Brain Drain Across the United States - <AUTHOR> https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2019/4/losing-our-minds-brain-drain-across-the-united-states <comment><USER2> Brain drain within the US is just as frequently about cultural rather than economic issues. The culture wars the republicans have been running on since the 80s turns off thoughtful people - anti-intellectualism is killing these states.

That said, it's incredibly underserved and there's tons of very capable and friendly people.

Edit: maybe I didn't get the intended point across - I'd ask though, how many people do you know that moved for cultural reasons, especially from hometowns? I'm in the LGBT community where almost every single person I meet has moved for cultural reasons.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure the map backs up what you're saying.

If you look at the 2017 Net Brain Drain it shows the following top gainers: \- Texas \- Virginia \- Illinois \- Maryland \- Colorado \- California \- New Jersey \- New York \- Massachussets

Georgia and North Carolina also showed strong gains (along with many other states). That may be blue-leaning but it's not a landslide.

It's more like people are concentrating in the biggest cities generally, and to the degree that there's a blue-shift its that states dominated by their urban population lean democrat and states dominated by a rural population lean republican, so the cultural change follows the demographic shifts rather than driving them.

<comment><USER4> How is it not a landslide? Of the 9 top gainers you listed, only one leans republican (Texas) [1]. All others lean democratic.

Of course as pointed out by a sibling, it's kind of an irrelevant point anyway. The brain migration is away from rural areas (which are red, regardless of state), to big cities (which are blue, regardless of state). That only reenforces the parent's hypothesis that intellectuals resent the anti-intellectual bent republicans have taken in recent times.

1\. [https://news.gallup.com/poll/247025/democratic-states- exceed...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/247025/democratic-states-exceed- republican-states-four-2018.aspx)

<comment><USER5> Illinois at least supports their claim - that it's because of the large cities, not the states as a whole. Take away Chicago and Illinois would be pretty Republican: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Il...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Illinois_Governor_Election_Results_by_County%2C_2018.svg/150px- Illinois_Governor_Election_Results_by_County%2C_2018.svg.png)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Now, consider the "meta-brain-drain" of 1) increased assortative mating (people are increasingly more likely to marry someone of similar educational and professional achievement) and 2) college-educated women delaying childbirth and having fewer children than non-college-educated women.

The net result is that more educated people tend to have fewer children than the less educated. If we assume educational attainment is correlated with intelligence, and children's intelligence is correlated to parental intelligence, this doesn't bode well for future generations. It seems like we as a society need to figure out a way to make "have children at a reasonable age" not be a low-status move for highly educated / driven / intelligent women.

[https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/fertility/...](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/fertility/cb11-83.html)

<comment><USER7> > _It seems like we as a society need to figure out a way to make "have > children at a reasonable age" not be a low-status move for highly educated / > driven / intelligent women._

Isn't the obvious answer better maternity leave laws? Ambitious women in the US don't have kids because it fucks their career. The US is literally last among OECD countries, offering zero guaranteed maternity pay [1].

[1] [https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/19/news/economy/countries- most...](https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/19/news/economy/countries-most- maternity-leave/index.html)

<comment><USER8> One big part of this is that even if you have guaranteed maternity pay, it still hurts your career. In a highly competitive environment, I don't see how not working for X amount of time doesn't lead to being X amount of time behind in career growth.

The answer is to have less competitive environments. In Sweden, jantelagen (a cultural sentiment that discourages overt personal ambition) is a huge part of what enables generous leave policies.

<comment><USER9> You can't really tell American business culture to be less competitive. You might as well try to get Klingons to be less war-happy. If you're going to try to improve the situation for women, you have to work within the system as it exists.

The best hope is improving remote work and improving transportation infrastructure. Women don't have to leave jobs that they can do from home, and client visits are less impactful when they take less time to visit the client and return. It's not a solution which fits nicely into a single bill of legislation to be passed, but it's the groundwork that the US needs to make it happen.

<comment><USER10> Taking care of a kid is a full time job during the first years. Many partly outsource it after year 1. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting... I've only ever heard of brain drain used in an international context. Which is where the US comes out as a winner, as we're gaining from all the highly educated Chinese and Indians who come here to work and start companies.

I actually find the concept rather odd to use domestically, because it's generally used to show a contrast between a country paying for your college education, and then you reaping the benefits in a different, richer country -- which can seem unfair.

But in the US, students 1) generally pay for their own college education, and 2) often go to college in a state different from where they grew up _and_ different from where they'll settle down later. So it doesn't seem to have any "unfair" aspect.

I mean, complaining about brain drain domestically feels like complaining about free trade domestically... it doesn't make sense to me. People have the freedom to move to areas of better economic opportunity and that's a good thing in a dynamic, ever-changing country like America. Complaining about brain drain domestically really just sounds like wishing more people lived in the country instead of in big cities... no thanks.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight#United_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight#United_States)

<comment><USER12> The problem is that local governments and communities acting in their own self interest will rationally underfund education.

Let's say that hypothetically all new science and engineering jobs are all in ScienceVille. In that case, any local government that doesn't receive some direct tax benefit from taxes collected in SV has negative incentive to teach their students anything about Science, since those students will just leave (after their education has been invested in by the local government) and move to SV to get a job. Those local government are now incentivized to teach their kids anything else (like religion and manual labor) since even if they can only do manual labor at least they're going to stay in their hometown.

Now there is a difference of incentives for the individual States verses the Nation. The Nation would prefer to have lots more engineers and skilled tech workers. The States would prefer to keep their best and their brightest, and if that means they are underutilized that's still a local maximum for the individual State.

Naturally, this is great for SV, but horrible for the rest of the nation. In this scenario, the entirely imaginary, hypothetical "SV" has to either give something back to incentivize the rest of the nation to keep teaching Science and Engineering, or the rest of the country continually subsidizes SV through education which is unsustainable.

<comment><USER13> Japan has an interesting approach to this problem. I don't remember the details but they have some mechanism to funnel tax revenues from big urban areas to the smaller cities that provide a lot of their educated workforce.

<comment><USER14> Hometown tax

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

Its implementation is flawed though, citizens can freely pick any city even if they have no relation to it, and cities are allowed to give gifts to citizens who choose the city, resulting in cities competing to offer the best kickbacks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm from Kentucky, live on the west coast, and I cannot at all sympathize with those from there and similar states if they complain about brain drain. If you boast stupid, backwards policies and only give economic opportunities to the well connected, don't be surprised when the intelligent but not well connected people leave the state. Maybe I'll retire to my backwards hometown but I make more than double on the west coast than I could (as an employee) there, so not moving back anytime soon.

<comment><USER16> Having moved from a rust-belt blue state; who had liberal policies (but. . . just failed to nurture their tech industry like other states did), I moved to California; for a richer employment opportunity.

In terms of skills I could learn on the job, there's no way I could have gone nearly as far in my career if I limited myself to the set of employers that were available to me in my hometown.

Now, I've moved to a red state, (for family reasons), and I have interviewed at about 20 different companies. The "tech industry" is very different from California. There's a little bit of a software startup industry growing, most of the jobs are in healthcare and financial IT. Nobody wants to pay people what they could earn elsewhere. And in terms of career paths there's not a lot out there that offers much of a future. (or at least it appears that way). None of these companies seem like they have any kind of vision other than general business continuity. It's a completely different experience than I had interviewing with tech companies in California.

Even worse: the company I did take a job at can't seem to retain talent. And when we look for it, we can't find it. (And when we find it - I implore them to make it worth the candidate's time. . . and HR simply responds about what the "market rate" is. - which is why I keep interviewing elsewhere. . . ).

In a nutshell; the main difference seems to be - technology companies in California are in the business to innovate, and create new technology, and to become industry leaders. Where, in my new state; they're in the business to just be in business.

<comment><USER2> It's the great American business bureaucracy - the middlemen companies that don't drive anything forward, they just provide the minimum service to get their piece of the money funnel.

This exists in the Valley too. IBM, Oracle, Cisco, many businesses once they reach a certain maturity point just turn into "steady" parts of the market.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Whenever I see this topic come up, I think back to the climactic speech in the movie Good Will Hunting, the one where Chuckie excoriates Will for wanting to put down roots in the community he grew up in. He concludes:

"It'd be an insult to us if you're still here in 20 years. Hangin' around here is a fuckin' waste of your time."

This was framed as an inspirational moment that finally pushed Will to achieve his potential. This idea -- that self-actualization requires abandoning your small-town roots -- is ingrained in our cultural DNA.

<comment><USER18> An early memory of mine is when my mother told me that there was no future for me in Southern Illinois, and when I grew up, I'd have to move far away.

She was right. I did, right to the Bay Area. When I go back and visit, the area has gotten more economically depressed, and frankly more stereotypical. And to put a cherry on top, I am completely unemployable there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> What's interesting is the world has a brain drain.....and the highly educated adults are going to US. From places like India and China.

Don't believe me? Check this out: Chinese students got beaten down by university securities, for protesting against fake degrees given to them. Happened today [https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/bhxgng/chinas_studen...](https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/bhxgng/chinas_student_geting_beats_by_police/)

<comment><USER20> I'd say there's brain drain even if the workers stay at their country, working remotely for US companies.

The most qualified people around me on previous jobs moved to US, Europe or are working remotely (myself included).

It's sad because it increases the difficulty of local companies to grow a good team, continuing the cycle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This applies to me, I guess. I've tolerated Kentucky long enough. They keep increasing taxes to pay for pensions they've looted in the past, while nixing services. I feel no benefit at all from my taxes that keep going up. Paired with low wages and a low educated populace, I'm outta here.

</comment><comment><USER22> Brain Drain is about networking. Why would most give up the opportunity to relocate around the top thinkers in their field? Inhibiting this movement would arguably slow down progress, while making the country more robust (much like the pros/cons associated with most centralization vs. de-centralization topics).

People from my hometown (pop. ~7500 in Midwest), do not realize that they are falling behind at an almost exponential rate. Many are working jobs that require common training, they do not continue their education, and they spend far too much time behind screens in the form of entertainment. And, even for those who want to continue to learn, they do not have access to a nearby tech meeting hosted by a top firm speaking on the state of the art. If you're not in SF or NY, then you do miss out on a lot of opportunities per people and shared information.

* I am personally ashamed to say that I only realized the power and advantage of networking in recent years.

<comment><USER23> > Inhibiting this movement would arguably slow down progress. Don't think the > lawmakers want to inhibit movement rather, probably they want to use these > conclusions to encourage people to stay. The prosperity brought by progress > can be spread across many regions.

> People from my hometown (pop. ~7500 in Midwest), do not realize that they > are falling behind at an almost exponential rate. Many are working jobs that > require common training, they do not continue their education

Do you think it's caused by the lack of other people who are moving ahead aka role models or are there other factors(quality education etc...)?

I do feel and have seen despite being in the right place some people don't get same opportunities for upward mobility despite being literally next door.

<comment><USER16> Education, and lack of opportunity for those who are educated and talented. (They will go where they can reap the most benefits for themselves). That top talent - will also educate their co-workers. Not just the people they work closely with, but everyone in their organization will receive great benefits from collaborating with the people who collaborate with that top talent.

But most people working in the tech industry; (which is very highly stovepiped) - will never experience that, and may only read about it.

When you're not fortunate enough to be employed in one of the top tech industry companies, or in one of the hotspots where the industry is focused (Silicon Valley, New York, Boston, Austin, Virginia, maybe Provo, Seattle) - then you have to do all you can to use the internet to constantly learn and grow your skills; but also, you have to try to constantly evangelize the same attitude to your co-workers, and management. It is an exhausting job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> My brain drain story: I got a nice engineering degree in the South, even had a phd project supported by the local chemical plant. Why I left:

1\. GF/now wife had advanced degrees, and there were no advanced opportunities for her in my area. She'd also have to leave the great opportunity she had in her big northern city.

2\. The industry was randomly down when I graduated, so it didn't even make much sense to stay even without my wife's situation. I found a job in my wife's city where we're producing lots of tax income for one of the big gainers on this map.

I think a key lesson from my case is to not have the local economy dependent on one industry. The Gulf Coast is married to oil/chemicals, the Midwest was in heavy manufacturing, WV in coal. A more diverse local economy means all the married, educated couples can have an easier time finding careers for themselves without one side having to sacrifice and feel like they've wasted their huge educational investments.

</comment><comment><USER25> I think there are interesting things to say about brain drain, and I'm certainly under the impression that there is a tendency for people to move away from the middle of the country and towards the coastal cities (and apparently Texas, Colorado, and Illinois).

But I find the choices of units for these statistics to be very odd. For example, I look at Massachusetts _Net_ difference in _Absolute_ terms in _2017_ (where _stars_ indicate an option on the graph) and I see -16.41.

The article doesn't seem to say directly what -16.41 is, other than that it's the "excess of highly-educated share of movers over highly-educated share of entrants". So what is it?

Looking at the data they provide, I believe that they are subtracting two different percentages of two separate numbers. It appears they examine all the people who left and take the percentage of highly educated people in that group (call this X); and they examine all the people who entered the state and take the percentage of highly educated people (call this Y); and they return X - Y.

This appears to me to be a terrible statistic in practice, especially if the population of a state is either growing or shrinking.

For an example of an unbelievably misleading scenario, consider the fictional state Hackernewsyork, with a population of 100 people (30 of whom are highly educated). Say Hackernewsyork had exactly 1 person move away and she was highly educated (so X = 100) and 10 people move in but only 5 were highly educated (so Y = 50). Then they would report that X - Y = 50, a sign of massive brain drain per the article --- when in fact both the number of highly educated people in the state and the percentage of people in the state who are highly educated went up.

<comment><USER26> I'm not sure about the justification for the X-Y figure, but it seems like larger numbers would tend to make this kind of effect unlikely. If you assume that in- and out-migration are not in equilibrium, but that the probability of migrating is uniformly distributed over people of all levels of education, then X-Y should be zero.

Obviously, it would be better to use net numbers (arrivals of highly educated – departures of highly educated) and not attempt to normalise the numbers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Don't be fooled by the dissembling nature of this article.

It would be nice to think of this as just another data-fetish bauble, but this article is part of a complex multi-dimensional game of politics. Who stands to gain? What senators sit on the majority of the Joint Economic Committee and why would they be selflessly taking their own states down a peg? Woe is the drain... of their own making perhaps?

Maybe there is some major upcoming decision, say, one by the Supreme Court, that will greatly effect how many, many billions of education dollars will be dispersed by the federal government and to what "accredited" educational institutions will be newly eligible for it?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> A couple related pieces by Richard Florida, referenced in this study:

"The Roots of the New Urban Crisis"

[https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/04/the-roots-of-the- new-...](https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/04/the-roots-of-the-new-urban- crisis/521028/)

"Why America's Richest Cities Keep Getting Richer"

[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/richard...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/richard- florida-winner-take-all-new-urban-crisis/522630/)

</comment><comment><USER28> Living in one of the high rent areas, it's amazing how many people move here for the work, and then leave once they've achieved their goals. Quality of life and good pay don't seem to be collocated.

</comment><comment><USER29> Educated people with prospects by and large don't want to live in places where they aren't respected or valued, news at 10.

</comment><comment><USER30> Imagine what the effect of this is in the EU, where average income can differ up to 5-10 times between the poor and rich countries. Freedom of movement means they can still work in any of the EU countries.

<comment> T-A That seems like an exaggeration. Sorting on the net PPP column at

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage)

the lowest EU member is Bulgaria (1475), the highest is Luxembourg (3843); that's a factor 2.6.

The EU also has much larger cultural barriers to movement than the US (different languages, just to mention the most obvious one).

<comment><USER30> Just take a look at Bulgaria's population graph: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Bulgaria#/me...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Bulgaria#/media/File%3ABulgaria- demography.png)

I very much question the validity of PPP in this case. Things are no doubt cheaper in Bulgaria, but I'm fairly certain that electronics, cars etc are going to cost roughly the same, because there's a free flow of goods. People just make do with less.

Also keep in mind that people might move abroad to work there, but still come back home once in a while. The effect on the economy is still going to be similar. The median equivalised net income is just too different inside the EU: [http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_...](http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_di04&lang=en)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> There's a related drain on big university cities/towns.

I stayed in Boston after CS-ish grad school, but pretty much all the other students left immediately/shortly after finishing. If they didn't go to professorships (the minority), it was usually SF or NYC.

The reasons, besides job opportunities, were young nightlife (e.g., dating pool are frumpy nerds, bars/clubs/restaurants close up early by big city standards, subway stops before last call), and quality of life for cost of living (young STEM/med/law new-grads who want to be in-town often pay out the nose to rent with roommates in a run-down old tinderbox apartment with lead paint that was built 100 years ago as cheap housing for poor people), and weather. And, thinking forward a couple years, a house/apartment big&nice enough to start a family is outside the means of most people.

<comment><USER32> I don't see how moving from Boston to NYC or SF solves anything you're referring to. Boston is younger than both and while expensive to live still cheaper.

NYC is full of tinder box apartments. The dating pool in SF is way more lopsided than the east coast. Uber made the subway thing less relevant (though as someone who moved here and got older, the late hours also mean less to me now than earlier)

Also MA is allegedly top ranked for millennials [https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/04/09/best-states- millennia...](https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/04/09/best-states-millennials- massachusetts-worst-wallethub/)

Homes are expensive in MA but not cheaper in either SF or NY.

Boston also one of three US cities outside SV expected to be top 10 globally in tech for the foreseeable future [https://boston.curbed.com/2019/2/26/18240310/boston- technolo...](https://boston.curbed.com/2019/2/26/18240310/boston-technology- silicon-valley)

As for families, I don't see how either NY or CA is better off for education.

There's plenty of reasons to leave Boston for either of those cities, but the ones you cite really don't make a whole lot of sense.

<comment><USER31> You could be right; I'm saying what people said. Jobs seems to be valid to me (unless you're in biotech, rather than established dotcoms or doing a startup). No one I know thinks nightlife anywhere compares to NYC, and the people I know who moved from Boston to SF reported having a much better time (and weather). I actually liked the Boston dating scene, before Tinder, but I'm very much cafe and a walk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm sure the parents want the kids getting out of brain-drain regions too. Why ought kids stay?

<comment><USER34> Some may. I certainly don't agree. Those "brain-drain regions" are the places where kids can afford to raise grandkids. Aside from weather, they are generally nicer places to live.

<comment><USER35> Only if there are well paying jobs there for their skills. And if they're satisfied with the school systems.

And different people have different ideas of what a "nice" place is to live.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Interesting how the South appears to have totally reversed course. In 1970, it appears it was attracting talent. Now, it's losing talent quickly. That's unfortunate.

<comment><USER37> I'm wondering how much of that might have been the Great Migration: of (mostly poorer, less educated) blacks leaving the South specifically because of institutional oppression directly causing that lack of education and poverty.

<comment><USER38> Great Migration as a concept mostly predates 1970.

<comment><USER37> Checking; Wikipedia gives dates as 1916 to 1970, peaking 1950-1970, so precicsely within the data period mentioned:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_%28African_Ame...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_%28African_American%29)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I'm sure I will be downvoted for even mentioning his name, but Charles Murray has been writing about this for decades.

<comment><USER40> bummer that just mentioning someone's name requires this kind of prefacing

<comment><USER41> It doesn't.

And it would be helpful if the commentary on Murray's thoughts exceeded the meta-commentary on mentioning Murray's name.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I think the article hints at this but I wonder if civil political discourse is over for people even despite the fact that people of differing beliefs don't live next to each other and intermingle. It seems that enough people spend a lot of time online and can hang out virtually in their circles anyway and get caught up in groupthink.

</comment><comment><USER43> I'm not sure I can make sense of the "Gross" figures. The "Net" figures are easy to understand: people have generally moved to key urban areas, being CA, NY, IL, TX, VA/MD, GA and CO.

Compare that to the Net figures from 1940 through 1990, which show a clear migration to the Southern states. But I'm not even sure this is showing what it suggests. Is it simply a proxy for population growth?

Or is this thing just a symptom that people in general have a much lower chance of staying in the same state for 31-40 years?

I find the notion that people "self-select" into like-minded communities as some sort of "social segregation" baseless, even laughable. The South still has the echoes of slavery and (real) segregation that many have sought to escape. The implication here is that people are abandoning their communities. Are they though? What do they owe these states where they grew up? And are they abandoning such states or essentially being chased away because they simply don't conform to whatever cultural or religious norms dominate there? This seems particular relevant to the smaller and more rural states.

Bear in mind that education seems to be a partial antidote to religious dogma [1] in that people with more education tend to express religion less (although this is complicated and Christians seem to somewhat buck this trend). But given the cultural importance of religion in some communities, it seems like your more educated citizens are also more likely to leave, no?

19th century America was one of small, rural towns. With the railroad and homesteading these spread West. What probably began with the Industrial Revolution seemed to turn into a tidal wave of urbanization following the Second World War. Cities are just more efficient at delivering work opportunities.

[1] [https://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/26/in-america-does-more- edu...](https://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/26/in-america-does-more-education- equal-less-religion/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> _Conclusion

States which retain and attract highly-educated adults stand to reap substantial economic benefits. At the same time, those that bleed much of their homegrown talent will see their economic fortunes decline if they fail to replace the leavers with highly-educated out-of-staters. Yet even if they do manage to offset their losses, these states are still losing a vital source of social capital.

What is more, the outmigration of highly-educated adults has almost certainly played a role in the deterioration of civil society in struggling communities across the country. And to the extent that the geographic mobility of the highly-educated has increased social bifurcation, it has likely exacerbated distrust of and intolerance toward people who hold different beliefs. One need only glance at today's polarized political environment to see these attitudes on display.

Our research finds that states that are doing the best—low gross brain drain and net brain gain—generally cluster along the Boston-Washington corridor and on the West Coast: Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California, Oregon, and Washington. Other brain gain states are regional hubs—Hawaii, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, and Illinois. Several of these states experienced high gross brain drain and net brain drain in 1970, but have reversed course; others have seen continued good prospects or improvements on one or both measures. For the most part, these states are home to what Richard Florida would describe as "winner-take-all cities."

On the other hand, states in the Southeast, in the Rust Belt, and in other parts of the country tend to fare much worse when it comes to retaining and attracting the highly-educated. Several states in the Southeast—West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana—had low gross brain drain and net brain gain in 1970, but today generally experience high gross brain drain as well as net brain drain. Most Rust Belt states—Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri—have done poorly on these measures in both 1970 and 2017. Perhaps unsurprisingly, states that defy these regional trends (for example, Illinois in the Rust Belt, and Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia in the Southeast) seem to be attracting highly-educated out-of-staters to their dynamic metropolitan hubs.

Brain drain has significant consequences—economic, yes, but also political and cultural. By increasing social segregation, it limits opportunities for disparate groups to connect. And by siphoning a source of economic innovation from emptying communities, brain drain can also lead to crumbling institutions of civil society. As those natives who have more resources leave, those left behind may struggle to support churches, police athletic leagues, parent- teacher associations, and local businesses. State and local policymakers are understandably focused on the economic consequences of brain drain. But anyone concerned about the health of associational life in America should worry that what this report has mapped out, to some extent, is the geography of social capital drain._

<comment><USER44> "As those natives who have more resources leave, those left behind may struggle to support churches, police athletic leagues, parent-teacher associations, and local businesses."

Huh... churches are the first thing that come to mind. Yep, this was definitely written by a Utah senate staff.

<comment><USER34> I was out driving in rural Kentucky one day, along a long narrow gravel road with sparse houses, and came across a church. The church had a sign advertising a get-together with shotguns. I think it was skeet shooting, possibly as a fundraiser.

I don't even go to church or have a shotgun, but I suddenly wanted to live there and be a part of that community. I guess you could say that that sort of genuine community made me envious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Brain drain is one of numerous dynamics highly similar to Gresham's law, though with subtle implications. Goods movements, where mobile, follows direct reward.

Brain-drain may be for economic, technological, social, and cultural reasons. It's not uncommon for talent flows to be at least nominally bidirectional, though with different and distinct motivating factors. The flight of intellectual (and especially Jewish) European talent to the US before, during, and after WWII contrasts with black American's migration from the US, particularly though not just the South, to Europe. Contrast Fermi and Einstein against James Baldwin and Nina Simone. Both oppression (negative driver) and economic opportunity (positive) existed for each.

Within the British Commonwealth, substantial migratoon supported by _some_ cultural and political commonality (even where other strong differences existed) facilitated vast human flows, generlly toward London, thpugh also other centres.

Similar dynamics exist within countries as well, often (per Jane Jacobs) at the urban regional level, particularly contrasted with rural regions. And hub formation / centres of excellence tend to accelerate such consolidation (a point Edward Glaeser argues relatively well, though with flaws).

Economic goods tend to move toward reward, and away from punishment or restraint, though the dynamic once in flow tends to be self-sustaining, at least for a time. There's much focus on positive network effects and growth, less on decline. But the immigration surces of migration toward first the U.S. Atlantic seaboard, and later the Western US, came from what had been earlier. priods' dynamic hubs. Why those declined should be instructive study.

</comment><comment> uneasy-sausage So Ive got to ask, and I've failed to find answer through research for this question, where the hell are all the educated young people at? I'm 28 and relocated to Tampa Bay and I have no idea where my cohorts are here or in this state.

<comment><USER34> Tampa is old retired people and the US Navy.

You want the other side of the state, near the middle of Brevard county. It's a bunch of engineers working for DoD and NASA contractors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Asia is the future IMO. If you're smart and motivated there will be dozens of "Silicon Valleys" there in 5-10 years.

</comment><comment><USER46> The article overthinks this.

I been brain drained by being offered higher pay.

You want to stop brain drain?

PAY!

Solved.

<comment><USER47> This is an oversimplification of a more nuanced issue. For example, perhaps the places that need it most can't afford it, and the places that can afford it can only do so because they already have the existing market for it.

<comment><USER48> At the same time when a company in my home state, offers pay at 55k for something that pays the equivalent of over double that on the coast there is something wrong. Software companies don't magically have smaller margins based on their geolocation if their user-base and contracts are global. In essence their offer of half what is reasonable is pure greed because they know they can get away with it in many cases.

There are lots of companies doing exactly this and driving costs lower in areas where they can get away with it. I think a non-trivial amount of brain- drain is simply paying people what they are worth regardless of how nuanced the issue actually is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I wonder why we consider "highly educated" to mean "college educated." I know plenty of college educated people unfit to manage a lemonade stand and plenty of "lesser educated" people that own successful companies. Using a degree as a proxy for intelligence is a mistake.

<comment><USER50> Level of education is a decent proxy for intelligence, in anything resembling an academic context. More education is usually better.

It's why companies prefer hiring people with more education.

That said, I think many roles should not require a college degree for application.

That one single thing might make a big difference - because as you hint there are tons of otherwise great people who don't specifically have the education.

<comment><USER49> Is the IQ of a person with a masters degree in sociology higher than the IQ of a non-degreee naval nuclear power technician? Yet the non-degrees nuke tech would be considered "less educated" by the measures being used in this discussion. A journeyman electrician often doesn't have a degree, but they do more intellectually challenging work/calculations than some Master of Social Work person working at a local non-profit.

I deal with "highly educated" people in the mental health field on a daily basis and some can barely write grammatically correct sentences: the support tickets I get from people with PhDs and MA mental health professionals are frequently atrocious. But my "uneducated" dad worked as a precision machinist for NASA projects as well as teaching graduate students metallurgy. He's considered not highly educated, but only because he didn't get a degree. His education has zero to do with intelligence. That story isn't an outlier either. My point is that higher education attainment often has nothing to do with intelligence beyond a base level, but more of class, financial resources and desire. A naval fighter pilot with a bachelors degree, in my experience is far more "educated" than someone with a masters in education, sociology, poetry or whatever. Highly educated as a proxy for "desirable worker" is a folly. Ambition, drive and work ethic are more valuable to a society than simply someone who checked the boxes and got a university degree. Using a university degree as a proxy for "desirable" worker is just snobbery and intellectually lazy.

<comment><USER16> Considered by whom? OPM - who sets the contractor pay-rate for these positions? The classification system is very detailed and carefully calibrated and it considers professional experience, certifications, and postsecondary and graduate degrees, and the PhD or MA is not always necessarily higher than an experienced technical engineer.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: FoundationMade – Marketplace for Foundation Themes - <AUTHOR> https://www.foundationmade.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Before Foundation 4 I was a heavy Bootstrap user. But after seeing how the update to the framework made it so much more powerful, I started digging into Foundation.

After some playing around with it, I felt it would be a great base for themes and things like that, since it's grid is, in my opinion, one of the best out there. I also liked that it has no opinion on how buttons should look specifically, like Bootstrap seems to.

With the power and ability to use SCSS mixins to create all of the elements for themes, I thought it would be the perfect match. I also think there is a divide among developers on whether to use Foundation or Bootstrap, so I thought providing a marketplace for Foundation themes would be the obvious next step.

<comment><USER2> Hey scottyd, can you please explain to me what some of these powerful features Foundation 4 offers that Bootstrap don't? I'm looking for an excuse to switch to Foundation myself =P

Thanks./

<comment><AUTHOR> The things I personally like about Foundation 4 as opposed to Bootstrap (at least in it's current state), are one; it's mobile-first. So it will always be responsive. I've always been interested in supporting as many browsers/screen- sizes as possible, and Bootstrap doesn't push that right now, although in Bootstrap 3 I suppose they will also be mobile-first.

I also really appreciate the mixins, which I feel not only make it possible to create more semantic classes, but also you can easily customize the base Foundation styles with exactly how you want it to look (e.g. Remove a border from a button if you don't want it). As far as I'm aware, it's not possible to do things of that nature with Bootstrap. Bootstrap offers some LESS variables, but the majority of that is for changing colors and small things of that nature.

If you take a look at the Foundation documents, the majority of the pages have a bottom area that describes the use of SCSS mixins. I think they probably do a better job at describing the ways you can use it than I can.

Also, I loved Bootstrap at first. As a developer, it helped introduce me to some design elements like things like the grid and the overall appearance of their elements. I think that's great. But now that I feel more comfortable with design, I think Foundation gets out of your way a lot more when you're looking to do more design work yourself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Neat idea but I think your Launch & Found Theme (<https://www.foundationmade.com/themes/item/FMyyfMtM>) looks a bit too similar to this Embark theme ([https://wrapbootstrap.com/theme/embark-early- access-and-invi...](https://wrapbootstrap.com/theme/embark-early-access-and- invite-theme-WB020J34D)).

</comment><comment><USER4> The big reason I've been using Bootstrap for client websites recently has been the wrapbootstrap store. I'd been looking for something equivalent with Foundation, but haven't found one. This looks like it. I hope it takes off! I might submit a theme too if I get some time.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm glad to hear that. I think the ecosystem around Bootstrap has been wonderful and a lot of themes on wrapbootstrap are very nice. I'm hoping that FoundationMade can offer the same type of selection for people who prefer Foundation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't really understand why these frameworks need themes.

IMO, they should be used as a hidden framework instead of driving the visuals. Essentially, they should just be a grid system.

<comment><AUTHOR> Some people would prefer to use a theme that has a familiar backing to them. I think a lot of themes boil down to mostly using the grid system of the framework, but its nice to at least have familiar/standard grid to work off of once you've purchased a theme. Some people also prefer the visuals of some of these frameworks so allowing them to use the framework of their preference when you choose to sell a theme is a good reason to use something like this. Other elements and JavaScript elements like the modals and things are a nice bonus you get from theming a well-built framework like Foundation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've been waiting for a Foundation-specific marketplace to launch some themes.

Excited to get started! Looks great!

</comment><comment><USER7> This looks great! I hope this takes off. I've been waiting for a Foundation marketplace such as this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! It sounds like we share the same hopes! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> I don't see any themes?

<comment><AUTHOR> Right now there's only one. I spent most of my time getting a marketplace built, and I put a single theme there for now. I've contacted a few theme developers and they are working on getting Foundation-based themes ready to submit. Hopefully in the next few days/weeks we'll have a much larger offering.

I've also started out offering a much higher commission rate for the first bunch of approved themes so that will hopefully increase the growth rate of the site.</comment></comment>


Student Tweets Entire History of US Drone Strikes - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2012/12/11/student-tweets-drone-strikes/

<comment><USER2> There are some pretty reprehensible people who have sown chaos and destruction in places like Africa or mesoamerica, who have since taken refuge in the U.S.. Some of them are there with the express purpose of raising funds for their compatriots so they can continue to do what they're doing.

These are not nice people.

Now, imagine how U.S. citizens would react if the nations being hurt by these people started conducting drone attacks on U.S. soil that got those nasty people, but with an "acceptable amount of collateral damage".

</comment><comment><USER3> Project designed to fail as PR stunt...

No, really.</comment>


Ask HN: What are some great startup blogs? - <AUTHOR> Hey fellas!
What are some startups that run fantastic blogs? Looking for some inspiration for http://blog.yalabot.com.
I enjoy https://blog.baremetrics.com and the marvelous https://signalvnoise.com. Would love to hear your favs.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> Wouldn't say it's "fantastic" but people enjoy my blog on product management / design for startups - [https://blog.orangecaffeine.com/](https://blog.orangecaffeine.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome, thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clickable URLs -

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

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

[https://signalvnoise.com](https://signalvnoise.com)</comment>


The secret of effective motivation - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/the-secret-of-effective-motivation.html

<comment><USER2> What are the implications of this for SV methods of hiring?</comment>


Improving Type on the Web -- Removing Widows and Orphans - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/technology/lab/ <comment><USER2> This type of thing, while certainly low on any developer's to-do list (including mine), does indeed make for a more pleasant reading experience with very little work.

Personally, I like what they're doing because they're doing it in regular XHTML and not resorting to alternative, non-open tools.

Some sites (MSNBC, for one) are using Flash-MX to create headlined to achieve a print-like look, which seems odd because MSNBC has no print counterpart.

It's refreshing to see the IHT and the NYT working so hard to do good things with native tools.

</comment><comment><USER3> In my opinion this go against separating content from design. While it's a nice fix for maybe a few browsers, I'd rather let the old people complain about their widows.</comment>


Reproducible builds in Debian: preventing compiler backdoors - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-debian-is-trying-to-shut-down-the-cia-and-make-software-trustworthy-again <comment><USER2> One of the larger insight that Snowden gave was that agencies dealing with data gathering does so through several avenues simultaneous rather then relying on a single method. They request the data from companies, intercepts the cable traffic between ISP's, plants backdoors in protocols and servers, do MiTM, uses malware, and so on all in parallel. Reproducible builds won't "shut down" the CIA but it will increase the security of compilers and protect Debian's build system which would otherwise be a prime target for attacks that could compromise a very large number of users.

</comment><comment><USER3> We also had a closely related talk about this at the 31C3 which talks primarily about the motivation for the problem and how the Tor Browser has addressed it (leading into Debian stuff, but the Debian developers couldn't join us in person, so you can hear much more about the Debian side from the later talks that the article refers to).

[https://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6240_-_en_-...](https://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6240_-_en_- _saal_g_-_201412271400_-_reproducible_builds_-_mike_perry_-_seth_schoen_- _hans_steiner.html)

I had two examples in that talk that I liked a lot:

* What's the smallest change that you'd have to make to a binary to introduce an exploitable vulnerability? (I work through an answer in the talk.)

* I demonstrate a kernel module that tampers with source code _as it 's being read by the compiler_, so that nothing is modified on disk, and all of the source files are unmodified as confirmed by other software on the system, but the resulting binary is corrupt.

You can also hear about my co-presenter Mike Perry's heroic efforts to make the Tor Browser build reproducibly, one of the first pieces of open source software of its size and complexity to do so. And definitely one that people are trying to distribute fake modified versions of (not necessarily with network MITMs, though quite possibly -- but even with simple e-mail phishing).

</comment><comment><USER4> The article links to a talk at the CCC which was on august 15th. There was an even more recent talk held at DebConf 15 on august 21st: [http://meetings- archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2015/...](http://meetings- archive.debian.net/pub/debian- meetings/2015/debconf15/Stretching_out_for_trustworthy_reproducible_builds_creating_bit_by_bit_identical_binaries.webm)

</comment><comment><USER5> tl;dr Debian wants to have reproducible builds to ensure developer systems aren't compromised by the CIA.

Not sure how that is going to shut down the CIA though, maybe I missed it.

<comment><USER6> Maybe it's an idiomatic thing, but "shut down" doesn't necessarily mean shutting down the organization. The term is commonly used to refer to a very specific context (think sports - "shutting down" just means preventing within a specific window)

<comment><USER3> I guess I've heard that in sports coverage to mean "prevent from scoring" (or just "impede"?), but I'm not sure I've heard it with that meaning in other contexts. I guess it does appear in the context of a proposal.

"The environmental group wanted to build a bike line from the park to the waterfront, but the city planners shut them down." (not implying that the group was disbanded, but that the plan was blocked)

But I'm still not sure either meaning makes sense in the context of the headline.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TheKenThompsonHack](http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TheKenThompsonHack)

<comment><USER4> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_%28computing%29#Compi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_%28computing%29#Compiler_backdoors)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is an old problem solved dozens of ways that mainstream just refuses to deal with. The requirement is even standard for proprietary products going for DO-178B certification. I believe they do quite manual confirmation but automated exists. The solution is called certified compilation: the verifiable transformation of source into binaries. You break the process into a series of steps which each can be verified with the CST's/AST's handed from one to the next. You can implement the steps yourself or validate someone else's, even easier if it's a safe[r] language. Examples each using different methods are VLISP [1], FLINT [2], and CompCert C [3].

Running Debian through CompCert while putting more work into CompCert for portability and optimization is the easiest solution with long-term benefits. Performance will go up steadily. Bug count will go down steadily because that's what SML/Ocaml does. Code will be more readable. Repeat for most trusted tools to drive assurance up across the board.

If they don't want to do that, then the result will be something along lines of just having a bunch of people compile and sign the distro publishing signatures, etc. You will trust that they trusted whatever they all looked at. And anyone whose studied GCC's source, etc will know that basically means they all saw the same code. They'd have to understand it all to have known if there was a weakness introduced. They won't, use of C/C++ makes that harder, plenty of rope to hang one's self in any common action, and it's why those of us doing subversion-resistant development use languages like ML's or Oberon. FOSS needs to similarly transition toward safe, comprehensible tools that aren't backdoor generators just by architecture & language used.

Otherwise, all this talk of preventing subversion is just talk: they're going to get in. And if not subversion, the endless stream of 0-day's from the language and architectural choices will continue to do the job. A re- implementation of the TCB's of our systems is long overdue.

[1] [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.51....](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.51.2824&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

[2] [http://flint.cs.yale.edu/flint/software.html](http://flint.cs.yale.edu/flint/software.html)

[3] [http://compcert.inria.fr/](http://compcert.inria.fr/)

<comment><USER9> If I remember correctly the problem Thompson described is tougher to deal with than this. Yes, the CompCert compiler is certified, but the problem is that the compiler that bootstrapped CompCert may not be. If you use some compiler (let's call it gccb, for backdoored gcc) to bootstrap CompCert that outputs ccb (backdoored compcert). Now you recompile CompCert with ccb since CompCert is certified. This gets you a final version of CompCert compiled with a bootstrapped CompCert. So the process is gccb -> ccb -> cc. But then the backdoor has just been transmitted down the line to cc.

Edit: also I just looked and it appears that CompCert is written in OCaml. This doesn't substantively change anything above. It just means that rather than having a backdoored gcc you'd have a backdoored ocamlc.

Realistically the only way to truly assure that your compiler is not backdoored is by writing it yourself in assembly. But then, your assembler might be backdoored. So you need to write your own assembler in binary. But then your processor might be backdoored. So you need to design your own processor. And then you might be safe. Of course, if someone really cared enough to backdoor all that stuff, they'd probably just come after you with a rubber hose at that point. And I think that was the point Thompson was trying to make.

<comment><USER8> I cant remember Thompson's stuff: Im talking the general problem. You're correct in that my first step shifts the problem: does it on purpose. Here's what subversion resistant development takes: modular software with sensible interfaces: ability to understand code for human review (closer to algorithm the better); ability to understand compiler passes in isolation; ability to implement toolchain in language of choosing. There are existing flows like this as I illustrated. So, you use them and leverage diverse audience to check results. I mean, would you rather implement CompCert passes by hand or GCC even without optimizations? See the difference? ;)

Now, I did have a method to solve problem you're addressing. You implement an assembler first. Then a macro assembler with macro's for HLL primitives. You can use that immediately to jmplement certified compiler. Alternately, you can pick up Oberon report or Scheme book to implement that to get a true HLL plus compiler. Then you implememt the certified compiler with it. Comprehension, code complexity, and trust are kept manageable by building layer by layer. This, for productivity not security, is how Wirth and Carl first built Lilith then Oberon. Same method will work again and good that ML/Scheme/Oberon folks already gave us doc's plus code to use. Lets use them.

<comment><USER9> Yep, building up like that would work. Oberon if I recall correctly is pretty simple too (maybe ~20k LOC?) so that would actually be possible by a small team.

<comment><USER8> It has many times. Nice, LISP-style example that was recently on HN:

[https://speakerdeck.com/nineties/creating-a-language- using-o...](https://speakerdeck.com/nineties/creating-a-language-using-only- assembly-language)

Note: LISP/Scheme interpreters and processors with plenty of detail (including source) can be found with Google. Many implemented before 1990. Will run on cheap FPGA's or process nodes. Can take it all the way to hardware. ;)

The macro ASM can be built on something like P-code: an idealized, low-level machine easy to deploy on CISC and RISC architectures. A good example of how to bridge ASM and HLL's is Hyde's High Level Assembly:

[http://www.plantation-productions.com/Webster/](http://www.plantation- productions.com/Webster/)

The HLL, for non-LISP audience, can be Oberon with aid of Wirth's Compiler Construction book among other papers:

[http://www.ethoberon.ethz.ch/WirthPubl/CBEAll.pdf](http://www.ethoberon.ethz.ch/WirthPubl/CBEAll.pdf)

So, many possibilities. People just gotta use them. Build a LISP w/ macros to build everything else still seems to be easiest strategy. Esp as one can reuse code from textbooks unlikely to be subverted. Wirth's next best.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I fail to understand how this is going to shut down the CIA, who is:

1\. Not tasked with collection, that would be the NSA. Detailed in the article is a meeting that the CIA apparently hosted detailing possible exploits for Apple's phone systems. What does Debian have anything to do with exploits on Apple's phone systems? The article is talking about an operating system-level change and the presentation at the event referenced was a "compromised" Xcode that could sneak backdoors into an iPhone app.

2\. Primarily involved in HUMINT (Human Intelligence) which consists of face to face interaction. The article says that the CIA is trying to expand into cyber warfare. That's because the CIA's cyber capabilities are laughable right now -- what do you think they were in 2012 when the meeting took place as detailed in the article?

3\. The documents referenced do not even detail the level of success that the research has had on breaking Apple's encryption and security processes. News flash, Apple's phone is pretty much the most freaking rock solid phone on the market security-wise. It would be the holy grail for an intelligence agency to crack this thing, but instead government, state, and city agencies have to literally take physical phones to Apple and ask for them to unlock the data on them if it's crucial to their investigations.

I think the article mentions the CIA to sensationalize, since pretty much anyone recognizes the initialism and a "Yeah, fight the evil government Debian!" clouds the loosely cobbled-together facts in the article. I was a CIA contractor, and I really wish there was more understanding of the scope and functions of the different agencies instead of painting every government activity as being malicious. That the nature of the CIA and NSA prevent most of the details of their operations from being understood is unfortunate, but even if they were it wouldn't fit the constant anti-government narrative on the site. I'm pondering starting a blog to educate about the roles, responsibilities, and what it's really like working in these agencies. I was an NSA linguist, programmer, and mission manager, as well as a CIA contractor, so I definitely think I have a lot to contribute to the conversation but am constantly drowned out by the rage-filled anti-government sentiment on the site, which you can see if you read my comment history.

<comment><USER11> > and city agencies have to literally take physical phones to Apple and ask > for them to unlock the data on them if it's crucial to their investigations.

If by "unlocked" you mean get access to their data, and phones can just be unlocked by taking them to Apple, they are certainly not the most freaking rock solid phone security-wise.

<comment><USER10> It's understood that the phone manufacturers can unlock their phones with the tools available to them -- that serves many purposes like being able to refurbish old phones. Those accessing the data who are not doing so with the intention of serving the phone owner, however, have to have a court order to access the phone. That to me speaks highly of the phone if access outside the user of the phone is limited to organization who signed the keys locking the phone (and therefore have the certificates to make signed requests to unlock).

It's not like you take it to Apple and Apple says to you "Here's the user's data.". There is something like a 60-90 day wait period while they analyze each individual request for approval, and do their due diligence to make sure access is justified. Juxtapose that with a typical android phone that can be rooted without the help of the manufacturer, and then you get that the customer is better served by one process over the other.

<comment><USER3> You can separate the ability to reinstall the operating system from the ability to derive the keys to decrypt a particular device (or to instruct a running device to give you root). I think this is described in Frank Stajano's _Security for Ubiquitous Computing_.

Edit: previously in his paper with Ross Anderson [https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~fms27/papers/1999-StajanoAnd- duckl...](https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~fms27/papers/1999-StajanoAnd-duckling.pdf)

My ThinkPad can easily be reinstalled with a new OS, but my OS vendor can't give someone else my full-disk encryption keys or make them root on my device. And even with firmware-level security features we can separate "transfer ownership of device" from "access existing protected device state".

I don't see any more reason that mobile phone vendors must be able to bypass screen locks or disk encryption than that desktop OS vendors must be able to do these things. (Sure, in both cases some users would want the vendor to be able to and others wouldn't.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> [https://reproducible.alioth.debian.org/presentations/2015-08...](https://reproducible.alioth.debian.org/presentations/2015-08-13-CCCamp15.pdf) has some tips on what you can do to ensure your own FOSS packages have reproducible builds, e.g.: * avoid storing build-timestamps (maybe use timestamp of last commit instead) * avoid storing build numbers * LC_ALL=C sort the sets of things where order is undefined/unimportant, e.g. file lists going into tar or hash keys * try building, then changing something in the environment, building again and diffing (with diffoscope)

</comment><comment><USER13> > Many other free software projects, including FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenWrt, > are moving in the same direction.

I might be wrong (I'm away from my NetBSD boxes) but build.sh script in NetBSD has a buildseed option which can be used to create identical builds of the base system.

</comment><comment><USER14> You also have to trust the source code of the 'untrusted' compiler (that is, read it and make sure it doesn't directly contain any back door).

<comment><USER12> Or trust the source code of a simpler compiler that is able to compile the untrusted compiler: [http://www.dwheeler.com/trusting- trust/](http://www.dwheeler.com/trusting-trust/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Vice's headline writer should maybe dial it back a little, unless Debian has become a rather different organization than when I last checked.</comment>


Ask HN: What service do you use for personal file backup? - <AUTHOR>

My Mozy subscription is about to end. I thought the overall service was good, but sometimes unreliable or slow. I'm trying to decide if I should renew or go elsewhere. What other backup services do you recommend? <comment><USER2> I use tarsnap[1] and not-so-regular backups to my home fileserver.

[1] <http://tarsnap.com>

</comment><comment><USER3> I prefer my Apple Time Capsule. Wireless backup, runs in the background whenever my MBP is up, fixed up front cost, and all my data stays on my own network.

</comment><comment><USER4> Time Machine on mac, Back in Time on Linux. Both are great. I backup to a network drive. If you are using a mac, and you want to use time machine, don't waste your money on their time capsule product. To find out how to use time machine with a non-apple backup resource, look into sparse bundles.

</comment><comment><USER5> Amazon S3.

      cron job -> tar gz -> s3cmd -> s3

Their cheap, very reliable, and fast. What else can I ask for.

<comment><USER6> _What else can I ask for?_

How about faster, cheaper, and more flexible? If you back up the same or overlapping sets of files, tarsnap's snapshotting functionality will probably result in it using less bandwidth (and thus end up being cheaper) than a raw tar | gzip | s3 approach.

<comment><USER5> The --newer switch does the trick

<comment><USER6> Incremental archives via 'tar --newer' are better than just storing complete archives each time, but they fail compared to tarsnap in two important ways: 1. If you modify a file and then perform a backup, you'll store the _entire_ new file rather than only the parts of the file which changed; and 2. If you modify a file and then perform a backup, you now have two copies of that file stored, and you have to continue paying to store both copies even if you only care about the most recent version of the file.

<comment><USER5> Point taken. Of course you are comparing a full personal backup solution meant specifically for this task to a one liner :)

But for my purposes as personal data backup, I just wouldn't see a speed or price difference of that type of efficiency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Jungledisk! It allows you to store all yor data on your s3 account

<comment><AUTHOR> This comes out to slightly higher then my Mozy account would cost per month. Does Jungledisk do any encryption or protection for you? I know Mozy encrypts everything.

<comment><USER8> Be careful with Mozy. If you haven't done a test restore, I strongly recommend you try one now. The Mozy restore process is extremely broken and has been for years.

You can read about my horrible experience with Mozy (and the horrible experiences of hundreds of commenters) here: [http://wonko.com/post/it_turns_out_mozy_isnt_so_hot_after_al...](http://wonko.com/post/it_turns_out_mozy_isnt_so_hot_after_all)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I make bootable clones of my laptop hdd with SuperDuper. I use 2 drives and an external SCSI drive enclosure for this. This way, I have a weekly copy and a daily copy. And when my laptop hdd fails I can switch over to a good copy with no downtime.

I also use Dropbox for a certain subset of my documents, so that adds another layer of backups w/ partial rollback as well.

Online backups are good, but an external SCSI enclosure costs at most $40 + the cost of an internal drive, which is cheaper, and allows faster recovery.

</comment><comment><USER8> CrashPlan. I've got it backing up all my machines to a Drobo on my LAN as well as remotely to CrashPlan's servers, encrypted before it crosses the wire, and it costs me $5 a month. Been using it for years and have done several very large restores and it's worked like a charm.

</comment><comment><USER10> rsync.net has been fantastic over the years, I use them and several of my clients do as well. No first level support, straight to an engineer. Plus discounts for open source projects, students, etc.

In addition to their own backup agent; they support rsync, scp, sftp, ftp, rdiff-backup, Unison, duplicity, svn+ssh, WebDAV and any other combination or concoction you can come up with.

Plus, they have a ToS agreement that can't be beat: <http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/tos.html>

</comment><comment><USER11> SugarSync, though I also use it to keep files in sync between PCs.

<comment><USER12> I've been very happy with SugarSync. I also back up my most important files to a couple of USB thumb drives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> For just about everything non-media, I use mercurial to a colosite. Works fantastic. Big media files (movies, iTunes Library, etc.) are backed up locally to a big data server.

</comment><comment><USER14> Jungledisk for my laptop, Duplicity -> Amazon S3 for servers.

</comment><comment><USER15> I use dropbox for everything. I can't imagine a better solution.

<comment><AUTHOR> I also use dropbox. Its fantastic for sharing. But to me its not a real backup solution. Everything doesnt live in the same folders or drives, seems like a lot of work to turn dropbox into a half baked backup solution.

<comment><USER16> You can start by moving things into Dropbox and symlinking them back to their original locations. Can't help you if you're on Windows.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> astrails-safe ([http://blog.astrails.com/2009/4/6/simple-backups-can-be- simp...](http://blog.astrails.com/2009/4/6/simple-backups-can-be-simple)):

runs from cron, archives files and mysql databases (and more), encrypts with gpg and uploads to amazon s3

</comment><comment><USER18> none really,

I just backup on DVDs every 3-4 months, the folders that change over that period.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do that as well. But there's always that small chance or fire or theft. I also like having incremental backups that are taken every night. Just in case a file gets accidentally modified/deleted or corrupted. Better safe then sorry, and for $50ish bucks a year it easily justified.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Everything I care about goes in to an offsite SVN repository.

</comment><comment><USER20> rdiff-backup distance (via ssh)

</comment><comment><USER21> 2x 16Gb USB sticks and TrueCrypt.

I don't keep anything immediately replacable (like media).</comment>


Syslog woes - <AUTHOR> http://vitobotta.com/syslog-woes/ <comment><USER2> The real culprit here is really "fsync is slow". A couple of months ago I write a little test that basically wrote a 1MB file, in increments of 16 byte write() calls, followed by either fsync() fdatasync() or.. nothing. That is, basically:

      while(written < 1MB) {
         written += write(fd,buf,chunksz);
         //fsync(fd);
         //fdatasync(fd);
      }

Here's some of the times it took to write a 1MB file (Fedora 14, old hard drive)

      chunksz = 16:
      No sync'ing: 926ms
      fdatasync: 727114ms
      fsync: 3024498ms
      (yes, THAT slow)

      chunksz = 256:
      No sync'ing: 65ms
      fdatasync: 53786ms
      fsync: 191553ms

      chunksz=1024:
      No sync'ing: 20ms
      fdatasync: 20232ms
      fsync: 48039ms

</comment><comment><USER3> This paragraph is in dire need of citation:

 _If your apps have some heavy logging to do, and you can't afford some more expensive setup, then you really should forget about syslog, because normally it doesn't scale well if used with high traffic web applications. It's best used for things like logging done by daemons and system components that do not suffer from the load that a web app with decent traffic can have._

I've seen syslog incite a holy war on HN recently, with one camp espousing that syslog (really rsyslog and syslog-ng) does not scale. As an interested third party, it'd be very helpful to have references to articles or blog posts detailing just how it didn't scale, or at least some first-hand commentary. The article describes an issue with the syslogd daemon in which it grinds to a halt at a mere 10 requests sent amongst 5 concurrent threads. That kind of issue is not going to burn you months down the road when your production deployment refuses to scale. Any stories of the newer open source implementations of syslog failing or severely degrading at production load, or conversely, syslog success stories?

</comment><comment><USER4> Syslog* doesn't scale, at some point, but that point is at O(10) machines, not at 10 hits per second. Configuration is often key.

I'm on rsyslogd or syslog-ng, depending on the machine at this point. Configurations vary, but they both seem to hold up well to consistently writing 100 messages/sec (and peaks of 20k/minute when I get portscanned) on a VM without causing stuff to break.

The no fsync option is important, and really, fsync on important for kernel logs in the event of a crash, and not a whole lot else. Not mail, not messages, not syslog, and certainly not debug. You get (roughly) max 100 fsyncs a second unless you're spending extra money on your disks. That's a really damn small budget given that you mega bytes and giga cycles for other things.

The default configuration (at least in debian/ubuntu) writes entries in lots of logs. There's catchalls, there's mail.info, mail.err, mail.log, daemon, and such. You need to prune that down and make sure that you're not writing your debug logs in 2 or 3 places with fsync.

I'm finding munin and my log greppers are a whole lot more demanding on the box than syslog.

</comment><comment><USER5> Which distro is still using syslog? Even Red Hat, an outfit that is super- conservative, moved to rsyslog.

One of the first things I used to do was compile my own rsyslog and disable syslog. Haven't had to do that for a while.

<comment><USER6> >Which distro is still using syslog?

FreeBSD

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> There are logs that are useless (but they're logged because someone's lazy to turn them off), logs that are somehow useful (but nobody will grief their loss) and logs that are important and better'd be reliably stored.

Syslog (if we talk about networking - not with UDP, but with reliable TCP or SCTP-based protocol) and fsync() after each write is _reliable_ solution.

If you're logging mostly pointless runtime data (like webserver access logs to static files, which, most of time, nobody ever cares about) with reliable syslog - you're doing it _wrong_. (That's why webservers don't generally use syslog, but directly write to files.) If you're logging important transactions with unreliable logging system - you're doing it _wrong_ , too.

There's nothing wrong with syslog. Just use the right tool for the right job.

</comment><comment><USER8> We do a lot of ruby apps, avoiding rails as much as possible, but Redmine is one we use often. In all of our apps we use the Runit process supervisor to launch them, with svlogd logging each individual process. It has proven more than up to the task of keeping up with the busiest of our logging needs, and has many advanced features simply configured that other loggers lack. Worth checking out as an alternative, as you don't have to replace your syslogger to use it. See [http://rubyists.github.com/2011/05/02/runit-for-ruby-and- eve...](http://rubyists.github.com/2011/05/02/runit-for-ruby-and-everything- else.html) for more info

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't get why the author explicitly mentions RFC 5424, then mentions:

 _...message packets are limited to 1024 bytes_

linking to the older, RFC 3164 and not to RFC 5424[1] which states:

 _There is no upper limit per se. Each transport mapping defines the minimum maximum required message length support, and the minimum maximum MUST be at least 480 octets in length._

Servers like syslog-ng _do_ support messages larger than > 1024 bytes.

[1] <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5424#section-6.1>

</comment><comment><USER10> "with normal logging"...What is the normal logging in Rail? No fsync() is needed?

</comment><comment><USER11> TL;DR: Don't use a shit syslog implementation. (which nobody really does in 2011 anyway.)

Why does he even mention webapps?</comment>


Most Scientific research papers are probably wrong - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915&feedId=online-news_rss20 <comment><USER2> Nowhere did this article say that 50% of research papers were not "factually accurate". It says faulty research methods mean 50% of conclusions are not true.

Which is itself a ridiculous thing for New Scientist to repeat. The basis of the scientific method is that we don't ever try to prove things are true. We just show that there's a good chance (1 in 20 is standard) that a model fits. Statistical methods are used and statistics is another area that has no truck with "truth" -- it is the mathematics of making your way in a probabilistic universe.

Having papers come out with promising claims and having "only" 50% of them stand up to professional scrutiny is a wondrous miracle. The entire scientific establishment is set up to disprove hypotheses as they emerge. If half of them stand, the scientific establishment is not doing its job.

A sensationalist article that plays into the "nobody really knows how things work, so I'll believe what I want" meme.

</comment><comment><USER3> Of course, we're being told this by a research paper.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> You have a higher chance of becoming rich with YCombinator than writing a factually accurate research paper.

Paul Graham: "So about 50% of the founders from that first summer, less than two years ago, are now rich, at least by their standards. "

New Scientist Magazine: Most scientific research papers are wrong ( [http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915&feedId;=online- news_rss20](http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915&feedId=online- news_rss20) )

</comment><comment><USER4> An anonymous study at the institute where I am revealed that 10% (IIRC) of scientists confessed to perpetrating a "serious misdemeanor".

My feeling is that the situation is not much different now from, say, in the 18th century. Some day, we'll be able to do formal reasoning on the data and findings of researchers, and we'll spot [some] mistakes and contradictions automatically. Until then, peer-review is the best we can do, and its emphasis is much more on form than content.</comment>


Leaked Gmail redesign looks a lot like Facebook's Message inbox - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2011/10/20/gmail-redesign-looks-like-facebook-message/ <comment><USER2> Ugh, I hate these "X looks like Y" articles.

What it comes down to is they are both trying to display the same data (picture, username, message, etc), and honestly, there are only a few ways to logically present this information. Eventually the web will migrate to a standard for displaying this kind of information.

It's like saying The New York Times looks like The Boston Globe (which looks like The Washington Post (which looks like The Wall Street Journal)).

<comment><USER3> I'd go further. I'd go so far as to call this article disingenuous.

Aside from a _very_ superficial reading, the actual functionality of the page components for each app behave quite differently, and have different purposes in mind. To call these apps similar, disregards the fact that they are messaging systems in two distinctly different ecosystems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> First reaction: "Do Not Want ><"

It does look a lot more like G+, latest G-Doc and so on, so it feels like a natural evolution of it, but I don't like that suddenly everything became so big and sparse. I want to manage my emails and last time I checked I had a buttload of them, don't need something that makes me scroll x3 more than I already have now... Sure it looks prettier but is it more usable? I wouldn't bet on that.

Though I guess it's going to be the same as any redesign people don't like - lots of complaints and everyone will forget about it sooner rather than later.....

<comment><USER5> Yeah, the huge sparse white space is killing me. I don't have a lot of money so I am rocking a 22" screen at 1680 x 1050. I try to squeeze every last bit of screen real estate out of it.

Hopefully someone will make a Firefox plugin to make it look like the old style.

<comment><USER6> There is a drop down to control the information density.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> To me, the new look doesn't seem that much like Facebook's ui; rather, it seems to just be a Google Plussification of Gmail---a natural progression.

Unless I'm missing something, basically all of the major UI elements in the new Gmail are in exactly the same place they as in the "old" Gmail.

If you squint enough, I imagine any messaging web app with a white background and three columns would look similar to either of the inboxes.

<comment><USER8> Hmm... To me it seems like the similarity is simply that both use a typical 3 column layout. Mountains of molehills?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> "dangerously similar to Facebook's" with the only difference being "Unlike Facebook, the inbox doesn't have a fixed width and users can choose one of four display density types". I cannot imagine what innovations are to be made in this field, but still, I like what Google did and it really looks nice, outsmarting the Facebook gloomy system.

</comment><comment><USER10> Isn't message center just an email inbox in any case? We used to just send email to a client and the inbox would be your "message center." With html you could even make highly application specific presentations and interactions. I guess the innovation is then embedding that inside another frame to make it part of a larger application.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's pretty good UI to give more sparse so as to appeal to more general less technical population. Facebook was one of the early implementers. Look at kid books for an example of how long sparseness and largeness has been going on for.

Does Gmail offer an option to classic as a way to retain power/early users?

</comment><comment><USER12> I feel that Facebook is starting to look more like an email client than Gmail looking more like Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER13> I like Yahoo Mail's new interface better out of all three of them.

</comment><comment><USER14> This looks like Facebook just as much as the next message list in a three column layout with a bar at the top.</comment>


Why sex with robots is a complicated business - <AUTHOR> https://www.wikitribune.com/story/2017/12/22/sex/sex-robots-future-dolls-relationships/2323/ <comment><USER2> I find the fear that sex robots will encourage violence against women or "objectification" (I'm curious what kind of research backs up that concept in general) is dubious at best. Do dildos cause women to look at a man as an inconvenient attachment to an object for her sexual gratification? Does simulated violence in video games make people more violent? People are fully capable of separating fiction from reality. In either case, they will know what they are interacting with.

The real fear here is women (and eventually men) potentially having to compete with sex dolls in the sexual marketplace. While I'd prefer to have a relationship with a real woman, I have seen plenty of men online who cannot wait for more realistic artificial women so they simply don't have to deal with real women. The likelihood of crossover of someone who would buy a sex robot vs trying to get in a relationship with a real woman would be pretty low. The desires are different.

In fact, I'd argue this could lower violence, crime, and social unrest in general. There is a growing population of men who are deciding to check out from the sexual marketplace, or at least long term relationships. If these men have a different outlet than a real woman, they can do as they please to their robotic counterparts. Not to mention, a robot isn't invincible and wouldn't have the same kind of self-healing capabilities as a human. If you are beating it, you could likely break it in some way. It would be like keying your own car; though there's a comedian who pointed out the same when it comes to beating your wife, so who knows.

Either way I'm kind of ambivalent towards this, but I don't think these feminists are being honest in why they think it is potentially a bad thing. If anything it will cause the divide between the sexes to get deeper. Which I think is bad for humanity in general.</comment>


Thinking without the thinker - <AUTHOR> http://www.etresoi.ch/krishnamurti/0913.html

<comment><USER2> I woke up this morning, determined to look for unanswerable questions. Hungry for philosophy.

By chance, I decided to browse through HN now, rather than later. If I'd come here later, I might have missed this link, and this blog.

I honestly thought I'd done with HN, and that it had served its purpose. It seems that I can still gain much by coming here daily, after all.

And the Krishnamurti site will provide me with a veritable feast of unanswerable questions, enough to satisfy the hunger of my inner philosopher for a long time to come.

"Even a tree struck by lightning may bear new fruit." -- The Code of Ananda

</comment><comment><USER3> This experience (for lack of a good word) is described aptly in the Pali Canon (the main texts of Theravada Buddhism). If you're interested, these are great sources of information:

<http://www.accesstoinsight.org/> <http://www.buddhanet.net/>

Approach these texts levelheaded and don't go to them looking for specific answers: maybe you'll find some interesting questions.

<comment><USER2> Thank you for these links. I've bookmarked them for future reference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "There is no re-entry from the orbit of transcendence."</comment>


Ask HN: How do you reach Quora with feedback? - <AUTHOR>

They are so closed, I can't even find how to raise a concern, on the site. And that's what I wanted to raise a concern about.<p>Well played, Quora. I can see someone there knows Godel. <comment><AUTHOR> I just want to see start ups who frustrate and waste people's time get better. That's all.</comment>


Show HN: Explore Remote Companies - <AUTHOR> https://remotehub.io/explore-remote-companies <comment><USER2> Cool stuff! Nice job.

I like this page: [https://remotehub.io/remote- companies](https://remotehub.io/remote-companies)

How long have you been building the dataset?

Do you have a map view anywhere?

</comment><comment><USER3> What's the stack behind this?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's PHP on Laravel using PostgreSQL and some JS (I have to say it's jQuery which is not very sexy anymore? I sometimes feel so oldschool because of using jQuery)</comment></comment>


Powerset Launches.  Verdict: Meh. - <AUTHOR> http://20bits.com/2008/05/12/powerset-launches-verdict-meh/

<comment><USER2> These are the impressions I got after 40 minutes of tests:

\- The UI design is visually distracting, bulky, complicated. There's too much going on at the top, 3 differently colored bars with the powerset logo, tab(s) and huge search bar. The search bar is omnipresent, even in the individual Wikipedia page you chose. Ironically, Google has a similar structure in its result pages, but feels completely different because the background is all white and less invasive.

\- The Factz are often distracting and presenting useless stuff. E.g.: [http://www.powerset.com/explore/semhtml/Simple_DirectMedia_L...](http://www.powerset.com/explore/semhtml/Simple_DirectMedia_Layer) presents around 25 factz. I counted 3 or 4 factz that are actually useful. The meaning of the other factz in the context is either obscure ("parameters": which ones?), deceiving or incomplete ("functionality", "ports", "operations", etc), useless ("needs" (??), "SDL", "The Video"), or all of the above.

\- The way you actually use the Factz is terrible. First you clik on one fact, then after being flashed with the fade-out bling on the right column you actually have to move the mouse pointer all the way there, then the animation scroll, then probably move the pointer to the left to click on something actually useful or go back up to select another fact because the one you chose was wrong anyway (why? see above). After 5 minutes of this I feel dizzy. Who designed this stuff?

\- massive waste of screen real estate with large white space on the right column, either entirely (results page) or partially (actual wikipedia result page you selected).

I do think there are some cool things, but so far it seems hard to use IMO.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Summary: It's an expectations game and the combination of all the pre-launch hype and the execution of this launch did them in. A classic case of over- promising and under-delivering.

Try searching for "Who was the tenth President of the US?" on both Powerset and Google to see the power of "natural language search" in action.

<comment><USER3> No one in a position of importance said this demo was a google killer. It's not, it's basically a technology demo and hopefully a usable tool.

If you want a more fair comparison (you may not), site restrict your search to wikipedia and then compare. Both powerset and google don't do well here, the closest they get (and they both get nearly the same answer for the first few hits) is a mention of the tenth _Vice_ President. I'll tell you why:

Tables. The data for this is in "List of Presidents of the United States" in a purely tabular format. Tables suck for everyone right now! They're not really NL, they're not keywordable, they're basically a nightmare because they require a pretty surreal amount of context to grok.

This isn't really an excuse, I admit. Powerset is working on it, but we just couldn't have it ready and still put out something when we wanted. At some point you have to put out _something_ to show the world, and most powersetters feel the current tool is interesting and helpful. It's not perfect, or even necessarily complete, but I don't think anyone with an informed opinion expected it to be a google killer.

But seriously, if you're going to do a comparison at least go apples-to-apples and site-restrict to wikipedia. And yes, today at the lunch table the talk was all about what new data sources to grow into next, and it's publicly available information that we want to scale to the entire web.

Half the point of a pre-product like this (and lots of sites start out with reduced-power versions of their final product, even Google) is to just get the infrastructure made. Anyone who's got half a brain can tell you that getting infrastructure to handle non-trivial search is a huge task. You have query analysis, you have indexing, you have parallelized index servers, you have failover, these days you have EC2, you have databases and backups and monitoring and performance analysis and... arg. It's a lot of work.

And that's _done_ now. Powerset has a real infrastructure serving real queries to real people off a real index which is updating in real time (as fast as we can afford to do it right now). This isn't the end of Powerset's effort, it's the beginning. I wish people would take it as such.

<comment><USER4> Ya know...I feel for you, but right now you're a victim of your company's own PR. If Powerset hadn't been blasted through everyone's media filter as a Google-killer, I don't think anyone would care that your first product is tiny and incomplete.

Expectations management is important. That said, if you guys have the resources to persevere, this might not matter. Ask Microsoft about the Zune....

<comment><USER3> Google "google-killer". Go ahead, I'll wait.

Powerset didn't apply this moniker. In fact, the PR has been trying to deflate it. The media hungers for the fall of the Big Guy, and any story that can play the angle of "The Next Big Thing" gets more hits than, "Check out this interesting startup!"

Maybe we could have managed it better, maybe we couldn't have. My department is engineering, so I don't know. But I'd like to pretend at least a few people are interested in the more moderate but still fascinating reality. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> The words "Google killer" might not have been uttered in public, but if you read over old Powerset press releases it's clear that's the positioning.

The executives talk about "revolutionizing search" and "changing the way people interact with information."

Gosh, that's just what Google did. :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As of now, it looks like the only thing they're offering is a fresh new redesign of Wikipedia, from a user's point of view. I'm sure there's a lot going on in the background, but none of that technology really shines through, especially after asking it several questions, to which the results were pretty average.

Maybe the way I speak isn't natural enough.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly. And I know from an engineer's perspective this is tough. The stuff behind the scenes is really amazing, I'm sure, but the thing that truly matters is the product.

This offering just doesn't stack up versus Google, even when you use both solely to search Wikipedia.

My feeling isn't annoyance, but disappointment. Where's my revolutionary new search engine?!?

<comment><USER6> I get the impression their plan is so grandiose that it probably won't ever reach a completed form... The context they've added to wikipedia is neat, but what would they do to present a site I made a week ago? Are they adding this extra context only to the popular sites? Framework based, perhaps?

I think I'd want context for all sites, or not at all. I prefer consistency over occasional glitz.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not a problem to have a grandiose plan. You have to aim for the stars in the startup game.

But you have to be extra-careful about publishing those aims two years before a product launches. It will force you to deliver at 100%.

Risky risky.

<comment><USER6> Hmm... point taken. Maybe this deserves an Ask YC, but what is the general opinion of naming companies in an quasi-arrogant fasion. Powerset seems like a cocky name compared to Google, which is even mispeled making me think they're humble.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> but searching wikipedia with the normal wikipedia search beats powerset...

i mean this is essentially air.

like norvig said "capital of france" is the important part, not "what is the capital of france?".

oh well i wish them good luck and hope the succeed. competition is a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER8> [http://www.powerset.com/explore/pset?q=Why+did+powerset+fail...](http://www.powerset.com/explore/pset?q=Why+did+powerset+fail%3F&x=0&y=0)

</comment><comment><USER9> I think the question for Powerset now is how quickly they can make their technology apply to other websites. My guess it they choose wikipedia because the html is fairly tame...it's much easier to semantically parse wikipedia than it is the wild wild west that is html formatting on the web.

If this is the case, then they might be in trouble. They built up too much hype to just be a search tool for wikipedia. If they can upgrade their technology and search much more of the web then we'll have a better idea. For right now? Meh.

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem is, they've been indexing Wikipedia for a long time now -- at least a year.

Is this the best they have to offer after all that time? I hope not.

<comment><USER10> Its funny when I think a site like about.com have as much if not more page than wikipedia. What a financial blunder!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What's with all the domains paraphrasing 37signals? Is there some chic trend I'm not aware of?

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, I'll tell you the story, but it's not that interesting.

I was talking with a friend about the name for a blog. My first conception was a website where I posted lots of tiny bits of code, centered around Web 2.0.

So, lots of little bits of Web 2.0. Hmm, "bit," like bits and bytes. Then I thought of Web 2.0 tropes and came up with 20bits since that was the trend (37signals, 30boxes, 43things, etc.)

And now you know.

<comment><USER12> How about 2.0bits.com?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A search engine for Wikipedia?

I can't believe people actually finance such projects.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, I mean this is what Im so surprised at. This kind of capital invested in a university research environment would have produced so much more, and I should know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I bet their factz are only based on simple keyword / keyword matching!

They are probably running out of money and need something to show off to get more funding! :)

<comment><AUTHOR> In their defense, they integrate Freebase, a hierarchical semantic database, with Wikipedia.

Pretty cool, although it's the results that matter, not the technology.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I searched for "President of France", and was not impressed. Ironically, google got the answer right!

<http://www.powerset.com/explore/pset?q=president+of+france>

[http://www.google.com/search?&q=president+of+france](http://www.google.com/search?&q=president+of+france)

<comment><USER3> Feel free to try again, site restricting to wikipedia. ;)

<comment><USER16> Ok. The results are almost the same, except that Google's results have a much better UI. While Sarkozy was fourth on Google, and third on Powerset, it was both much higher on the Google page thanks to the ridiculously huge Powerset "facz" box, and it was easy to scan because there wasn't so much visual clutter vying for my attention (like yellow highlighting everywhere).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think it is pretty cool, but the hype that surrounds powerset will lead to many people think that it is nothing special.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, it can be deadly to generate too much hype before your product launches, especially if it's going to take over a year and a half.

They've marketed themselves into a corner -- now it's Google-killer or bust.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The reality is that the average person cares nothing for what happens behind the scenes, they care about the results. If you are going to spend 15 million dollars on a Wikipedia search tool and it doesn't offer any significantly better search results than anyone else you wasted money, lots of it.

</comment><comment><USER19> Give them a break. They tried, and are still trying, to make search better. Hell, they _launched_. That's more than most of us here have done.

<comment><USER10> With all that money my son would have done better!

<comment><USER19> It's easy to pile on and mock people who attempt great things. In fact, that's the usual response. So maybe they are on to something.</comment></comment></comment>


MPAA Wins Movie Piracy Case in China - <AUTHOR> https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-wins-movie-piracy-case-in-china-after-failed-anti-piracy-deal-170822/ <comment><USER2> A whopping $210,000 settlement reached. Just LMAO. That'll show em.</comment>