by the seats of the near empty states in the interior, one can see that if the potential for hyperloops is realized, there will could very well be a massive shift of power back to the populace with more equally distributed representation.

</comment><comment><USER56> Keeping a plain miles-long tube at at least 90% vacuum seems pretty hard to me, especially when needing to deal with evacuations and possible breakages. Why not divide the tubes into discrete sections gated by movable airtight caps that side away while passing through? If one section repressurizes due to evacuation or some other fault, so be it.

<comment><USER57> If you have a breakage or stopped capsule you anyway have to shut the whole thing down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I could see investors wanting to fund this simply for the PR benefits; whether or not such a system is actually viable.

Or, perhaps they'll spin a few technologies out of it.

Or, perhaps they want to grow a network of related companies+technologies that they can re-purpose to another venture in the future.

</comment><comment><USER59> Lots of comments about how this is not feasible, but wasn't spaceX's vision of a reusable rockets similarly not feasible at the outset and they've since been making some quite considerable progress towards this.

<comment><USER49> A reusable rocket was not just feasible, it had already been done with the Space Shuttle. "We'll do what the Space Shuttle did but 50x cheaper" is ambitious to be sure, but it's not at the same level as "we'll do this completely new thing that has never been done before".

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I wonder if the tube could be continuously woven from carbon fiber and given an aerogel insulating wrap, then the interior coated with ceramic? This would perhaps mitigate heat expansion issues.

</comment><comment><USER61> I bet with Hyperloop One becoming `Virgin Hyperloop One`, the hospitality and the customer care experience will surely be awesome, thanks to the Virgin Group :D :D

</comment><comment><USER62> Imagine if half of these commenters were around when the Wright brothers were pioneering aviation?

<comment><USER63> This kind of skepticism would have been perfectly acceptable had the Wright Brothers wrote three pages of guesswork and napkin math instead of actually building a plane.

<comment><USER64> > instead of actually building a plane

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjv7bB9hy0k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjv7bB9hy0k)

</comment></comment></comment><comment> a-b I've been curious for a while if hyperloop and boring company are complimenting each other.

</comment><comment><USER65> Didn't expect to see Dick putting his name on this one...

</comment><comment><USER66> I guess one of the silver linings of living in a "cyberpunk neo-Gilded Age but with better UX than '80s cyberpunk" world is that dueling tech magnates might accidentally craft something that could help society.

</comment><comment><USER67> Anyone else see Branson on Shark Tank the other night?

</comment><comment><USER68> Great youtube video that presents huge barriers to the hyperloop:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk)

</comment><comment><USER69> I feel that name has got to be a double entendre.

<comment><USER70> Seeing as it'll be the first hyperloop? Or are you talking about the maiden voyage?

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> VH1 rises again.

</comment><comment><USER72> How safe would the hyperloop be from tube implosion?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9bpUfWy8Wg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9bpUfWy8Wg)

I guess it would depend on how well they engineer the whole system, but who's going to watch over the hyperloop building companies to do that right?

</comment><comment><USER73> I wonder where this company would be if the original paper was written by pretty much anyone other than Musk.

</comment><comment><USER74> Everybody talks about the engineering challenges, which have been beaten to death. Elon Musk has a pretty respectable track record of making things that seem technologically infeasible and making them happen. He's not in charge anymore, but I trust that he wouldn't put his name on something that's not possible. Even if it wasn't possible, I'm not the person to make that critique.

The bigger challenge, IMO, is economic. High speed trains make a lot of money, but their revenue has little to do with competing with airlines over significant distances between large cities, which is what the Hyperloop is attempting to supersede. The financial success of high speed trains has much more to do with their ability to rapidly start and stop in lots of intermediate urban areas within a corridor. I know this goes against the popular narrative about why high speed trains are popular (OMG they can compete with air travel!!!), but the narrative is wrong.

The revenue of HSR has a lot more to do with the number of cities that it services than the end to end speed. If you look at ticket revenues on successful HSR lines, terminus to terminus tickets typically make up <15% of total revenues. The rest is made up by the remaining cartesian set of city pairs. Even if you could add up all _possible_ market share (trains, planes, cars) between terminus cities, it would still be less than the total revenue for that line, due to the additional cities it serves. Even with the gradual growth in power levels for high speed trains, with some now capable of 360kph, end to end speeds have basically gone unchanged. What has changed with more powerful trains? The lines have more stops now...they serve more cities, with the higher power levels used for faster acceleration and deceleration. More cities means more revenue, whereas higher speeds have already hit strongly diminished returns.

Maybe with Hyperloop being really fast could _grow_ the market _and_ monopolize market share between Alpha cities, but that would still be a stretch if the goal is economic viability. People see hyperloop, they crave its speed, but the costs are too high and revenues are too low to just serve the endpoints. But if you decide to serve intermediate cities, you slow it down, and it no longer becomes the object of technological lust, and nobody will want anything to do with it.

Among economic historians and _really nerdy_ train enthusiasts like me, this isn't a contentious point. The same economic delusions were a primary causative factor in the overhyping of railways during railway mania, best exemplified in chapters 16-20 of Collective Hallucinations and Inefficient Markets: The British Railway Mania of the 1840s [0], which is a masterpiece of economic history IMO. Anybody in charge of building out some version of hyperloop should do themselves a favor and read it, and then work on not repeating history.

[0] [http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/hallucinations.pdf](http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/hallucinations.pdf)</comment>


Top bottled water brands contaminated with plastic particles: report - <AUTHOR> https://www.yahoo.com/news/top-bottled-water-brands-contaminated-plastic-particles-report-013209098.html <comment><USER2> >"We have been involved with independently reviewing the findings and methodology to ensure the study is robust and credible," said lead researcher Andrew Mayes, from UEA's School of Chemistry."

If that independent review confirms the findings, that will send shockwaves throughout the industry.

The issue that was mentioned but has a few counter examples like Flint Michigan, is groundwater always safer than bottled water throughout the U.S?

</comment><comment><USER3> As the process of bottling top brand water is the same as that for bottling pretty much any drink it seems likely that all drinks in plastic bottles must be contaminated in this way. Furthermore it has probably always been like this.

So what other unseen problems do we have?

<comment><USER4> It's interesting that the plastic particles may be coming from the bottle caps, which would mean that non-plastic bottles with plastic caps might also be affected.

<comment><USER3> And is it caused by the process or is it something that continues. I mean if I reuse the bottle and cap do I continue to get more and more particles or does it happen only in the bottling plant. It would be interesting to know because I reuse plastic bottles for brewing over and over again. They are the kind that used to be used here in Norway that were actually reusable. The bottlers have abandoned them now in favour of very lightweight LDPE that can be crushed in the recycling machine in the supermarket which means that we now get new bottles for every purchase instead of a reused bottle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think it's actually rather impressive that a plastic moulding process _only_ leaves 10x100um flakes of plastic.</comment>


Kaspersky Lab software may be a threat to national security - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/opinion/kapersky-russia-cybersecurity.html <comment><USER2> Everything the Soviet party told the people about the Soviet Union was a lie.

Unfortunately everything they said about the United States was true.

Things aren't changing.

When I (Russian-Canadian immigrant) visit my family back in Russia they will spout endless bullshit about how Ukraine shot down that airliner to make Russia look bad, how the Ukrainian government is fascist and represses the ethnic Russians, how the US helped the Syrian rebels fake a gas attack and blame Assad, and so on. And I can argue and bring up counterpoints, but they just shake their heads and say I'm a naive fool for believing the "Western propaganda".

But they'll also point to articles like this and ask "What exactly can the FSB do that the FBI/CIA/NSA could not and have been PROVEN to be doing with Google/Windows/etc? Should we stop using all American software because the FBI/NSA may intercept the information/data without a warrant?"

And I have to agree with them saying, yes, the US Government is deeply myopic and hypocritical.

<comment><USER3> "Unfortunately everything they said about the United States was true": more like, they mixed some truths with lots of lies and exaggerations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't get this. Or at least I am quite uncomfortable with the narrative.

The points being made in the article is that there was an "unequivocal no" from six top US intelligence officials when asked whether they would be comfortable with Kaspersky Lab software on their computers. And that these claims somehow translate into that it is a fact, the author even uses the term "beyond the evidence".

There is no evidence being presented in the article. At all. Although if the statement would be that it would pose an increased and unwanted risk for US agencies to use software developed in Russia, then yes, I would not object. The same applies in reverse, for Russia, or any other state for that matter, to use Microsoft/Apple/Google software in critical applications.

The author also claims that "oligarchs and tycoons have no choice but to cooperate with the Kremlin". But as I understand it (I am not a US citizen) the US government has the same capabilities when it comes to US based companies? I specifically remember the Lavabit debacle. Or does the author insinuate that there is some additional pressure (threat) on Russian companies to comply?

<comment><USER5> There are more legal protections in US than in Russia, but ultimately if FBI wants the company badly and can get either drugs or National Security in the picture, the company is toast. Well, maybe not if the company is Google or Apple, but otherwise yeah.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The first line of the article:

> The Kremlin hacked our presidential election

Stopped reading at this point.

<comment><USER7> Not yet proven, but there are a _remarkable_ number of people around Trump with ties to shady Russian businessmen.

It may not have been a direct hack of the election either, more the use of Russian intelligence bot operations running an extremely effective social media campaign.

<comment><USER5> Any accusation is "not yet proven". There can be only two states of any accusation: "not yet proven" and "proven". The one about hacking the election has never been the latter, and never will be. I think there's a time where you have to give up on "not yet" and accept the reality. For some people it takes years or decades or never, of course.

> there are a remarkable number of people around Trump with ties to shady > Russian businessmen

There are remarkable number of people around anything in US politics with "ties to shady Russian businessmen". Ever heard, for example, of Podesta Group? Google who they are and who were among their clients. Check out who of the former presidents spoke at Russian Renaissance Capital bank for $500K. Hint: his initials are WJC.

The reason is simple - Russian oligarchy has tons of money and interests in the USA. So there would be a lot of people willing to take that money and be around people with influence to prove that they deserve that money.

That, however, has zero relation to "not yet proven" claim that somebody "hacked election". Because it... Did. Not. Happen.

> It may not have been a direct hack of the election either, more the use of > Russian intelligence bot operations running an extremely effective social > media campaign.

In other words, not a hack at all. Otherwise any troll band from 4chan is "hacking elections".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Imagine the public reaction in the US if the Russian say "Windows might be a threat to the national security".

<comment><USER9> But Windows IS a threat to national security.

<comment><USER10> It isn't. Not from the perspective being given.

This isn't about "can a company cripple the government", its about "can a FOREIGN company cripple the government".

So the US is safe with MS at the helm and Russia is safe with Kaspersky at the helm; but not with each other's software.

And frankly after dismissing my own knee jerk reaction, I agree. Yes it's ridiculous we're at the point where we can't trust non-free software and most modern hardware - but that's where we are. Bring on the 2100's.

<comment><USER11> I think that's exactly the point being made - Windows is a threat to Russia's national security.

Or did I misread the parent?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The opening line has a Red Scare feel to it, and sure enough the author is a Democratic senator.

Still you'd be stupid to believe Kaspersky Lab doesn't have ties to the Russian state.

<comment><USER10> They can be forced by the nation they are in to work against other nations - something I feel like the US pioneered and continues to push. It isn't nice but it does have a beautiful feeling of karma to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm more than ready for this Russian hacking sensationalism to wind down. This is a conspiracy theory that's approaching the same level of ridiculousness as the one surrounding Obama's birth certificate; we have this entirely unfounded claim that two unidentified, unfathomably sophisticated attackers have somehow been _positively_ linked to the FSB through unspecified, "magic" means, and that the usage generic tools/software originated in and used throughout Eastern Europe is somehow concrete "proof" of this. I could also posit that the Russian interference was orchestrated by Vince McMahon, and it's been him all along. Until intelligence agencies present an actual smoking gun, all we have is a lot of smoke and mirrors.

I would be fine with the nutters carrying on with this conspiracy theory (more concern for national security and voter verification is not a bad thing, although these same nutters are generally only advocates for these things when Trump is involved), but blind "Red Scare" type FUD is not the right approach. Kaspersky has offered complete access to the source code of its products for use in a clean build process controlled by the US government. This is not a winning strategy if your company's endgame is to infiltrate US government systems.

</comment><comment><USER3> In Putin's Russia no big company can afford to not be close to Putin. Those who aren't get bought out or simply dispossessed (just look at VKontakte, Yukos and many other ones).

This might sound like "red scare", but, just like I would never use Google Mail if I were working for the Russian government, I would never use Kaspersky software if I was working for the US (or any other NATO) government.

<comment><USER14> This is true (or partially true) for many states.

Turkey might already be there and a country in Asia is inching closer to it (no, I don't mean China).

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> "may be". Or may be not. We don't know for sure yet but we sure want more clicks.

<comment><USER16> This is an op-ed by a senator published by the NYT. I think the title adequately reflects the core message.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> OK, so the article claims Kaspersky developed software that FSB uses and helped them to do whatever they do. Now, how evil is that?

Well, I may have developed software that FSB uses too. I don't know for sure, but I participated in a number of widely used open source projects, and given how big FSB is, it's not impossible somebody somewhere there uses one of them. Thus, I apparently am kinda Russian spy?

Also, Kaspersky cooperated with FSB in their enforcement activities. Nothing US security company would ever do, I mean cooperating with law enforcement? Are you kidding me?! OK, FSB is not you common law enforcement. Probably not all of these activities are what we'd call good, and some of them what we'd call pure evil. But using somebody's technical expertise does not automatically make all products by that company somehow insecure. If they specifically did the evil stuff - yes, maybe - but then dig up which stuff they did and show the specifics! So far the only specific activity mentioned was fighting DDoSers, which is not exactly evil.[1]

I mean, maybe Kaspersky _is_ a Kremlin puppet. Or maybe not. I have no slightest idea. Maybe it's a good idea not to use software from the company which is in a total grasp (as any company in Russia) of a large geopolitical foe for critical infrastructure. Certainly sounds like a good idea. But this article spends so much text on not adding anything to this obvious idea but vague innuendo and describing common things in menacing tone. Very common to the general journalistic treatment of the Red Scare 2.0 we're observing right now and it gets more tiresome by the day. I'm not even defending Kaspersky here, I am defending minimal standards in reporting tech stuff.

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-11/kaspersky...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-11/kaspersky- lab-has-been-working-with-russian-intelligence)

</comment><comment><USER17> Having backdoor in CPU is more dangerous threat than random software i can uninstall. When will they cover that story?

</comment><comment><USER18> More like: "National security software is a threat to national security. Oh yeah, and also Kaspersky."

</comment><comment><USER19> Wasn't this a story two weeks ago? Am I the only one that reads the inquirer anymore? [https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3016108/us- governm...](https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3016108/us-government- admits-that-fbi-is-urging-firms-to-ditch-kaspersky-software)

</comment><comment><USER20> I think it's high time that companies seriously considering using linux as their default OS. It has come a long way and it would be really easy to standardize a distribution based on hardware requirements.

I'm not arguing that linux is immune from backdoors and the like, but a comprehensive security audit for all new software could potentially be done.</comment>