Half of Americans Don't Vote. What Are They Thinking? - <AUTHOR> https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/19/knight-nonvoter-study-decoding-2020-election-wild-card-115796 <comment><USER2> Discussion on the fact that over half of the population doesn't vote is always built upon a number of assumptions. To name a few:

\- a democratic system in which everyone is "required" to participate in the political process is desirable state of affairs

\- the voting process is the best way of choosing these democratic representatives, as opposed to a civil servant exam, selection by lot (randomness, like jury duty), or some other type of system. Personally I like the idea of combining the two: pass an exam to be placed into a "potentials" pool, from which representatives are selected randomly. Then have a background check after that, etc.

\- That the best solution is to _figure out why people aren 't voting and change their mind,_ and not to develop a different method of selecting government officials

It would be much more interesting (to me, at least) to explore other forms of government that maintain the benefits of civil liberties, open society, etc. without relying on the flawed media popularity contest that is voting. There is plenty of political and philosophical writing on this - we simply need to be willing to try it out.

<comment><USER3> "a democratic system in which everyone is "required" to participate in the political process is desirable state of affairs"

Citizens of a democratic nation have _one job to do_.

If they're not doing it, the question must be Why?

<comment><USER4> Apathy, or they find more value in spending their attention and time doing something else, a feeling like their vote won't change a thing, or straight up laziness.

I don't actually think it's important why someone doesn't vote, so long as their right to vote isn't impeded. I have a theory that society, like many other systems, tends to take on more stable forms over time. Part of the reason democracy has been so stable is that it allows people, who would otherwise be unhappy and want to change things, a chance to have a say. Non- voters are already a "stable" part of society, since they apparently don't have strong enough feelings to go vote for something different. I don't see a problem with that.

<comment><USER5> I expect that a substantial number of nonvoters suffer from learned helplessness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My wife, who recently became an American, asked me what she should fill for her voter registration forms. My response was, "Living in the SF bay area, Your opinion would count only if you vote for the Democratic party primaries. The general elections don't matter".

I am happy to be proven wrong but sadly I think this is the state of affairs now.

<comment><USER7> For the presidential election in California? Yeah, really only the primary matters, and only for the two major parties, and only one of them has a real field of candidates this year.

For other offices, many of these are highly contested, and the top two primary system makes primary voting more important than it used to be; especially since there are fewer voters, your vote has more weight.

For all of measures and propositions, many of those are highly contested, and you should vote on those. Especially in California, where anything enacted by voters cannot be changed except by voters, unless its found unconstitutional by the courts. (Washington state legislators are apparentlty sometimes able to modify or repeal voter passed measures; other states may vary)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There is barely any attention paid in this article to things like the fact that if you are in certain demographic segments you are very likely to be juggling several part-time jobs that schedule at the last minute, and have to deal with getting to the polls on a day that is not a mandatory holiday. Or with the way these demographics tend to be underserved by polling locations, and targeted by "vote fraud prevention" measures deliberately designed to disenfranchise them. There are a couple sentences that vaguely glance in this direction when it discusses that there can be a lot of bureaucracy around registering.

Also not mentioned: prisoners and ex-cons are largely denied the right to vote. Florida lifting that on ex-cons should be _interesting_.

<comment> kube-system Prisoners, yes, but ex-cons largely do get back their right to vote. A lot of states have changed these laws in the past couple decades.

41 states do not permanently disenfranchise people for convictions. 6 states permanently disenfranchise _some_ convicts (only for certain crimes or repeat offenders), and only 3 states disenfranchise all felony convicts.

[https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/voter- restoration/...](https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/voter- restoration/felony-disenfranchisement-laws-map)

<comment><USER8> Oh thanks, I am glad to be wrong about that one!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> To be clear: I am only stating this so anyone curious can know why people like me don't vote. I am not pushing any agenda.

I don't vote on purpose, I see that as a vote against the typical choices given,none of which I can reconcile with my views in any of the important topics. Not stating a political opinion,just telling you what I am thinking when I don't vote. I have no plan on being in politics. I know better than to think a dual party system is significantly different than a single party system. I also believe the freedom and liberties of the west are mostly a result of a strong military and abundance of resources. Right now there are so many messed up things, I cannot vote for one thing and accept a lesser evil,not only because I believe you should never accept evil of any magnitude but also because the evils of either side are too extreme for me to be involved with. I don't mind paying taxes, contributing to society and trying to be come a better social person but the duopoly of US politics is a system I must vote against by not voting at all. I don't care which bad guy wins.

I do think that the big parties should be broken up so that people actually have a voice. I like how parliamentary systems form a coalition of different parties to form a government. No confidence votes against the PM and it's never some guy running for office to rescue the country like in the US. It shouldn't be about any single person. I have no hope of any of this happening. I see the US swinginf from one extreme to the other tearing itself apart to the delight of its foes, why should I help destroy the one country keeping the balance of power in the world , so that wars break out and millions die? Will no one listen to history's plea?

That's my perspective at least, I am sure others have their reason. But to a lesser degree at least, I think many just don't agree with the choices so they choose "none of the above". Look at any site with political leanings, centrists are mocked and hated by everyone. It's not so much the government system but the people themselves that can't grapple with magnitudes of the extreme sides they are taking.

<comment><USER10> Voting 3rd party has vastly more impact than obtaining. A great deal of effort by both parties is spent to get poeple to stay home on Election Day, and not voting just tells them it's working.

<comment><USER9> In an ideal world you're right. In reality, unless you are in a swing state and very active in politics 3rd party vote means nothing, I would vote just for the sake of it but there needs to be a moderate 3rd party to start with.

I have noticed a division of two means us vs them. A division of more than two is us vs us (we need to work together not apart since no one can have a super majority)

<comment><USER10> Modern Whigs are very centrist, though it's really more extreme parties that pull the Republicans and Democrats apart. Without that pull the parties then to adopt the vast majority of viewpoints excluding a few token issues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> One simple change would be to vote on Sundays or make election Tuesday a mandatory holiday. Especially if you are low income and on a fixed schedule voting is very inconvenient.

<comment><USER12> Drop-off and mail-in ballots where there is ample time to fill out a ballot are also a great option. This exists where I live in (all cities), King County, WA; and probably other parts of the state too.

<comment><USER13> We do mail in ballots in Oregon, and I see no reason it shouldn't be implemented in all states and jurisdictions. It solves so many issues with voting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> On Twitter I saw a suggestion that the state with the highest voter turnout should have the first primary in the next election. This might create some incentive for people to turn out and vote (will post link if I can find the tweet)

<comment><USER15> I saw that too. It would be interesting to see what different states do to try and increase voter turnout. Maybe some even give cash incentives to voters assuming that the economic benefit from being first/early in the primary outweighs the cost of the program.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Homo Economicus does not vote. That is, on an individual level, voting is not a rational activity.

Look at it this way - let's say it takes you 15 minutes to drive to your polling place, 30 minutes to vote, and Lord knows how many hours to figure out which candidates you should even vote for. And what is the value of a single vote? Specifically, what is the chance that a single vote will change an election? _Almost_ zero.

Ergo, at the individual level, the effort of participating in the electoral process does not appear to be a rational choice.

<comment><USER17> And yet, it is only the folks that irrationally do vote that make the individual contributions that ultimately add up to something larger.

I think this is a failure of the philosophy of individualism and the atomization of the individual from society, instead of an understanding where people take part and do things in society that primarily benefit society instead of themselves

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Australia fines citizens $20 if they don't vote....I wonder what impact that would have on voting in the US?

<comment><USER19> This would just be a fine on poor people. In many US states there are active efforts to disenfranchise and suppress voting such as moving voting places, not providing enough booths so there are big queues and delays, automatically removing people from rolls, etc.

The US first needs to establish an independent electoral commission to set district boundaries and run the elections fairly like in other countries.

<comment> dane-pgp A great idea, but I think the problem is convincing politicians to appoint independent commissioners that may remove their electoral advantage. Perhaps a necessary step is to come up with a rule that can objectively determine how gerrymandered a given set of boundaries are, and then convince enough people in both parties to agree to the same limit:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Efficiency_gap_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Efficiency_gap_calculation)

<comment><USER20> The UK has such a commission. It hasn't worked out well. The commissioners turned out to be very publicly stating strong political opinions (which were mostly homogenous). If you want to run elections that's the sort of behaviour it should go without saying you don't engage in. Their decisions are regularly criticised for being extremely biased and they've been slapped down by judges in some high profile cases, where the judges basically said the commission didn't understand electoral law and/or appeared to be deliberately engaging in political harassment.

The UK commission doesn't set electoral boundaries though, Parliament does that. They just run other aspects of elections.

<comment> dane-pgp > Their decisions are regularly criticised for being extremely biased

Regularly criticised by whom? I'm guessing the side that is found to be breaking electoral rules.

> they've been slapped down by judges in some high profile cases, where the > judges basically said the commission didn't understand electoral law and/or > appeared to be deliberately engaging in political harassment.

Maybe the law was vague, or maybe, get this, the judges were biased and the commissioners were actually correct.

Unfortunately we're now living in a world where politicians and institutions and court cases are evaluated not based on any objective truth, but on whether "my side" beats "the other side". Perhaps it's always been like that, as the history of gerrymandering shows, but it does seem that the polarisation and tribalism is more extreme or more blatant now.

<comment><USER20> You seem to be doing exactly that, no? You're assuming without having researched the details that the Commission must be correct and everyone else must be wrong. At least that's how your reply reads.

Politicians have criticised it. Journalists have criticised it. The Metropolitan Police have criticised it. High court judges have criticised it. Exonerated members of the public have criticised it. The archives here detail various setbacks and screwups the EC has had, along with evidence for the prior sentences:

[https://order-order.com/tag/electoral-commission/](https://order- order.com/tag/electoral-commission/)

The EC is the kind of thing you find in a banana republic. It's indefensible. You can't claim to be a neutral arbiter of fairness in elections when investigations you refer to the police are repeatedly thrown out because they were so shoddily done, when multiple judges say you don't understand electoral law, when it's been found you issued incorrect advice to campaigners, when politicans from both major parties are calling for you to be disbanded and - most critically - when the people running it _repeatedly proclaim their hatred for political causes and parties in public_. The idea these people are unbiased is absurd. The director of regulation at the EC posted this to Facebook:

"[Louise Edwards] cannot believe she lives under a Tory PM again! What is wrong with people? Do they not remember the last time? Words fail me, grrr."

and

"Just can't understand what people were thinking. Do they not remember the Tories before?"

and

"[Louise Edwards] doesn't want to live under a Tory government"

How can anyone believe British elections are run fairly when the people trusted to run them literally post on the internet that they don't want one side to win? Unsurprisingly, people don't.

The entire thing is a textbook example of how completely corrupted government bureaucracies can get the moment they're not directly run by people who might lose their job at the next election. The EC should have been shut down years ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Who has the time to spend a few hours making sure they can vote, where to vote, and how to get there on a single weekday that isn't a holiday?

Not people struggling to keep their lives together or anyone without some leverage in their life.

Add in that the majority of the population in the US presidential have votes that are statistically irrelevant and I think parts of the problem become clear.

Add to that the two party system that encourages the largest extremes from each side and most people probably don't actively want to vote for anyone.

My simplistic refinement would be lots of candadites with points that could be put towards or against anyone in any amount. Maybe even more than one round of voting to eliminate someone mostly just taking votes away from someone else.

</comment><comment><USER22> Many people forget there are almost always a lot of other things in the ballot that can affect your life much more directly, and if you happen to live in a city of say, 30K people, your vote has a lot more impact than anything happening at the national level.

Even if you choose not to vote for a national-level issue/candidate/party, at least do participate in things that affect your community.

</comment><comment><USER23> Voting takes _hours_ , and you are not guaranteed time off to vote.

Then there are the various state voter suppression acts that deliberately make it harder to vote (and IMO constitute an unconstitutional poll tax).

Those all make voting _expensive_.

Here's what I'd want: states must be required to provide enough voting booths and facilities to keep voting lines to less than (say) 30 minutes. They must ensure that 90% (say) of the voting populace is with 30 minutes of a polling facility, and 80% within 30 minutes walking distance of such.

States with voter suppression laws must provide IDs for free, and have similar to the above facilities for applying for those free IDs. Their turn around for those IDs must be timely, and delivery of the IDs should also be free.

Note: any step that _requires_ a citizen to pay money to get an voting ID is a poll tax, and therefore unconstitutional.

</comment><comment><USER24> I don't vote: it is a contest of choosing the most convincing liar IMO. If we could vote every year, and vote them out when they do not fulfill their campaign promises, I'd be more inclined to vote.

I'd much rather have a lottery system, because I trust the general population to be honest much more than I trust politicians to be honest.

</comment><comment><USER25> Imagine you succeed in persuading a large number of nonvoters to vote. Do you have some reason to suspect they would make better decisions, i.e. choose better candidates, than people who currently vote? I could never understand why voting _per se_ was held to be a virtue. If you don't care or don't know what you're doing, why should I want you to vote?

</comment><comment><USER26> Not voting is a people's right. It's just you can't complain about the government when things don't work out.

<comment><USER27> Complaining about the government is my right and it is not dependant on whether I voted or not.

<comment><USER26> Except when you complain and say you didn't vote will lead to head shakes in your direction then you being ignored from that point on.

<comment><USER27> Does that actually happen? I've never seen it, and there's been plenty of times I've been potentially susceptible to such a practice. Maybe my arguments tend to be evaluated on a different metric.

<comment><USER26> You are special then!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I am 42 and was going to vote for the first time, but my candidate (Andrew Yang) had to drop out. So I'm not voting.

</comment><comment><USER29> Obligatory Carlin on the topic of voting:

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

Edit:

American Dream chaser:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14SllPPLxY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14SllPPLxY)

</comment><comment><USER30> I live in a single party state. My vote doesn't matter.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Interesting article on extremely important topic.

TL;DR: VOTE! Make your voice heard!

<comment><USER31> >TL;DR: VOTE! Make your voice heard!

What if none of the candidate represent your voice?

<comment><USER22> I often think about that when I'm waiting for my meal in a plane, seating in row 33 or higher. Odds are my choice won't be available when they finally get to me. I can choose not to eat, but it's more likely I will end up choosing from what's available.

In essence: educate yourself, and choose what you believe would would be the least worst for the country as a whole.

<comment><USER32> What if you were allergic to peanuts, and only stuff fried in peanut oil was available?

<comment><USER33> As a fun fact, peanut oil is so highly processed that most people with peanut allergy can eat it.

[https://acaai.org/resources/connect/ask-allergist/does- peanu...](https://acaai.org/resources/connect/ask-allergist/does-peanut-oil- cause-allergic-reactions)

<comment><USER32> I watched someone almost die from eating Chinese food fried in peanut oil. Maybe _some_ peanut oil is pure enough, but there's no guarantee. The link is pretty clear about that, but your paraphrase is dangerous misinformation.

<comment><USER33> Both my comment and the website linked literally say "most people can eat peanut oil". That's hardly dangerous misinformation.

I'm willing to bet the restaurant had peanut cross contamination in the kitchen.

<comment><USER32> The linked website says that _some_ peanut oil is OK for most people to eat. But not cold-pressed etc oil. That's a crucial distinction. And for commercially prepared food, even if you're lucky enough to know that it contains peanut oil, you likely won't know what type it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> atom-morgan I was thinking, "Between Clinton and Trump, pass"

<comment><USER34> Yikes

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Perhaps they are thinking along correct mathematical lines. Their one vote will do nothing, but the time lost is very real.

</comment><comment><USER36> Because a single vote doesn't matter. It's irrational to vote

<comment><USER37> If all of the people who thought that way voted, it would matter.

<comment><USER36> But they don't. One vote doesn't influence others - that would be magical thinking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Your vote don't matter --- in half the cases. Half the states are already decided with near certainty. California is voting for the Democratice candidate, South Carolina is voting for the Republican.

If you vote for or against the pre-determined candidates in these "one party" states --- your vote don't matter. The only case where your vote might matter is in a swing state.

The really amazing (and illogical) thing would be if more than 50% voted.

<comment><USER10> House seats make a huge difference not just directly, but also how these lines are redrawn.

Local elections are also vastly more important than most assume. Roads, schools, local policing, etc are the services that most affect people in their day to day lives and that's mostly decided in local elections.

<comment><USER38> I'm not arguing against _all_ voting. Just pointing why it doesn't matter in a lot of cases. In the cases where it does matter, vote.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Voting is pointless. People are just brainwashed into believing it's so important (I don't know how else to call it: they are repeatedly told over and over again how important democracy is, and voting is like the biggest symbol of your democratic rights). Even just saying it is going to trigger a strong emotional reaction, similar to saying that God does not exists to devoted religious person. Down-votes ensured. :D

In reality in the USA, it's much more effective to just donate $100 to some political interest group of yours, and be done with it.</comment>


Studies: Blood from young mice reverses aging in old mice - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/science/young-blood-may-hold-key-to-reversing-aging.html <comment><USER2> How long would effects like this last? I mean, let's say a bunch of children donated blood for the cause, and we used it to replace the blood of a senior citizen.

I don't know how to phrase this properly, but how long does the blood maintain the youthful qualities? Do you constantly need new blood coming in from a young donor? Do you receive it once and you're good for a week? A year?

<comment><USER3> Only one way to find out...

<comment><USER2> It seems like it would be relatively easy to test out. People donate blood all the time. I'm sure the effects are known of how much blood you can replace at once without causing issues. Without a doubt some elderly people would volunteer. Why can't we start giving them new blood once a week from donors, and see the results on their health or illnesses? I'm all for testing, but this seems like one of those things you could quickly move to human trials.

<comment><USER4> Should be done outside the normal blood donor system. There's not that much donor blood around, so it would be unethical to use it. Not a practical problem, but it would look and feel bad.

Anyway, yes, why not try this on humans? Sounds perfectly reasonable.

<comment><USER5> Because of cancer.

As mentioned in the article:

"Waking up stem cells might lead to their multiplying uncontrollably."

<comment><USER6> Scientists discover some weird thing they didn't expect, and start spitballing about what the pros/cons could be when reporters show up. News at 11.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As foreshadowed by Heinlein in Methuselah's Children...in 1958

"Yes, yes," agreed Hardy. "Naturally---but what is the basic process?" "It consists largely in replacing the entire blood tissue in an old person with new, young blood..."

</comment><comment><USER8> So... Elizabeth Bathory might have been on the right track? (Howard Hughes for that matter.)

</comment><comment><USER9> You have to be very careful when you say "reverses aging." That is a very different thing from "reverses a couple of measurable aspects associated with aging." In the former case you are making an assertion that will immediately lead you to having to define the cause and mechanisms of aging and defend your point that it is, as a process, reversed - and the definition of aging is a contentious topic at the present time. But the press is lazy and in search of clicks, etc, etc.

The mainstream of the aging research community theorizes on the basis of mountainous evidence that aging is accumulated damage. What that damage consists of is pretty much settled, but there is a lot of argumentation over how it all hooks together, what is important, what is primary versus secondary, and how in detail it connects to visible pathologies of aging.

Outside that mainstream, the present day accepted heresy, in the sense that the minority population of heretics are engaged with rather than cast out of the cathedral, is that aging is an evolved genetic program. It is a selected adaptation and where there is damage that damage is a consequence of epigenetic changes, not the cause of them. There are factions within this heresy too, and a lot of argumentation. If you want to learn more, look for the hyperfunction theory of aging and related thoughts as representative of the field. [1]

The damage view of epigenetic and signaling changes in tissues that occur with aging is that these changes are reactions to damage. Altering them may lead to short term benefits and be worthy of use as treatments but that doesn't do anything about the underlying damage - which will grow and kill you. In the case of stem cell decline with aging, this process is thought to be a cancer suppression mechanism, and thus forcing all the dormant stem cells back to work is going to mean cancer everywhere. Equally it may turn out that evolution has produced an overcompensation and some of the benefits of doing this might be effectively free. The fastest way to find out is to conduct animal studies in something other than mice (which are little cancer factories and have telomere dynamics that are very dissimilar to that of humans).

In contrast the programmed aging view is that reversing signaling and epigenetic changes is exactly reversal of aging, and is thus a great thing to be doing and we should be making full steam ahead on this front. I think they are wrong, and that the balance of evidence clearly points in the other direction, but as I said this is a heresy with enough advocates that they are not just ignored.

(Bizarrely, most of that portion of the mainstream who work towards enhancing longevity and slowing aging actually spend their time on potential treatments that make much more sense as goals for programmed aging enthusiasts. Look at sirtuin or calorie restriction mimetic work - all about altering protein levels and signals. All too few researchers take the sensible approach of looking for means of damage repair. But that's a whole different topic. I blame regulation of medicine as a force steering research into marginal channels).

Anyway, on to the heterochronic parabiosis, which is what you call the linking of circulatory systems in two individuals, one old, one young. This has been used for some years as a way of studying what might be going on in old tissues, especially in connection with the decline in stem cell tissue maintenance activity that leads to organ dysfunction and death. The end goal is to figure out the differences and use that knowledge to produce the part of the complete map of the molecular biology of the progression of aging that covers tissue signaling - most researchers in the field have no declared interest in doing anything other than looking at what is going on.

Along the way, however, someone will produce prospective treatments based on identifying signals to stem cells involved in the choice between activity and quiescence. No-one is going to be shifting blood around as a basis for treatments between young and old when you can instead figure out what exactly it is in the blood that is causing changes - this is a change likely to occur in the stem cell transplant field also, in which much of the benefits seem to depend on the alteration of signals caused by the transplanted cells rather than any cell maintenance they are doing directly. Why sling cells around if you can just manufacture proteins that have the same beneficial effects?

One of the signals is apparently GDF11, which has been explored for a couple of years now. [2] It is interesting to see that it is more general than simply localized to heart tissue. Given the large number of quite different stem cell populations in the body it would be unexpected to find much in the way of commonality between the signaling systems that they use. Apparently there is some commonality after all. Though I wouldn't hold out for much more. In general I'm expecting the exploration of cell signaling to be every bit as complicated as the hunt-and-peck approach taken to finding ways to interfere with cancer: a lot of proteins, different in most tissues.

[1]: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3455862/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3455862/)

[2]: [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.015](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.015)

<comment><USER10> Aging is more than just accumulated dammage, menopause is a clear counter example to this idea. However, dammage does accumulate so like most complex systems there are no simple answers.

<comment><USER9> Menopause is an oddity and a puzzle. It isn't easily used to support any of the various points of view in aging research, partially because it is a human peculiarity that doesn't seem to be present in anything like a similar form in other primates or mammals. Theorizing has it linked with the grandmother hypothesis viewpoint on why humans are so much longer lived than other primates, and the evolutionary track by which we got here. You might look at these papers:

[http://www.impactaging.com/papers/v6/n2/full/100640.html](http://www.impactaging.com/papers/v6/n2/full/100640.html)

[http://www.pnas.org/content/110/33/13440](http://www.pnas.org/content/110/33/13440)

<comment><USER11> What ? This is not true at all. Menopause is present in all mammals. The reason you don't see it in most mammals is simple : the normal maximum age for most mammals is less than half of humans. Most animals grow to about 30-35 "dog-years", and die. Dogs and cats in captivity, some long-lived races, do experience menopause. If humans died at 30-35, which is about the expected age for humans in the natural habitat, it would be a very rare woman indeed that experience menopause. (Keep in mind that 35 is the average age of death for humans in nature. But at that age most deaths are still accidental, meaning there is a large deviation. A lot of kids would "naturally" die 5 years or younger (like 30-50%, depending on environment), then there is a certain chance of dying every year. IF a human can avoid nature, infection, fights (or you know, win them all), poisoning, famine, ... a male human would age to about 40-45 years in nature, a woman a little older. But no more than 2% or so will ever see their 45th birthday in a natural human population)

Here's the key, when a female baby takes her first breath (oxygen in the lungs), a mechanism is set off that causes the ovi to cut off all connections to the mother body. To put it simple: before a baby girl takes her first sip of mother's milk, all the baby's children have become independent lifeforms, no longer connected to the mother's body. The baby's DNA will sabotage and boobytrap it's own ability to create new ovi at that point. This of course means, among other things, that their numbers are 100% fixed at this point. This means that at that point the number of fertility cycles her body will go through is a constant from that point forward. There is a similar, but more complex, process set off in men (in men, too, the cells that form the reproductive cells are very isolated from the rest of the body).

When a human is disconnected from the umbilical, a number of changes happen as a result of that in order to switch to what you might call internal power if it were a robot. The immune system wakes up. The lungs inflate. The heart starts actually pumping blood around (yes it beats in babies, but a baby would survive without a beating heart as diffusion will actually happen fast enough. This is really sad when it happens since the baby is alive at that point, but growing will kill it). Cell reproduction rates are massively cut, and are moving towards replacement-only (a 2 year old is -almost- no longer making extra tissue. An adult is simply a 2 year old with "stretched" cells, not more cells)

Essentially nature is trying to protect the next generation from DNA alterations by external influences. Menopause is just a side-effect that evolution doesn't care about because women are unlikely to have viable children at that age.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Details of the procedure: "To do so, they joined rats in pairs by stitching together the skin on their flanks. After this procedure, called parabiosis, blood vessels grew and joined the rats' circulatory systems. "

So the old and new rats were basically sewn together.

If you want to see what this looks like, here's a picture: [http://www.viewzone.com/regen.miceduo.png](http://www.viewzone.com/regen.miceduo.png)

<comment><USER13> Yet another example of bad science (and it's cruel)... but it makes a great headline, so let's run with it.

<comment><USER14> How is this bad science? I cannot argue about the cruelty part, as that is a completely subjective qualification (on which I don't agree at all), but if this ends providing results that improve our scientific knowledge and the lives of future generations, I don't believe it can be called _bad_ science.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's long been known that replacing the blood of an elderly person with that of a youth will make the codger feel like a million bucks. It really does work and, if I were a wealthy old guy, I would definitely have a stable of donors on hand and get weekly treatments.

<comment><USER16> Do you have any links for this effect?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's been known for centuries that drinking blood of young...

Oh wait, that was a movie :)

<comment><USER18> There is a Brazilian book for teens that has the story of a group of criminals kidnapping children between 12-14 in order to harvest their blood. Of course, it's more a satirical and comedic book, with the usual gang of boys and girls solving the problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Tonight, we hunt. Tomorrow we bath in our re-found youth. It's a good time to be past your prime.

</comment><comment><USER20> This has been well-known in the vampire community for centuries.

[edit]

More seriously, wow time to start talking about the ethics of immortality.

<comment><USER21> Please don't post substanceless one-liners here.

The second one _sounds_ more serious, but "wow time to start talking about the ethics of immortality" doesn't engage with anything in this article; it's simply an immediate leap to something generic and obvious. That is not what HN discussions need.

<comment><USER22> _Please don 't post substanceless one-liners here._

i.e. don't make jokes.

I've wondered about this because I've done the same thing and gotten downvoted. There's nothing about not making jokes in the guidelines. Personally I like a little humor mixed with my HN.

Is there some unspoken guideline that HN is supposed to be humorless?

And on a semi-serious note, isn't mildly interesting that one of the most common cultural myths (vampires) may have some scientific validity?

<comment><USER21> scott_s made an insightful comment about this recently: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7609289](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7609289).

HN isn't against humor per se. Personally, when I read Reddit, I'm in awe of how good the best jokes are. The problem is that you can't have everything; with a culture of humor comes a flood of lame humor. HN's tradeoff is to optimize for signal-noise ratio, so that stuff tends to get hammered.

There are other places to get lots of internet humor. HN is never going to be one of those, not because people don't like to laugh, but because the signal/noise problem is hard.

<comment><USER10> I do occasionally up vote posts that I find funny. I just down vote several times that. The real issue is HN has an older audience which does not find obvious one liners interesting.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Pi Connects Colliding Blocks to a Quantum Search Algorithm - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-pi-connects-colliding-blocks-to-a-quantum-search-algorithm-20200121/ <comment><USER2> After a Numberphile's video instigated the search of how to write 42 as the sum of 3 third powers, a 3Blue1Brown's video influenced the world of quantum search. It makes one wonder how much there still is to discover thanks to astonishing persons such as Grant, making science approachable to a broader public and let cross-pollination do its thing.</comment>


History of Programming Languages: Volume 2 - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0201895021/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0201895021&linkCode=as2&tag=produc05-20

<comment><USER2> "Usually ships within 5-7 weeks..." Bizarre.

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought that was odd too. Can't think of a reason why it should take that long.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Personally I like the Learn 10 Languages in 10 Days book.</comment>


React is the new Dojo - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@mikeal/react-is-the-new-dojo-18bd9059378f <comment><USER2> Really? Dojo won? jQuery never accomplished anything? For 10 years, people have been going to web conferences talking about how Dojo already did all this?

Apparently, I've been living in a completely different corner of the web than this guy.

<comment><USER3> .

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This guy is a WebComponents evangelist of some sort.

I don't understand why so many people sweat over libraries, frameworks, and which one is going to "win". Once you learn to program properly, choosing a framework becomes a non-issue.

The bigger problem right now is the tooling ecosystem (webpack, babel etc). It's too difficult to set up and customize, especially for beginners. The packages change too often and you run into bugs all the time. Sometimes I wish we had a dumb-ass GUI to set up all this stuff. Customizability comes with complexity I guess.

<comment><USER5> I agree and I disagree.

From an individual developer standpoint, you should be able to transition between frameworks, libraries, and so on. You don't have to pick a single "winning" tech stack, although there are obviously transactional costs to becoming productive in a new tech stack.

From the point of view of a product or business, it is very expensive to switch between tech stacks. Most businesses can't afford to re-implement their product because there is a new 'hot framework'. I think there was an article on HN just within the last week about why Fortran is still a thing in some development circles.

So while I don't think it is necessary for there to be a single "winner", discerning which tech stacks have some long term stability and when the benefits of a transition outweigh the transactional costs of switching can be important.

<comment><USER4> > From the point of view of a product or business, it is very expensive to > switch between tech stacks.

I totally agree with you. I was talking about the developers perspective.

When it comes to companies, not only is it difficult to transition from an unpopular tech stack, but it's also difficult to hire great developers because none of them want to work on such stack.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "The Web didn't win because it was the favorite among enterprises and "real developers." It won because it scaled down better than it scaled up. It won because it amateurized software development and unlocked the creativity of an entire generation of programmers that couldn't participate in software until The Web."

This is what worries me about WebAssembly. If most web code goes binary, then it is no longer possible for the next generation of developers to View Source to see how things are built. Over the decades of doing web development, I've learned so much from looking at the source of other people's web sites. Even now with minimization and obfuscation it is pretty easy to run the code through some tools to get it back to a readable state.

<comment><USER7> For all apps, other than graphic intensive 3D, there is no need to implement something using WebAssembly. The performance gain is simply not worth it.

This will be even more true as browser JS performance increases

<comment><USER8> This is not true at all. WebAssembly does not exist solely for performance. It exists because javascript is the sole ecosystem for web application development. By making WebAssembly a compile target we expand the universe of web development into something similar to Desktop development. Hopefully we can introduce the newer generation of developers into realizing how bad javascript really is as a programming language.

<comment><USER7> if you don't want to use JS to build CRUD apps, you can do that today.. just use .NET MVC and use C# and Razor. I happen to hate using the latter though

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> jQuery is still around and still useful for a certain class of applications. But to say that jQuery won for rich web apps is to ignore all the churn we went through in frameworks and tooling to finally end up with Webpack, NPM, Babel and React.

React's target is complex apps. It's designed to scale both with application complexity and team size. jQuery never was designed to scale. And anyone who started with jQuery and built a rich single page app will generally tell you of all the imperative pitfalls you'll find.

The thing is, the web has evolved. The simple tools that attracted us to the web when web was mostly a presentation layer just don't cut it.

The "old" web is still there for beginners. If you want to learn to build basic websites without having to learn package management, numerous libraries and frameworks... jQuery is still a great option.

I'm always skeptical of loose analogies. 2017 isn't 2010. React is not Dojo. I'm not even saying React is the end all be all...but it works really well and it will continue to hold its position unless something better comes along that enough people are excited about to beat React's ecosystem.

For beginners there are tools like Next.js and Gatsby which allow you to create server rendered React apps with minimal config, setup, etc.

React also has React Native going for it, which is still young and booming.

<comment><USER10> The one "designed to scale both with application complexity and team size" is actually Angular.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "It's used not only by hipster San Francisco startups but gigantic companies like Facebook"

Uhhh... Obviously Facebook would be using it. That was useless filler insight. What other large implementations of React is out there?

<comment><USER9> AirBNB, Twitter mobile, Walmart app, Spotify, Atlassian, Skype, Discord mobile, many more...

<comment><USER11> Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Netflix.

It's easier to ask what large company isn't using React. The PATENTS talk was odd because those same companies had and continue to use it with or without the new licensing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> And Mithril.js for rendering with Tachyons for CSS is the new jQuery? :-) [https://mithril.js.org/](https://mithril.js.org/) [http://tachyons.io/](http://tachyons.io/)

An example using that combination: [https://github.com/pdfernhout/Twirlip7](https://github.com/pdfernhout/Twirlip7)

</comment><comment><USER13> If we're following that analogy, why isn't React the new JQuery, with Angular taking the Dojo role?

<comment><USER14> I think the article explains it well, jQuery scaled down in a way that Dojo couldn't. I don't think you can fairly say that either Angular or React scale down in a way to enable the sort of amateurism that jQuery provided.

<comment><USER15> I'm not the biggest fan of react, but it's pretty easy to slap a single component into a project using the cdn, a single require and a single jsx file. I mean it isn't as easy as jquery, but it feels like it's in the some order of magnitude of difficulty.

<comment><USER14> You're too much in-the-know. You skipped the build chain required to make this work. And if you make one mistake or do something not by the book you could easily wind up shipping the development version of React to your users (which is slower).

I think the analogy is so apt because Dojo users made the same arguments back in the day; that it really was easy if you ignore all of the parts that were not easy. They weren't wrong! But that didn't make it ideal as a scaled down solution.

<comment><USER16> No pre-deploy build chain is required.

Even jsx can be compiled on the browser, seamlessly.

<comment><USER14> Yep, and it wasn't required of Dojo either. Optional complexity doesn't make something any easier to understand, especially when most documentation and community expects you to use the complex parts.

<comment><USER16> You are right, I see why OP's initial statement was wrong about React being "simple" because you _could_ make it simple.

Did Dojo expect the community to use the "optional complexity"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > used by hipster startups to Facebook

Well, yeah, it's developed by and for Facebook...that was a weird line.

</comment><comment><USER18> People who can't or won't invest the time to learn a tool that will boost their productivity...these are the people who determine the leading tools/frameworks??

</comment><comment><USER6> At some point there has to be a next generation of web tools/frameworks. It's not like React will be around forever. Eventually it will bloat up just like these things always do and people will start asking themselves, "Isn't there a better easier way to do this"? I hope the author is right and the next generation of tools does away with a lot of the current complexity (especially the build step! - please no more need for cli, node.js, a "toolchain", etc.)

<comment><USER7> >>I hope the author is right and the next generation of tools does away with a lot of the current complexity (especially the build step! - please no more need for cli, node.js, a "toolchain", etc.)

If that's what you want, then it's not a function of a new framework to enable the vision you articulated. I think evolutions in the HTTP protocol is needed to allow unbuilt/unbundled code to be effectively delivered over the wire.

There is a clear distinction between how developers need to abstract and organize code vs how code is more efficiently processed by programs. The framework that the developer uses will always be designed to cater to what the user needs. If there is the need for a build/bundling step, then so be it. Framework designer should never sacrifice the former for an easier build/bundling step

<comment><USER19> What about a web server that does the build step automatically, with no configuration required?

Something like webpack-dev-server, but usable both in production and development.

To deploy, drop your typescript/html/css files under /srv/www/ and your web server will take care of everything.

<comment><USER20> If you already have html/css files, then "dropping them under /src/www" will already just work - that's how servers have worked since time immemorial, no "build step" required.

But compiling isn't what a web server does, and it seems like having the server automatically do what a developer is going to do anyway when they push to production, and likely not very often, isn't a significant gain in efficiency. The point of having a separate build chain for these types is that you're emitting what are meant to be static resources anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Maybe if you live in a bay area startup filter bubble?

I don't see React "winning" on a major scale at corporations here in Europe.

Tbh I am quite shocked whenever I read about advances in React that Angular has had for quite a while.

<comment><USER22> Like a small API surface or a tiny set of concepts to learn? Oh wait...

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> React, Redux, Apollo, GraphQL, Express, Sequalize, and Postgres ecosystem seems like it is the new Drupal while Medium, Wix, and Shopify are the new Wordpress.

</comment><comment><USER24> And why one wouldn't use Dojo over React or Angular nowadays?

<comment><USER7> the Dojo AMD pattern sucks when you have too large of a collection of dependencies.. With Dojo you need to have exact matching order between your require collection and the parameters for your callback.</comment></comment>


Netflix finally lands on the Boxee Box - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2011/02/14/netflix-boxee-box/ <comment><USER2> About time.</comment>


Why You Should Move To Berlin - <AUTHOR> http://maneeshsethi.com/blog/7-reasons-you-should-move-to-berlin-today/ <comment><USER3> I must say, that's the most aggravating site I've read recently.

It's bad enough to start off the page by begging me to give it my email address (how about no?). But then I start scrolling down and... bingo, black screen and _another_ begging for my email address. Sure, I could track down that little "close" button, but it's easier to close the tab and make a mental note to never look at the site again.

<comment><USER4> the horror

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I love Berlin, but please let's cut the hyperbole:

 _Beautiful nature, lakes, canals, and parks_

It's a pretty city, in some parts, but "Europe's greenest city" is just bullshit. And maybe technically there are more canals than in Venice and Amsterdam, but in reality you'll find that you have to walk quite a bit to get from one canal to the next, where in Venice and Amsterdam they are a defining part of the city.

 _Berlin's central location makes it easy to travel around Europe_

Around Eastern Europe, yes. Travelling to the UK, France, Spain, Italy, or Switzerland is easier from other parts of the continent.

 _The amazing, delicious döner kebabs_

I like kebabs as much as the next guy and it's probably true that you can get the best ones in Berlin, but let's be honest, it's drunk food and often made from questionable ingredients.

That said, there really is lots of awesome food in Berlin in all price categories and from all the cuisines of the world. In fact, eating out in Berlin is such a great experience in general that I'm not sure why kebabs deserve special mention.

Again, I love Berlin and maneesh's other points hold true, I just don't think it needs to be glorified beyond what it is -- a wonderful, amazing city that isn't the most pretty one and isn't really the very best location in Europe in terms of climate and travelling options.

@maneesh: don't take this the wrong way, glad to hear you've had a great time, sounds like a lot of fun!

<comment><USER6> I think you've got it wrong.

I live in a 1750 square foot penthouse apartment (two floors, 14' ceilings, hardwood throughout), with easy access to two different subway lines (U8 and the S41/42 ring). I can be anywhere in the inhabited part of the city in under 25 minutes.

I pay $1400/month. That's $9/sqft/year, or $0.80/sqft/month. Did I mention that's including heat?

Berlin is a world-class city. There are several authorized Apple service centers (and they're building an Apple Store right now), Canon service centers, and big box retailers. There are great restaurants and hotels and conference centers and such because it's the federal capital, and all the embassies and consulates are here, this country being the largest economy in the EU.

I defy you to find me another city in the first world where one can live so cheaply, with access to the benefits of a truly world-class city such as Berlin has. It's simply not possible (and indeed, in the trendiest parts of town, rents have gone up 100% in the last 5-7 years).

It won't last, but we've got at least 3-7 years left before it turns into another stuffy expensive boring German city.

<comment><USER7> "3-7 years left"

Check the date on this: <http://catandgirl.com/?p=1129>

I've got a couple grand and weeks for traveling. When and what's good?

<comment><USER6> Yeah, it's been here for the last 8 or 9 years, ever since New York got all cleaned up and destroyed its techno scene.

Examples include Hawtin, Adam X, Function, Plaslaiko, Visionquest, etc - <USER2> list goes on.

It truly is an amazing city... and yes, it does move around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Couldn't read the article as the server is overloaded. But I have some thoughts about the headline. This may contain some hyperbole, you have been warned.

I don't understand Berlins appeal. It has one fatal flaw: no industry. In my opinion the great parts of Germany are where the world-famous "Mittelstand" sits. Is that in Berlin? I would argue it's not. Berlin is called "the city of students, the unemployed and cab drivers" by many, and probably not without reason.

Berlin is our hipster-central. However German engineers much prefer the living standards of Bavaria or BW instead of getting their Audi/BMW/Merc torched and their property vandalized. You're not getting lots of these people to move to Berlin. Big (US) IT corps know this, almost all of them have their headquarters in the south.

Now, if you're after 20somethings with no family, low income expectations and you build webapps using $WhateverIsCoolOnHN that targets other 20somethings around the globe - sure, go to Berlin. But then why don't you start wherever you are and get going instead of looking for another excuse that delays your product?

If your business plan even remotely involves selling goods or services to companies, you've chosen the wrong spot of Germany. The same is true for finances, Berlin is constantly broke and banks cling on to their money for obvious reasons.

And if your business plan involves pushing lots of data, you should be in Frankfurt.

<comment><USER9> Well, don't you sound bitter and boring.

<comment><USER10> I'd guess you're one of the 20somethings he's talking about, right?

As someone who lives in Berlin for more than 4 years, involved in IT, I can definitely says he is 100% right. I would say Munich is the place to if you want do to something in this industry.

<comment><USER11> Munich, Stuttgart, Hamburg or Hanover. I am a postdoc in CS who is looking to get into industry and my wife is in manufacturing. As much as we wish to go to Berlin, it is very difficult for her to find a relevant job in manufacturing there.

All our German friends have recommended us Stuttgart as _the_ place to be for industry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I live near Berlin. There is much wisdom in this essay on startups written by Paul Graham in 2006:

<http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html>

Quote: "I think you only need two kinds of people to create a technology hub: rich people and nerds. "

Regarding Nerds: There are certainly a lot of nerds in Berlin. Are they elite technology geeks? Maybe. But lots of such nerds are willing to move to Berlin. Check passed.

Regarding Rich people/investors: There are actually relatively few rich people in Berlin. (Berlin is so cheap for a reason: it is a very poor city). So this key success factor is still underrepresented. Check NOT passed.

Just sayin'.

Don't expect too much.

<comment><USER13> I live in Munich and just the opposite is true -- well, sort of. We've got lots of nerds and plenty of money but not much entrepreneurial activity. Too sedentary -- but why?

<comment><USER14> Good question. I'm a Berliner but am currently "stuck" (long story) in Munich. It's got everything: stuff just works, everything's clean, safe and pretty, lots of money around, and one of the best technical universities in Germany to boot. And yet, and yet, something is missing.

From what little I know, it appears that the more "dynamic" people move to Berlin to _entreprendre_ something, and the less adventurous (dare I say "corporate"-type) ones stay or come here to work for BMW et al. This is regardless of their talent or capability, btw, it's just my subjective impression of personality types.

As for me, I'm torn between my old hometown and Zurich so Munich might be a good compromise even if I get unstuck but we'll see ;-)

<comment><USER13> You are completely right -- and it's really too bad because some combination of the two would be ideal. I wonder if it is easier to start a "startup culture" in Munich or a "get stuff working" culture in Berlin. I guess since I'm also "stuck" in Munich for the moment myself I'd prefer to work on moving things forward in here (hosting hackathons, etc.)

btw, what makes you think Zurich would be better?

<comment><USER14> > what makes you think Zurich would be better?

Zurich is just a personal preference because I studied and lived a long time in Switzerland. If you drew a cultural and demographic vector from Berlin through Munich to Zurich, you'd have a pretty good picture of what Zurich is like. If that sounds like a mixed bag, that's because it is. ;-) Even richer, even better working, but also even stuffier. I love it there but that's because many of my friends are there.

What is true, though, is that Switzerland has a better business culture and regulatory/tax environment. People work quite hard, they are very rational and pragmatic in business matters, and the universities there are, unlike the German ones, truly world class. I'd also wager, although I've not (yet?) tried myself, that it will be easier to raise capital from Swiss investors than from Munich-based ones (and Berlin, as someone already mentioned, doesn't really have serious capital floating around).

It's all a wash though, I'm sure that these generalities have marginal impact on whatever you or I do or decide. At the end of the day, sitting in Munich, you're a productive 4h train ride away from Zurich and a 6h train ride from Berlin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Berlin is an awesome city, I had the chance to spend a week or so there a few years back and it's one of the few places I would consider moving overseas to live.

There is a big difference though between west berlin and the ex-communist east berlin , for one thing expect to pay around twice as much for a beer in west as in east.

The public transport system as well as any municipal services we used whilst there were a model of legendary German efficiency, not to mention cheap as transport is subsidized by the state.

The nightlife is excellent but I certainly advise chatting to the local partygoers (most are friendly enough) as they will know the more cool out of the way places to go.

Beer is also very cheap in east berlin , especially from supermarkets and drinking it on the streets or public transport is not the taboo that it is in the UK and other places.

The general vibe of the nightlife I experienced was quite different to Britain with much more sensibly paced drinking going on throughout the night and a generally social , jovial atmosphere unlike UK Cities which seem to cater increasingly to insular gangs of drunks who go out ingest large amounts of lager so quickly they throw up whilst they go on the hunt for fights or casual back-alley sex.

And those Doner kebabs sure look allot more appetizing than the ones found in takeaways in Britain.

<comment><USER16> Two other significant downsides of Berlin are that there are no mountains around, and it's so far north it's rather cold and the days are very short during winter.

<comment><USER6> There's a symmetry to it - in the summer it's light until 23:30 and dawn happens at around 3.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Germany is the land of tech startups. But not Web technologies. Germany is predominantly engineering based. And the industry is more in the south.

Germany is ideal if you want to work on the latest car assistant systems, on technologies for building the next generation skyscrapers in Dubai and China, or on green technologies. Programming is often a byproduct of those development, but those are interesting fields non the less.

<comment><USER18> So what cities in Europe are good for software developers? Where are the hubs?

<comment><USER19> In Stockholm, programmer is the most common profession of all. More common than teachers, nurses etc. Also, Copenhagen/Malmö is nice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm German myself and I'm always cringing a bit when it comes to German statups. At least in the past most of the 'bigger' ones were copies of already existing ideas and there is always the ones that seem to be afraid of new technology ("we use j2ee, oracle and hibernate"). Could somebody name a few successful Berlin (or German) startups besides soundcloud?

<comment><USER21> <http://www.6wunderkinder.com/> is one example.

<comment><USER22> So far, 6wunderkinder delivered a todo-list app for several platforms. Wunderkit is yet to be delivered, and I just don't see how a free app that is used by some people can be stated as "successful", especially given the fact that the most visible competitors, Things and Omnifocus are premium-priced. Spread: Certainly. Success: Menotreallysure.

<comment><USER23> At least Things is also from Germany <http://culturedcode.com/about/impressum.html>

<comment><USER22> Yes, but cultured code is not presenting themselves as if it were the hottest new startup ( they are btw not in berlin but in stuttgart ), they have just created an awesome app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> >Welcome Hacker News Reader!

>You should subscribe to my blog via email below...

Hello Maneesh. You have just guaranteed that I will never visit your blog again.

</comment><comment><USER25> I love Berlin, but I recommend Hamburg over Berlin. Here in Hamburg, we don't have super-cheap housing, but there is one big advantage: Lots of capital. I'm currently working hard on getting more entrepreneurial and startup events going in Hamburg, because every time you talk to people from abroad and mention you're a startup in Germay, they all go "Oh, Berlin?" No, actually, we have several nice cities. Hamburg probably has the highest quality of life (compared to Berlin, Munich and Frankfurt). Berlin is fun if you like the scruffy look and hopping from one thing to the next, Hamburg is better if you want to live and build something sustainable.

And it's only 1:40h from Berlin by train... :)

<comment><USER26> Would you say speaking German is a requirement for a Hamburg based startup?

<comment><USER27> Ja - viele Deutsche sprechen kein English.

Und yes, meine German sind wirklich broken.

<comment><USER28> I lived and worked in Frankfurt for awhile (I'm American). My experience was different. Though I was fluent in German and worked for a company where German was the language of day to day work, I found very few Germans that didnt speak English (Those that had grown up in the former East Germany were the exception - this was 15 years ago when the fall of the Wall was more recent). I met Americans that had lived there for four or five years working at some of the international companies there that had never learned German. It did not seem to be an impediment.

<comment><USER29> I think it was meant sarcastically.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Down for me, Google cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:96bt8LH...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:96bt8LHCtskJ:maneeshsethi.com/blog/7-reasons- you-should-move-to-berlin-today/&hl=en&strip=1)

</comment><comment><USER31> I have now lived in Berlin for a couple of months - I like it, even when it is winter :)

I'm self-employed one-man-business, and at first I thought about applying for "real work" so that I would better integrate to the new city. Since then I have changed my mind. There are lots of different technology events, and it is very easy to meet new people. There are numerous co-working spaces, if you don't want to work from home. Freelancing, startups and self-employment are seen as normal career choice (not like in Finland, where I come from).

I have tried to pick up a little german, and I can understand it now a little bit - but it seems that almost everybody speaks fluent english, so it doesn't seem to be necessary.

<comment><USER32> I've found Berlin to be a bit of a cluterfuck. I stay in Kruezburg near the Kotti so this probably skews my perceptions. Everyday there is a battle between pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars. Each group fighting each other.

I agree that almost every traditional German speaks English but a lot of the Turkish decent Germans don't.

<comment><USER33> > Everyday there is a battle between pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars.

You better never come to Beijing!

By the way, in Beijing, geeks and rich people are plenty, and entrepreneurship is strong, even if still fragile.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'll preface this with the fact that I love Berlin. I'm a US citizen that has German permanent residence and has been in Germany for 10 years and Berlin for 5. But this post is full of fawning:

 _1) Incredibly cheap cost of living for a European capital_

This is true. Berlin is freakishly cheap.

 _2) Berlin has an amazing startup culture_

No, it doesn't. It's trending positive, but at present Berlin has a mediocre startup culture. It's not even in the same league as the valley and also behind NYC, Boston, London and Tel Aviv (and possibly a few more).

Pop quiz: Can you name 5 large Berlin exits? 5 Berlin angel investors that do more than a couple deals a year? 5 VC firms with offices in Berlin? I can't do any of those off the top of my head. I can actually answer those for several of the mentioned cities that I don't even live in. (Note: I'm not saying that there aren't answers for those that I could find with research, but it should give some sense for the relative magnitudes.)

 _3) Incredible music scene and nightlife_

Also true. Though the clubs listed there are kind of the _touriste deluxe_. What makes Berlin is the grimy underground places. Also, it's great for some genres, terrible for some (i.e. jazz in Berlin is pretty lame).

What's more important and not mentioned is that Berlin is probably the best city to be in for _the arts in general_ right now in the West. The nightlife is just one outgrowth of that.

 _4) Beautiful nature, lakes, canals, and parks_

Sorry, but Berlin is a pretty ugly city. If you want pretty, go to Prague. London and Paris are also a lot prettier than Berlin. In fact, I could list another dozen cities that are. Also, I know of several cities that claim the "most canals" thing (Hamburg among them). At any rate, does anyone really care how many canals there are? While you can find some pretty spots in Berlin, if this is high on your list of reasons to move to a city, Berlin doesn't score well.

 _5) The awesome history, abandoned buildings, and street art (and relaxed police)_

The anecdote about the police there is ... well, I can say that the author hasn't been at many parties shut down by the police. The usual modus operandi is 2-3 police tell the organizers that they've got half an hour to shut things down or else they're coming back with a bunch of police. They're generally pretty chilled out, except when they're not. In rare cases, usually inexplicably, the riot police get called in and let's just say they're not known for their friendliness.

The abandoned buildings are in large part due to the fact that both people and industry left the city when it was divided. Berlin's peak population was about half a million more than it has now.

 _6) Berlin's central location makes it easy to travel around Europe_

No, it doesn't. Prague or Warsaw, maybe. But it's quite a ways from the usual tourist fare in western Europe.

 _7) The amazing, delicious döner kebabs_

Bleh. They seem neat because they're new. Let's talk again when you've downed your first 100 of them. They're just junky fast-food. I usually can't finish one anymore without getting nauseous.

Other misnomers from comments:

• _Everyone speaks English in Berlin_

No, they don't. In fact, I'd be surprised if half do. People over 35 from the east, people without a college education, blue collar workers, etc. usually don't. And quite a few educated folks don't either.

• _The cheap parts of Berlin are the old communist parts_

Also false. Neukölln is the currently trendy spot, and Kreuzberg was before it. Both are in the former west Berlin. Before that Friedrichshain and Prenzlauerberg were the in spots and they were both in the east.

<comment><USER35> Another long-term expat here (also 10 years, all in Berlin). You nailed every "huh?" moment I had with article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Every single person who moves to berlin ends up mixing minimal techno. It's uncanny.

<comment><AUTHOR> that is a fact, <http://soundcloud.com/maneesh/minimally-nomadic>

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I'm tempted to spend a bit of time there next year. I occasionally do some work for some guys not too far away from Berlin so I have something I can justify it with (northern working class roots means I still think of travel as bourgeois frippery). I'd be interested to see any lists of meetups/that kind of thing that happen regularly.

My dad spent some time there in his army days and I remember him telling me that beer was cheaper than a cup of tea from the roadside stops. Glad to hear that's still the case!

<comment><AUTHOR> I cofounded the 4 Hour Workweek meetup, which is still very active in Berlin. Check it out here: <http://www.facebook.com/groups/146524318752855/>

We actually had Tim Ferriss come and speak to us, it was great.

You can also check out meetup.org, I see a lot of cool Startup Freelancer meetups there.

Lastly, check out Couchsurfing.org, there are AWESOME weekly meetups 3x / week.

<comment><USER37> Excellent, thanks. At the risk of sounding like I didn't even attempt to check the obvious, I've tried sites like that before and found almost everything was defunct. If that's not the case here then I'll certainly take a look!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> How difficult is it for one to get the proper visas to Germany (EU?). What are the requirements of obtaining a visa? Can I start a business or work for some one on a tourist visa?

<comment><AUTHOR> Getting a visa isn't impossible, but you need a good reason. I got a working visa through my university, but many people can get 'artist's visas, which allow them to stay if they are practicing any sort of art (photography, djing, music, whatever). These artist visas are not so difficult to get.

A residence permit is also quite easy. But a working visa can be difficult---- you need to be sponsored first.

<comment><USER39> Careful with that recommendation. I've got a friend from the eastern part of Europe (if you still consider it part of Europe in the first place). He came to DE on one of those things and is currently fighting an expensive lawsuit to be able to stay.

He is a great artist (musician) and earns more money than I did in DE as a developer, but for some reason he's still supposed to 'go home' now.

Yes, this is a single data point and you should not believe random strangers on the internet.

<comment><USER40> Why would you not consider it apart of Europe?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I've been on two several week long trips to Germany and Austria this year and I've absolutely loved it. Unfortunately, my boss isn't willing to transfer me over to Europe. If anyone is hiring, I'm looking pretty much anywhere in Germany, Austria, or Czech. Email in profile. I'm an engineer, but not software (mechanical). Experience working as Linux sysadmin and enjoy Python. Willing to work (relatively) cheap for the right experience.

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm about to complete my second week in Berlin. I'm doing some Ruby programming with some friends. It's been an exciting experience so far, I'll be around for a couple of months.

Anyone up for some meetups or beers? I'd like to get to know the hacker or gamedev scene here, it would be great.

I haven't had any problems with my half baked English yet. The guys at the döner that don't speak English, can understand half baked sign language pretty well.

<comment><USER43> I've found St Oberholz bar in Rosenthaler Strasse to be pretty famous for meetups <http://g.co/maps/xex87>

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> As no one has written extensively about visas and the OP has glorified Berlin without saying how to legally become a resident and earn money, I'll try to do it (and tell you a nice little story in the process).

Short intro: I have lived in Germany for more than 15 years. I have learned the language and subsequently studied CompSci there, I love so many things about Germany, I have family and friends there, I still follow what's happening there through the media, I have worked there as a developer and consultant.

(All info is for non-EU citizens)

Working with tourist visa is impossible. Legally.

Obtaining the student visa (the same OP had/has) is fairly easy. And you can work with it. But only for an employer (so, no freelancing, no incorporating). And for 19 hrs/week maximum. If you work more, German IRS ("Finanzamt") will contact your employer and you both can get in trouble.

Obtaining other kinds of visas is much harder. You need both the staying visa ("Aufenthaltserlaubnis") from the Immigration Service ("Ausländerbehörde") and the work permit ("Arbeitserlaubnis") from the Employment Center ("Bundesagentur für Arbeit"). If there are no German and EU citizens available for the job, and you have the qualification that is in shortage, and your employer has proven all that to the Immigration Service (process that can take months - it's time and money consuming) and is willing to pay you at least €60.000 a year (which is quite a lot!) then, and only then you can get the work permit. Needless to say, finding an employer who's willing to go through that procedure isn't easy. Caveat: You are quite dependent on that employer afterwards.

More info (in German, try Google translate):[http://migration- business.de/2011/09/hochqualifizierte-raus-...](http://migration- business.de/2011/09/hochqualifizierte-raus-aus-deutschland/)

Obtaining visa for incorporating a company is the hardest thing! There are two ways:

1\. If you have had staying visa and work permit for more that five years you can apply for permanent residence ("Unbefristete Aufenthaltserlaubnis"). The procedure lasts three to six months and if you are (as German politicians like to say) "integrated" (you speak fluent German, know the country, have German friends, no criminal record, not a terrorist etc.) there is no major thing that'd hinder you to become permanent resident. With permanent residence you can incorporate whatever you want (sole proprietorship, a company).

2\. This is a lesser known way: If your staying visa and work permit is "younger" than five years you can write a business plan. Immigration Service will pass it to the local Chamber of Commerce ("Handelskammer") and after the positive review they'll give a green light and Immigration Service will add to your visa that you are allowed to incorporate. That's how it should work. On paper. The real life is different.

As this is a lesser known way, I know only one guy who has tried it. Great credentials: Studied in Germany, flawless German, "integrated" (gosh, I hate that word), very competent. Worked for a year, and didn't want to wait for another four to be allowed to incorporate. Had a great idea. Wrote a great business plan. And went through limbo with it. In order to get to the positive outcome he, preemptively, has contacted and worked with the Chamber of Commerce guy who has worked on his case. That guy would return the business plan every week with new "potential problems" in it. My friend would improve it, send the new version, CoC guy would again find fault with his plan, and the game would start again. And go on for almost eight months.

To cut to the chase, my friend went to a high civil servant ("Oberstadtinspektor") with the local Immigration Service and what the civil servant has told him was revealing. His exact words were: "If I let you stay here, what should I do if, due to you business activity, a German business loses a contract and complains against us." My friend answered that he cannot rule out that such thing won't happen. But in that case, his company will still employ Germans and pay taxes in Germany - German state would still benefit from his venture. Otherwise, if he'd incorporate somewhere else, that scenario could still happen, but he wouldn't employ Germans and pay taxes in Germany. Civil servant answered "I've told you everything I can."

My friend, disappointed, returned to his home country realizing that such way of thinking was also the reason CoC guy behaved the way he behaved (in my friend's words "No German is willing to take responsibility for allowing ANY foreigner to stay in Germany"). He calls himself an "Economic Hitman" (yes, he's John Perkins fan :))): He now owns a tech company that employs 80 people, and uses his knowledge of the German culture, language, businesses to work exclusively with Germany. And to INTENTIONALLY make that scenario happen. And it has happened a few times (that he's aware of): German businesses were not taken, his was. His competitive advantage is, for one reason, the fact that his company is NOT in Germany. In his country labor is cheaper and he pays a lot less taxes than in Germany - giving him leverage over German companies.

The irony: Those (civil servants) who's mission is to to the best for the citizens and the state have failed miserably. And, on the top of that, have proven to have NO CLUE about economy as they do not realize that economy is NOT a zero-sum game.

</comment><comment><USER45> For awhile now I've been pondering the possibility of relocating my family to europe for awhile. How hard is it for someone who can start his own business to come there to found a company? How difficult is it to get a work permit to move to an EU state, if you can find an employer who will hire you?

<comment><USER46> You can get a work visa (similar to US green card) if you can find a job that pays more then 46000 Euro/Year. That is the typical IT starting salary for companies like SAP or Microsoft Germany - if you are good ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I'd love to move to Berlin just for the hacker scene that is there, centered around Chaos Computer Club. The open source / hacking / copyleft scene seems bigger there than other places in Europe, at least from what I felt when I was there for Chaos Communication Conference.

Also the döner.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm using Dreamhost to host this site, and it started giving me 500 errors within 5 minutes on HN front page. Is that normal? Anyone know a better host (maybe 1&1) with better bandwith terms??

<comment><USER48> Yup, shared host has its limitations. Use a cache plugin like W3 Total Cache for now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Wow, I had no idea about the cheap housing.

<comment><USER50> Keep in mind he was living with a host family. If you want to rent an apt, it will cost more. Here's some crowd-sourced numbers on cost of living in Berlin: [http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/city_result.jsp?country...](http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/city_result.jsp?country=Germany&city=Berlin)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> BTW, Berlin's startup scene is amazing---if you can't stomach the costs of San Fran, Berlin is the place to be.

<comment><USER51> Are there any language issues, or do some of the companies use English at work? While German is certainly a language I'd like to learn at some point in the future, being able to speak English immediately would be a big help.

Also, a slightly unrelated question--I'm a college student in the Bay Area. Would it be practical for me to intern at a company in Europe (say, in Berlin)? Because I would _really_ love that, especially if the company was a startup.

<comment><AUTHOR> Everyone speaks decent english. Some companies might prefer you to speak German in the office, but startup companies and tech companies mostly use English as well.

Which college? I interned as a student from Stanford, and Stanford actually paid for my internship. Internships tend not to pay so much, however, so don't expect too much money. But yes, you can definitely find work there. Are you a coder?

<comment><USER51> I'm currently doing EECS at Berkeley and am definitely a coder. I doubt Berkeley has any similar program, but nothing like that has ever come up--all of my internship talks and the like have been with the companies in question directly, leaving the university completely out of the loop.

Do you mean the internships in Berlin pay less than ones here, or just that internships do not pay too much in general? I think it would be a perfectly good compromise if I got to spend the summer abroad, especially if the cost of living is so much lower than here.

Coincidentally, this wouldn't be my first internship--I spent the summer at a company in San Mateo and now work part-time for a startup in San Francisco. I'm just getting tired of California.

I visited Berlin a couple of summers ago and loved it; I remember a calm city with _very_ friendly people. I could definitely see myself moving to Germany at some point after graduating.

<comment><USER52> Hit up any of the companies advertising on <http://berlinstartupjobs.com/> \- if you are as proficient as it sounds, you should find a company that takes you on and also pays you a salary during your internship. Feel free to contact me if you need pointing into any direction or want a second opinion.

<comment><USER51> Thanks for the pointer--I'll be sure to look through the jobs posted there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Unbelievable how many of you recently moved to Berlin. I've been here for 2 weeks and love it. Rock on!

</comment><comment><USER53> Sounds great. Anybody hiring?

<comment><USER54> Seriously... get me a crap job in Berlin and i'll move there in 2 weeks

<comment><USER55> If you're seriously looking to work in Berlin, shoot me a resume. Email is in my profile.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> That's great, who's hiring?

</comment><comment><USER57> a little link won't harm here: <http://berlinstartupjobs.com/> also – I'm moving to Berlin in two weeks :-)

</comment><comment><USER58> I just leave that here (street campaign from Berlin-Kreuzberg): <http://streetfiles.org/photos/detail/998929/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Wanna see real Berlin? Here is a party I threw in a subway station a few months ago. This happened about 2-3x per week.

[http://dl.dropbox.com/u/153216/90days/29%20-%20The%20Morning...](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/153216/90days/29%20-%20The%20Morning%20After.html)

I'm the sexy man doing the thrusting motion halfway through the vid.

<comment><USER59> Awesome! So Real Berlin is:

        - Blasting techno while barking English at the locals
        - Making fun of big-boned folks enjoying their dinner
        - Dancing drunk in broad daylight in oncoming traffic

Kreuzberg has been my second home for the past year, but it's stuff like this that makes me wish my fellow Americans would leave these kind of antics back home.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Toller post =)</comment>


US work visa applications dry up (TARP, economy reduce H1B demand) - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8086392.stm

<comment><USER2> There's a very serious minority of people who are fearful for the fate of the Western world. They always knew that politics would get them nowhere, and the only real hope was economic collapse. Really, it's like going from a lion's defense mechanism to a skunk's...but, whatever works.

 _As an Indian American entrepreneur in Silicon Valley, Venkatesh Shukla has been hiring software professionals from India for years._

It then goes on to imply that he is hiring Indians because he is an Indian...in a positive tone of voice. Jesus Christ, can you imagine "Indian" replaced with "white". The article would never happen, because the business owner would have been sued to death/imprisoned.

Oh, well. India has the future in its hands, so they shouldn't be too upset.

<comment><USER3> I'd bet he either

a) knows more people in india, therefore gets better indications

and

b) gets better professionals willing to work for less (I'm not saying US professionals are bad - just saying they are more expensive!)

Agree with the white comparison though...</comment></comment>


USBKill Turns Thumb Drives into Computer Kill Switches - <AUTHOR> http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=18347

<comment><USER2> We need a less conspicuous blue tooth version. Having a rope around your wrist is too obvious from an op-sec standpoint. And if you have the presence of mind to pull the USB you probably have the presence to quickly lock it.</comment>


The Social Subsidy of Angel Investing - got-any-grapes https://danco.substack.com/p/the-social-subsidy-of-angel-investing <comment><AUTHOR> I run a Netherlands-based startup. I'm pretty sure that all except one our angel investors did it so they tell people about it at barbecues.

Some of them even proudly use "we" when talking about the company (that they have no influence over). As in "we just hired a new head of sales". I'm pretty sure that's a different vibe than what SF angels do, but seems to me that there's plenty places where angels invest primarily for the social signalling.

</comment><comment><USER2> As a Swedish founder who spent some time in San Francisco I think this is a really good article that founders both in, and outside the Bay Area should read. The mechanics around fundraising are different in most cities and founders should really try learn as much as they can about their local ecosystem and act accordingly. Don't read stuff on the internet about running a startup in The Bay Area and think it will automatically apply to you.

</comment><comment><USER3> This article frames it nicely why small, early stage, helpful and active is how you build your reputation as a VC. You may not have a lot of financial capital, but because VC is a reputation market, you will still generate a lot of social capital by investing in great companies, that then allows you to build a bigger fund because you now have the reputation to systematically get better deals and into big deals with a big checks. Too often I see managers who have no brand go and raise a $150m fund, but they don't have the network to get pulled into great deals.

</comment><comment><USER4> What a relief this article was to read. It articulated and confirmed so many things.

</comment><comment><USER5> Top shelf analysis that comes to the shocking conclusion that rich people make financial decisions to feed their own vanity and ego.

<comment><USER6> To be clear, everyone does this. Rich people often have more opportunity.

What's really concerning is that people change how they interpret facts in order to rationalize the same decisions.

<comment><USER7> I have equal amounts of friends (in NYC) talking about their early stage startup investments (Doubleclick! Pinterest!) or their successful stock investments - e.g. the Facebook IPO or buying into Amazon in 2003.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: I write a book about RethinkDB in one year - <AUTHOR>

Hi all,
I like RethinkDB a lot. One year ago, I started to document it because I want to learn more about it. At first, I blog, at one point I started to writing it in markdown, using pandoc to convert it into PDF then I switched to Leanpub.
At some point, I almost abandon it. But finally I make effort to go back and almost finish it.
Here is the result of one year:
http://leanpub.com/simplyrethinkdb
I also open source it on here(But it helps if you make an purchase on leanpub anyway :D):
http://github.com/kureikain/simplyrethink
The book is still WIP though.
It would be great if someone can help me to review it, or/and write a foreword for it. drop me a line, my email is on github.
Thanks. <comment><USER2> Good job! But might I suggest finding an editor, or perhaps even a co-writer to help clean-up syntax and grammar.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I definetely have to work that out. Some of HN readers contacted me to help me out review the book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Thank you for opening source! Added to my reading list.</comment>


Nil Communication: How to Send a Message Without Sending Particles - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nil-communication-how-to-send-a-message-without-sending-anything-at-all/ <comment><USER2> The beam splitters in the experiments described are always at a 45 degree angle. What if they are placed at a 60 degree angle?

</comment><comment><USER3> > Physicists already know that interactions are local. As with city politics, > the influence of particles is confined to their immediate precincts.

Is this true?

As far as I've ever been able to determine, this was an assumption built into the model, not something empirically demonstrated.

</comment><comment><USER4> Isn't this also possible using gravitational waves?

Or is there still some kind of theory of "graviton" particles, spoiling this idea?

<comment><USER5> The current theory is that particles _are_ waves, or rather localized excitations ('bumps') in a field. One of the surprising things from quantum theory is that these bumps have a finite minimum size, and they can only increase in multiples of that size; this unit is what we call 'a particle'.

This model seems to work (makes accurate numerical predictions, etc.) for all the known fields other than gravity, so physicists think there should be a 'graviton', ie quantum of the gravitational field. But they haven't been detected directly and we don't have a good mathematical theory of them (for a bunch of reasons I don't understand, but I think "gravity is really weak" and "gravity is nonlinear" are a good start)

<comment><USER6> I am not a scientist, but I can't stop me thinking that an old radio engineer would think about that article: "They are sending information by modulating polarization (indeed in a weird manner), so why the fuss?"

Or if you prefer, I am thinking some people are over interpreting what a "particle" means. BTW I like your comment, it reminds me the blog:

[https://profmattstrassler.com](https://profmattstrassler.com)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Before people ask, no, entanglement _still_ doesn't allow superluminal communication.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No- communication_theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem)

<comment><USER8> Sure. Now, still, it would be interesting to try and ascertain the speed of communication in these experiments. It should be equal to the speed of light, but the test is worth doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Everything that is done is logged someway or somehow. Particles or something else to be discovered, will reveal traces of everything ever done. Luke 8:17

<comment><USER10> Which translation of a translation did you translate that from?</comment></comment>


Real 3D or Fake 3D - <AUTHOR> https://realorfake3d.com/ <comment><USER2> And yet the 3D upconversion of Terminator 2 was incredibly well done. Like anything else, the quality is based on the effort and money you put into it. (Compare with the 3D Jurassic Park, which varies from adequate to terrible.)

That said, the best native 3D movie I've ever seen is Dredd. The few upconverted scenes stick out like sore thumbs because they're so planar.

<comment><USER3> Dredd, while an excellent movie in general, really was a very good example of 3D cinema. I attribute it to the way the slo-mo effect reset the 3D perception in my mind.

I remember going to see one of the Abrams Star Trek movies in 3D and at the start on some technicolour planet someone throws a spear at the screen and I'd say most of the audience tried to physically dodge it. Thereafter I forgot about the 3D effect and my brain adjusted.

In Dredd, every time there is a scene where someone inhales the slow-mo drug the brightness of the scene increases dramatically. It restarted that part of the brain that made me want to dodge that spear.

<comment><USER2> Yes, the Slo-Mo effects were mesmerizing. In 2D they were pretty (despite depicting sometimes extraordinarily violent scenes, though I think this was a deliberate commentary by the filmmakers). But in 3D they had the uncommon quality of being hyperreal and hyperunreal at the same time, some weird appeal to your addled occiptal lobe - case in point where Dredd flings Ma-Ma out a window and the shards of glass twinkle like a gentle rain of thousands of diamonds. If someone watched those scenes purely in 2D they missed that experience entirely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > If you only have one eye's worth of content, you can't just make up the > content for the second eye

Has this person heard of computer graphics?

Most of these movies contain a huge amount of imagery that is 'made up' in various ways, even before you start thinking about the 3D.

<comment><USER5> Yes, but I assume the "fake 3D" films don't do their CG effects in stereoscopy.

<comment><USER4> But I mean you can 'make up' new content. That's literally what they do for 'fake 3d'! They 'make up' new background content for areas uncovered by the shift needed to create the parallax, using either machine estimation or manual drawing. How else did people think this worked?

<comment><USER6> You need a depth map to compute parallax.

<comment><USER4> Yes they make one using simple models that roughly fit the geometry on screen. Then transform for parallax. That may reveal hidden areas so they fill them in either using an algorithm from surrounding areas and recent frames or manually.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 2 movies last year. Is the website dead or is the 3D fad dead?

<comment><USER8> It's certainly waining but I had the misfortune of seeing Gemini Man in 3D so they're still doing stereo releases.

<comment><USER9> I don't get the hate for that movie. It was a perfectly adequate action movie and I loved the HFR (60fps, unfortunately missed out on the 120) 3D. The CGI face at the end was horrendous though.

<comment><USER10> The misfortune might be at seeing it in 3D.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> We'll, I guess I'm easy to please because I loved Dr. Strange in 3D even though it's on the fake page.

<comment><USER2> I think the Marvel movies do okay upconverted because some consideration is given during 2D filming to how the upconversion can be facilitated. The trippy 3D in Doctor Strange, though, is one of my favourites as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Even 'Real 3D' is a misnomer. I work in the industry and we call it 'stereo' for a reason: it generates a feeling of depth but your eyes never have to converge so, via either route, your brain always knows that it isn't reality.</comment>


Student reporter hit with big bill after FOIA request - <AUTHOR> http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/2015/12/03/student-freedom-information-bill/76741314/ <comment><USER2> Apparently when I'm looking for my next job, I should put Detroit area school districts at the top of my list...

</comment><comment><USER3> Which goes to show my dad was right: nothing in life is free. Certainly not information.</comment>


Will 21co and Bitcoin bring the end of network neutrality? - <AUTHOR> https://www.bitcoinhk.org/2015-21co/

<comment><AUTHOR> The author makes interesting points. Level of complexity of implementing QoS Internet wide makes me think we won't see this soon.</comment>