A 'Self-Aware' Fish Raises Doubts About a Cognitive Test - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-self-aware-fish-raises-doubts-about-a-cognitive-test-20181212/ <comment><USER2> I'm completely out of my field, but I never understood why it was so hard for us to imagine that other animals were capable of having rich inner lives or even being self-aware.

To me it seem obvious that other animals would also possess various degrees of cognitive ability, I mean, we do.

<comment> castle-bravo I suspect that it's cultural and derives from our economic relationship to animals. I remember seeing a film as a child that depicted a native hunter killing a deer and profusely thanking the spirit of the deer; attributing intelligence and identity to the deer would predispose a hunter to pay close attention to the animal's behaviour and give him an edge in hunting it. In cultures with domestcated animals bred for compliance with human will, it is less advantageous to view the animal as another mind. Instead, we see them as tools to be used and discarded. To do otherwise would compromise our ability to extract maximum economic advantage from use of the animal.

<comment><USER3> I'm not so sure that's the case though, as for example Talmudic law prohibits castrating animals. A gelded oxen is much calmer and easier to work with than a bull. I think it certainly varies from society to society, but ancient agrarian traditions also respect animals in ways you might not expect.

<comment><USER4> What is interesting is that Talmudic law goes to the trouble. There's no point prohibiting something that people wouldn't do anyway. There must have been considerable pressure to castrate animals, and some corresponding spiritual dismay at the lack of respect for them this entailed. So I wonder if it doesn't confirm the premise, rather than refute it - the Talmudic authorities may have been trying to preserve earlier value systems against a changing society.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The value of these types of tests has been called into question long before: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHSbvjq1nm4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHSbvjq1nm4)

The above video had a tremendous effect on how I view intelligence and creativity. Seeing pigeons "talking" and solving problems really puts in perspective the power of the context/environment.

That is why I think we already have the algorithms for AGI.(i.e. reinforcement learning is probably all you need) We just don't have the processing and/or the right context for it to develop. But I also think the result will have all the downsides of animals/humans. That is, it will be as hard to get the desired behavior from an AI as it is to get it out of an animal/human because the predicting the behavior out of the cost function+environment will remain extremely hard. In fact you can see this mentioned in the video. Getting the right repertoire even for seemingly "simple" behaviors is hard.

<comment><USER6> Indeed, that's BF Skinner and associates talking about how creative behavior arises naturally from learned behavior.

And key here is that things like "the mirror test" are about testing animals for _what humans naively believe are their unique traits_. And this seems like it could be easily faulty if these naively human beliefs are false, which seems quite likely actually.

And also I'd view the focus on consciousness as a naive belief even if psychologists and philosophers have attempted to systematize it. At the same time, Skinner in particular as "behaviorist" seems to go from a lab where he's seeing most behavior _mediated_ by stimulus to a position that seems to imply behavior coming mechanically from stimulus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is an anecdotal story, but has made me feel weird about this test in general.

I have a cat (who do not pass the mirror test) who loves mirrors. She just likes looking at herself in them. It is weird. She also frequently walks in on me in the bathroom and frequently looks at me through the mirror. And I know she looks at that one because it is the one I look at her with. So it always has made me feel like this test may be doing something else, because she clearly recognizes that I'm not in the mirror, but that she can see me with it. So it seems like she understands what a reflection is, but not her self in the reflection.

So it seems that animals can understand reflections, but does that really mean they recognize a self if they recognize themselves in it? IDK, I'm not a biologist and may be missing a lot from this test.

<comment><USER8> The mirror test is very flawed because it assumes other animals think ( or recognize ) like we do. We are mostly visual creatures so we create visual tests. But animals like cats are predominantly olfactory creatures. So if you planted smells of the cat, the cat would immediately recognize the smell as itself.

Imagine if cat psychologists created a test for humans. They would probably put your scent on one shirt and 9 other scents of other people on 9 different shirts and have you "recognize" yourself by picking out the shirt with your scent. Since we are visual creatures, we would fail such a test and the cat psychologists would claim that humans obviously have no self-aware. After all, how could a self-aware creature not recognize it's own scent.

That's how absurd the mirror test is. A mirror test for most animals would be like a smell test for humans. A cat might not recognize it's own reflection, but it will recognize its own scent. A human might not recognize our own scent, but we'll recognize our own reflection.

<comment><USER9> Interesting point, but not a great analogy. A reflection is a "live" copy, you can move your arm, and see your reflection move its arm. Your scent experiment is more like recognizing from photos.

<comment><USER8> What difference does it makes whether it is "live" or not? Ultimately, the question is about recognition and self-awareness. Whether you can do that through a reflection or a photo or a video or scent, it doesn't matter.

Also, I think don't you understood my point. My point is that different species recognize themselves differently. Cats recognize themselves and others through smell. So a mirror test is not applicable. It would be like giving a blind man the mirror test and expecting an actionable result.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Reminds me of this article from 2009 where a dead salmon "reacted" to ""a series of photographs depicting human individuals in social situations."

[https://www.wired.com/2009/09/fmrisalmon/](https://www.wired.com/2009/09/fmrisalmon/)

<comment><USER11> The irreplaceable Alone, the pirate doctor, thus reacted to the dead salmon fMRIs:

[https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/10/the_problem_with_sci...](https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/10/the_problem_with_science_is_sc.html)

<comment><USER12> Do we know what happened to him? I really miss his work.

<comment><USER11> People speculate that the "Hotel Concierge" Tumblr is him, but HC denies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> We're still in the "earth is the centre of the universe" stage when it comes to other life forms.

<comment><USER14> 2018 Ig Nobel Prize in Anthropology winner: Spontaneous Cross-Species Imitation in Interaction Between Chimpanzees and Zoo Visitors [1] "[...] for collecting evidence, in a zoo, that chimpanzees imitate humans about as often, and about as well, as humans imitate chimpanzees." I think this is evidence towards your point that we understand very little of cognition of other species.

[1]: [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10329-017-0624-9](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10329-017-0624-9)

<comment><USER15> I'm sure this work was groundbreaking , but let's not kid ourselves that imitation is some high and misunderstood form of intelligence.

Nor should we kid ourselves that this is new information. The adage "monkey see, monkey do" has been around for, what, centuries? Is it really that surprising that apes imitate things they see? Does it really reveal a paltry understanding of monkey cognition?

<comment><USER16> Hence the _ig_ noble prize!

<comment><USER15> Ah thanks, missed the "ig."

<comment><USER14> Yeah there is no Nobel in Anthropology.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The cleaner wrasse has long been known to be extremely intelligent. The fact that scientists are questioning the mirror test because of this fish is more telling of their credibility than the test's.

The cleaner wrasse even engages in complex economic behavior: [http://freakonomics.com/podcast/animal- economics/](http://freakonomics.com/podcast/animal-economics/)

</comment><comment><USER18> An anecdote here - my wife and I both met a tropical fish in a tank at a restaurant and it was clear to both of us that the fish exhibited significant intelligence. It observed us patiently and even made playful eye contact. It seems that there are different levels of intelligence within fish species and they can't just all be categorized the same. It's only very recently where humans realized the great intelligence found on octopuses. The same may be true of some fish.

</comment><comment> rv-de The mirror test always seemed flawed to be because of its reliance on visual perception. For many animals eyes and the primary source of environmental information. For some it's the nose. Now how about a special device that synthesizes your body odor and fans it back to you - would you recognize yourself?

</comment><comment><USER19> Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, their sample size is 4 fish, 3 of which sort of passed.

<comment><USER20> I don't know if the usual caveats about sample size should be salient when we're investigating something like self-awareness. If I found a fish who could talk, I wouldn't demur, " ... but it's a small sample."

<comment><USER19> Point taken, but we're a far cry from evidence as strong as talking. The article itself mentions refuted studies which were later proven to not be reproduceable. It's more likely to find three weird fish than three fish that have self awareness unlike the rest of their species. Also unclear how many chances these fish were given, and I am guessing it was very generous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If the fish is able to bring up concerns about the test being used, it has to have some degree of intelligence.

</comment><comment><USER22> I've been doing a 30 day vegetarian challenge this month. It hasn't even been hard. Pizza is already not working for me. You can guess where I'm going in January.

I'm pretty sure I'm not going back.

<comment><USER14> Going vegan isn't easy at all, I even doubt it's possible if you care about your protein intake. Plant sources are very carb rich and more and more evidence suggests high carb, low fat diets aren't good for humans. There is simply no way to get enough protein from plant sources unless you wanna eat highly processed tofu every day. A full vegan, high protein diet would require eating low carb tofu at least 2 meals a day. Otherwise you need to accept taking exorbitant amounts of carb to get enough protein (basically, from beans). Seeing that how popular weightlifting in young Americans (especially males) today, suggesting "vegan diet is easy" is intellectual dishonesty.

I'm not arguing anything about ethics or availability or cost of vegan diet. There is simply no evidence suggesting full vegan diet is healthy. The most alarming thing about vegan diet is that you'll have absolutely no source of Omega 3 except expensive açai berry and walnut (all other plant sources have trace amount of Omega 3). So in a vegan diet you get excess amount of carbs (especially sugars) and Omega 6 which causes inflammatory diseases. [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171113095430.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171113095430.htm)

If I were vegan I would eat Trader Joes low carb tofu, avacado, açai berries and walnut every day, all day and supplement it with high fiber veggies like broccoli, and brussel sprouts. This is simply not feasible and practical from a cost and social aspect. Eat too much fruits to get cheap, and widely available calories and you'll get bizarre amounts of fructose. Good luck with that.

<comment><USER23> Not sure why you're speaking with so much authority. I regularly bike 50-100 miles per day. I rock climb 2-3 times weekly. I follow StrongLifts. I'm vegan and don't obsess over my diet. I simply make an effort to eat a lot of healthy, whole foods. I feel great. I have tons of energy. It's been five years without issue.

Further, from my reading on the topic the evidence supports the healthfulness of a WFPB diet. Eating this way isn't hard nor expensive. It can be socially inconvenient. It can take time to learn the ropes if you're transitioning to cooking and eating healthier. But it's worth it!

<comment><USER24> For those of us that don't bike 50-100 miles in a day, balancing nutrient intake with caloric intake is very difficult on a vegan diet.

<comment><USER25> Should be easier for you since you're burning fewer calories and consuming fewer nutrients.

<comment><USER24> Nutrient requirements don't increase nearly as much as caloric requirements under high activity. Additionally, vegan diets with enough nutrients tend to be calorie heavy.

So flipping that around, my point is that it's difficult to have a healthy vegan diet that gives you enough nutrients, without an extremely high activity level.

<comment><USER26> What on earth are you talking about?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The ink-dot and mirror "self-awareness" always sounded ridiculous to me. Isn't it obvious that a self-aware creature does not necessarily has to care about their appearance and can ignore the dot and that a creature driven by instincts and reflexes only can be programmed to maintain their skin color pattern (as the species has developed the pattern for a reason)? I would rather believe it might be self-aware if the same creature would remove the dot some times, would do it later every now and then and would ignore it occasionally.

In fact I even doubt every human is consciously self-aware, a huge number of people probably live their lives the way we see dreams. So many people have no doubts their bare feelings and judgments are the reality e.g. believing the fact they're upset means a counterpart has done something really wrong and/or hates them while in fact they might just have not slept well or followed a bad diet...

<comment><USER28> Contrary to popular belief, other people have rich inner lives, not just you. I know it's gratifying to think you're in an exclusive club of smart people, but you're really fooling yourself.

You're like a half-step away from the "NPC" meme.

<comment><USER29> Define "rich".

> _It is unbelievable how blank and devoid of meaning, seen from the outside, > and how muffled and unconscious, felt from the inside, the lives of most > people flow along. It 's a dull desiring and suffering, a dream-like > tumbling through the four season towards death, accompanied by a series of > trivial thoughts._

\-- Arthur Schopenhauer

> _[..] the individual citizen has very little possibility of having any > influence - of making his opinion felt in the decision-making. And I think > that, in itself, leads to a good deal of political lethargy and stupidity. > It is true that one has to think first and then to act -but it 's also true > that if one has no possibility of acting, one's thinking kind of becomes > empty and stupid._

\-- Erich Fromm, who also said

> _The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these > vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the > errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same > form of mental pathology does not make these people sane._

<comment><USER30> How would Schopenhauer, or anyone, know what life is like for other people "felt from the inside"?

I see a fine line between empathy and delusion.

<comment><USER29> For starters, "rich" is always relative, compared to what we consider rich. It's not like we can help that, just like you are, just from a short quote, are making a call about someone being delududed rather than empathic.

For me, a rich inner life, for a human, today, depends a lot on whether a person belongs to themselves, or is a collection of external opinions they just repeat. People who play tetris with exclusively pre-configured pieces instead of thinking. We all do that do a degree of course, but there's a big fat line between using shorthands and being able to reflect on them, and _just_ using them and changing the subject whenever asked to reflect on any of it, and it's drawn with crayon.

Just on HN, how often do people say "I don't necesarily think this, but it's possible to hold the view that...", or "I think you're right, but sadly the average person...", "I'm not entirely sure I'm convinced that I feel like I agree with.." and all sorts of ways to _avoid_ having and owning a personal position?

And then there's spookyness, e.g.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18102401](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18102401)

Look at those replies and how partycoder got greyed out a little for having some humanity and attention span left. Maybe these people generally have rich inner lives, but that wasn't one of their rich moments. And this goes for all who passed it by, too, not their best day.

A person who is alive, and has a rich inner life, does not look the other way in this fashion when others get murdered. They don't have picnics on mass graves. They do not say things that are technically true but give off a really cruel smell, and then act offended when called out on that. And hardly anyone ever _debates_ me on that; if I say it crudely in the wrong context, I get downvoted, if I say it cleverly in response to someone who said something dumb, I get upvoted, but either way I can't get no interaction.

So then I'll take _that_ as the answer: not only do many people not have rich inner lives, they know that, at least subconciously, and they carefully curate their communication to hide it, with multiple people acting as if orchestrated by their own defects, their own lack, and their commeon hostility towards those who have what they lack.

> _You may be 38 years old, as I happen to be. And one day, some great > opportunity stands before you and calls you to stand up for some great > principle, some great issue, some great cause. And you refuse to do it > because you are afraid... You refuse to do it because you want to live > longer... You 're afraid that you will lose your job, or you are afraid that > you will be criticized or that you will lose your popularity, or you're > afraid someone will stab you, or shoot at you or bomb your house; so you > refuse to take the stand._

> _Well, you may go on and live until you are 90, but you 're just as dead at > 38 as you would be at 90. And the cessation of breathing in your life is but > the belated announcement of an earlier death of the spirit._

\-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Any discussion about anything serious and dangerous is filled with comments saying "I can't do anything", disagreed with by people who have not given up responsibility and agency, who at best get ignored, at worst punished. And I don't mean my own comments, they're crap, but I see other people say the same thing in 3 beautiful sentences, and they too get fuck all for their efforts -- and the people they corrected just ignore them and keep repeating their bullshit in other threads.

The proof is in the pudding. This shit wouldn't happen in a community where most people have rich inner lives, and such a community wouldn't happen in a world where most people have rich inner lives. I see people _so_ dead, they outlawed the concept of deadness being discussed in earnest. We can talk about how "the average user doesn't care about privacy" (if that happens to lead to totalitarian horror, so be it, they don't know and don't care, so we're off the hook)... but pointing out how sick it is to talk about the nice landscape or even Star Wars in context of genocide being swept under the rug -- that's _not cool_. _Being_ so sick is okay, _calling_ it sick is not.

> _Hobbes [..] even, through sheer force of imagination, was able to outline > the main psychological traits of the new type of man who would fit into such > a society and its tyrannical body politic. He foresaw the necessary idolatry > of power itself by this new human type, that he would be flattered at being > called a power-thirsty animal, although actually society would force him to > surrender all his natural forces, his virtues and his vices, and would make > him the poor meek little fellow who has not even the right to rise against > tyranny, and who, far from striving for power, submits to any existing > government and does not stir even when his best friend falls an innocent > victim to an incomprehensible raison d 'etat._

\-- Hannah Arendt

Being broken in that way, which is completely accepted in polite society, is mutually exclusive with having an inner life I would consider rich. And I don't need to prove that others have a rich inner live, they need to express it. If they don't, as far as I'm concerned, there is no difference between them having a rich inner life or not. That doesn't mean I dehuamnize them, that just means when they say something, I can't take it at face value, unless I kicked their tires and they showed signs of rich aliveness.

I don't auot-import and auto-update any random crap from untrusted sources just because someone might call me "deluded" for noticing the inability or unwillingness of someone to reason themselves out of a wet paperbag. If that's all, people who I don't consider to have rich inner lives being offended at that (and then being hypocrites by being so sure I'm deluded, that I can't possibly be seeing anything they don't, but otherwise offering no argument) -- that's like saying if I use an ad-blocker, you'll show me super mean ads. It's utterly moot, and kinda like pretending to burn a bridge after I burned it. I don't care about the revisionism going on behind that burned bridge, that's why I burned it. It's like a psycho SO you can't break up with because they _have_ to twist it around so they broke up with you. Fine, whatever, as long as it's over ^^

Anywhere on the net, and "even on HN", there's so many comments that don't really parse. There's so much people talking past each other, hiding their argument in "..", and when you ask them "how so?" or "can you elaborate", there's just nothing. Most recent example for me: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18673428](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18673428)

I can't say "that's a brainfart" or "that's nonsense". No, I need to say "can you walk me through the logic here", heh. And I'll never know if the other person simply hasn't seen my question.. but I know 19 times out of 20, I get no answer. It's like certain things are just facade, and when you try to access them, the program freezes. So basically, even when a program crashes half of the time, produces broken output the rest of the time, I can't make any deductions about the quality of the code? No. I can, I did, I will again.

P.S.: I'll take me, and possibly Schopenhauer, being arrogant. But you would do yourself a disfavour to hold my attitude against Erich Fromm, that dude was from a wholly different and greater caliber. He knows a lot about how unhappy and alienated people are because he actually listened to them, and it doesn't take much of his writing, or interviews, to see that he was a very kind and optimistic and loving person. He also said many things that would kinda deflate and supersede my self-righteous rants, so I never quote those parts. Read him and you shall find :D

<comment><USER30> "you are, just from a short quote, are making a call about someone being delududed rather than empathic."

That is not the case. I was _not_ making a call from a short quote. By saying there is a "fine line" I wasn't literally endorsing a dichotomy, but rather expressing the futility of trying to make one. Irrespective of any quote, empathy is _always_ a delusion, in the sense that there is no such thing as direct mind-to-mind contact, but at the same time one can be right or wrong about what someone else is feeling. In that sense, one may "have empathy" or not, but not final authority over someone else's humanity.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask YC: E-mail Signatures - <AUTHOR>

It occured to me that even something as mundane as -mail can be approached creatively.<p>I'd love to see some cool examples of how people have used HTML in e-mail signatures, especially from designer type people. <comment><USER2> Here's a hint: no needless HTML email. No HTML signatures.

</comment><comment><USER3> Please don't. The internet will thank you.

</comment><comment><USER4> I just got a blackberry and anything extra to read/scroll through in emails is just plain annoying and slows me down.

Side note: I just noticed yahoo's email let's you view image attachments in a lightbox and has a slideshow ready to go for multiple images. Beats having to download junk just to delete it seconds later.

</comment><comment><USER5> A linkedin link, business slogan, mobile no. People live in a time constrained world and are making snap judgements. Sigs in new compositions and not replies is my preference.</comment>


Installing Obtvse on Heroku - <AUTHOR> http://natewienert.com/installing-obtvse-on-heroku

<comment><USER2> Wow definitely soak as much of the news cycle as you can get out of this, amirite?

This is one of the dumbest story cycles I've ever seen on HN. There's little point in doing this (I'm sure my comment will be illegibly grey in a minute or two) but I did my part to try to flag this away.

A dark pattern, a dark pattern indeed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Some people asked for instructions to install and I'm glad to help introduce more people to Rails. Curious, whats so dark about this pattern? Am I not just opening a good idea to the public?

<comment><USER2> Have you considered liberating Themeforest next?

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://drawar.com/></comment></comment></comment></comment>


CD3WD Archives the Information Necessary to Rebuild Society - <AUTHOR> http://www.cd3wd.com/cd3wd_40/cd3wd/index.htm <comment><USER3> Amazing that how much basic knowledge society is leaving behind - it never is needed for the common guy and so we never know it. To that extent this is a huge first step in preserving those "long forgotten" bits.

Ironically this relies on world's communication systems being intact and no one person knows how it all works end to end!

Someone should do a similar archive for world's commonly used communication systems. I have frequently wondered if telecommunications systems, Internet systems and Satellites all break and have to be rebuilt from scratch - <USER2> many people know how it all works end-to-end? To that effect, those who know the parts should collaborate to consolidate that knowledge.

<comment><USER4> I've often wondered how long it would take us to rebuild computers from scratch, in case of a world catastrophe (nuclear war, zombie invasion...). Of course, we would have other, more urgent needs (food, shelter, healthcare...), but it's an interesting thought experiment.

I use a computer every day, but I wouldn't know where to start to rebuild one from scratch. There are books like "Linux from scratch", but it is far from enough: we would need to "re-invent" electricity, silicon, assembly languages, operating systems... With the division of labour, nobody has the knowledge to build all this.

I think it would take _centuries_ to re-create what we have now. The cool thing is, we wouldn't need to care about backward compatibility / legacy apps, and we could skip C++ and immediately standardize on Lisp ;)

<comment><USER5> It wouldn't take centuries and the division of labor isn't worse than that you don't need more than 6 or so people with the right skills to build the equivalent of a 1985 computer.

The problem is that they would get killed once the security of the world (police and the military) disappear and humanity decent into chaos.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I randomly chose an entry to look at:

UNDERSTANDING POULTRY MEAT AND EGG PRODUCTION

By Dr. H.R. Bird

A guide to chicken production by Dr Bird? I had a double-take to check that this whole thing wasn't a giant joke. But I guess it's just a case of names guiding careers.

<comment><USER7> Or "nominative determinism", as New Scientist calls it: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism>

<comment><USER8> apparently it's a collection of statistical flukes: <http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2011-02000-001/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This reminds me of a greatly expanded version of Ryan North's "Time Traveler Essentials Shirt":

[http://www.topatoco.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_C...](http://www.topatoco.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TO&Product_Code=QW- CHEATSHEET&Category_Code=QW)

</comment><comment><USER7> The very first time I heard about Wikipedia, this is pretty much what I imagined it to be.

</comment><comment><USER10> No society would be complete without banana beer: <http://www.cd3wd.com/cd3wd_40/ITDG/BANBEER/EN/index.htm>

</comment><comment><USER11> There are some interesting/strange "startupy" type ideas on this page: <http://www.cd3wd.com/ideas/index.htm>

for example: "Sms classified advertising for the 3rd world and developed countries" and "Democracy Promotion - Hit-man funds for elimination of internationally-designated dictators "

<comment><USER12> "Hit-man funds for elimination of internationally-designated dictators"

Where is the donation button?

<comment><USER13> You wouldn't want that. But OTOH it exists already: economic hitmen and the jackals.

[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Confessions_o...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man)

btw: maybe this is to be torrented on meshed freedomboxen?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I randomly chose an entry and found 'Women and Graphics'. Not only was I disappointed, I was confused.

<comment><USER15> I, too, randomly chose a topic (building water tanks from bamboo and food- grade plastic film), and its image links were broken. Kind of worrying for the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> 'A plough, and animals to pull it.'

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6H-w9Rm46o#t=4m>

</comment><comment><USER17> This reminded me of Isac Aasimov's foundation.</comment>


A College Without Classes - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/a-college-without-classes/400115/?single_page=true <comment><USER2>
        Unlike MOOCs, which mainly expect students to use resources online to
        complete courses themselves, competency-based programs depend on faculty
        mentors to walk learners through the learning process. It's almost the
        opposite of the university lecture. Rather than a professor talking to a
        roomful of students, a professor talks to students one-on-one while they
        learn information at their own pace.

This sounds almost exactly like the 'tutorial' system used for a thousand years (for undergraduates) at Oxford and Cambridge. Students meet with their tutors weekly and are given suggested reading, and usually an essay to write. Once a term, proctored exams are held.

Edited to add: One difference between university in the U.S. and U.K. is that in the U.K., 'breadth' classes are almost unheard of; the idea of a chemistry major taking an anthropology class, a psychology class, or an art class is strange. That's one of the reasons undergraduates there finish in three years, usually.

<comment><USER3> While I didn't particularly like it as a student, looking back on university ~15 years later, the educational component that I feel like I got the most out of was being forced to take a variety of sundry non-major classes. Most of the major material I probably would have learned on my own anyway; it was the other 'breadth' classes that, well, broadened my thinking in ways I did not expect.

Though from a purely vocational standpoint, the elimination of the breadth classes would seemingly allow for not only faster graduation, but also taking more major classes. That may well be a good thing too.

<comment><USER4> Agree, outside of my comp sci. major, I took courses in cognitive psychology, history of science, and technical writing, and looking back, those were very useful.

However, it's frustrating that it's regarded as perfectly fine to require STEM students to take courses in breadth subjects, but completely preposterous to require liberal arts students to take breadth courses in hard science.

<comment><USER5> > it's regarded as perfectly fine to require STEM students to take courses in > breadth subjects, but completely preposterous to require liberal arts > students to take breadth courses in hard science.

Hmmm ... at my U. science was required for everyone. Are you sure that wasn't the case at yours? They weren't required to take the most difficult science classes but the same is true for STEM majors taking liberal arts courses.

(I'm using "liberal arts" to mean humanities, social sciences, and the arts.)

<comment><USER6> The "Liberal arts" also include physical science and mathematics: [https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberal- arts](https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberal-arts)

If you mean "humanities and social sciences" then say that.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the correction, that's what I meant!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm interested to see where this concept goes, particularly in its stated mission to provide an educational experience for the underserved. Most non- traditional students, no matter how motivated, simply don't have the time or resources to trudge their way through the traditional college experience. Should we not be concerned about educating them as possible as well? I believe so, and some of the barriers to traditional college for someone in their 30's, say, requiring a student be physically onsite, just seem absurd.

I think it's also important to note that this is _not_ intended as an all-out replacement of traditional colleges, just a potential alternative. In an institution as old and important as this, cultivating innovation rather than hiding from it is absolutely vital.

</comment><comment><USER8> I do think it's interesting that there are no (that I can find) reputable competency-based CS programs.

<comment><USER9> Maybe you stumbled into a business opportunity? On the other hand, judging the ability to program is very hard.

<comment><USER8> Indeed, although I would wager that current CS programs don't effectively gauge that either.

I think part of what's interesting is that there is this massive proliferation of non-college sources of education for CS, but none of them seem to have the clout and accreditation that a lot of employers look for. So why aren't universities copying the coding bootcamp model as a hybrid with CBE? I hope it's not just because they're being sticks in the mud.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Do you see local technical colleges and career colleges succeeding in the future? Dental schools, technical assistance/maintenance/etc, welding/plumbing trades, etc? It seems there is huge swath of different types of trade schools out there...I am trying to figure out which ones are going to survive with physical schools and classrooms/labs vs which ones will migrate online?

<comment><USER11> Until a job can be performed remotely, I don't see how it can be taught remotely, i.e. not hands on.

<comment><USER10> That is a great way to look at it. I am a real estate investor looking into the pros and cons of investing in the campuses of technical schools. They are everywhere. I think your sentiment is a great way to sort the healthy/longer lasting schools from the ones open to technology change. Fields like nursing, dental hygiene, server maintenance, etc will be more likely to succeed than paralegal, medical billing, etc. Some jobs are inherently (and always will be) onsite.

<comment><USER12> > I am a real estate investor looking into the pros and cons of investing in > the campuses of technical schools.

I don't know anything more than what you provided in this post, but it sounds like you're talking about for-profit education centers. These are generally looked down upon and are coming under heavy scrutiny by the U.S. goverment as of lat for their false advertisements and broken promises.

<comment><USER10> Yes, for-profit education centers. I'd really like to look into this more...Do you have any sources I could read into regarding decline and/or stigma? I feel there is more of a stigma on the larger "vocational" schools like University of Phoenix that offer college-esqe experiences and soft skills vs. blue collar/technical schools that have clear job paths and hard skills after graduation. True? Or are they all stigmatized?

<comment><USER13> I don't think they're stigmatized, I think we need more of them. I recruit employees at some of these 'hard' technical schools for things like CNC machinists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Okay so I think I'm missing something -

This new model favors mentorship (adhoc and scheduled) but for the most part, self-education. And, as mentioned in the article, graduation rates are kind of variable due to the lack of physical accountability (lectures, fellow students, etc).

But. It's self-education. The way I'm interpreting this is a new, viable way for Universities to increase profit margins by accepting more students and delegating more of the core offering ("learning") to other students, while saving costs on traditional overhead (facilities, professors) AND increasing sales outreach (online).

Now don't get me wrong, self-education and finding your own way in learning is the key to real, personal potential. And honestly, this is really the only way a student can succeed in college anyway. However, encouraging institutions to scale back even more on what most already view as a secondary function (Yes, most view research as their primary) seems wrong.

Now if the cost of these acquired degrees we're to plummet I'd understand it a bit more. But I highly doubt the big name institutions will ever do this.

I don't know, maybe I missed something, after all it was a long article and I have to get back to my kickass programming gig ... which is a skill I learned via self-education and experience. (Yes I went to college for economics and marketing. No I haven't used it at all professionally.)

<comment><USER15> I've been scratching my head on this for quite a while as well. It seems to me that the value of the degree is going down, yet the price continues to rise.

The self-education model (and ignoring the complexities of managing _that_ ) is often written off as lacking in comparison to attending a college environment, which I completely understand, but yet institutions seem to be scaling back in ways that soon will seem to render themselves as more and more aged as self education becomes... viable? Changed, at he very least.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> '"The essential manner of delivering education has not taken advantage of technological innovation in the way we've seen in other universities," said Josh Wyner, the executive director of the College Excellence Program at the Aspen Institute, told me.'

I find the first sentence hard to read. I believe that it means that a few universities are far in advance of others in using technology.

</comment><comment><USER17> I love this! It's a great way to 'not-stop' students' creativity and imagination. My college doesn't promote much of startup and new creative ideas. They're more focused on getting jobs and getting good salary packages from campus interviews. One of my professors literally asked me to focus on getting more marks and stop thinking of new ideas and startups till I complete college - not all professors help their students' in developing their ideas or startups. A student like me would definitely love this kind of college! :D

<comment><USER18> Your professor has some good advice. The problem I see is that many students discard the basics as 'boring' and 'pointless' and want to jump straight into new and fresh ideas. The end result is huge knowledge gaps.

If you want a startup, don't go to college. If you want to learn, go to college. When you try to do both at the same time, you just end up doing each half-assed..and both will eventually fail.

I've seen it too many times..

<comment><USER17> I agree to what you just said. But sometimes nothing could be learned when you already know that and I couldn't agree more to the second para. I am going to think wise and make a decision on that very soon. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Weren't you always able to just pay for the tests at universities?</comment>


How YouTube lets content companies "claim" NASA Mars videos - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/how-youtube-lets-content-companies-claim-nasa-mars-videos/

<comment><USER2> This is another symptom of Google's extreme "let's make algorithms do what people usually did". In an effort to automate everything and minimize employee-customer interaction, Google creates automated systems that work correctly 90% of the time. The 10% of the time it doesn't work correctly, you're fucked, and there's no way to contact anyone at Google to dispute or fix things.

Google just doesn't care at this point, because trying to fix the remaining 10% apparently costs more than the resulting good user experience / satisfaction would generate. This is also very visible in AdSense and Gmail. I think Google just doesn't like edge-cases.

Highly relevant Dilbert comic: <http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2001-02-25/>

<comment><USER3> _This is another symptom of Google's extreme "let's make algorithms do what people usually did"._

Actually humans _can't_ process all the video uploaded to Youtube, and never did. Viacom sued them for $1,000,000,000 (billion) and more rights-holders were lining up behind them to do the same. Not just for money - a lot of very powerful companies wanted Youtube shut down for good, and were willing to throw real resources at making that happen. Google put ContentID in place to placate the rights-holders in order to save Youtube's existence. It would literally be sued into oblivion and no longer exist if it weren't for ContentID. So there are issues, but don't think Google just did this on a whim.

<comment><USER4> I'm reaching the point where that argument no longer holds water for me. So it's impossible to run a video site as large as Youtube without breaking the law or screwing people over? Then don't do it! Would the world really be worse off if instead of Youtube, we had 1,000s of much smaller sites, capable of handling their workload with real actual people?

<comment><USER3> Is the world really worse off with Youtube the way it is? or even the way it was, without ContentID? I can't say I see the harm in some people uploading crappy copies of some videos and _not_ making a profit on them. Content owners will always overreact even if _nothing_ bad is happening, for example this just happened: [http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/09/007212/legitimate- ebo...](http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/09/007212/legitimate-ebook- lending-community-closed-after-copyright-complaints)

<comment><USER4> > Is the world really worse off with Youtube the way it is?

With videos of Curiosity being taken down for copyright infringement? With "the little guy" having to wait up to a month for anyone to prove wrongdoing, and in the meantime their video goes offline? I'd say that's pretty bad, yeah.

<comment><USER3> Oh sorry when you asked about screwing people over I thought you meant content owners. Yeah I definitely agree if you meant screwing over site users.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I am a Content ID publisher - the point of it is, if you sign up with YouTube as a partner, you commit to not upload content that you didn't produce (in so many words).

So in an ideal world, every piece of content from a Partner would be unique and original, and Content ID would work as intended.

The key is - 100% unique and original - it's not original if it's 2 anchors introducing a clip of the Mars landing.

The problem here isn't just YouTube - it's partners that are uploading content that they did not _entirely_ create.

The system only works if people cooperate; if news orgs contribute original content and claim it (and other uploads) everything is ok - the problem is that news orgs are just dumping content on to YouTube without thinking about that.

We accidentally published a movie review to YouTube and CID claimed it, and for the next 3 months I was constantly releasing claims, until I finally unclaimed our own movie review completely to stop the matching.

TL;DR - publishers are very much at fault, as much or more as YouTube is.

<comment><USER6> > Publishers are very much at fault

I don't see how. From the publisher's point of view, it's completely legit: A video that mixes public domain imagery with original additions. Any news org that covered the landing without including some of NASA's public domain images or video would have everyone (rightly!) saying "Their Mars coverage sucks!"

Even if they don't have original additions, it's in the public domain; publishers can do what they want with it, including merely slapping their watermark in the corner and uploading as-is.

I'd say that nobody's really "at fault;" rather, the widespread availability of technology to easily and cheaply download, remix, upload, and stream video is presenting new use cases which our existing notions of content ownership simply haven't had to deal with before.

The solution will be through some mix of better technology (i.e. smarter scanning algorithms), better modeling of the problem domain (maybe the next version of YouTube's Content ID program will address the issue of situations like this), and changing social and legal norms.

In the long term, I believe that one day, people, businesses, laws, and private agreements like ToS will work out an equilibrium where expectations of ownership and use are clear to everyone, penalties are considered reasonable and proportionate to offenses, are enforced consistently with few false positives or negatives, and people mostly manage to get along -- in contrast to the current free-for-all environment where none of these things are true.

Unfortunately, "the long term" may be very long -- I'd say 30-60 years. Also, while my assessment may sound positive on first reading, the previous paragraph actually leaves substantial space for very distopian scenarios -- where (for example) permanent ownership is considered reasonable, fair use no longer exists, the expectation is that copyright violators will be jailed, financially ruined, and/or permabanned from the Internet, those penalties are swiftly and surely enforced by extremely invasive monitoring of all computer activity, and anyone who tries to make waves about the situation is dismissed by the media establishment as a fringe lunatic, and can't effectively organize due to the intense restrictions on the Internet.

<comment><USER7> > I don't see how. From the publisher's point of view, it's completely legit: > A video that mixes public domain imagery with original additions. Any news > org that covered the landing without including some of NASA's public domain > images or video would have everyone (rightly!) saying "Their Mars coverage > sucks!"

Why does the stuff they upload to YouTube's content violation detector include public domain content? It doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, exactly the same as what they broadcast.

<comment><USER5> Exactly - publishers shouldn't upload and claim content with public domain footage in it; they should specifically remove any videos with content not originally produced by the TV station from the CID system. But that takes work, and generally people just shovel content from TV -> Web, let CID make the decisions, and move on. It's one mouse click to turn off CID matching, really easy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't think the system is technologically broken -- I just think companies should be subject to big fines for wrongly claiming ownership.

I mean, fines like $5,000 per false claim.

That will stop abuse of it, real fast.

<comment><USER9> The problem is that its algorithmic. The content owners aren't clicking around and claiming videos -- Google's Content ID system finds videos that look similar to theirs and then claims the video.

The ideal case would be someone reposting a trailer or a music video to Youtube. The content is identified as being owned by a partner. Now the partner gets the money and the poster still gets views.

Cases like the OP thus cause a problem: the majority of the content is 3rd party and free.

Note: I'm not defending CID or saying its a good thing. I just think your proposed solution won't fix the issue at hand.

<comment><USER10> The initial claiming process is automatic. But as noted in the article, the uploader then has an opportunity to dispute the claim. The rights holder is then supposed to manually verify it and either approve or dismiss it. The problem is that there is no penalty for just approving every claim after "reviewing" it. Contrast this to the DMCA process, where after the uploader files a counter claim the rights holder must file a court order in order to keep the material down.

At the moment it's a terribly one-sided process that allows big media companies to profit for absolutely no reason. Fining companies for approving disputed claims in error seems like a pretty good solution.

<comment><USER9> Oh I agree, my point was more "the system is faulty".

I just don't think any sort of band-aid (like a fine for example) is the real solution. I think the solution is to redo the law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> YouTube has become a Kafkaesque nightmare, at least for regular users. They recently opened up monetization to everyone, but if you actually try to use it, half your videos will go "under review" and you will be asked to provide proof that you own all the content. They won't tell you specifically what you have to provide, and nobody I know has managed to figure it out or get a video out of this state. Of course, there is no way to contact anyone or get any more information.

Apparently, "full partners" can actually get real customer service and avoid these problems, but you need to get on the order of 1000 views/day before they offer you that, which most people never achieve.

I will absolutely never do business with that company.

</comment><comment><USER12> Perhaps it would be a start if Google would recognise public domain content before matching against claims of other content owners.

</comment><comment><USER13> It seems like when you submit material to the content ID system, the first thing it should do is check it against material that's already been registered. Conflicts found there need to be resolved before that material is used to automatically send out ownership claims.

This change would surely weed out a big chunk of these false claims, and would put a lot of the effort for doing so squarely on the shoulders of the claimants.

</comment><comment><USER14> Hmmm could this be used to turn the tables. What I'm thinking is you buy a area of land that needs clearing up - video it and when it is claimed as copyright you then sue the copyright abuser to clear up the land as they claimed its there rubbish. Not best example but hopefuly shows how this can be levelled.

What has happened is alot have loaded up alot of common things and sounds and as such any autobot will match them up with pretty much anything you do in some situations.

Can bet if you upload a video of your first born that it will match up with something somewere else. It's like patent trolls, only automated, utter nightmare.

This is also one of those moments were I liek the UK libel laws as deformation of character under the guise of falsly breaking copyright of somebody else's contents is one of those area's were you would have fun in court and fiscaly rewarding.

</comment><comment><USER15> I think a different monetization systems is necessary here. One that can allow for the Youtube-like company to tell the media moguls to go fuck off.

</comment><comment><USER16> Sounds like copyright law requires updating and people should stop using YouTube.

</comment><comment><USER17> Why won't he just change site? YouTube isn't the only video service out there.

</comment><comment><USER18> CT tech junkie is a great site run by brilliant folks doing some awesome work.

</comment><comment><USER19> This is probably a bug, and will be treated as such. I wouldn't worry about this one.</comment>


South Korea Legislature passes medical cannabis law, first in East Asia - <AUTHOR> https://mjbizdaily.com/breaking-south-korea-becomes-first-country-in-east-asia-to-legalize-medical-cannabis/ <comment><AUTHOR> Note: this was over a week ago but I hadn't heard anything about it until today. It was surprising to me because I heard South Korea has a law that says no citizen may violate its laws while overseas, effectively banning South Koreans from using cannabis quite strictly.

<comment><USER2> Don't you feel that the scale slowly tipping?

Anyway, no flowers or oils will be permitted. Only Epidiolex, Marinol, Sativex, and Cesamet. And unless you have HIV or cancer you're out of luck.</comment></comment>


Clojure at Scale: Walmart - <AUTHOR> http://blog.cognitect.com/blog/2015/6/30/walmart-runs-clojure-at-scale <comment><USER2> Title should include "(2015)".</comment>


Ask HN: How do I transition into i3/ awesome from Gnome? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> In my opinion, as someone who used i3 exclusively for years but switched back to Gnome, don't bother.

You're not actually going to be more productive with a different window manager. You may _feel_ more productive, but it's highly unlikely that how quickly you switch between windows is an actual bottleneck in your life.

<comment><USER3> As a former devout Fluxbox user, I concur with this comment. I use a pretty bog standard Gnome now. It's not really an active thought so much as something that Mostly Just Works.

My productivity is about the same, since I use the same applications. The only thing I don't have is an incessant need to fiddle and tweak.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Kickstart your configuration by looking around on github for other users' dotfiles, everybody needs to do some common things after all, like opening programs, changing volume, brightness, suspending, etc.

My dotfiles repo is private but here is mine: [https://gist.github.com/simonacca/425dad70526bcfd9c6af7ed5f4...](https://gist.github.com/simonacca/425dad70526bcfd9c6af7ed5f4679c61)

</comment><comment><USER5> In what way? Dive right in. Set your own shortcuts, and just use it. It's not terribly different, you're just not dragging windows around and everything is fully maximized unless you use some sort of gaps system. Check the i3 documentation, reddit i3 forums, and also /r/unixporn can be useful for finding things that will assist you with tiling wm's.

</comment><comment><USER6> Are you asking how to install it? Or how to become adept at it?

<comment><AUTHOR> The latter. Every time I install i3, I like the flexibility it offers for first few minutes, and then suddenly I find myself unable to do some old thing which is very easy to do in GNOME, and then get frustrated and revert back. Also, the documentations are very long and complicated for a relatively new GNU/Linux user like me.

<comment><USER7> Well, don't give up. Like anything in life!

Arch wiki is useful. Also [https://faq.i3wm.org](https://faq.i3wm.org) and [https://www.reddit.com/r/i3wm/](https://www.reddit.com/r/i3wm/)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do I get feedback? - <AUTHOR>

Hi, so I've made a templating engine that I am quite proud of and I'm sure that a few people will also like it but I have no idea of how to get feedback from people on what they'd like in it so that I can improve it. I've got feedback from a few colleges but I'm finding it hard to get anything else. I want to know what I can add to it to improve it for the whole programming community. Any ideas on how I can get this user feedback? Thanks<p>Cheeky link to it if anyone wants to check it out - https://github.com/DrRoach/templator <comment><USER2> Here are a few ideas 1) Contact members of the php community through social media 2) Present it at your local php/tech meetups 3) Contact authors of PHP Weekly, SitePoint, Nettuts, etc

<comment><AUTHOR> There aren't many places near me that hold things like tech meetups unfortunately but I'm definitely going to try out your other two suggestions

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't use PHP, so sadly I can't use it, but after reading the description, it seems very similar to Jinja ([http://jinja.pocoo.org](http://jinja.pocoo.org)). Were you aware of that templating engine? I use it and like it a lot, and if I have to use PHP in the future I will certainly try yours.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've never used or seen jinja before but it definitely has a few features that I'm thinking of adding like block so thanks for the link. Thanks for giving mine a chance too!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Post it on reddit.

<comment><AUTHOR> What subreddit would you suggest?</comment></comment>


Etcd 3.3 – Improvements to stability, performance, and more - <AUTHOR> https://coreos.com/blog/announcing-etcd-3.3 <comment><USER2> Not an etcd user but my first question was why they chose some new (and now unmaintained) golang key value store as their database instead of something more widely used (sqlite or bdb seem like the obvious alternatives). I was able to find this analysis they did in 2015: [https://github.com/coreos/etcd/issues/2646](https://github.com/coreos/etcd/issues/2646) .

On the face of it, it feels like using a more established an well tested database would have been a better choice, even with the facts available to them at the time. Personally I would have been really reluctant to adopt a database whose first commit was in the previous year with only one major contributor. Three years later, they've had to adopt the database code after it was abandoned by the original maintainer.

<comment><USER3> The previous maintainer didn't abandon it, he finalized the API and features. CoreOS wanted additional features. The original maintainer wanted to keep the scope minimal.

The reason for adopting a pure Go key value store is to utilize all of the Go tooling, like profiling, to aid with discovering performance bottlenecks. Crossing the language boundary loses visibility into problems.

<comment><AUTHOR> As an etcd maintainer the reasoning for using a Go key value is exactly this: we can use all pure Go tooling easing debugging and profiling.

Plus, by having a simple Go only build system we reduce the burden for on- boarding developers which I believe is part of the reason for etcd's solid and growing developer base: it is easy to get into. Well, easy relative to other databases, ha!

<comment><USER4> Etcd has been phenomenal. In terms of solving the simple KV HA story, I can't think of a single technology that I have ever used that is as simple to set up and operate. We run etcd clusters with millions of keys and 500+/sec write rates and I can count on one hand the number of problems / tunings / issues we've had over the last two years.

There are lots of reasons why you might not want to use etcd, but if you can live with simple K/V, need HA, and need something that is simple and just works, I can't think of anything else that is comparable except for Consul (which I haven't used much, but has similar design principles).

<comment><USER5> Not a user but I think Zookeeper is worth a mention.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article neglected to directly mention the new transaction features, but etcd 3.3's txn semantics are much more powerful than 3.2. It's what makes the new key leasing feature work and can be used to support key range queries over STM as well.

</comment><comment><USER7> the benchmarks are not very convincing since both the etcd and Go versions have been changed. Go 1.9 has received another round of optimizations that probably also help with performance.

</comment><comment><USER8> They should have capitalised on the name pun using "etc." instead of "and more" in the title... Great job nonetheless!

</comment><comment><USER9> There is yet another key value database written in Go: [https://github.com/dgraph-io/badger](https://github.com/dgraph-io/badger)

Badger looks promising, though I'm not database-expert enough to know when to choose LSM tree database. (BoltDB is B tree, and Badger is LSM tree with value log.)</comment>


Digital Photocopiers Loaded with Secrets (2010) - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/digital-photocopiers-loaded-with-secrets/?ref= <comment><USER2> I've seem a similar mistake nearly been made.

There was a printer (the big, one cubic meter, enterprise type) in a sensitive air-gaped network that was not used anymore, and there was a plan to reuse it on the main network.

It was nearly installed when I saw it and mentioned that these things have hard drives in them to my Security Officer over a coffee.

It was promptly removed after that.

This organization was quite conscientious about this kind of stuff, every disks was labeled, regularly inventoried and crushed in presence of the Security Officer when not used anymore.

But these printers can easily be mismanaged as people don't realize they are basically computers that see tons of information.

<comment><USER3> That seems like a highly unusual organization in terms of how well it manages it's security and how seriously does it take it. Does it specialize in it?

<comment><USER2> If you are touching sensitive systems, like military infrastructure, nuclear power plant, law enforcement, banks, it's not uncommon at all.

In some cases, mostly governmental stuff, you can be personally liable if you misplace accidentally documents or other sensitive pieces of information (like a spending a few years in prison).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > from Affinity Health Plan, a New York insurance company, ... we obtained the > most disturbing documents: 300 pages of individual medical records. They > included everything from drug prescriptions, to blood test results, to a > cancer diagnosis. A potentially serious breach of federal privacy law.

> As for Affinity Health Plan, they issued a statement that said, in part, "we > are taking the necessary steps to ensure that none of our customers' > personal information remains on other previously leased copiers, and that no > personal information will be released inadvertently in the future."

For comparison, per [https://ocrportal.hhs.gov/ocr/breach/breach_report.jsf](https://ocrportal.hhs.gov/ocr/breach/breach_report.jsf) \- "As required by section 13402(e)(4) of the HITECH Act, the Secretary must post a list of breaches of unsecured protected health information affecting 500 or more individuals."

Of course, any single breach of a copier would be limited to the individuals whose documents touched that copier, and might come under this threshold. Affinity is not on the list at the moment - this may be because the news only just broke.

But do the regulatory bodies say "Affinity, you were found to not have a procedure for properly disposing of copiers, so we need to assume that you've leaked health information from EVERY disposed copier historically?" Only then would it be treated with the same seriousness that e.g. HIPAA-compliant SaaS services are expected to treat security. Just because copier hard drives aren't networked software doesn't mean that they don't have network-scale security problems.

<comment><USER5> [https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/compliance- enfor...](https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/compliance- enforcement/examples/health-plan-photocopier-breach-case/index.html)

"Affinity Health Plan, Inc. will settle potential violations of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules for $1,215,780. OCR's investigation indicated that Affinity impermissibly disclosed the protected health information of up to 344,579 individuals when it returned multiple photocopiers to a leasing agent without erasing the data contained on the copier hard drives."

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "One of the copiers had documents still on the copier glass, from the Buffalo, N.Y., Police Sex Crimes Division."

No comment.

</comment><comment><USER7> What about personal (home versions) Photocopiers, Scanners and Printers? Did they store similar information too?

<comment><USER8> Well, probably not, at least for document storage. Although you could take the thing apart and use a bus pirate and interrogate the flash chips onboard, to see what goodies are there. My guess is its just firmeware. Storage is still too expensive for a junk consumer model, to dump TBs of storage.

Now on an office copier, of course they do that. But that's what the target here is.

If you have a printer, it likely puts the yellow dots on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > One product from Sharp automatically erases an image from the hard drive. It > costs $500.

Storing the images isn't a bug, it's a feature.

</comment><comment><USER10> This has been known for a long time now. Articles like this pop up from time to time. Competent IT departments pull hard drives before copiers are gotten rid of.

<comment><USER11> And most of them have the option to secure erase either after every scan, or on a schedule. But it's amazing how few people outside of IT know that most devices have embedded websites, let alone the security implications.

<comment><USER12> Secure erase of a metal/spinny drive is really not enough. There are data recovery companies who can pull data on metal hard drives from hundreds of writes in the past.

These hard drives should be pulled and re-purposed internally for sensitive information in data centers (to reduce waste), and if they can't be, they should be physically destroyed. (US government agencies shred or melt drives).

Ideally, copier companies should (if they insist on not removing the drives) encrypt them by default. That way when you "wipe" the copier for sale, it just deletes the encryption key from flash memory. Then the bar for data recovery becomes incredibly difficult and you don't have to waste the drive.

<comment><USER13> That only works on a disk using a format from the 90s. On a modern disk once you overwrite a sector the contents are no longer retrievable. There are no companies that can read a sector that has been overwritten. They can only recover damaged drives and files that have been deleted by the operating system and not been overwritten.

On the other hand, deleting flash memory is very difficult because the controller doesn't really do what you ask it to do.

<comment><USER14> These days controllers have secure delete / wipe commands too

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Why do they store everything?

<comment><USER16> Not everything, but think of the workflows they are used for:

Printing: They spool print jobs to their hard drive before printing.

Scanning: They create temporary image files for ocr and pdf conversion. These files then need to be emailed to a user or sent via a file server.

Photocopying: Temporary image files are also created. Photocopying on a digital copier is effectively a scan then print operation.

<comment><USER17> A more apt question would be "why are these files being stored after the device has finished doing whatever it needed to do with them"

<comment><USER18> Because they weren't overwritten with zeroes.

<comment><USER19> then another question: why even bother building in a hard drive large enough to store hundreds of documents? certainly a circular buffer 1/1000th the capacity would be cheaper?

this makes no sense no matter how many one line hand-waves you make

<comment><USER20> 1\. Cost. It is (presumably) much cheaper to use the same COTS SATA HDDs that are used in desktop PCs.

2\. Since now your copier/printer/scanner/fax/coffee machine has a 500 GB in it, what are other ways we can take advantage of that space? Save a copy of every printed document ("for compliance"), e-mail documents straight to the end user, dump scanned documents (PDFs) straight into a network share (or run such a share on the device itself), cost accounting (by user or department or ...), "hold" printed documents in the queue until the user actually shows up at the printer to retrieve their print job (they can quickly/easily "release" it -- prevents other users from inadvertantly seeing documents they shouldn't), and ...

\---

 _Off-topic edit:_ Right after I wrote this comment, I remembered how years ago it was possible to "bounce" TCP connections off of HP JetDirect devices. I had a cow-orker that was overly paranoid and always had a terminal window open tailing the logs on his workstation. The look on his face and his bewilderment as be watched his PC slowly being port scanned by a 10-year-old printer in a building 60 miles away (but still within our network) was absolutely hilarious.

<comment><USER21> > I had a cow-orker that

I'm sorry if my English isn't that great, but what does it mean to "ork"?

<comment><USER20> cow orker: n. alternatively: cow-orker

[Usenet] n. fortuitous typo for co-worker, widely used in Usenet, with perhaps a hint that orking cows is illegal. This term was popularized by Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert) but seems to have originated earlier in a 1997 ScaryDevilMonastery.

\-- [http://wiki.c2.com/?CowOrker](http://wiki.c2.com/?CowOrker)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> fax machines used to leave copies of everything on the roll/ribbon/drum/whatever too. Especially the ones in sealed plastic were often just a giant roll of carbon paper with everything you've ever sent/received on it.

<comment><USER23> Wouldn't the carbon paper only have everything you've received?

<comment><USER22> good catch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Worth noting that NIST has published a brief report[1] providing risk management guidance on this security concern.

[1] [http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8023](http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8023)

</comment><comment><USER25> Given this is from 2010 perhaps people should look at current practices before freaking out.

Almost all modern copiers employ some kind of Disk Encryption so this issue has largely been resolved.

[http://siica.sharpusa.com/Document- Systems/Security](http://siica.sharpusa.com/Document-Systems/Security)

</comment><comment><USER26> Its from 2010</comment>


Why I left Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://concertwindow.com/3469/why-i-left-facebook

<comment><USER2> I deactivated my Facebook account last week. I have been an active member of facebook since early 2005...right at the beginning. It was awesome at first, I could connect with my friends and see what they were doing, and share photos with people easily.

Fast forward a few years and now everyone is on facebook. I had 400 or so "friends" and only about 10 of those people I actually cared about what they were doing. The signal to noise ratio became too poor.

Yes, I could have setup groups and filtered my results and bla bla bla, but I didn't want to. The only value I got out of facebook was I had a contact list of pretty much everyone I have ever known.

This was not enough to keep me interested. Anyone I was doing business with I can keep in touch with on linkedin, which provides me exactly the information I am looking about those people. My close friends and family I keep in contact with this crazy idea of...BEING AROUND THEM.

I quit facebook and haven't looked back.

<comment><AUTHOR> amen to that! The signal-to-noise issue really bothered me too.. I hated only being able to send a status message to EVERYONE, and setting up groups would've been too time consuming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I thought this was going to be about leaving facebook as an engineer.

<comment><USER4> So did I - I remember a slew of similar articles about leaving Google et al a couple years ago.

<comment><AUTHOR> haha yeah i can see how it could come off like that.. sorry to disappoint :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Pretty common to see grandstanding "I left" posts for Facebook. Not as much Twitter. Or really any other service that someone just stops using without devoting an entire blog post to the minutiae of how and why.

Coming up next: WHY I LEFT COLOR.

Edit: I too was looking for gossip from a former engineer.

</comment><comment><USER6> The author should have said: "Why i deactivated my Facebook account", but it's ok.

I did the same thing a while back at it was great. Reactivated again in order to get invited to certain events (yeah, people tend to 'forget' to remain those not on facebook) and to access peoples birthdays.

But deactivating my facebook account for some months really got me to realize how much time I was spending there, and how most of it was a waste. And as the author points out: "Not social at all".

</comment><comment><USER4> I did this about three (or four, maybe? I forget) months ago. I actually feel happier. More focused.

I guess the tipping point for me was seeing an image. I can't find it anymore (it's lost in my tumbleblog somewhere). It was split horizontally, like a comic book; the top pane was Assange, the bottom was Zuckerburg.

Assange's photo was labeled: "I take private corporate and government secrets and make them freely public, and I'm a criminal."

Zuckerburg's was labeled: "I take your private social information and sell it to corporations for profit, and I'm Time's man of the year."

Pretty much got me right there...

<comment><AUTHOR> oh yeah, I remember that image too. I guess I'm ok with them selling my info because I freely gave it up and I knew that was going to happen. Not saying it's right, but also not saying I was duped. But definitely a valid reason for leaving.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm disappointed; I thought he meant that he was an ex-FB employee. That would make for juicy insider gossip.</comment>


The Food Miles Mistake: Saving the planet by eating New Zealand apples - <AUTHOR> http://www.reason.com/news/show/129855.html <comment><USER2> Food miles is a great example of an oversimplification that actually hurts a cause. Just because something pollutes more in a single dimension, doesn't mean the total pollution from 30 different aspects of the production is less.

But a single number is so easy to understand, people latch on to it.

Add to this to repulsive, smug attitude of some people, and I get doubly annoyed.

<comment><USER3> Correctly accounting the carbon (if it could be done accurately) would produce a better number than food-miles. And then if you add a carbon tax, in theory the supply chain would account for it automatically and the only number you'd need is price.

<comment><USER4> Here in Canada, the Liberal party recently ran on the platform of a carbon tax ("The Green Shift"). They lost badly. People just heard "tax."

It's not entirely a clear data point, because they also had a leader perceived as weak. But the carbon tax was a big part of why he was perceived as weak.

<comment><USER5> I wonder if they tried to market it as a 'Fossil Fuel Tax' ... and then sold it to voters as a tax on Big-Bad Oil Companies ... if it'd garner more support.

People seem pretty convinced that oil companies are the root of all evil, so they might actually embrace the word 'tax' in this case.

(Of course, the oil companies and utilities could just point out that it would raise the price of gas, which would kill it. You could propose a law that gave everyone free ice cream for life and people would impose it if it raised their gas prices by a penny.)

<comment><USER4> That wouldn't work in Canada, because of the oil sands boom. Basically vast amounts of oil that weren't viable below $40 a barrel suddenly created billionaires overnight. And took our dollar from $0.75 to $1.05 (though now in retreat).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The realization I keep coming back to is that a carbon tax is the most fair–and only reasonable–way to let consumers trade off the climate-change impact of one product over another.

Markets don't lie, or at least do so less often than politicians, environmentalists, or corporations. If the cost of carbon emissions were built into the prices of everyday products, we wouldn't have to do any complicated math or what-if scenarios to figure out which product is the best deal for both us and the earth. The best deal would be (all else equal) the cheapest product.

<comment><USER7> Taxing carbon-based fuel sources is even simpler.

The problem is, most people want to be "for" fighting global warming, while also wanting cheap gasoline prices.

<comment><USER5> This generalizes. Most people are 'for' any cause, as long as somebody else handles it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Food miles are supposed to be a simple way to gauge food's impact on climate change."

Nope. There is a better one - the price. The cheaper the product the better for the environment.

Some other commenters here have said somewhat similar things, but I can I point you to: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=346912>

So, new rallying cry: Buy cheap!

<comment><USER9> Pricing between two similar products doesn't necessarily reflect difference in impact on the environment. It can also indicate scarcity in resources, an advantage in being the first (which may include setting your own price), protection by patent, or monopoly. Also, scale is another variable. While a rural area may have less-expensive housing and transportation costs than a major city, the city may have more efficient delivery methods and transportation (which could include the upkeep of having lit and paved roads to encourage walking), when accounted for on a per-person basis. However, with some refinement, I think your theory could be potent.

<comment><USER10> The economy of scale is a good point. I'm not sure there is necessarily a linear relationship between cost and energy use. It is more likely super linear.

In my mind, the costs passed onto the consumer in terms of pollution seem to be a big hole in the theory, though I do like it. Is there some way to theoretically cap it? Otherwise, it isn't possible to even hypothetically say how much price correlates with environmental impact.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Food Miles:

A good example of something that makes such perfect sense that it _must_ be true. It just isn't.

</comment><comment><USER12> The fundamental fallacy the article makes is that the original writers and thinkers in the movement spoke of eating seasonal foods suited to the local climate. Instead of growing tomatoes in a greenhouse, you treat tomatoes as a treat and eat foods local to your region or, at least, friendly to the climate. Further, these lower miles would allow for varietals that are evolved for taste rather than shipping.

</comment><comment><USER13> See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Bailey>

</comment><comment><USER14> I like how things cycle.

First the world was localized. Then the information age / digital revolution made global accessible. Then the world became flat. Now we're back to localizing it again.

<comment><USER10> Ah yes, but localization has moved up a level.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Or, you know, you could eat something that's actually in season when apples are several months out of season where you are. Strawberries would probably be a good bet. If nothing else, the variety is good for you and makes your diet more interesting.

</comment><comment><USER16> Yes! Eat our apples!

Also stop subsidizing your yokels. Giving money to uncompetitive farmers is like burning fuel.

</comment><comment><USER17> _Consumer shopping trips accounted for 48 percent ... of British food miles._

Walk to the supermarket.

<comment><USER18> Lots of people do not live within walking distance of a supermarket.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think the best way to save the planet is to buy more carbon offsets.

And, by the way, I happen to have a few for sale.</comment>


Let Go - <AUTHOR> http://xkcd.com/862/

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm going through an especially busy period right now and really need to focus. Meaning, I shouldn't waste any time going to check XKCD, HN, Gmail, blogs, my hockey pool, or anything else that could distract me during work hours.

What do you guys do to ensure you stay focused? Any software recommendations out there that work better than the standard every-30-minutes-pop-up-reminder stuff? Let me know!!! :)

<comment><USER2> <http://visitsteve.com/made/selfcontrol/>

<comment><AUTHOR> That looks awesome, unfortunately I'm working on a Windows box. :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I hope someone implements the plugin from the tooltip: Instead of creating a full blacklist just force a 30 second delay before loading sites from a graylist. That will break the habit.</comment>


Ask HN: Psychopaths/Sociopaths - <AUTHOR> Last time I tried to discuss this topic on HN, my post was flagged. However, I think HN is a great place to discuss it, because I'd wager a significant percentage of commenters here fall into the "sociopath" category, myself included.
So my question is,
1) Are you a sociopath?
2) What do you think of society's labeling and marginalization of so-called sociopaths?
Sometimes I think sociopathic individuals will be the next minority to fight for their rights. It's scary how much anti-sociopath rhetoric is prevalent in media today. Nobody is offended if you say sociopaths should be rounded up and killed. According to society, as long as you can sufficiently label someone a sociopath, it becomes within your rights to deny them freedoms and torture or kill them. <comment><USER2> > _1) Are you a sociopath?_

No.

 _2) What do you think of society 's labeling and marginalization of so-called sociopaths?_

Who cares? This is a non-issue for the following reason: even experts can't positively identify a sociopath, and even the definition/diagnosis isn't widely agreed-upon. A smart sociopath would exhibit mostly pro-social behaviors, even though he has anti-social motivations.

People can't be persecuted as a group if they can't be identified in that group. People can rage about sociopaths all they want, but they can't identify them in order to do anything to them.

> _Nobody is offended if you say sociopaths should be rounded up and killed. > According to society, as long as you can sufficiently label someone a > sociopath, it becomes within your rights to deny them freedoms and torture > or kill them._

I don't know what country you live in, but this is not true in the US. If you can show me some examples that aren't random nutjobs on the internet, I'd be very interested to see them.

(You may, of course, be referring to sociopaths who are accused of murder or some other anti-social act, which is not the same as persecuting them just for their personality.)

<comment><USER3> There are certain brain structures (or lack of structures) that are shared by the vast majority of people who would be roundly classified as sociopaths by psychiatrists. The presence of the markers in non-sociopaths is relatively rare, though it nonetheless suggests there's an important environmental dimension. There's an article online by a researcher who studied psychopathy through neuroimaging and discovered he possessed this neural marker.

Classic sociopathy is lumped in with other personality disorders in the DSM, and at the margins there's a large group where there's wide disagreement about classification. But regarding the classic sociopath studied by Hare and others, AFAIU the majority of psychiatrists can spot those a mile away. And DSM or no DSM, most psychiatrists see them as a distinct group. But such people have no reason to seek psychiatric help for their condition, and because it's not susceptible to any kind of treatment in the traditional sense, there's little reason for these people to interact with the medical community the way other categories of "abnormal" people do. So that limits how much scholarship and research that will occur, especially considering that most sociopaths are non-violent. And while a large portion of violent criminals seem to be sociopathic (less or more depending on how you define it, but nonetheless significant), the direct cause of the violence seems related to other mental issues--sociopathy just merely removes one of the natural inhibitors of violent behavior.

<comment><USER2> > _There 's an article online by a researcher who studied psychopathy through > neuroimaging and discovered he possessed this neural marker._

You are referring to James Fallon, of TED Talk fame, and his science is not sound: [http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/pseud...](http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/pseudoscience- psychopathy/)

> _the majority of psychiatrists can spot those a mile away. And DSM or no > DSM, most psychiatrists see them as a distinct group_

That's impossible to know for sure. If you don't have reliable diagnostic criteria (and the ability to thoroughly examine the subject), these people can't test their belief that someone is a psychopath. It's just not science.

<comment><USER3> Which part of Fallon's research is unsound, 1) the neurological correlation, 2) his characterization of it, or 3) the characterization of himself?

Regarding, e.g., the Hare criteria not being science, it's not true that such criteria are not testable. You're conflating accuracy (or trueness) with precision. The diagnostic criteria clearly lack precision, but they don't necessarily lack accuracy. Macroeconomics lacks precision but various theories are incredibly accurate. That said, actually rigorous testing is lacking. It's lacking partly for the reasons I specified, but lacking nonetheless. And that's fair. But experimental results are not the sine quo non of how we understand the world; it's not black & white like that. There are other modes of understanding the world, and other substantive indicia of the correctness of theories. The Scientific Method is one of the best modes and its results some of the best forms of evidence, but it's hardly exclusive.

In any event, look at the similar condition of narcissism. Like sociopathy that word gets thrown around so much it's almost meaningless in a lay context, and there are wide margins where the classification is dubious even in a medical context. When people (including experts) claim Nixon, Clinton, or Alex Baldwin are narcissists, you sort of roll your eyes because such aversions tend to expose the term for being so loose and imprecise to the point of being useless. You can't even agree or disagree.

But is there any doubt in your mind that Donald Trump is a testament to some physiological phenomenon that fits squarely within the box we label narcissist? What that classification implies regarding his fitness as president is another matter altogether, but I don't think there exists many practitioners even loosely related to the study of the human brain that don't sense he's the archetype of some concrete and identifiable human condition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You probably should not self-diagnose yourself with a complex psychiatric diagnosis.

And people with personality disorders of various type are already campaigning for change - your use of outdated stigmatising language is hampering your ability to search.

Mostly around borderline PD and antisocial PD: [http://www.emergenceplus.org.uk/news-from- emergence/507-meet...](http://www.emergenceplus.org.uk/news-from- emergence/507-meeting-the-challenge-making-a-difference-a-new-personality- disorder-practitioner-guide.html)

[https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/mentally- diso...](https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/mentally-disordered- offenders/working-with-personality-disordered-offenders.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> If you're bothered by societal attitudes regarding sociopaths (and not simply because it's effecting your success at personal gain), you're probably not a sociopath in the classic sense.

If you feel some kind of kinship with other sociopaths, you're probably not a sociopath.

There are other phenomenon related to empathy. For example it was recently discovered that some people lack conscious awareness of empathy. In these cases physiological and psychological responses to empathic emotions are clearly present (e.g. various stress responses), but the person doesn't consciously understand why the response is occurring (or even always that it's occurring) or its relation to a social interaction. Some people on the so- called autistic spectrum seem to suffer from this; their mirror neurons are present and functioning, they're just not plugged into everything correctly.

Some people lack episodic memories. They remember the birth of their child, for example, in the same way they remember that 10 * 10 == 100; as a fact, not as a lived experience imbued with an emotional dimension. Arguably this might imply that their experience of the world is more superficial than others, perhaps similar in some respects to a sociopath's experience of the world.

The role of sex in relationships is incredibly rich and complex. Arguably people who are asexual or otherwise less motivated or responsive to sexual passions might feel more disconnected emotionally in some respects than other people.

And just because you _think_ you wouldn't be emotionally stirred by events normatively considered "shocking" (like the injury of a small child, or especially your own child) doesn't mean you wouldn't actually be stirred in reality. We all consciously and unconsciously disassociate from the world, especially when technology intermediates. But you can't compare that to being physically present and involved. It's why it makes little sense to believe that, e.g., playing violent video games would strongly relate to a tendency to real-life violent behavior.

</comment><comment><USER5> 1\. No 2\. Not much.

The thing is this: Even if _most_ people are sociopaths, it isn't an issue. What the media labels as a sociopath doesn't match the clinical definition. Even a clinical diagnosis only comes about if the person is having life problems or is hurting other folks, and most won't do that because it would hurt themselves or hamper their goals. The same really goes for hearing voices - it isn't a problem so long as you can deal with it, they are positive and go about life in a fairly normal fashion - but if you can't, you should probably seek help. In addition, a lot of people will self-label if it is a popular thing to be. For reference, suddenly lots of people fall into the autism spectrum, many have ADHD, gluten intolerance, etc without a doctor's actual diagnosis. A "hunch". It is probably normal to feel a bit abnormal because we only see a glimpse of what goes on in other's heads.

 _... as long as you can sufficiently lavel someone a sociopath, it becomes within your rights to deny them freedoms and torture or kill them._

Not really, nor is this any different from someone schizophrenic or bipolar or any number of diseases. Society is only bothered with those that are violent and outright hurt folks. But it is the same with rapists, child molesters, etc, and there are many contributing factors. So long as we have a society that is generally well-educated and can sort out the difference between reality and fantasy, oddities and normalities, it really doesn't matter much. (whether we have that is debatable and another topic altogether).

</comment><comment><USER6> 1.No. 2\. If you want to understand what sociopats are search for the very long article called, The Gervais Principle according to The Office, its also the comedy movie series, and watch it. Its a pitty it only tells the story of sociopaths within corporations. But there are a lot of sociopaths in Public Sector that we cant escape, Public Administration, Public Education, etc.. look sociopath here:

[http://m.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2016/06/06/mizzou- empl...](http://m.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2016/06/06/mizzou-employee- used-stolen-cash-for-dogs-surgery-home-repairs)</comment>


Ask HN: How to offer training to companies? - <AUTHOR>

I love teaching and want to start a software programming training company that provides training in languages such as Java, Python, Clojure, JavaScript. I've done this through training companies and gotten great reviews from students.
I'm looking for ideas on how to sell my training services to companies. Basically I am a developer and clueless about marketing, and need some help. Any ideas or suggestions would be great.
If someone here has some experience and could provide some mentoring advice that would be extremely useful. Thanks! <comment><USER2> I started off writing a long post but then... well, the more I started writing, the more I realized was "unknown" about you. Some of the questions would be:

1) Are you planning on a 'public' course (for anyone to enroll in) or a 'private' course (one where a company sends only its employees)?

2) Are these lecture-only, lecture-and-demo-only, or "lecture, demo, and hands-on exercises" courses?

3) If the latter, will you require the students to bring their own computer or will you provide one?

4) Do you have any experience writing the courses, or were you only delivering courses that someone else write (for the other training companies you mentioned)?</comment>