Errol Morris: The Thinking Man's Detective - <AUTHOR> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/Errol-Morris-The-Thinking-Mans-Detective.html?c=y&story=fullstory <comment><USER2> This man's documentaries are amazing. It is a shame that one of the techniques he pioneered--the reenactments in 'Thin Blue Line' have become part of the ruin of documentaries. When 'Thin Blue Line' showed reenactments, it was to reinforce uncertainty, so you could easily see the conflicts in the statements of different witnesses. When the Discovery Channel uses reenactments, it is a cheap trick to dramatize the past, and implies certainty where none exists.

Many of Morris' files are about belief, knowledge and certainty. Take 'Mr. Death' for example. It's about a guy--not necessarily a bad guy--that thought the Holocaust was implausible, and tried to prove it. The problem was he didn't know as much as he thought he knew, and his tests were fatally flawed. The had the hubris I've often seen in engineers that science conveys certainty.

If you want to see another side of Morris, his commercials for Miller High Life:

[http://errolmorris.com/commercials/miller/miller_ducttape.ht...](http://errolmorris.com/commercials/miller/miller_ducttape.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Unless I missed it, I think the article neglected a pretty interesting facet of Morris' technique: the interrotron.

[http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663105/errol-morriss-secret- wea...](http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663105/errol-morriss-secret-weapon-for- unsettling-interviews-the-interrotron)

</comment><comment><USER4> "Thinking man's detective" is a very unusual phrase. It's like "rich man's Rolls Royce" or "tall man's basketball player."

<comment><USER5> > "Thinking man's detective" is a very unusual phrase. It's like "rich man's > Rolls Royce" or "tall man's basketball player."

I think that your two sentences point up exactly why it is _not_ such an unexpected phrase (the which, or something close to it, is I guess what you meant). "Rich man's Rolls Royce" is redundant: you have to be rich to have a Rolls Royce (more or less). "Tall man's basketball player" is not redundant: you _don't_ have to be tall to have a basketball player (in the sense of preferring, rather than owning, I mean); you have to be a tall man to _be_ a basketball player (more or less).

"Errol Morris: the detective who's a thinking man" would have been redundant; but "Errol Morris: the thinking man's detective" is not, as (one presumes) many stupid men through history have had detectives (in the sense now of employing them, or of reading about them, or … whatever).

P.S. And let me just take this chance to say: I love Errol Morris. Thanks to the other poster who mentioned 'Mr. Death'; it was the first film of his I saw, and remains probably my favourite. (Also high up there is 'Fog of War'.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I remember reading the article on the crimean war photos. Still great: [http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/which- came-f...](http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/which-came-first- the-chicken-or-the-egg-part-one)

</comment><comment><USER7> Errol Morris is great. Thanks for the link. Great article.

</comment><comment><USER8> I didn't know about Errol Morris before I read this article, so I went and read the Ashtray pentalogy. It was very well written and interesting indeed, but I cannot help thinking that it was also a bit too harsh on Kuhn.

What I can totally understand is that someone at whom has been thrown an ashtray, not to mention being kicked out of Princeton simply because of having an opinion, might hold a bit of a grudge. Being tossed around is never nice and maybe Morris should have sued Kuhn. But dismissing him entirely as a thinker is another thing. So let me here play the devil's advocate for a while, please, with the big reservation that I haven't read Kuhn either but only heard and read about him and his works.

What seems to bother Morris most is Kuhn's idea of incommensurabilty between the worlds before and after a paradigm shift, a profound incapability of agreeing about anything at all. This he regards an indicator of a relativistic theory of truth where everything is subjective and everybody's idea of reality is as good as his neighbour's by definition. Only Kuhn himself rises above this relativity and is able to spot paradigms here and judge disputes there. Which is no doubt the interpretation that pissed off Kuhn so much that he started throwing ashtrays.

I don't defend that kind of behaviour and Morris's first-person testimony clearly proves that at some point Kuhn was intoxicated and blinded by his popularity and the power it brought about. So much so that he gave edicts of what classes his students should take and got them kicked out if they didn't obey.

But the article also reveals a different Kuhn who walks around and mutters to himself in a restless and haunted manner in the late 1940's. Someone who is genuinely bothered about all the cognitive dissonance of the time. Just a few years after Hitler, Stalin at the peak of his power, Mao just about to break through, Wittgenstein saying that what we consider truth is just a mutual agreement not necessarily based on reality. So many competitive interpretations of reality so far apart of each other and no-one to set the record straight.

To dissolve the controversy Kuhn comes up with the idea that maybe our perception of reality has always evolved this way. And that trying a dialog between the different viewpoints is fruitless and futile. Better just let the alternatives fight each other and the winner take it all -- for a while, until yet another better viewpoint takes over. A bit like a Darwinist theory of truth.

What I agree with Morris is that I also believe that step by step things improve and our conception of reality and ethics gets better. Judging by the fact that slavery was abolished in the western countries some 150 years ago, that public torture is no longer a main attraction and that most civilized countries have abolished the capital penalty for some fifty years ago.

If Kuhn later started to thing that reality is a totally subjective construction he most certainly was wrong. But really, that doesn't mean that his main idea that our perception of reality evolves not linearly but in somewhat violent and destructive quantum leaps would be null and void.

Morris proves conclusively that there is no evidence that the revelation of Hippasus of Metapontum about the fact that the length of a diagonal of a square cannot be expressed as a fraction of two natural numbers caused a major paradigm shift and a consequent mayhem among the Pythagoreans. But he doesn't prove the opposite either. What we today exactly know about those events is pretty much nothing. The closest description of them was written almost 800 years after the fact and is notoriously unreliable, as Morris points out. So it could have happened and then again maybe not. Not good proof material anyways.

It makes sense to think that when we look at history we project ourselves into it and pick up the details that we are interested in. That is probably true. It is the core of the Whiggish viewpoint which Morris and Kuhn heavily critizise. Arrogant and complacent use of the past to pursue the present or something like that.

Morris quotes Kunh saying that at one point for him "Aristotle seemed a very good physicist indeed", then goes on to point out all of his obvious errors. Now who is it that is arrogant, complacent and whiggish again? Scholars have known for centuries that Aristoteles was clearly wrong saying that women have fewer theet than men or that a rock falls because it wants to return to where it came from. Even Kuhn must have known that. So what did he mean when he said that after a lot of thinking and studying Aristotles suddenly started to make some sense? Could it mean that he somehow managed to get in his imagination across the paradigm shift and see things in Aristotle's and his contemporaries eyes? I think that goes beyond tooth counting.

Besides, do we have any actual proof that women didn't start to loose their wisdom theeth a bit earlier then men, perhaps around Aristotle's times? Didn't think so.

It is all about perception of reality. Morris tells about Saul Kripke, whose lectures were banned by Kuhn, and his alternative theory of reality. No doubt Kripke is a brilliant thinker, but the account Morris gives about him makes him look a bit conservative. He proposes that we call things with certain names because that is what we have used to do. Well doh! We have to goldfish, one yellow that is called Goldie and another green called Greenie. If they switch colours wouldn't we still call Goldie "Goldie", as that is what she still is, despite the switch of colours.

This is such a good example that I have to take it further. Imagine that you go for a vacation for a month (as in an imaginary world everything is possible). The fish switch their colours while you are away having your faithful neighbour feeding them.

You come back and see a golden goldfish and a green goldfish in the tank. Is it not your natural instinct to call the golden one "Goldie" and the green one "Greenie"? Do you notice the difference? Do the fish notice the difference? Do they care? Do you care? Does it make any difference whatsoever?

\--

I think Kuhn was very right in saying that every revelation has a built-in tendency of turning into an established truth, then stagnating and starting to stall new innovation. Eventually the established truth has to be somewhat violently broken by another revelation which in its turn changes into an established truth. This is the dynamic nature of every system that is complex enough, a kind of harmonic oscillation really. There is no reason why a planet could not circle a star in a perfect circle. It is just that there are so immensely many more elliptic trajectories that are also stable that it is very unlikely that the perfect circle would get chosen. Likewise there is a static equilibrium in every dynamic system but as there are so many more oscillating and also stable states it is just so much more likely that they bounce mindlessly between the extremes like the English political system than stay still. I feel this is the gist of Hegel, Marx and dialecticism in general as well. I have actually met some very intelligent people that highly regard that line of thought and I don't think it is total bogus either.

In a way I cannot help feeling that Kuhn has turned into a paradigm himself and Morris is the anomaly trying to drive the wedge in his walls. Be as it may, I would like to thank him for inspiring reading. If Kuhn threw an ashtray on your person you should threw something else heavy pointed object back. But Kuhn's thoughts you have to fight with thoughts.</comment>


Ask HN: Should we create a network for indie projects? - <AUTHOR>

Hi guys, I'm a big fan of independent digital projects, but the discovery of those projects is (usually) pretty hard. Because of that I joined with  other indie fan, and started to create an independent indie network. It will be a side project for both of us, but we have already pretty clever ideas how to make the discovery easier.<p>What do you think? Would there be a need for such network? <comment><USER2> I would love this. I am new to programming and design, but have some amazing ideas and know my progress and learning will be helped along so much by something like this.

Do It!!</comment>


Alcohol and tobacco kill far more people than opioids - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/27/16557550/alcohol-tobacco-opioids-epidemic-emergency <comment><USER2> I've never been a fan of these kinds of articles. They beg the question "Why arent we doing X?". There's a similar article about "Why aren't we stopping gamblers from addictive behavior?" on HN's front page. They seem to share a trend:

They look for legalistic controls over an individuals actions. And both attempt to say that their actions are addictive, therefore we cannot trust their actions, so we have to decide for them. I'm not comfortable with that logic. Nor am I for shoving more drugs underground. Cause that's that high taxation and controls do.

I tend to go on the side of freedom, even if it's "free to be dumb". And people will do destructive things. I don't particularly like this notion of nanny state.

<comment><USER3> > I tend to go on the side of freedom, even if it's "free to be dumb"

The issue is not as simple as you characterize it. Should 'freedom to be dumb' include freedom to drive drunk/while texting?

>And both attempt to say that their actions are addictive, therefore we cannot trust their actions, so we have to decide for them.

You seem to think that these controls exist for the protection of the addicts. They don't. They exist to protect the society and economy from a downward spiral caused by widespread drug addiction - which is what will happen if you remove all controls.

<comment><USER2> > The issue is not as simple as you characterize it. Should 'freedom to be > dumb' include freedom to drive drunk/while texting?

But, it is. No law stops drunk driving. It is "illegal", but that's only a threat after the fact. And bringing cell phones is only a recent phenomenon.. How about people who read books while driving, or eating, or a thousand different things?

You only need 1 law for this: distracted driving. Distracted can be from doing things unrelated to driving, or being high, or drunk, sleepy, or whatever.

And I also have issue with "drunk driving". The .08 standard is not based in science. It's from MADD lobbying. And to be honest, if someone drives well at .08, so be it. People have different sensitivities - you should reasonably know if you're not safe.

> You seem to think that these controls exist for the protection of the > addicts. They don't. They exist to protect the society and economy from a > downward spiral caused by widespread drug addiction - which is what will > happen if you remove all controls.

So throwing people in metal cages is a good solution here? Cause that's the cost that the US has accepted when violating these controls. And these laws don't exactly have a good result either.

<comment><USER3> >So throwing people in metal cages is a good solution here? Cause that's the cost that the US has accepted when violating these controls. And these laws don't exactly have a good result either.

Compared to the Opium Wars where China had to go to war with Britain to prevent civilizational collapse from drug use, yes jailing peddlers of poison seems acceptable.

<comment><USER2> Given my ignorance on the subject, it was called the Opium wars, but it was more about direct trade routes and rights of sovereignty in China vs British.

It's a lot more complicated than your comment portrays. All I can assume, is that you saw Opium wars, and try to use it as some emotional plea.

Sorry, not buying it.

I would rather have the Portuguese system than the current lock everyone up one. Cause we know it doesn't work. And thats experimental data, not theoretical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The subtitle is "Should they be considered an "epidemic"" and it says in the article "We don't often call alcohol or tobacco "epidemics," even as we regularly use that same language for opioids that are linked to a fraction of the deaths from alcohol or tobacco.".

They are basically proposing to re-define epidemic. Traditionally, an epidemic is the rapid spread of something, usually a disease but not necessarily. Alcohol and tobacco have already rapidly spread. There's nowhere else for them to spread.

<comment><USER5> Feels like people are forgetting that _Endemic_ is the perfect word for this sort of thing...They don't need to redefine epidemic; they need to use a more accurate word.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This doesn't seem to be the right metric. Surely, alcohol and tobacco are more common than opioids. To judge how defensible a certain consumption or action is, surely you need to see to the danger _per instance_. If not, I'm sure there are many other, perfectly normal, things that would en up on top of the list.

<comment><USER7> Indeed, falling down the stairs probably kills more people annually than opioid overdose does, but you're never going to hear anyone complain about how dangerous they are.

<comment><USER8> Actually slip, trip and fall accidents are a huge safety focus. Regulations can ensure stairs are designed to make falling less likely to cause serious injuries. Or, of course, as with most things Americans can insist their "freedom" to suffer so that somebody else can make a buck comes first.

Another big cause of household accidents is excessively hot water. Sure the kitchen sink might need the possibility of water hot enough to clean grease off a steel pan, but you don't need that for bathing your baby. So some countries legally require bathroom outlets are thermostatically controlled to a fixed limit, if there's not enough cold pressure to hit the limit, the water shuts off safely rather than char you. Simple mechanical valves can do this, and they're not that expensive - once a country is buying them for everybody.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why do we spend billions of dollars on airport security when nobody in this country dies from terrorism, yet 66,000 people die every year from guns and cars? Because we're fine with people dying en masse if it doesn't bother our morals or make us afraid.

Also, thanks for flagging this article. Intellectual discussion about critical health and safety issues is clearly off topic.

</comment><comment><USER10> It boggles me that we still are faced with aggregated statistics to deny there is opioid crisis going on. If nothing else, alcohol and tobacco are also prone to addiction and should be curbed as well.

</comment><comment><USER11> Living in Berlin and coming from Eastern Europe I would say that people smoke and drink a lot more than US.

It's quite normal to have a glass of wine with your business lunch in Italy and Portugal. As well as a cigarette allowed restaurants in Czech Republic, and smokers bars here in Berlin.

Almost everyone drinks and smokes at least on the weekend. I was really shocked when I visited SF 2 months ago to discover that having a beer and a cigarette is impossible at any bar I tried ( smoking was forbidden 20 feet from entrance ).

Not sure how does it help reduce the death percentage compared to here ( Europe ) where most people consume moderately.

</comment><comment><USER12> What about the percentage of users vs deaths? The numbers speak of something, but it would be unwise to use the numbers as a metric to say that opioids are safer than tobacco and alcohol.

<comment><USER13> I think it's tricky to quantify; a lot of opioid use is illegal, and that aspect undoubtedly alters things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The author seems to be striving to miss the point.

There's a big difference between dying of cirrhosis, heart disease, diabetes, lung cancer, emphysema, etc in middle age and a 19-year-old kid OD'ing a couple of weeks or months after falling down the addiction spiral.

It's not just the number of deaths, it's the impact to society. Line cooks don't steal kitchen equipment to buy booze and smokes. Opiate addiction upends lives in a way that alcohol and tobacco simply do not.

<comment><USER5> The CDC would point out that yes, Alcohol has a huge impact on society; in this context, via drunk driving:

[https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impa...](https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired- drv_factsheet.html)

>Every day, 28 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This is one death every 51 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $44 billion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This article tackles death from hundreds and thousands of individual choices as if it were death by accident which a few regulations could cut in half. Everyone knows smoking kills you quicker, but still 11% of U.S. adults choose to smoke. You want to increase the burden on their already burdened existence? Have a heart. Let people slowly kill themselves in peace.

</comment><comment><USER16> Overeating also kills. Lack of exercise kills and so on.

Opiods are different, IMO, because they are generally issued by doctors, and they can kill you pretty quickly. Alcohol and tobacco, while dangerous, do give quite a bit of time to change and be saved.

Obviously the govt should do anti-smoking campaigns, but opiods are different.

<comment><USER17> > Alcohol and tobacco, while dangerous, do give quite a bit of time to change > and be saved.

The typical tobacco death is someone in their 70s, whereas the typical alcohol death is someone in their 30s. (The majority of alcohol-related deaths are from suicide, car crashes, and slip-and-fall type injuries.) I doubt the types of deaths we're seeing from heroin are that much different than with alcohol.

<comment><USER18> True, but alcohol deaths are a much lower percentage of the drinking population than opioid deaths are to opioid users. That makes it more difficult to reduce imo. Alcohol kills indirectly in such a way that aside from efforts to curb drunk driving or drinking altogether there's not much that can be done. Personally I think mandatory breathalyzer ignition locks are probably the best you could do to quickly cut down on alcohol related deaths.

<comment><USER13> > alcohol deaths are a much lower percentage of the drinking population than > opioid deaths are to opioid users

Unlike alcohol and tobacco, a lot of opioid use is illegal, and a lot is prescribed by doctors - this makes for a very different playing field.

If opioids were legally and openly sold, it would likely have a big impact (I'm not saying they _should_ be, BTW).

Regulation would mean quality control, so you'd be much more likely to get what you thought you were buying.

Another example, if choice was available, almost no recreational opioid user would choose fentantyl or some of the random opioid RCs that pop up, instead opting for safer versions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've never heard of a court ordering drug addicts to consume alcohol or tobacco as part of their sentence. In certain states however, courts routinely order addicts into opioid drug replacement therapy programs during sentencing.

<comment><USER20> We haven't criminalized alcohol or tobacco addiction in the same way we have other drugs, so that's not really a reasonable comparison. Tobacco cessation programs do use tobacco substitutes like gum, patches, etc. though, and there's been some experimentation with providing small doses of alcohol to people recovering from serious alcohol addiction.

<comment><USER19> Actually, most of the opioid epidemic is perfectly legal, as they are pharmaceutically-manufactured substitutes for the Opiates found in street drugs like heroin. Which brings up my secondary point, doctors don't prescribe tobacco nor alcohol. Nor do doctors receive incentives from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing tobacco and alcohol, but they do receive incentives for prescribing opioids. [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/doj- billionaire-...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/doj-billionaire- pharma-owner-fueled-the-opioid-epidemic-with-bribery-scheme/)

That said, are you asserting that society's answer for someone out of control on Opiates is for the state to mandate Opioid use? The addicts I work with all tell me on no uncertain terms that kicking opioids is much harder than kicking opiates.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The solution to all three is probably to offer more support for addicts and other mental health issues.

</comment><comment><USER22> We should make them illigal like illegal drugs that fixed everything.

</comment><comment><USER4> We tried banning alcohol once already...

<comment><USER23> And besides the whole rise of organized crime thing, it was a fabulous success!

Did you know that the customer warranty didn't exist before prohibition? People were generally so drunk that it wasn't considered a viable option to warranty your products because people would break them in their drunkenness.</comment></comment>


EA day of reckoning after Star Wars game uproar $3B in stock value wiped - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/28/eas-day-of-reckoning-is-here-after-star-wars-game-uproar.html <comment><USER2> I will happily pay for more game content. I will not pay for loot boxes that are clearly set up to mine my pockets for spare change.</comment>


France threatens EU action over Apple App Store ban - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/11/apple-france-appstore-idUSL5N0CY42J20130411/

<comment><USER2> Last time Fleur Pellerin decided to put her nose into an American company's policies, France almost ended up forced to use Bing.fr. Guess some politics just won't learn.

</comment><comment><USER3> "With much power comes much responsibility!" I think that's the piece Apple is missing here. They need to work a little harder before shutting down a $10 million company. It sounds like it was handled unilaterally and at a junior level from what I read - but maybe more will come out in their favor.

</comment><comment><USER4> From what I understand, this app had 12M users. Is that correct? So for people here to claim it was at all spammy, explain to me why it never had 12M uninstalls and zero users. There must have been value users got from it.

EDIT to kill a typo.

Second edit to add more:

I get a daily email from a service called BookBub. AFAIK, it's basically a similar model to AppGratis. It's pay for placement. Yet every email I discover a legitimately free Kindle book I can download. I understand it's pay-to- place. I don't find it spammy. Do I want to see _everything_ be pay-to-place? Hell no. But to say I can't have BookBub or something else of my own free will -- well, something is just wrong with that thinking.

<comment><USER5> The problem isnt the app itself, or that it's pay to place within the app, or spammy to the users of the app. The problem is that the top apps is heavily based on # downloads, and this app gets lots of downloads. Therefore, it's gaming the top apps.

The app gratis users are cheap, crappy users that provide little value to the advertiser cause they don't spend money. It's all just to chart and get good users from the apple's placement.

And since everyone is doing this, the only way to get in the top apps is to buy one of these services. The minute you stop paying, you drop from the top charts. Really apple needs to fix the app store, or offer sponsored slots there.

[I worked at a company that used app gratis]

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Here was my comment on the story 5 days ago. A couple of folks down voted me initially!

"It's all fun and games until an American technology company leverages their market share and business model to decimate a European technology company. A couple more of these and the EU will start dragging them in front of committees with little need to be concerned about a backlash."

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5519922>

<comment><USER4> I remember that Comment. I upvoted it then and now too.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for indulging me my rather public chest beating moment too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So those scam artists, have some friends at high places to put pressure on Apple?

I hope Apple doesn't give up that easily. It's not that the dumb ministers (as dumb politicians come) understand what kind of bullshit they're protecting. If it was 9m revenue from viagra spam, would they do the same thing - probably.

I honestly don't get why some politician would care. Don't they have other things to worry about? It's weird that they feel like they should take this on. It's not that the economy in EU (and by proxy, France) fucked up and requires attention.

If your business relies on Apple allowing you to charge people money - to spam other people (through push notifications) then my friend, you probably failed your MBA classes... or did really well, honestly I don't know.

<comment><USER7> So Apple has a track record of unilaterally making poor or wholly irrational decisions about what's allowed to be on their store and what isn't, and you decide that because the one example case being used is a vaguely shady app, obviously the politicians are just bought off by bribes and they're going after Apple because they have friends in high places?

You don't think that it's VAGUELY possible that perhaps Apple exerting their influence to silence speech (in the forms of games, comics, books, etc) and other forms of expression, not to mention outright crushing businesses because they decide they don't like them or because they decide they don't want competition, has upset politicians? You don't think it's VAGUELY possible that perhaps it is actually illegal?

Yeah, sure. Bribery. Got it. Most logical explanation!

P.S. I don't know why you would choose Viagra spam as a point of comparison for an app that people _chose_ to install on their phones. Yes, AppGratis was scummy SEO, almost certainly - but Apple was OK with it being on their store, and approved updates, up until days before it was pulled, and they continue to allow similar apps to operate on their store. They also allow stuff on their store that is BLATANTLY exploitative (IAP-laden games aimed at kids, for example).

<comment> kostya-kow I am not an Apple fanboy, but I fully support Apple's decision to remove AppGratis from the store.

It is pointless to argue if it was bribery that caused Pellerin to do this, but it is obvious that she is mistaken.

>but Apple was OK with it being on their store, and approved updates, up until days before it was pulled, and they continue to allow similar apps to operate on their store.

Allowing it in the App Store in the first place is a bad decision, but there is no reason they should have not removed it now. They also removed similar apps several months ago.

<comment><USER6> Researching apps take time. Either they let developers wait months in order to get them onboard or conduct more thorough research retroactively.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Skyscraper, a Clojure library for structural scraping of whole sites - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/nathell/skyscraper

<comment><USER2> This is really awesome, thanks Nathell. I'm going to use this.

I have written a few one-off site dumping bots, but I hope I can become great at using Skyscraper instead.</comment>


A Teenager's Dream: An iPhone App for Free Texting - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/a-teens-dream-an-iphone-app-for-free-texting/?ref=technology <comment><USER2> Who do you have to know to get your app written up in the nyt?

The key line is _It is the first app from Gogii, a start-up backed by $5.2 million_ meaning they have the funds to hire expensive pr firms and pay for advertising, to promote an app that is losing lots of money.</comment>


Teens Beware: Using Marijuana Could Make You Dumber - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/marijuana-lowers-iq

<comment><AUTHOR> The linked study, like most marijuana studies, has no meaningful controls and therefore represents a correlation, not a cause-effect relationship.

The conclusion drawn from the popular account (i.e. "could make you dumber") is not supported by the study in any scientific way.

<comment><USER3> >has no meaningful controls

There are two meaningful controls, which combined hint at a causation. The IQ test from age 13, before many people begin pot use, is a control over who makes the decision to start smoking weed, and the non-smoker and smoker groups provide a control over whether pot made people stupider.

So, what factors could cause the study to show the correlation but not be a direct causation? It would have to be a confounding factor that both makes people want to smoke and something that causes them to get stupider over time that isn't the marijuana. That's possible, perhaps some sort of addictive personality disorder. But I think the simplest explanation is a causation, there is other evidence that marijuana affects the brains of adolescents.

<comment><AUTHOR> > There are two meaningful controls ...

No, I meant real, scientific controls. A study with real experimental and control groups would have groups that the researchers _told_ that they would smoke, or not smoke, pot. That would make the study prospective, not retrospective as in this study.

If a study must monitor behavior that the subjects choose for themselves, the study loses all value, because the result can never be more than an uncontrolled correlation between A (IQ) and B (the choice to smoke pot) and any number of possible correlated factors (C) like socioeconomic, genetic, and other uncontrolled issues.

This is one of the common threads that run through most of these studies, which is why I linked the article -- it's typical of studies that I've been reading for about 35 years, and all of which suffer from the same systematic flaws.

Obviously a real, disciplined study of this topic would assign behaviors in a double-blind study. But such a study would clearly be unethical, which is why it has never been conducted.

> So, what factors could cause the study to show the correlation but not be a > direct causation?

The fact that the subjects make their own decisions, the fact that _there is no control group_ as that term is understood.

> It would have to be a confounding factor that both makes people want to > smoke and something that causes them to get stupider over time that isn't > the marijuana.

Yes, and until we think of a way to study this topic scientifically and without violating ethical guidelines, we will never know. It could be socioeconomic, genetic, peer pressure (smart people are geeks, don't you know that?) or some other factor.

> But I think the simplest explanation is a causation ...

That isn't an explanation unless we study it scientifically, this study doesn't do that.

This is what I find troubling about psychology studies, studies that involve monitoring behaviors but with no meaningful controls -- people don't seem to understand that it isn't science.

> ... there is other evidence that marijuana affects the brains of > adolescents.

Yes - and all such studies have the property this study has -- no scientific controls.

This is in no way meant to condone drug use. All I am saying is public policy is being shaped by something other than science.

<comment><USER3> >If a study must monitor behavior that the subjects choose for themselves, the study loses all value

You'll almost never find medical studies over long periods of time like this, and you'll never find a truly causal study on complex human behavior; there literally is no medical research that can properly do this. This is an epidemiological study, and these kinds of studies DO have value and certainly are scientific. This is the field that "proved" cigarettes are bad for us and that red meat increases the chances of heart disease.

I agree with you that a causal result would be great, but I think we both agree it's not possible for something like this. My point is that they make a very convincing case that shouldn't be dismissed so easily - <USER2> should be considered for what they are, not thrown out without thought. Your principled view on this works for some sciences but is too conservative for the kinds of things epidemiology studies.

<comment><AUTHOR> >> If a study must monitor behavior that the subjects choose for themselves, the study loses all value

> You'll almost never find medical studies over long periods of time like > this, and you'll never find a truly causal study on complex human behavior; > there literally is no medical research that can properly do this.

Yes, true. This is why decent medical results come from animal studies, and extrapolating such studies to humans is fraught with difficulties.

> This is the field that "proved" cigarettes are bad for us and that red meat > increases the chances of heart disease.

Yes -- but using animal models, not human ones! Do you want to argue that researchers forced people to smoke cigarettes, or not, to control the outcome? That never happened.

> I agree with you that a causal result would be great, but I think we both > agree it's not possible for something like this.

"Not possible" cannot be used as an justification to erode scientific standards.

> My point is that they make a very convincing case that shouldn't be > dismissed so easily

They do nothing of the kind. The flaws are obvious and fatal to any useful conclusion. The explanation that a person chooses to smoke pot, and chooses to avoid intellectually stimulating activities, is much more likely than the conclusion that pot in and of itself reduces IQ, especially absent a proposed, testable mechanism.

Obviously if I designed a study that (a) forced a group to smoke pot, and (b) forced the same individuals to think harder within an intellectually enriching environment, I would get a result that contradicted this one. But it would be unethical to conduct such a study.

I cannot stress this enough -- this is junk science, and public policy is being steered by junk science, by people pretending to be scientists, pretending to be conducting objective science.

> Your principled view on this works for some sciences but is too conservative > for the kinds of things epidemiology studies.

"It's too difficult" can never be used as an excuse in defense of sloppy science. Especially in the presence of a public that cannot distinguish between sterling and junk science.

All that remains is for the public to become aware how sloppy science is steering public policy, and I need to add that studies that come to the opposite conclusion (and they exist) are rarely published. The reason? "It's sloppy science."

Again, bottom line, none of this is meant to condone or encourage drug use -- there's no science to support that behavior either.

<comment><USER3> I realize that epidemiology can be sloppy science, but it's the only way we can even hope to tackle immensely important questions like this. It shouldn't be cast aside because it fails to hold up to impossible standards. According to your reasoning the vast majority of convincing evidence that cigarettes are bad for you is junk science (sorry to reuse that example but it's a very effective one).

Epidemiology is not an answer, it's part of an exploration of a question. This study is one of possibly many future studies that will attempt to etch away at the null hypothesis "there is no relationship between intelligence and smoking marijuana before adulthood". One day ten other studies like it may provide a more convincing story, or may disprove the idea altogether. Until then, this is probably the best research on the question yet. It is what will help get scientists further funding on the topic. And that's why it's important.

<comment><AUTHOR> > I realize that epidemiology can be sloppy science, but it's the only way we > can even hope to tackle immensely important questions like this.

First, that's false -- straight-up false. We can violate ethical guidelines and get terrific, reliable science. All we have to do is abandon our principles, and victimize innocent subjects. Example the Alabama Syphilis study:

<http://www.dartmouth.edu/~thabif/newfiles/tuskee.html>

The above is a despicable example of subject treatment, but it falsifies your claim.

Meanwhile, without abandoning our principles, we can use animal models, as is done with many kinds of study -- heart disease, cancer and many others.

> This study is one of possibly many future studies that will attempt to etch > away at the null hypothesis "there is no relationship between intelligence > and smoking marijuana before adulthood".

The study under discussion is a sham masquerading as science, it has no scientific value, the design is so poor that no reliable conclusion can be drawn from it. The level of control for confounding factors is nonexistent. Apart from that central design flaw, both the subjects and the experimenters know who the pot smokers were. It's a joke pretending to be science, and abandons every recognized experimental discipline.

The study certainly doesn't "etch away" at the null hypothesis, because there are too many pedestrian explanations for the outcome that aren't even in the thinking of the experimenters.

> One day ten other studies like it may provide a more convincing story, or > may disprove the idea altogether.

Disproof is also impossible with such a sloppy study design. I can't believe what you're saying.

> Until then, this is probably the best research on the question yet.

Or the worst, and both claims can be true at once. Your remark reminds me of a Woody Allen joke. His girlfriend says, "But sex without love is an empty experience!" Allen replies, "Yes, but as empty experiences go, it's one of the best!" As meaningless science goes, this study is one of the best.

As I said earlier, I've been reading such studies for about 35 years, and (a) they all suffer from fatal design flaws, and (b) they always support the prejudices of the granting agencies and/or those of the experimenters. Also, important, studies that come to the opposite conclusion, or that don't come to a clear conclusion, tend not to be published.

> It is what will help get scientists further funding on the topic. And that's > why it's important.

More bad science is important? I ask you to think about what you're saying. This study is trash masquerading as science. Anyone can design and carry out an equally sloppy study (and psychologists do this all the time) that comes to the opposite conclusion, through the simple expedient of ignoring the many confounding factors inherent in retrospective studies that don't have a control group or the kind of experimental discipline that can lead to reliable scientific conclusions.

This is not science, it is psychological science.

<comment><USER3> I guess we've gotten in a circle of "this is bad science"-> "no it's not". While I disagree with you, I enjoyed debating it with you.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Silent and Simple Ion Engine Powers a Plane with No Moving Parts - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/silent-and-simple-ion-engine-powers-a-plane-with-no-moving-parts/ <comment><USER2> Here's the best resource that I know of for building ion wind "lifters":

[http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm](http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm)

So far their best result is 0.886 kW/kg (0.539 hp/lb), comparable to a helicopter, by using a pulsed DC power supply at 70 Hz:

[http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lftphv.htm](http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lftphv.htm)

So a helicopter with that could lift 1.13 kg/kW (1.86 lb/hp).

A plane with a 10:1 lift to drag ratio would fly with 0.0886 kW/Kg (0.0539 hp/lb). It could lift 11.3 kg/kW (18.6 lb/hp).

A 200 kg (440 lb) helicopter, including human passenger, would take 177 kW (237 hp).

The same mass airplane would take 17.7 kW (23.7 hp).

Of course the pulsing would add a buzz which may not be desirable. It looks like the pulsed DC uses 17.72 RMS W vs 69.58 DC W, so is about 3.927 times more efficient than DC. Maybe a plane could have both silent and high efficiency modes for takeoff and cruising.

I have no idea how these numbers compare to the ones in the article, but they should be within the same magnitude. Please someone double check my math :-)

<comment><USER3> While the lifter clearly represents a manifestation of some reall effect, they do themselves no favours by linking to a book called "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion" that claims to expose the secrets covered-up by NASA with respect to the B2's "highly secret electrogravitic field propulsion system" and Rocketdyne's secret antigravity propulsion project.

I hate the fact that phenomena worthy of proper scientific examination are often also massive nut-job magnets.

<comment><USER4> [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316438315_Gravitati...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316438315_Gravitational- magnetic-electric_fields_interaction_vi)

Seems to be possible in theory, but appears to require pretty extreme energies

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ars Technica has an article on this as well. It features a 5 minute video of various attempts and sustained flight as well.

[https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/small-drone-soars- on...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/small-drone-soars-on-an-ionic- wind-with-no-moving-parts/)

<comment><USER6> Thanks! I wonder why TFA didn't show any photos? It always makes me skeptical when a news story about a new design is accompanied only by renders.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Nature letter here: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0707-9](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0707-9)

Looks like they developed advancements with lightweight high-voltage converters and performance of the thrusters.

</comment><comment><USER8> As planes use most of their energy to not crash into the ground, I could see the most practical use of this technology for propulsion where crashing isn't a major concern.

Airships (dirigibles/blimps), and to a lesser extent, sea and land vehicles.

<comment><USER9> > I could see the most practical use of this technology for propulsion where > crashing isn't a major concern.

Missiles jumped to mind. That's their whole purpose.

<comment><USER10> Except you need missiles to go much faster than ion thrusters can go. 11 mph is enough for someone to shoot down your missile with a rifle.

<comment><USER11> At 11 mph they could outrun it on foot.

<comment><USER9> Prepare to engage enemy . . . bogey's airspeed not sufficient for intercept. Suggest we get out and walk

<comment><USER10> Anti-missile defense provided by strong gusts of wind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Sounds like lifters. Would it produce a lot of ozone pollution?

<comment><USER13> Ah, darn. I was wondering if this might be a new way to have better indoor air circulation with no moving parts. But filling my home with ozone doesn't sound like a good idea.

<comment><USER12> maybe you could use uv light to neutralize the ozone.

Ah on second thought

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/2018/11/16/chinese- schoolchildren-burned-by-uv-lamp-left-classroom-again/)

<comment><USER14> non-amp link: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/11/16/chinese- scho...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/11/16/chinese- schoolchildren-burned-by-uv-lamp-left-classroom-again)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> You can build one at home!

[https://rimstar.org/sdprop/lifter/lifter1b/lifter1b.htm](https://rimstar.org/sdprop/lifter/lifter1b/lifter1b.htm)

<comment><USER16> It's not as easy to get ahold of >20kV power supplies these days! Before, you could find them on the street corners and in your neighbors trash. There was always a CRT to sacrifice.

My lifter, probably like most, eventually caught fire.

Efficiency seems fairly poor [1], and from my experience, ozone is absolutely a problem.

1\. [https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4890353](https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4890353)

<comment><USER17> Microwave transformer maybe? Or does that not supply enough?

<comment><USER18> Ideally, for safety reasons, you'd use something like a neon transformer. They supply a very high voltage, but at the same time the output is current- limited, which decreases the chance you'll electrocute yourself.

<comment><USER19> I've zapped myself on one of those. It contracted my muscles enough to send me across the room and almost knocked me out. I'm happy it wasn't across the chest. And yes, I was doing something incredibly dumb. My teen-age years had some regrettable moments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I don't think you can move a lot of air silently, the turbulent layer between the flow and the still air produces noise. This is only silent because of size. Maybe less noisy than a fan or prop, but not silent.

<comment><USER21> corrent, but it would still be "silent-er"

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> > When that happens, the nitrogen atoms turn into positively charged ions.

Does that mean it produces nitrogen oxide as exhaust? If yes, how long does that live?

If such planes were to be scaled up, that could be a potential hazard to be aware of.

</comment><comment><USER23> I gather this thing ionizes air to create a positively charged "working fluid" which accelerates away from the anode in a cone shaped pattern. The working fluid doesn't generate [much(?)] thrust directly, as it collides with the craft again at the cathode. But along the way some of the ions near the edge of the cone bump into and accelerate neutral air molecules, generating the [bulk of the(?)] thrust that propels the craft.

With a modified design, is it possible to accelerate the ionized air so fast that all of it vents out the exhaust (e.g. using magnets)? Would that result in higher efficiency / higher thrust? Are there already atmosphere-breathing engines that do this and what are they called?

<comment><USER24> >Are there already atmosphere-breathing engines that do this and what are they called?

Generally this kind of engine is called Magnetohydrodynamic drive. I'm not sure about atmospheric engines, but according to wiki[1] there are prototypes that uses water as working fluid.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This man probably got contacted by X amount of countries militaries already.

The idea of a totally silent tiny drone that can get real close is scary to think of.

</comment><comment><USER26> > "It was very exciting," Barrett says. "Then it crashed into the wall, which > wasn't ideal."

Reading this reminded me of the two Wright brothers, who had similar issues, and similar people around them, not believing it would work.

Kudos. It sounds pretty amazing to me.

</comment><comment><USER27> Others have pointed this out I think, but this kind of craft concept has been around for a while. Here is a 1964 Popular Mechanics article about the idea...

[http://www.rexresearch.com/desev/desev.htm](http://www.rexresearch.com/desev/desev.htm)

Different approach to flying but it's interesting how some of the described reactions are similar about the silence and no moving parts.

I remember reading this article when I was a kid in a stack of PMs in the early 70s.

</comment><comment><USER28> But what would happen if the electrodes become wet like flying in rain, fog and so on?

<comment><USER29> Sounds like it'd be perfect for exploring Mars.

<comment><USER30> Mars's atmosphere is probably much too thin - not many atoms to ionise and not much lift to be had. Might work at some altitudes on Venus or a gas giant, though.

<comment><USER31> Titan. 3 times the atmospheric density of earth. Would be awesome to fly something like this there though i suppose a balloon would probably be much more practical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Video or it didn't happen.

<comment><USER33> Here is the video, fwiw.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boB6qu5dcCw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boB6qu5dcCw)

<comment><USER34> It is hard to convince oneself that this is substantially different from a glider.

<comment><USER35> Neither is a human powered ultra light weight, huge aircraft like the gossamer albatross. If you have a very weak engine it needs to be made out of incredibly light materials, and even so light it must be flown indoors with zero wind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Awesome result, hopefully we'll see a video of it in action and more information of thrust to power ratio. Very cool.

<comment><USER37> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boB6qu5dcCw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boB6qu5dcCw)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> > Powers a Plane with No Moving Parts

Yet all the pictures are renderings, artist's impressions. So, do they have a working model or not? There are no links to any supporting documents; Scientific American used to be better than this, very disappointing.

<comment><USER39> There is video of it flying here, no idea why OP article did not include that.

[https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/small-drone-soars- on...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/small-drone-soars-on-an-ionic- wind-with-no-moving-parts/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> 2012 paper on this subject that is a little more technical on the thrust aspect: [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4604.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4604.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER41> I wonder if it is possible to use this technology to build a noiseless fan.

</comment><comment><USER42> Could this technology be used to create a wind turbine with no moving parts? I have very little insight into how this would work but it intuitively seems applicable and would probably be way more useful.

<comment><USER42> A quick search says yes! [https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:81221f03...](https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:81221f03-9d46-4c7c-a5b0-b859a26f7d04?collection=research)

This from 2011 Does anyone know if something like this exists at large scales today?

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Flapping wings are also silent. And articulated wings can perform complex maneuvering including hover and vertical takeoff and landing.

So is there any other advantage to ion propulsion besides quiet operation?

<comment><USER29> "No moving parts" sounds like a _really_ big deal for long-mission drones.

<comment><USER44> Not at 6.25 N kW^−1 it's not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> This is a very exciting line of research. Assuming this gets to be a real plane or drone. How do you deal with the Ozone it produces?

<comment><USER46> Offset it by putting CFCs back in fridges.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Powered by ground based microwaves, it could be simplified into a flying antennae.

<comment><USER27> Oddly, this idea has been around since 1964...

[http://www.rexresearch.com/desev/desev.htm](http://www.rexresearch.com/desev/desev.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> SOME moving parts would be nice, like the rudder, ailerons and elevators. Otoh, maybe part of those functionalities could be achieved with differentiating the ion flux.

<comment><USER49> You can also vector the flux with electromagnets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Has there been any research on running something like this in water? For boat or sub propulsion?

Since ions already exist in water maybe you can skip the ionizing step.

<comment><USER51> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_drive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_drive)

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Video here:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boB6qu5dcCw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boB6qu5dcCw)

</comment><comment><USER53> Compared to other unmanned electrical flying craft, would this type be more durable in non-stop flight conditions?

<comment><USER54> This would have to be pretty light given the low thrust, so durable isn't the first thing I think of. Or does durable have some special meaning with aircraft?

<comment><USER53> I just meant "being able to fly around without any maintenance being performed on it"

<comment><USER55> In theory. It could be made with no moving parts and steered via thrust vectoring by varying the location of the negative voltage. Lightweight high voltage equipment like that is very expensive to make at those reliability levels currently, but the idea of an operational window of a year+ doesn't seem like a pipe dream. We'll probably see applications in military intelligence (spying) and drug smuggling before other more civilian uses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> This would be a great addition to hot air balloons for mild navigation.

</comment><comment><USER57> How much thrust was generated and how much does the craft weigh?

</comment><comment><USER58> possibly useful for flying contraband over a prison or border wall

</comment><comment><USER50> How about using these as solid state wind turbines to generate electricity.

<comment><USER59> How exactly do you propose to reverse this mechanism?

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I guess in this case ions ARE the moving parts :)

</comment><comment><USER61> So no video?

</comment><comment><USER62> This is really cool.

> "In Star Trek you have shuttlecraft gliding silently past," he says. "I > thought, 'We should have aircraft like that.'"

It's a good sign when inspiration comes from Star Trek.

Edit: Also, reminds me of this: [https://xkcd.com/2072/](https://xkcd.com/2072/)

<comment><USER63> Being separated by vacuum sure helps to keep these shuttlecraft silent though.

<comment><USER64> I'm glad every scifi movie and TV show's sound designers decide to ignore reality and make it interesting. It wouldn't be the same without the whoosh and rumble.

<comment><USER65> I have a solid, realistic explanation why you can hear other spacecraft and explosions in movies like Star Wars! ^_^

<comment><USER66> Because there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum? Because when there's an explosion there's also an expanding medium that sounds can travel through?

<comment><USER67> I suggest AR - why would ship designers neglect an entire input channel to the humans in control?

<comment><USER68> I mean, it would be a hell of a benefit if you can hear a ship explode behind you while you look at the the one in front of you or at a screen

If you _don 't_ have that, you're a little more limited to relying on visual information for everything

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> "It was very exciting," Barrett says. "Then it crashed into the wall, which wasn't ideal."

<comment><USER70> So if this fell on someone, would it electrocute them?

<comment><USER71> Voltage doesn't kill, current does. One can easily take 10s of thousands of volt across the the heart if the amperage is low, but a car battery putting out 12 volts and several amps can. Personally, I've taken leads from a 240V, 3KW solar panel array from hand to hand and not felt a thing. Have so same 2 leads touch the same hand, you're going to feel it. For me, felt like a snake bite, minus the venom. Left a few small red mark on my hand that cleared up in a few days.

Mind this is all in reference to DC current. AC is another beast.

<comment><USER71> Edit: it takes around, or less, than 1.5 mA across the heart to kill

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> When I submit a link, it doesn't show up. Does HN penalize Tor?

<comment><USER73> Sometimes. Your submission got caught by a software filter. I've restored it, but in the future you should email us at email@example.com if issues arise. There are too many comments for us to see most of them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> A flute also doesn't have any moving parts.

</comment><comment><USER44> This is absurd and scientific american sure has taken a fall from grace in order to believe it. Electrostatic "lifters" have been around for half a century. They are toys. They do not scale up. They cannot even lift themselves as their power supply or energy storage has to be on the ground with tiny wires going up to the lifter. There is absolutely no chance this can be called a 'plane'. It always has to be tethered with wire to deliver the power.

They were really popular with the UFO/Free energy crackpot crowds back in the late 90s and early 2000s.

<comment><USER75> Well this particular plane runs off a battery...

<comment><USER44> Does it? As far as I can tell it doesn't exist outside of the person's mind. Having played around with lifters myself using balsa, al foil, and a rectified neon sign transformer I just don't think the physics can work out. And there's no physical plane photos or videos to support otherwise. Until then I'm sticking with this being absurd.

That said, ionization does have it's place in aircraft in terms of controlling attachment or detachment of turbulent airflow over wings. It can significantly improve fuel consumption by reducing drag.

But it is not a viable propulsion source. At least not on Earth for things larger than a meter or so.

<comment><USER76> [https://youtu.be/boB6qu5dcCw?t=128](https://youtu.be/boB6qu5dcCw?t=128)

> _But it is not a viable propulsion source. At least not on Earth for things > larger than a meter or so._

It's 5m wide

<comment><USER44> Thanks for providing that. It does prove my point though. That plane is not flying at all. It is falling with style. The initial forward momentum is from the launch rail, not from the electrostatic propulsion.

<comment><USER76> [https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-01...](https://sci- hub.tw/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0707-9)

see the top of page 534, figure b. You are correct that the initial forward momentum is from the launch rail, but the graph clearly shows that the ion engine provides thrust.

Is the title of the HN submission misleading? Yes.

Did the plane achieve flight with the ion engine alone? No.

Was the plane able to maintain and gain altitude because of the ion engine? Yes.

A step forward in the right direction but not as much of a breakthrough as the submission title would have you think.

> _As far as I can tell it doesn 't exist outside of the person's mind._

Based brah. I'm being serious when I say that I think HN needs more of this type of comment. They seem to love rigidity in comments, but not any bluntness or banter thrown in there.

<comment><USER55> Thanks for finding the paper.

Sucking almost 3A out of the battery, it's not going to fly very long, but that's also a fairly inefficient power converter design. There is lots of room for improvement.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ice confirmed at the Moon's poles - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2018-08-ice-moon-poles.amp <comment><USER2> > With enough ice sitting at the surface—within the top few millimeters—water > would possibly be accessible as a resource for future expeditions to explore > and even stay on the Moon, and potentially easier to access than the water > detected beneath the Moon's surface.

OR: It could be collected, shipped back to earth, bottled, and sold to the wealthy at ludicrous prices.

<comment><USER3> I think the wealthy would rather take a vacation to the moon.

<comment><USER2> Likely, but the ice-mining scheme will be much easier to pull off, and will therefore be possible sooner, and is therefore more likely to be the primary means by which these resources are exploited.

<comment><USER4> To save mass (and thus cost) they'll probably dehydrate the water before shipping it back to Earth. Their target market won't care.

<comment><USER2> Or they could sell it in different concentrations. You can get 1% moonwater for $1000/bottle, or 99% moonwater for $100K/bottle.

<comment><USER5> I think you could do better selling it homeopathic. 1x10^-12 is way more expensive!

<comment><USER6> 10^-12 is only a 6C dilution. The dilution advocated by Hahnemann is 30C, which is 10^-60. Oscillococcinum is at 200C (10^-400).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So, moon base at a pole can have: 1\. Direct sunlight at all times 2\. Direct LOS comms to Earth 3\. Access to water.

Am I correct?

<comment><USER8> Wrong on #1: moon doesn't have direct sunlight at all times.

[https://imgur.com/a/rOyNvDG](https://imgur.com/a/rOyNvDG)

<comment><USER7> Aren't poles always illuminated?

<comment><USER9> "No peaks of eternal light have been positively identified on the moon, but many peaks have been detected that, via simulations based on imaging and laser and radar topography, appear to be illuminated for greater than 80% of a lunar year." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_of_eternal_light](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_of_eternal_light)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just a question, is there any reason why whenever we detect frozen water its on the north pole or south pole of any circular object in solar system? I guess ones of them is sun heating up everything in the equator region.

<comment><USER11> brundolf's response plus atmosphere, which can diffuse energy from near the equator to other parts of the planet via convection, although Venus ice caps are still colder than Earth's, so not sure anymore... The universe is a complex place.

<comment><USER12> The ice caps hiding under an atmosphere of burning sulphuric acid at hundreds of degrees!?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder why it took several years for this analysis to be done and published. I mean, the data was presumably collected during 2008-2010 or so.

<comment><USER14> It's almost as though science is a complex job that occasionally requires a lot of work.

<comment><USER13> Sure, but eight years?

Edit: What I'm getting at is that this seems a profound result, with perhaps crucial implications. Not some minor detail, of only arcane interest.

<comment><USER15> If only they had a more reasonable budget for their undertakings

<comment><USER16> I think it's important to question what this means, lest we reward inept agencies with more money. Not to say that the agency that did take this long would necessarily be inept, but if you give access to the sufficient data for let's say a post-doc of appropriate background, would it be reasonable for this single person earning scraps, as post-docs are wont to do, to take e.g. 8 years? It's just quite a peculiar issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Can we sand someone to double check it?

Joking aside, wow, why can't we send someone to double check it 60 years later.

</comment><comment><USER18> Wasn't this confirmed several years ago?

<comment><USER19> From the article: "M3, aboard the Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft, launched in __2008 __by the Indian Space Research Organization, was uniquely equipped to confirm the presence of solid ice on the Moon. It collected data that not only picked up the reflective properties we 'd expect from ice, but was able to directly measure the distinctive way its molecules absorb infrared light, so it can differentiate between liquid water or vapor and solid ice."

Another source: "near the south pole of the Moon on 9 October 2009 showed the spectral signature of hydroxyl, a key indicator that water ice is present in the floor of the crater (1). Analysis of the results indicates concentrations of roughly 6% water in the impact area, including nearly pure ice crystals in some spots. "

[https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html](https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I was promised Moon bases, farms and hotels by now and all we got is the information that there's ice at the poles?!

</comment><comment><USER21> Water = fuel as much as it is important to life.

Weaker gravity well + infrastructure should = cheaper exploration.

<comment><USER22> This is interesting, I didn't think of it like that. You're saying the moon should be used as a base because less energy is required to leave the moon. I wonder if those savings amortize the up-front cost of creating a self- sufficient moon base.

<comment><USER21> I do too. Making that base practical and viable may include too many nasty details. I don"t know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> So moon crater ice sublimates slow enough to not disappear a-la Europa?

<comment><USER24> That was my argument, before this article was published. The counter argument of course, is that it does sublimate (as water does from comets), but there's a vast amount (remains of a crashed comet, say); plus dust accumulating on the surface seals it fairly well over time. So I'm now guessing we're not talking "a few millimeters of water" as others have speculated, but really large amounts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> How does it not sublimate?

</comment><comment><USER26> Good. We need strong customs enforcement there too. </snark>

<comment><USER27>
      

<comment><USER28>
        $ base64 -d ~/tmp/wtf.txt
        uZbase64: invalid input

Edit: I suck and forgot to remove the leading stuff. I love the internet today. If anyone is wondering it is SFW.

<comment> 52-6F-62 On mac others might want to:

        # filename - wherever you pasted the base64 string
        FILE=<filename> && base64 -D $FILE.txt >> $FILE.png && open $FILE.png

<comment><USER28> * don't do this w/ random stuff off the internet. That could have easily been something other than an image, and `open` will happily open whatever it was regardless of the extension.

<comment> 52-6F-62 You're 100% correct.

I can't edit it now, but you're absolutely right. Horrible gaffe on my part.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Don't build a Galapagos product - <AUTHOR> http://josephwalla.com/dont-build-a-galapagos-product

<comment><USER2> A lot of the statements within this article should be prefaced with "If you want to build a large company,...", "If you want to support a team,...", or "If you want to become more than an SME,..."

Targeting niches with tailored software is a perfectly rational -- and, dare a say, I good -- strategy in those cases where you want to build a product that will support (only) yourself economically. And you don't have 'Pinky and the Brain'-esque fantasies. I know it is hackneyed, but bingocardcreator.com is a fantastic example of this strategy put into practice.

Often, as these niches aren't already served by a professional product, there is obvious space for monetization. There are also good opportunities to develop quick expertise in that niche -- and as a result corner the market. To boot, as the consumer base is smaller, you can often develop long-lasting, personal relationships with your customers more quickly and more easily.

Of course, if you want to take the Internet by storm, don't build a repository of crochet patterns, but if you want to see some quick money roll in (or build up some basic business experience), I but don't see why you shouldn't. Advice has to be viewed within context.

Blanket statements are antithetical to intellectual nuance.

Not everything has to be New York; sometimes the Galapagos Islands are quite enough.

<comment><USER3> One of the things I realized when reading Start Small, Stay Small was that a small enough niche is a _barrier to entry_ :

If your company/product dominates a market that is pretty small, and, say, makes $100,000 a year from it, that's just not going to be an interesting target for bigger companies with the resources to outcompete you.

So the trick is to dominate the niche, and then _automate_ , so that you're making that money without a great deal of day to day involvement.

<comment><USER4> Currently reading the book and when I came across that part a lightbulb went off in my head, too - I never thought about it that way prior.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'd guess you're more likely to fail building a product for 'everyone' than for a niche. Therefore I'm not sure it's productive to worry about the size of niches unless you really are only interested in building a huge company (which seems not to be how most people who actually do build huge companies start out).

If you're aiming for a niche you likely know something about it - or at least can learn & validate quickly. If you're aiming for 'everyone' you're likely either a) solving a non-problem that everyone has (e.g walking: Segway) b) solving a problem nobody has (it's too small, or non-existent).

<comment><AUTHOR> I think the biggest concern is the day you try to expand beyond the niche. When you do that, you realize that your product has been so focused on one niche that it takes a major effort to grow your product. So, anytime I build a feature I ask myself if this is something that we could scale to another group of people outside of our niche.

Regardless, I think going after a niche is a great strategy. Crossing the Chasm talks about the value of niches a lot. My major concern would be building in a way that limits your future growth options.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> There are products that are very popular in niche (or not so) places, and practically no one heard of them outside.

As a game developer I've seen plenty of those. You'll hear about them only from game developers, and other non-game developers almost never heard of them. And these are not graphics/animation/movie related - they things for managing/debugging memory/leaks/profiling/file I/O/etc.

I'm not sure how well these middleware providers do, but if they are small teams (sometimes just one person), and they keep good history, and are able to make $100,000 a year - then why not, especially if you can do other things in the mean time.

Here is some (probably outdated, and not full page) - <http://www.gamemiddleware.org/>

I for one love Deja Insight - but who has heard of it? <http://www.dejatools.com/dejainsight>

It's awesome product (not free, not open source, and not VTune/prof contentder) - but the nice GUI that it has, with tracking back makes it awesome little product that I've been using for the last 3-4 years at the studio (and only 2-3 more people, the rest of the studio doesn't know much about it - they use other things).

</comment><comment><USER7> I'd think the general way forward in a situation like that is fairly easy: you've proven you have a team that can develop a great product for a niche market. The next step is to identify a similar market that you can use your technology and experience to break into, and then raise funding to get the resources you need to break into that market. Raising funding at this point is much easier: you have a proven track record and are profitable.

I think the article overstates the problem a lot - a Galapagos product is not a problem, it's an opportunity in a good starting position to finding a solution.

</comment><comment><USER8> Or, you could end up with something unique that is not found anywhere else in the world. And when people visit that "island" it helps people codify their revolutionary ideas.

</comment><comment><USER9> I need to think about this, and how it applies to <http://teamrelaychat.nl/> Basically the service is only appealing to heavy IRC users. Others probably prefer Hipchat or something similar.

</comment><comment><USER10> With a ceiling for growth, you have to look in the other direction: can you reduce costs?

Do you really need a full time team to work on this?

After v1.0 is done, can the rest of the team 'exit'?

</comment><comment><USER11> And this post citing the obvious gets upvoted to the main page and the app ecosystem for touchless user interfaces i built over 2 years and posted to HN at the same time gets unoticed. Lame.

</comment><comment><USER12> Did Facebook "plan to scale beyond the niche"? Or were they just lucky?</comment>


Coder for Raspberry Pi - <AUTHOR> http://googlecreativelab.github.io/coder/

<comment><USER2> While this is cool, why does it have to be on a Raspberry Pi? Could this not be a VM (VirtualBox, since it's free) image as well? That way there's no hardware to buy and you simply install one program to run the image.

A great example of this is ArchiveTeam's Warrior: [http://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Warrior](http://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Warrior)

<comment><USER3> Coder is a node.js application, so it also work on Mac. Here's how I got it to work (assuming you have Homebrew installed):

        brew install redis node
        git clone https://github.com/googlecreativelab/coder.git
        cd coder/coder-base
        npm install
        npm start

Now login to [https://localhost:8081/](https://localhost:8081/) (All communication happens over SSL).

<comment><USER4> Doesn't work for me:

        $ npm start

        > email@example.com start     /Users/seclorum/hak/coder/coder-base
        > node server.js

        no certificate found. generating self signed cert.
        WARNING: unhandled exception: Error: ENOENT, no such file or directory 'certs/server.key'

EDIT: I figured it out - turns out I had a buggy version of Postgress.app installed on my machine, which had been shipped with a poorly configured openssl binary. Removing this from my PATH, so as to be using the system version of openssl (/usr/bin/openssl) fixed the problem ..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> From the Raspberry Pi FAQ: " _We want to see it being used by kids all over the world to learn programming._ "

I guess Coder is exactly the type of project the Pi was built for. Of course, you can install Coder on a "regular" PC or Mac but having a credit-card sized computer _dedicated_ to a single educational task makes it more inclined to be played around with.

You give this to a little kid: he sees it like a toy, a _powerful_ toy, with which he can develop "super-powers". It's less overwhelming than a full-size regular PC, and as a parent you can be assured that your kid won't mess up things, or launch a game because he got bored with coding.

I can see myself offering a Pi with Coder as a gift to anyone, even an adult, eager to learn coding. There are other projects similar to this one, but more focused on programming (Python especially), whereas HTML and CSS (and to some extent JS) is probably easier to grasp for beginners, especially because it's Web stuff.

The most valuable feature of Coder is _how it looks_. It's colorful and friendly, with a nice interface, which can be less obscure than a console.

By the way, I _loved_ the introduction video. It reminded me of Google's own presentations. Then I realized Coder was made by Googlers.

<comment><USER6> You can buy a _used_ low-end laptop for $100. With a laptop, you get a display, keyboard, and many other things a Pi doesn't offer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Slightly off-topic: though I get a bit tired of this style of presentation videos, this one is incredibly well done, especially for an open-source project (even though backed by Google).

That project is pretty cool, though I do feel that having a Raspberry Pi to do that seems unnecessary. Wouldn't the JSBin and Codepen's of the world allow you to do most of this? Granted, as a kid, I'm sure having your _own_ computer to work on makes a big difference.

<comment><USER8> Yes, your last point is the key. It's difficult to get most people interested in a pure software project because you can't see it or touch it. As soon as it becomes real (connect some I/O), it's infinitely more interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is great! Very cool project. The fact that it's open source makes it all the better. Definitely a tool I wish I had while I was learning how to code.

Seems like you can port this to almost anything, not just a Raspberry Pi.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm a sales and marketing guy who loves technical companies, but I'm hardly technical. I just bought a RaspberryPi to get excited about programming so this is excellent. I'm putting this on a card now and can't wait to fire it up when I get home!

</comment><comment><USER11> The video is really well done. Any Idea on who/how it was made?

<comment><USER12> Probably Google's marketing department.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This would be very easy to get running on the BeagleBoneBlack as well, and with a tiny bit of work, BoneScript could be baked right in, allowing easy access to GPIO ports. It would be even easier (and much prettier) to learn basic electronics than Arduino.

That being said, for more advanced electronics with RPi or BBB, it's so beneficial to be able to host an Arduino on top to do the bitbanging. Trying to use the BBB's Programmable Realtime Unit sucks!

</comment><comment><USER14> Maybe I'm missing something here, but if you are connecting to Coder then you can't access the internet? I'd imagine that having the learning material side by side (from sites like Codecademy) would be really handy. If you set this up in a classroom would everyone be able to access it through the browser and work on individual projects?

</comment><comment><USER15> I was excited to try this out until I saw that it won't work on Linux, and won't work on Windows without installing Apple's Bonjour. What possessed them to do this?

Does anyone know if there is a way to use this on Linux or Windows without installing nagware on my main machine?

<comment><USER16> You absolutely don't have to install the apple Bonjour crap to use this. The only thing that is used for is the automatic .local hostname resolution.

Essentially, the Raspberry Pi has the netatalk package on it which allows it to broadcast it's own .local hostname. This is what makes it possible for a user to simply type "coder.local" into the URL bar in chrome and have the Raspberry Pi's IP address resolved.

So if you leave out the apple bonjour packages, you'll just have to figure out the IP address yourself and use the IP instead of the fancy "coder.local" hostname. There are a number of ways to accomplish this, from scanning your network to just plugging in a HDMI cable and a keyboard to the RPi and doing an "ifconfig".

<comment><USER17> Nitpick, it's not netatalk, the .local is resolved by Avahi, the Linux/BSD zeroconf implementation.

Incidentally, zeroconf is why it is not advisable to use internal *.local domains.

<comment><USER18> That's not a nitpick. Zeroconf isn't even "Apple's thing" … Bonjour is just one implementation.

That guy is ranting because ranting makes him feel important.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Would have loved this in high school!

<comment><USER20> It would have been better than building those shitty lego robots. Fuck those things.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Process and cost to create an inc - <AUTHOR> I have an Inc name I want to reserve for a startup I want to create later. What is the best source to understand the incorporation process and what is an estimate annual cost to maintain an idle inc? <comment><USER2> It depends on the state you're in. For example, in California it's $800/yr if you're not making any money after the first year. The process is pretty simple; a hundred bucks to file the papers with the state, and $25 every other year to file an information update with the SoS. (There is some bookkeeping required to maintain a minimal corporation so be sure you understand all the requirements before incorporating. If it was me, I'd do everything possible not to incorporate until I had a good reason.)

It seems you can reserve a name in advance but only for 60 days (again, in California). The language "The name reservation can be renewed to the same applicant or for the benefit of the same party, but not for consecutive periods" suggests you could team up with a buddy to alternately reserve the name as long as you want, but it sounds like a lot of work. [http://www.sos.ca.gov/business-programs/business- entities/na...](http://www.sos.ca.gov/business-programs/business- entities/name-availability/#reserving)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Well every other year I thought of a company name and someone else took it :( so I thought about just keeping that name to myself. I will take a look.</comment></comment>


Show HN: 0h n0 with levels - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ecesena/0hn0-levels

<comment><USER2> So the game starts with the tutorial, then I can click "play", and it ... starts the tutorial again, uncancelable?

<comment><AUTHOR> Ops, it's probably a bug of my patch - I'm sure the original game is fine.

Please try refreshing, it should work. I'll look into it, really sorry about that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is a fork of 0h n0, not a clone (even if you did use `git clone` to start the fork).

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point! Not sure if my average friend knows what a fork is, though...

I'd also like to stress that I simply changed a few lines of code, all kudos go to the original author -- similarly as I did with 2048->8192 (but again, yours is a good point, maybe "clone" suggests that I re-wrote it entirely making it looks the same).

<comment><USER3> >maybe "clone" suggests that I re-wrote it entirely making it looks the same

Precisely.

>Not sure if my average friend knows what a fork is

Maybe describe it as a "variation" then??

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool, thanks. I'll fix as soon as time permits :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Higher Settlement Is Closer in Silicon Valley Hiring Case - <AUTHOR> http://nytimes.com/2015/03/05/business/higher-settlement-is-closer-in-silicon-valley-hiring-case.html?ref=technology

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you think the higher, $415 million ($6,500 per-person), settlement offer for the class-action lawsuit by Silicon Valley workers who accused Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe Systems of illegally agreeing not to hire one another's employees is a fair amount?</comment>


You Can't Sacrifice Partition Tolerance (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://codahale.com/you-cant-sacrifice-partition-tolerance/ <comment><USER2> Note at the end and inline:

> "My error lies in forgetting that Gilbert and Lynch's formulation of > availability requires only non-failing nodes to respond, and that without ≥1 > live nodes in a partition there isn't the option for split-brain syndrome."

Yes distributed system are hard, even those writing blogs decrying the silliness of others also can very easily make mistakes.

Another way to think about partition tolerance is not only "what do I do when a net-split occurs" but what do I do if net-split heals and now information has to merge. In other words the fact that one server got struck by lighting, fried and is never coming back is a nice case to have. Having it come back a month later for whatever reason and becoming a "master" while discarding and logically rolling back whole swathes of data is problem.

> Multi-node failures may be rarer than single-node failures, but they are > still common enough to have serious effects on business. [...] PDU failures, > switch failures, accidental power cycles of whole racks, whole-DC backbone > failures, whole-DC power failures, and a hypoglycemic driver smashing his > Ford pickup truck into a DC's HVAC system. And I'm not even an ops guy.

I think it is funny that the author manages to blame everything and everyone except bad software. A very likely multi-node failure is hitting a bug in your code. Not saying hypoglycemic drivers are to be taken lightly around your high capacity blade servers, but screwing up something in code, and have the same code run on all 1000 servers could easily bring those 1000 servers down.

<comment><USER3> > _I think it is funny that the author manages to blame everything and > everyone except bad software._

That's a good point about bad software, but to be fair the author is reciting actual things he has seen, not hypothetical scenarios. The part of the quote you hid in an ellipsis is important for context:

> _In my limited experience I've dealt with long-lived network partitions in a > single data center (DC), PDU failures..._

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The article is essentially pointing out a flaw in the CAP theorem itself: Network partitions are an availability failure. It's not "consistency, availability, partition tolerance; pick two." It's "a specific type of availability failure can be mitigated by sacrificing consistency."

The problem with the CAP theorem's formulation is that it makes it seem like you have to choose between availability and consistency. But you only have to choose if you've _already_ suffered a serious availability failure. The more important trade off is between availability and cost. You can increase availability (including making network partitions less likely) by adding redundancy. That's the real trade off. If the one switch that connects all your devices fails and has no backup, you're going to lose availability and there is no amount of consistency you can sacrifice to get it back.</comment>