Ask HN: Will automation generate social massive protests? - <AUTHOR> Like it happened with the industrial revolution when the luddit movement tried to stop it and how can we face it nowadays with the next automation revolution <comment><USER2> Yes, but if we continue down our current path, they will not be directed at automation itself. Instead, advanced propaganda and bot networks will organize discontent against whichever targets allow the protesters to feel temporarily empowered, but that pose no actual threat to entrenched powers. The Russians are far further down this road than the US. Go read about how Surkov simultaneously creates Neo-Nazi movements, gives money to anti-Putin protestors, and props up the Russian Orthodox Church.

[https://www.amazon.com/Nothing-True-Everything-Possible- Surr...](https://www.amazon.com/Nothing-True-Everything-Possible- Surreal/dp/1610396006)

<comment><USER3> Automated stochastically generated fads and hate campaigns as political camouflage -

Oh my. In the future it's not rogue internet devices which will cause only trouble - it's fallible individuals who will create critical mass for social proof for any random idea.

Soon we can buy actual online cults as easily as stolen credit card numbers :). But I suppose this is already happening at a nation state scale, but only in the mechanical turk sense of automation. Who will be the first automated propaganda unicorn ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's unlikely that people will identify automation as the cause of the problem. Take a look at the U.S. manufacturing sector. What is the story? Jobs are being shipped overseas, and the manufacturing sector is dying. What is the reality? Measured by output the U.S. manufacturing sector is bigger than ever before and has grown by a fifth since 2000, while cutting the number of workers by a third. Profits have soared, double what they were in the 90's. Automation is the cause of manufacturing job loss, but people blame nafta and elect trump to close the borders.

</comment><comment><USER5> The modern luddite movement is already here.

A few days ago I was unable to get an Uber out of Hyderabad airport because of a "strike". "Strike" might be the euphemism of the year - it refers to angry taxi drivers/autowales striking Uber drivers who continue to drive.

This is not an isolated experience, many other countries (Columbia, France, Brazil) have the same problem with violent angry mobs trying to shut down automated competition. Politicians mostly side with the luddites; here in Maharashtra, Shiv Sena (racist party of Maharashtra, for those unfamiliar) is strongly opposed to Uber. French politicians similarly surrendered to the terrorists.

<comment><USER6> > French politicians similarly surrendered to the terrorists.

How do you feel calling someone striking a terrorist?

<comment><USER5> Why are my feelings relevant?

If you must know the answer, I feel like a person who's read a dictionary and knows that terrorists are people who use violence and intimidation to achieve their political goals.

<comment><USER6> I assume you're from the U.S.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f)

"(2) the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"

Rough words for a few Uber drives in France.

<comment><USER5> I know it's confusing when white people are called "terrorist", but the definition clearly fits. If it helps you to understand, think about the Pune/Bombay examples I linked to above (where the perpetrators and victims are all brown).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I want to echo, in agreement, with the many people here who are saying that there will likely be protests, but not against automation itself. Present evidence suggests that it is true.

However I want to push back against the idea that current protests against, for example, lack of manufacturing jobs are totally misdirected or will be in the future (if they are not against automation). While I think blaming NAFTA and outsourcing for a loss of jobs is ridiculous at least people are recognizing that the problems are structural and public rather than technological.

What would protesting automation even look like? Stop the machines? The last movement to do that was small, ineffectual, and was perceived to be ridiculous.

Some kind of safety net or redistribution of wealth is needed in my opinion. The classic response to redistribution is to say that it's paternalistic, but if automation doesn't make up for the jobs it destroys what are the alternatives?

If modern civilization survives climate change ours and the next few generations are going to be judged with a very heavy hand and rightly so. There is no dearth of knowledge or critique in our culture, but there is an exceptional amount of inaction and passivity.

<comment><USER8> > What would protesting automation even look like?

How about truckers stoning or blocking an automated truck that wheels into a rest stop to refuel? Maybe rest stop operators refuse service to automated trucks. (Can they do that legally?)

</comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash Stephen Hawking made a great point last year when he wrote that automation/robots aren't the problem, capitalism is the problem.

Most of the world takes for granted a system that allocates resources and the results of production in a way that encourages the highest profits with the least costs. Since humans are the highest cost, they are the biggest target for automation.

We have a golden opportunity to create a better, more equitable way of living now and in the future. Let's not let this moment go to waste.

[http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5616c20ce4b0dbb8000d9f15](http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5616c20ce4b0dbb8000d9f15)

<comment><USER9> How do you think the new governments will unfold? Will there be gradual changes in multiple countries around the world, or will there be violent uprisings?

Historically speaking, at least in the United States, the citizens are far less powerful than the state simply due to the imbalance in weapons. The point of the 2nd amendment was so the people would be more powerful than the government, but due to the ban on machine guns and numerous other restrictions, I don't think anybody would argue the masses have nearly as much firepower as the military/police.

Exciting times ahead? I have to agree it feels like a change is coming, mostly due to the rapidly growing number of humans and dwindling of limited resources combined with growing inequality, but it's hard to predict what will happen (if anything) and when.

You think we'll see anything resembling a post-capitalist society in our lifetimes?

<comment><USER10> > The point of the 2nd amendment was so the people would be more powerful than > the government

Sorry to drag this off-tangent, but that statement is not even close to the reality of why the 2nd amendment was proposed or ratified and you should really stop saying it. It makes a nice post-hoc fairy tale for NRA types, but you desperately need to read some history of the colonial period...

<comment><USER11> Denial isn't the same thing as argument. The text of the 2nd Amendment is pretty starkly clear.

<comment><USER10> The text of the 2nd Amendment is quite clear. Especially the first thirteen words.

Those words are obvious to anyone who understand the history of the period, what those words meant at the time, and the arguments made in favor of the amendment. But for some strange reason everyone seems to forget they exist or claim that they are some rhetorical flourish that is found nowhere else in the first ten amendments.

So please, show off for us and explain them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Before that will happen, we will likely see insanitites like a 25 hour workday

[https://myprivate42.wordpress.com/2016/12/19/lets-shift- to-2...](https://myprivate42.wordpress.com/2016/12/19/lets-shift-to-25-hours/)

or the abolition of cash.

</comment><comment><USER13> No, automation is not new anymore and unions are declining. Besides, domestic appliances and cellphones changed the way people look at machines and technology.

It is easier to demonize immigrants and globalization. That is already the main target of anger.

<comment><USER14> If you demonize globalization, the result is local automated recycling and production. Thus this actually increases as in decentralizes automation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> We are destroying the natural world, without respect or harmony with nature. Itsn't the automation the real problem, its our relations with others people or kind of life.

<comment><USER11> Perveresely, with automation taking jobs that leaves people _more time_ to spend in nature. So we'll be returning to harmony?

<comment><USER16> Doubt it. We'll just create other work opportunities for those being displaced by automation. Google "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren" or [http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/26/no- time](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/26/no-time)

<comment><USER11> Yeah weird. In the '50s we wrote stories about automation removing the yoke of labor from everybody, freeing us up to be our better selves. Now we panic that Capitalism is threatened and invent stupid ways to patch it up (make-work, mandatory service etc).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I do believe there will be a tipping point if it really creates large scale unemployment even in a certain sector. Without an appropriate safety net people won't have enough money to buy food which will trigger substantial social unrest.

</comment><comment><USER17> I doubt protests will be prompted by automation explicitly. Take Britain as an example, it used to be the largest manufacturer in the world [1]. Now less than 13% of its economy is based on manufacturing.

This hasn't cause massive protests at the level I think your proposing. The question therefore is if automation is likely to have knock-on effects, resulting in widespread poverty. This might well result in popular unrest.

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_Kingdom)

</comment><comment><USER18> Indirectly. The protest will follow from unemployment combined with the huge income divide. These will be the results of automation, but the protest will focus on the inequality.

Perhaps some countries (kinda like France at the moment) will take action to strengthen job security by legislation, those countries will lose out economically though.

(gotta append this with stating this is guesswork)

</comment><comment><USER19> There might be small protests but massive protests are unlikely. Back in 1980s in India there were massive protests against introduction of computers in banks. At that time people were not much aware about the positive role computers can play in society. Today things are different and people are more aware about technology.

</comment><comment><USER20> probably not because it's happening slowly and has been happening for 2 centuries ...

</comment><comment><USER21> I think that if the public continues to putter along on auto-pilot for much longer, absolutely not. Acknowledging that I sound like some nutbag conspiracy theorist, we can already see systems of mass control being quietly put in place. At the moment, the general public appears to be very accepting of these systems, or just totally unaware that they can (and will) be used to control society in the future.

I'm not just talking about your three letter agency direct dragnet surveillance type programs, I'm also talking about stuff like cloud-based voice & speech recognition that is only one FISA warrant away from being the NSA's very own voice-print database. I don't even think many of the people implementing these systems intend them to be used as systems of mass control. But they will, and they will be used very intentionally to stifle any kind of popular 'neo-luddite' movement.

Why? Because automation will result in massive concentration of wealth (remembering the 'auto-pilot' assumption). Production will become extremely capital-intensive (i.e. people replaced with machines), and the few people who are not owners of capital yet still 'employed' will probably be paid astronomical salaries due to their similarly astronomically high 'labor factor productivity'. So you will have a handful of extremely wealthy 'neo- capitalists' with much greater scope for 'free political speech' (i.e. buying politicians with their mountains of money).

Last time we had a huge jump in the amount of capital used in production (the industrial revolution), while I wouldn't call it a 'fair fight', workers at least had a fighting chance, because:

\- Capitalists had relatively less resources than future neo-capitalists will. To analogise, if 'industrial revolution capitalists' could employ professional strike-breakers and private security forces, future neo-capitalists will have the resources to field entire armies. With laser rifles.

\- Society hadn't, just prior to the industrial revolution, constructed massive and intricate systems of total social control. We're doing this right now, in many cases not realising it.

\- The state was at least sort of impartial in most cases. In some historical periods the state even sympathised with workers' concerns, due the formation and mainstream success of political parties representing 'labor'. Even now, these 'labor' parties seem totally adrift, like rebels without a cause. And the effect of money (er, I mean 'political speech') in politics will only get exponentially worse as capitalists become exponentially richer (er, more eloquent and verbose).

\- There were clearly identifiable groups of people (i.e.'the workers at factory x', 'the workers in industry y', etc.) with identifiable and specific common goals and interests (i.e. 'get industry y to share more of its profit with labour', 'get factory x to build fire escapes so we all don't burn to death next time' etc.). In the context of future automation, this simply will not exist. Good luck organising a strike at, say, googles robot factory, when you're not actually an employee (as you're not employed at all).

Under the 'auto-pilot' assumption, the only power we will truly have is as consumers. Even just typing that last sentence makes me feel a little ridiculous. Because of the factors outlined above, there will be no counter- revolution. There will be no Karl Marx. There will be no new 'extreme opposites' (like communism), nor will there be new 'moderate balancing forces' (like labor unions). They will be killed off in their infancy or, ideally, never conceived to begin with.

So if you don't want this future, the time for action is right now.</comment>


Read The Martian. It's Castaway Meets Apollo 13 on Mars. - <AUTHOR> http://smile.amazon.com/s/ref=smi_www_rco2_go_smi_1968489302?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=9780804139021&tag=randohouseinc4291-20&url=search-alias%3Daps&pf_rd_p=1968489302&pf_rd_s=smile-campaign&pf_rd_t=4201&pf_rd_i=navbar-4201&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=11V932TBN7BBB91V0GGG

<comment><AUTHOR> Disclaimer: Not my amazon afilliate link. It's taken from the books website: [http://www.andyweirauthor.com/books/the-martian- hc](http://www.andyweirauthor.com/books/the-martian-hc)

<comment><USER2> Here's a link with the EFF's affiliate link instead of the publisher's:

[http://www.amazon.com/Martian-Novel-Andy- Weir/dp/0804139024/...](http://www.amazon.com/Martian-Novel-Andy- Weir/dp/0804139024/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424852060&sr=1-1&keywords=9780804139021&tag=electronicfro-20)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I originally read this when Andy was posting it on his website. I've bought a copy just because of how fucking good it was.

It is 100% worth the read. Do it now. Seriously, don't even go into work today, just read it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I know right. I went through withdrawal when I was done. I binged it in like 3 days.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Terra, a JS framework for cellular automata and biological simulations - <AUTHOR> http://rileyjshaw.com/terra/

<comment><USER2> I intent to use this on my planets in my game: [http://184.108.40.206/](http://188.8.131.52/) looking for this kind of stuff for some time. glad it appeared on hn (: thanks

<comment><AUTHOR> Very cool! Let me know when you include it and I'll add a link to the page

<comment><USER2> Ok (: I'm still figuring out the mechanics. The only thing I don't really like is the way it works. Is global... :/

<comment><AUTHOR> It doesn't have to be global! Terra works as a module with most popular module systems. For example:

      var terra = require('./terra.min.js');

should work in any CommonJS environment.

<comment><USER2> I mean when you register

        terra.creatureFactory.register({type: 'firstCreature'});

this is stored in the global `terra` variable... Would be better IMO

        var terra = new Terra();terra.creatureFactory.register({type: 'firstCreature'});

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I made a really simple l-systems lib if anyone is interested. If fits in the same general vein of natural-computing.

[https://github.com/Azeirah/L-Systems](https://github.com/Azeirah/L-Systems)

</comment><comment><USER4> this is a background in this vein I did a while ago.

[http://www.glidr.net/](http://www.glidr.net/)

It runs a lot slower than it could. Running it faster made it less appealing. (works on mobile)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hahah glidr, nice

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It would be awesome if the 'examples' actually showed you how to get it going yourself. I don't see any sample HTML anywhere, and your main page's JavaScript is compressed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point! I just added a few lines to each to make them complete; if you include terra before running each example they should work now. Is this better?

<comment><USER5> I opened a ticket if you are so inclined. The problem defined is that there isn't a clear method for getting this running in a quick webpage hackup way. It's JavaScript, so it should just 'work' when I cut and paste, as long as I'm including a min file somewhere.

There appear to be a good number of dependencies in the terra.js file, which isn't explained on the page. I see something called lowdash and seedrandom in there, both of which I have never seen before and have no clue how to install. I simply want to cut and paste the examples as they are shown and get something working. I don't want to run a bunch of build processes for installing a bunch of third party libraries on my machine when all I want is to include it on a single page in my project!

Anyway, it looks really cool. Wish I could use it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry @kordless! That was just me being dumb and forgetting to push bugfixes. It should "just work" now :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Every so often, I sit down and begin making something like this. Then I get distracted and I forget about it for a while. This is really awesome!

</comment><comment><USER7> This is pretty cool. Thanks for sharing, rileyjshaw.

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad you like it! Let me know if you think of any potential improvements

<comment><USER8> Do you know DarwinBots? There's plenty to take from there. I've been wishing for years for an alife sim as flexible as DB that would run well on Linux.

<comment><USER9> Shameless Promo: You guys can take all you like. Just remember who you getting it from :P

\- Paul

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Absolutely love this, Game of Life/Cellular Automaton never cease to amaze me even with such simplistic rules.

</comment><comment><USER11> Riley, this is beautiful. The design, docs, colors, presentation--just fantastic. Awesome work! :)

</comment><comment><USER12> This is awesome, lot of update via code :), thanks this can be use for my future references

</comment><comment><USER13> That's really cool and a whole new world to discover via code - thanks!

</comment><comment><USER14> Hey Riley, this is Damian from hackerschool. Nice work. I remember you showed a prototype of this project on one of the thursday presentations.

<comment><AUTHOR> Damian!! Neeraj and I were just talking about our check-ins yesterday; what are you up to these days?

<comment><USER15> oh yous guys! When are you three gonna come back to nyc ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> The gang's all here..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Love it! emergent complexity, pixels, and colors! I'm working on a similar project I want to show you if you make it to a Queens Hack Night this year :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Cha Gheill!! If I'm back in the area I'll definitely swing by, feel free to send me a link until then</comment></comment>


Amazon S3 Introduces Same-Region Replication - eigen-vector https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2019/09/amazon-s3-introduces-same-region-replication/ <comment><AUTHOR> Interesting, I like the fact that "Replicated objects can be owned by the same AWS account as the original copy or by different accounts, to protect from accidental deletion." is something they thought of.</comment>


How to Run Better Presentations & Improve Results - <AUTHOR> http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2010/12/16/running-more-effective-meetings-will-get-you-results/

<comment><USER2> I strangely feel the same way about most of Mark's posts. I get about 2 or 3 paragraphs in and I'm already thinking "got it, move onto the next point".

Sorry Mark, but I think you should maybe take some of your own advice on this one and apply it to your blog posts. You write well, but I wish I had the Coles Notes.

By comparison, look at Don Dodge's writing vs Mark's [http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2010/01/how-g...](http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2010/01/how- google-sets-goals-and-measures-success.html) much more concise and to the point.

Probably fits most of the readers of HN better.</comment>


Show HN: Count.io – A simple counting and A/B testing API - <AUTHOR> https://count.io <comment><AUTHOR> The catalyst for this project is my frustration with popular tracking and A/B testing products being overly cumbersome. I'm not sure how many developers share my frustration, but my hope is there is a market for a simple RESTful counting and AB testing API.

I created a similar MVP about 4 years ago and dropped the project in favor of another. Since that time I've decided to take another stab at it, this time focusing more on how the API can be used for marketing research.

<comment><USER2> Don't mean to be rude, but couldn't you make an endpoint that increments a count in your own database with minutes of work and do this all yourself? What more does this offer.

Edit: guess the charts and other little tools can make it useful

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd hoped to make something for the "lazy developer." I use the service for counts that don't fit in to any of my apps models, because it's easy to create new counts (just change the URL), and because it exposes the count via GET and JSON I can easily implement the count into my dashboard. Mostly I use it for A/B Testing, aka counting impressions and conversions.

I'd also hoped to add additional value with charts, built in A/B Bayesian calculator, and webhooks/callbacks when a count reaches a certain value (yet to be implemented).

But I see your point, and I certainly worry about the market size here.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Ajaxy webapp (side project) for making css web logos or fonts - <AUTHOR> http://fontorie.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Make sure to check out the examples.</comment>


I took Amtrak instead of flying and it made me want to die a little bit - <AUTHOR> https://jalopnik.com/i-took-amtrak-instead-of-flying-and-it-made-me-want-to-1833533707 <comment><USER2> Sounds like Jason should've done a bit more research before choosing his mode of transport. Amtrak has some great lines, but I'd avoid anything involving their bus network.</comment>


The Business Card Is Dead, Long Live the Business Card - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/hbreditors/2011/03/the_business_card_is_dead_long.html <comment><USER2> I've only ever had one job where a business card is important. The culture behind the business really soured me on having cards and today I just give people who ask my twitter id. I suppose once I have a company large enough to have a masthead on the website, I'll get a card with a qr code linking to it but until then, I agree with the observations of the author. For most people, the business card really is dead.</comment>


Windows Will Now Use Machine Learning to Decide Time for a Forced Update - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/windows-will-now-use-machine-learning-to-decide-the-lea-1827879136 <comment><USER2> Classically over-engineered solution to non-existent problem.

Just let the user choose when to update FFS. This isn't rocket science. Yes, some of them will never update, but guess what your forced-update bullshit is leading people to do? That's right, disable the update mechanism and never update.

Please Microsoft, for the love of all that is decent just stop intentionally sucking so damned hard.

</comment><comment><USER3> Isn't there just a way to update without restarting the computer. That'd pretty much solve the whole friction.</comment>


10 Best Visual Studio Tips Tricks You Should Know - <AUTHOR> http://dylanvester.com/2015/10/10-best-visual-studio-tips-tricks-you-should-know/ <comment><USER2> One I just discovered recently is ctrl+shift+v to cycle through code recently copied to the clipboard.

</comment><comment><USER3> Useful, thanks!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> ALT + F12 for Peek Definition is handy.</comment>


"Massive necrosis of the lung on a CT scan. That doesn't happen with flu" - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1237076736073854976 <comment><USER2> Per the twitter thread, thats a fairly generic CT scan and you do often see similar in other strains of the flu.</comment>


Google Glass Privacy Hysteria Misguided - <AUTHOR> http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=1047&doc_id=263042&

<comment><USER2> I tend to agree with this viewpoint. In my opinion, the prevalence of Google Glass and similar devices will make the streets safer because people will know they can't get away with stuff.</comment>


The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest it's been in 30 years - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/31/17413356/low-birthrate-millennials-economy <comment><USER2> There were a couple points in there that could, may, should have been left on the cutting room floor.

Some good points were made however.

Social Security in its original Ponzi-Schemesque form will end up even worse for wear with declining birthrates. (Not saying Social Security is bad in concept, but it only works in times of sharp population growth, and even then, banking on the youth to carry you just because seems squicky to many ).

The observation of millenials being reluctant to have children is also spot on. Many that I have spoken to in the demographic are very much a "lost generation". They've seen parent's and elder's life savings disappear.

They have a harder and harder time adjusting to a world that seems specifically tuned to resist and feed off of them. See financial product/debt product proliferation.

It's harder to find opportunity when one has an additional complication of digital footprint to manage with a dearth of interest in anyone older than them willing or interested in making sure the past engraved on the net doesn't mark them for life.

The hamfisted "feminist" overtones aside, the article makes a chilling point. Long cycle economic predation and the social pressures to avoid debt first and foremost are an effective suicide switch at the population scale. An entire generation has been shaped by these pressures, and with no relief in sight, a drastic shift in values may be needed to avoid a grievous societal destabilization.

Interesting times indeed.

<comment><USER3> > (Not saying Social Security is bad in concept, but it only works in times of > sharp population growth, and even then, banking on the youth to carry you > just because seems squicky to many ).

Social Security works with economic growth. It doesn't matter if you get 10 babies or 10 robots. Automation makes possible to keep proper living standards without exponential population growth.

Social Security, as other services like education, stops working because it is not shared.

Actually, with enough automation, it is easier to satisfy a smaller population.

There are 3.5 million professional truck drivers in the United States. Self- driving trucks mean that you need 3.5 million fewer babies to carry out that task. Just 3 million if you actually need 500,000 people to maintain the software.

So, I agree with you that in the past Social Security was depending on population growth. That has been changing fast for the past 50 years. There is no economical reason to not have Social Security in the future.

<comment><USER4> When social security was started 159 people payed into it per recipient. Nowadays it's about 3 people paying in for a single recipient.

It's absolutely tied to population.

<comment><USER5> That's a really disingenuous number, most people were not eligible for social security the first few years it was in place, so the worker:beneficiary ratio was very high. The ratio has been pretty stable for 50 years. Its about 3:1 now, it was about 3:1 in 1970 [0][1].

[0] [https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employed- persons](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employed-persons)

[1] [https://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html](https://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think it's cutting in at both ends of the economic spectrum as well. For millennials the world over you have a choice in your early twenties - you can get a degree, move to a big city and focus on your career. This means you probably get married/start settling down closer to 30, and limit yourself at 1-2 children (if any). Or you can stay closer to where you grew up and focus on your family at a younger age.

The American situation is increasingly sharp on both ends - if you're making $40k as a household in rural America, you're financially screwed if anything bad happens to you - in ways that aren't even relevant in other countries (thank you no state healthcare / no maternity leave), but at the top end, you're also pushed out - because you've graduated with $40k + in loans, and can't buy a house for less than $500k+ (and what, $1m+ in the Bay Area).

Structurally things are very bad for millennials. But things will change - it's never as bad as the news makes it out to be. In the next ten years the voting power blocs will change, and politicians will be forced to change policy in our favour. I only hope we don't screw the coming generations like the boomers did for us with their lack of foresight.

<comment><USER7> you could buy a reasonable home for about $229,000 in many areas with some jobs, but even that is still a massive financial burden that is not easily solved with "just get some tenants"

Back in the day, house prices were 1 year's salary. Now it's more like 6-7 years of salary, with a high tax assessment and no job security or pensions too.

Sent from my car

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why would we have kids and suffer when we could _not_ have kids and enjoy life to the fullest?

We make just enough to have a really good life without kids or have a really stressful life with them. We don't even have a house yet (and I mostly don't want one, but that's another conversation). I ran the numbers, and I didn't like the outcome.

Everyone that I know that has kids is sleep deprived, unable to do much of anything outside of the house and are in a lot of debt. Some people think that kids make up for all of that. Not us.

<comment><USER9> I was totally the same.

Just had my first 9mo ago. I'm exhausted. I'm 44 years old (and not financially stable yet due to divorce). It's hard work at this age. But is it worth it? Absolutely.

I had no affection for children at all before this. I don't (even now) like other people's kids that much. But today I came home from a long day of filing SR&ED paperwork (Canadian research tax benefit) and my daughter would just not go to sleep - awful night. But I'm happy. The wonderful things about having kids aren't in the shitty crap you go through every day. They are in the look that child gives you when you get home. That lasts forever.

<comment><USER10> 44 with a 9 month old? I feel for you :). I consider myself a late starter by having my first kid seven and a half years ago (I am also 44 right now). Many times I've considered that this would definitely be easier if I were twenty years younger. Wouldn't be nearly so financially stable however, so that's a trade off.

I'm totally with you on how awesome kids are. They are hard work, expensive, and ... totally worth it. Wouldn't give up my boy & girl for anything. Ambivalent about other people's kids, but I try to be polite.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Man makes panda of man.

People are watching us constantly, everyone has more-or-less enough food, there's a ton of shiny stuff and panda tasks in the enclosure, there's nasty loud machines everywhere, and if you have some young they're like this tiny very-vulnerable creature who will be shortly moved to a different enclosure to be watched by different creatures.

May not be economic!!

</comment><comment><USER12> Isn't just economic, methinks: Millennials also tend to be more perceptive about the costs of overpopulation and the approach of global warming. The wisdom of _Small Is Beautiful_ is not so lost on them.

<comment> alf-pogz Speak for yourself. I'm petrified by the prospect of lack of growth. It is what our economy is built on, and a larger population could result in better science. There is plenty of land in the United States. Even our cities in the rust belt are underpopulated.

<comment><USER13> The growth-based economic model is flawed. Countries should be rewarded economically/politically by some sort of sustainability index where all of their positive/negative externalities are accounted for.

We do not need more people on this planet. It will only increase the likelihood of a major catastrophe like famine -> war -> nuclear war, which will then put scientific research back decades if not centuries.

<comment><USER14> > Countries should be rewarded economically/politically by some sort of > sustainability index where all of their positive/negative externalities are > accounted for.

From which growth-based economies will those rewards be taken? If not that way, then how?

<comment><USER13> The whole point is a paradigm shift where sustainability is rewarded instead of uncontrolled growth. The reward can probably be political clout, to drive the direction of things moving forward. Essentially that is what we reward uncontrolled growth with currently.

The whole point is that I am assuming there isn't enough incentive on a large scale to deal with environment problem BEFORE they occur. With global warming, once we go past the point of no return, it won't be a quick fix. We will throw the equilibrium out of whack. If we were to pragmatically balance things now/going back a few decades, we could avoid the big swing that will occur.

So basically, the population may fall from 8 billion to 3 billion because of famine/war, etc. Immensely painful things... Or we could just have pragmatic restraint through rewarding sustainability, and it would naturally level out to 5/6 billion or whatever that number is... but without the immense pain of billion fighting/dying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I know how obvious this connection probably seems to everyone, but I find it so fascinating that birthrates can be such a good indicator of economic health. Hopefully Millenial birthrates are only delayed, not completely reduced by the economic challenges they face.

</comment><comment><USER16> As a 24 year old married man sitting in the nursery with my premature son, I feel truly sad that more people cannot experience this. I don't have a house, I rent my apartment, we share a car and we both (were) working. So what? Time marches on.

So many people seem cynical about having kids or doing anything else involving sacrificing happiness for meaning. And yet people complain of indulgence and a lack of meaning? It confuses me. You can have difficult but meaningful if you want: start a company and a family. You can also have happy and (likely) less meaningful: go all in on hedonism.

People can't seem to cope with all the opportunity and optionality modern life presents. Makes people anxious it seems. So much self loathing (don't have kids for the environment?). If you don't want kids, don't have them. If you do, have them. They will not starve and you won't either.

Life will never be easy, to expect it to be is somewhere in between whining and delusion.

<comment><USER17> _So many people seem cynical about having kids or doing anything else involving sacrificing happiness for meaning._

Ah, the ol' "kids give my life meaning, how can anyone live a life without meaning?" trope. Hey, more power to you, but spreading DNA around isn't the only road to a meaningful life. Your false choice of "have kids, or live a life of hedonism" strikes me as the argument of the religious zealot. Speaking of religion, Jesus Christ didn't have kids, and he seemed to do okay on the "meaningful" scale.

 _If you don 't want kids, don't have them._

And if you do have them, try to avoid attempting to convince the rest of the world that yours is the only right, moral, and meaningful choice.

<comment><USER16> I tried to engage more deeply with this post, but your counter-argument involves calling me a religious zealot and invoking Jesus as an example of someone who proves my ignorance. Presumably if the point is that Jesus had a meaningful life without having children, that I would relate to the Jesus example. I am an atheist, no one told me to have kids, but I'm glad I did. Jesus can do whatever he wants, I am pro personal freedom, and pro kid-having (clearly).

In terms of being a zealot in general, there are few things harder to counter- argue as adaptable than having children. Certainly it doesn't make sense for the majority of people to have kids in the context they are in, but it's very hard to against having kids period. It's an old thing because it is in many cases true in practice. So it's hard to counter-argue on the basis that we are monkeys on a rock who should know better, when we don't, and never will. Because eventually, everyone exists because someone had kids, and so on.

There is a significant relativity to meaning. It's not that having kids is a binary (meaning vs. no meaning). It's that for me, I feel, and others, it's that having kids is a step function in what meaning is. The first time you work and have that feeling of contributing, that's very meaningful. Having a kid is like that times 100. So kids are impactful on meaning in a relative, as opposed to binary sense. Very meaningful, relative to other meaningful things. And certainly relative to meaningless things.

So I think almost all of history too much emphasis has been placed on kid having. But among this community (Western Liberals?), kid having has a bad rep, for mostly bad reasons, that will almost definitely turn out be a failed social experiment (or else, this community as it exists will just stop existing and be replaced by children of those who chose to have them, in whatever form that takes, better or worse). The point isn't, everyone should have kids, at all. The point is, it's meaningful, and you don't need a house, two cars or two incomes to make it sustainable. That in fact, the struggle and financial impact may be worth it in the end.

<comment><USER17> _I tried to engage more deeply with this post, but your counter-argument involves calling me a religious zealot_

I did no such thing, but I'll allow that perhaps English is a second language for you and analogies might not come across as well as I'd like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There is a theory that the root cause of these problems is the continued dismantling of traditional gender roles.

If women had not entered the workforce in massive numbers things could have continued based on old trajectories. The male breadwinner/housewife lifestyle was a formula that made it ideal for raising children cheaply, even if it didn't seem like the most equitable.

If I had a good job and settled with a wife straight out of college I'm sure I'd be a father to two children by now. My income could easily support a non- working spouse and some kids.

But many of the women around me were not the type to settle so early, so I chased the money and ever more ambitious women. And with no family to support, I had dangerous amounts of money to spend on ever increasing prices and property.

And if I should marry a woman with equal earning power as me, we will be able to spend even more on whatever inflated prices are set before us. If you've ever been in a gay household with two men earning typical male salaries and no children, one thing you notice is that they always have tons of purchasing power. What do you think that does to the economy when it scales out?

<comment><USER3> > There is a theory that the root cause of these problems is the continued > dismantling of traditional gender roles.

Except that Japan has kept traditional gender roles, where the woman leaves her job when marries, and they have one of the lower fertility rates in the world.

At the same time, Sweden with very strong gender equality has a higher fertility rate than other European countries. Even that it is still low compared with historical hights.

<comment><USER19> Western countries have lower rates than Japan when you exclude for native birth rates. Western countries get a big boost in birth rate when you account for non-natives having population booms.

<comment><USER20> With the exception of Israel & Ireland, which are the only two western countries to have a positive native birth rate (avg >2.2 births/woman - supposedly 2.2 is the magic number that keeps a population size stable).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm not sure I completely agree with the economic argument, particularly because birth rates and wealthiness tend to move in opposite directions and because a comparative analysis doesn't show that strong welfare states which protect a person's income, income stability and alleviate all the costs of being a parent, don't show strong birth rates either. It feels like getting children is still very much a choice, but that our cultural norms about what a 'proper life' means has changed. No longer as a young person do I feel as compelled to marry, get a home in a suburb with a yard and a dog not to be cast out or judged. It's not because it's more difficult for me to afford kids than my parents or their parents, who struggled financially more than I do and had to work more hours, had less leisure time, fewer luxuries etc. I think it's a bit too easy to say 'kids these days saw parent' savings disappear in the financial crisis' as if their parents' parents didn't see their parents in world war ii, and their grandparents in the great depression as a reason not to have kids. Again, wealth and birth rates move in opposite directions. Kids used to be a form of welfare system, too, you had no state or business to give you a pension or pay for your care, but your kids did. Now we're rich enough where kids aren't needed as an economic asset (working the land) or welfare asset (caring for you in retirement). But to say they're less affordable than before, I'm not so sure.

Most of the predictions about the welfare state are true, though. In that some of its effects mimic a ponzi scheme.

I'd urge everyone and anyone to look up an age pyramid for their country from 1950 and onwards. It's absolutely telling. Preferably an animation.

e.g. Japan here: [https://www.populationpyramid.net/japan/1950/](https://www.populationpyramid.net/japan/1950/)

You can click through every 5 years. It's like a snake with food passing through it's body, starting with a big blob of young people who gradually move into old age, without replacement. The proportion of young (suppose an arbitrary <40 or >=40) to old completely flips over. In Japan it was 75% in 1950, but just 44.5% in 2010. If you take 65+ as a threshold, it was just 5% in 1950, but 23% in 2010. That's 4x as many retirees to support on a dwindling young (mostly) working population. 5% 65+ and 95 <65 is a 1:19 retiree to young (often working) person. 23% vs 77% is less than 1:4.

And that matters a ton because there's a gigantic age asymmetry in terms of expenditure by age group in certain fields. Take healthcare expenses by age: [https://jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/JAMA/935941/joi160128f...](https://jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/JAMA/935941/joi160128f2.png)

You basically spend a ton at birth and as an old person. With low birth rates and massive improvements to healthcare increasing life expectancy, we're heading for a disaster. The tax base is rapidly depleting and the tax burden is rapidly increasing.

<comment><USER22> In regards to your conclusion, I'm not sure this is really entirely true.

While Japan is a disaster right now, their situation (by my understanding) was made massively worse through bad economic choices when their economy first started slowing down.

Germany and South Korea are two examples of extremely robust economies that have had terrifically low birth rates for a long time now, Germany has had fairly high levels of immigration, but South Korea certainly hasn't.

There's also the fact that countries like the US and the UK don't have particularly bad population pyramids but are still strangling the youth to some extent, it's more a political problem than a fundamental outcome of low birthrates and welfare states.

<comment><USER21> I'm not so much referring to the economy right now necessarily. That will be affected, but the population pyramid is just one of many other factors, it's not a great proxy for the long-term sustainability of the welfare state and the burdens on young and middle-aged people in 30 years from now.

Anyway, Japan and Korea really aren't comparable. Just look at their pyramids.

Starting with the 64+ population, grew in Japan from 5% to 26%. Further, it's not just children (<14) who're a lower share than before, but also the working population of 15-64 which is smaller than before (from 64% to 60%).

In short, old:working age went from 1:13 to 1:2 (rounded off).

[https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population- structure/j...](https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population- structure/japan)

South Korea is in a very different stage. Its 64+ population only went from 3% to 13%. Meanwhile its working population from 15-64 didn't drop like in Japan but went up from 53% to 73%. If anything, Korea is in an amazing position right now and has been for some time. It's only now levelling off and going the other direction.

[https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population- structure/s...](https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population- structure/south-korea)

In short, old:working age went from 1:18 to 1:6 (rounded off). For every old person in Japan, Korea has 3 times as many working age people. And that puts a lot of pressure on the tax base, even if the economy is doing well, a greater share of production is redistributed away from young and working people to old and not working people. In a country where one young person has to produce as much wealth for himself and one old person, as another country where two young people can share that burden, there's a difference in pressure and sustainability of the welfare state.

Fact of the matter is that Japan is running a deficit on its social security system. You either need to raise taxes or expect welfare state retrenchment (which has happened in most developed countries over the past 30-40 years in large parts anyway). You can only raise taxes so much (Laffer curve). It's typically deemed as inevitable that Japan's welfare state will retrench unless it accepts immigration or technology rapidly does away with humans. I don't see either of these happening in the next few decades, so young people pay to support a system today that they're likely not going to enjoy to the same degree in the future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's not economic. People have been poor for hundreds and thousands and millions of years, and yet they still had children.

<comment><USER24> Children used to be a source of labor and providing generational wealth. Now children are a source of financial cost, not benefit, and thus it doesn't make sense for poor people to have them.

<comment><USER25> _it doesn 't make sense for poor people to have them_

I would speculate that the disincentive is larger for wealthier people. A lot of child-related expenses are for positional goods (house in a good school district, saving for college) where the price is basically "all your spare income". So if you're rich having kids means giving up awesome vacations and the option of retiring before 50; if you're poor those things were never on the table.

<comment><USER24> Having a child is literally one more mouth to feed, I hardly think the disincentive is larger for wealthy people. That's just a bizarre piece of logic.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: best places to work remotely ? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I've heard planet labs has a strong remote culture for many of its workers

</comment><comment><USER3> Best for what? What type of work?</comment>


The Illustrated BERT, ELMo, and Co. (How NLP Cracked Transfer Learning) - <AUTHOR> https://jalammar.github.io/illustrated-bert/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hello HN, author here. This post is my best attempt at visually explaining some of the leading NLP models that came up this year and some of the context surrounding them. Given BERT relies on the Transformer model, this post builds on my earlier post - The Illustrated Transformer [https://jalammar.github.io/illustrated- transformer/](https://jalammar.github.io/illustrated-transformer/)

Hope you find it useful. Feedback is much appreciated!</comment>


Google Fiber Austin - <AUTHOR> https://fiber.google.com/cities/austin/home/ <comment><USER2> Damn, one time $300 fee for "Up to" 5 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload. That's like getting free internet for 6 and a half years[1] from current providers after 6 months. And if you want to upgrade you've already got the hardware.

I wonder what the minimum time of undercutting at a loss service they can offer is without it being considered anti-competitive.

[1] They guarantee 7 years of free service [https://fiber.google.com/cities/austin/plans/#plan=free](https://fiber.google.com/cities/austin/plans/#plan=free)

<comment><USER3> Is there any evidence that they are operating at a loss?

For 2013 Comcast reported 13.5 billion operating income on 64.6 revenue [1]. This means that they could potentially lower their prices 20% without incurring in losses. If we assume that Google is able to operate more efficiently, which isn't such a bold assumption, they could potentially undercut prices even more. On top of that, we could also assume that in terms of infraestructure the cost of offering 10mbps is simillar to offering 1 gbps.

So I'm not that sure that they are operating at a loss.

[1] [http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/CMCSA/3686143613x0xS1...](http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/CMCSA/3686143613x0xS1193125-14-47522/1166691/filing.pdf)

<comment><USER4> Everybody other than Google reports that installing fiber costs over $1,000 per home, but Google is selling it for $300 and saying "trust us".

<comment><USER5> There are really two costs for installing fiber. The cost to drag it past your house, which is expensive, probably over 1000. And the cost to bring it from your curb to your house. I've heard 500 for that, but it could around 300. Or google could just think of it as an advertising cost.

<comment><USER6> The $500 figure is probably correct - I'm guessing Google is assuming a conversion rate of some of those customers at $300 turning into paying customers, and thus they'll get back part of the subsidy. 5mbit internet blows, and most people will probably want to upgrade.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> While I'm excited to see Google Fiber push into Austin, I've been very happy with my 110 mbps down / 11 mbps up from local company Grande: [http://mygrande.com/internet/compare](http://mygrande.com/internet/compare). Austin is lucky to have actual competition among cable and ISP providers, unlike many other cities.

<comment><USER8> It's surprising and unfortunate that they chose Austin then. There are so many other large cities out there with limited choices for fast internet.

<comment><USER9> That's probably the reason they chose Austin, surprisingly.

It's a lot less legwork to setup shop in a city that doesn't already have red- tape in place.

<comment><USER10> Yup, which is precisely why Google won't ever touch anything north of the Mason Dixon line. Heads would certainly roll if they encroached on Comcast's home turf.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Here in the Netherlands we also have this but from more companies. A lot of cities now have fiber to the home, I have 50/50 + tv for 50 euro (100/100 would be 55). Some cities also have Gigabit, for about 100 euros/month ([http://www.tweak.nl/consument/fiber/productoverzicht.html](http://www.tweak.nl/consument/fiber/productoverzicht.html))

Google fiber doesn't seem so special to me. Maybe I should read into how the money from the fiber network is made here. I think there are some government loans involved in getting the infrastructure in place, even though there already was a cable network that is currently advertising up to 200 mbit/sec.

<comment><USER12> > A lot of cities now have fiber to the home, I have 50/50 + tv for 50 euro

I have 50/25 or so plus TV for about the same price in southeastern US. It's not fiber, but I end up with about the same service as you. At the level of service you and I are getting, fiber isn't necessary.

> Google fiber doesn't seem so special to me.

Probably not if you only have 50/50 for 50 euro. That's not nearly as great a value as Google Fiber, in my opinion. For that same amount, you get symmetric 1000/1000 with Google Fiber. Blows the kind of service that you and I are getting away, bigtime.

<comment><USER13> 70 USD plus taxes and fees is about 70 EUR. I don't know if that's really so much better value.

The utility of an internet connection doesn't scale linearly with speed. Once you're at the point where you can stream HD video, diminishing returns start kicking in pretty hard. How often are you waiting for a >100MB file transfer and can't work until it's completed?

<comment><USER12> > The utility of an internet connection doesn't scale linearly with speed.

Sure, up to a point. But when you've got a family of 4+ sharing an internet connection, 50Mb can be used easily.

A recent example:

* Younger kid running HD Netflix stream downstairs. * Older kid listening to music and downloading a game in his room. * I'm watching an HD Amazon stream movie rental. * Wife is shuffling large PSDs to/from remote storage.

This definitely doesn't apply to everyone, but a family can put some hurting on an internet connection. Particularly during the winter when it gets dark by 5PM.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> How is Google Fiber's customer service? I have heard lots of complaints about support for their free products, and most US users know the typical (Comcast, Verizon) ISP has terrible service, but I haven't heard anything about Fiber itself. Does anybody have first hand experience?

<comment><USER15> Excellent, based on my interactions with them. I've had fiber in KC for just over a year and have had to get online with them a few times for various issues. Never called in, always just done the online chat option.

And as a side note, their installers are top notch. I was scheduled to have mine installed at say 9am. They called at about 830am and tell me that the original installer may not be right on time, so they are sending over a 2nd group to start the process while we wait on the first group. Both groups show up 10 minutes early - hell, they beat me to my house. They always put on protective boot coverings when they are inside, make sure you understand what's going on, answer any questions, etc. Very professional and a lot more fun to deal with than TimeWarner.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> It is sad that silicon valley has been so slow to adopt google fiber

<comment><USER17> Agreed. Whenever there's a comparison of our pathetic speeds with those in Korea/Japan, people claim "the US is a huge country", etc. However, San Francisco's density (6600/km^2) is higher than that of Tokyo (6000/km^2); why doesn't SF have FTTH?

<comment><USER18> Where is the majority of Japanese internet traffic going? Where is the majority of San Fransiscan internet traffic going?

There's more than just population density to take into account. It makes a big difference when you don't need nearly as much long haul backbone capacity because almost all of the destinations for the traffic are close to the subscribers.

<comment><USER19> No, not really. The US has had a massive amount of backhaul fiber, huge amounts of it stayed dark for years. That in turn dropped transit prices to almost nothing. Bandwidth at data centers and other places near transit hubs is very cheap. The U.S. problem is a last mile problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I live at Austin and my Time Warner cable modem worked for me fine and the speed suffices for my typical needs, however it's $64/month, I would switch to Google-Fiber anytime soon as long as it opens in my community, though I don't know how I am going to use that 1Gbps bandwidth.

If 1Gbps becomes a reality, then each house can become a small data-center, which was limited by upstream speed (less than 2Mbps) in the past.

<comment><USER2> Imagining what you would do with 1Gbps is difficult because bandwidth of that speed is not common. If such bandwidth were common, products specifically leveraging it would also be.

Better streaming, easier remote backup, more devices connected, smoother remote computing, etc

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Hypothetical for advocates of federal net neutrality regulations:

Google is offering a "free" (after one-time installation) tier: "up to 5 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload speed".

Suppose on that tier, they also offered a temporary "turbo" option, 1Gbps+ for the next hour, or next 5GB, or for the duration of a session with a particular site, whatever. And this "turbo" was available on reasonable, non- discriminatory terms to either the customer, or to remote sites serving data to the customer.

And of course, Google itself would usually enable the "turbo" for bulk and profit-maximizing interactions with its own sites, like HD media purchases, HD teleconferencing, or big software downloads.

Is this an unconscionable and punishable violation of the ideal of network neutrality, or just a boon to all involved: great baseline service for free, and spot acceleration available to everyone at non-discriminatory prices?

What if other upstarts could also offer such a "free" tier in other regions on similar terms – but only by assuming the extra occasional sales of "turbo" to both residential customers and bandwidth-heavy internet services?

<comment><USER4> Hypothetically it hurts the "two guys in a garage" who have to hire a third guy (or pay a middleman Turbo Distribution Network) just to handle dozens of ISP turbo contracts.

<comment><USER21> How does it hurt them compared to the baseline where it's not even an option - the standard 5Mbps is all the customers have, and if garage-guys-service benefits from bursts of more speed, neither the customer nor the service can easily pay the few dimes it might cost?

Or the baseline where, because there's no revenue from 'turbo', a freemium broadband tier isn't offered at all, leaving customers without even the free 5Mbps, or (having paid for broadband instead) with less budget for garage-guys services?

(Also, if such a upsell were available, from Google or others, it'd not necessarily require bilateral contracts. It could and should be an automated service, discoverable in a standard way.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Yet another reason why I love living in Austin. Yay! ;)

<comment><USER23> Ya big jerk, can you send some of that fiber to your Minneapolis brothers in the north?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Does anyone know for certain whether Google data mine's their Fiber data?

<comment><USER25> _All information we collect about the use of Google Fiber TV (including use of programs and applications available through Google Fiber TV) may be associated with the Google Account being used for Google Fiber TV._

... _information from the use of Google Fiber Internet (such as URLs of websites visited or content of communications) will not be associated with the Google Account you use for Fiber, except with your consent or to meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request._

[https://fiber.google.com/legal/privacy.html](https://fiber.google.com/legal/privacy.html)

They don't really mention what information not associated to a Google account is mined except that it follows the company-wide privacy policy. So they probably mine it. It's probably comparable to Google DNS: [https://developers.google.com/speed/public- dns/privacy](https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy)

        Request domain name, e.g. www.google.com
        Request type, e.g. A (which stands for IPv4 record), AAAA (IPv6 record), NS, MX, TXT, etc.
        Transport protocol on which the request arrived, i.e. TCP or UDP
        Client's AS (autonomous system or ISP), e.g. AS15169
        User's geolocation information: i.e. geocode, region ID, city ID, and metro code
        Response code sent, e.g. SUCCESS, SERVFAIL, NXDOMAIN, etc.
        Whether the request hit our frontend cache
        Whether the request hit a cache elsewhere in the system (but not in the frontend)
        Absolute arrival time in seconds
        Total time taken to process the request end-to-end, in seconds
        Name of the Google machine that processed this request, e.g. machine101
        Google target IP to which this request was addressed, e.g. one of our anycast IP addresses (no relation to the user's IP)

<comment><USER24> _will not be associated with the Google Account you use for Fiber_

This phrase has rather a lot of qualifications which make it trivially easy to circumvent. For example, Google might associate the data with a different account, an internal "ghost" account that you specifically _don 't_ use for Google Fiber (but which is identical to it in every way).

I for one would like to see ISPs make an effort to construct systems where even the owner of the ISP doesn't really store any information. For example, they may store differential information about traffic spikes, to help avert DOS attacks. But other than that, they only do what they get paid to do: shuttle bits back and forth across the last mile of internet.

<comment><USER4> _systems where even the owner of the ISP doesn 't really store any information_

This is basically the default on routers if you don't enable NetFlow. Likewise DHCP and DNS daemons can trivially disable logging. It doesn't cost an ISP money to remove default surveillance; it costs them to add it but the value of the data is worth it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Why don't we see more startups in the fiber-to-the-premises realm? Is cost really that high and difficult to obtain? HN has led me to believe that a good idea with motivated founders will get funded, no matter what. And I can't think of a better time to enter this market.

<comment><USER27> Because FTTP involves massive upfront costs with no hope of 10x or 100x returns. Say you sell fiber at $70/month. The operating profit margin of a company like Charter, which doesn't have a media-arm to rely on, is like 10-15%. So per year, each subscriber is worth $80-126. Over 10 years, discounted, that's under a grand. And to wire them up, you have to spend about that much if not more, up-front.

<comment><USER28> And that's when companies like Charter aren't busy going bankrupt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Anyone with or otherwise knowledgeable about google fibre: I've heard their normal router is terrible, but that you can put your own in if you configure the VLANs and QoS on it - but as for the TV, my understanding is that the TV boxes go onto your LAN - will they play nicely with a better router, or do they force use of the google one? They also double as wireless APs - can that functionality be disabled in favour of a customer's own APs?

Edit: Did some research, seems it needs IGMP proxying, which should be doable on a decent router. [https://www.dropbox.com/s/gj6guphe4bc8k4t/GoogleFiberRouterG...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/gj6guphe4bc8k4t/GoogleFiberRouterGuide.pdf) was a very useful link.

</comment><comment><USER30> I have been living in Austin for roughly 4 years, but after checking the map it looks like my area may not get fiber for some years to come, as well as much of the greater Austin city limits, based off the progress I see from Google's initial Kansas rollout.

The one thing I hope that comes out of this, and the one thing I believe will benefit all Austin residents, would be the ability to negotiate for a lower monthly rate when their Internet/Cable contract renews sometime next year.

I hope that by April 2015 I have the leverage to call TWC and say: "Hey, Google fiber is offering Gigabit + TV for $130 a month, why can't my $155 monthly bill be lowered considering I pay for Internet + TV that is only 1/4 as fast?"

<comment><USER6> In April 2015, you won't be calling TWC, you'll be calling Comcast. Pretty sure they don't give a fuck about the price of a product you don't have access to - if you can't cancel your service, they don't care.

<comment><USER4> Fortunately TWC already upgraded everyone in Austin by 5x.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The business account is $30 more, which is normal (presumably goes to better support, no word on improved upload/ratios?). But I will say it is a little odd that it doesn't ship with at least one static IP. Plus $30 per IP is kind of crazy.

Most host providers, even REALLY inexpensive ones, charge $3-5/month/IP. So I consider $20-30 a massive markup for something pretty useful for a business account.

<comment><USER32> I was just quoted $20/mo for 5 static ip's from Frontier, 4 years ago it was $10/mo from Comcast. At this point I think it's the lack of IPv4 addresses hitting home. Hilariously neither vendor can speak to their IPv6 roll-out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Here in a major IT city of India(Hyderabad), I pay around $40 for 50 Mbps/10Mbps(up/down) and it's unlimited. I guess it'a pretty good deal. We have good number of companies offering services. I say it's a good deal, but of course not as good as this.

</comment><comment><USER34> I still think Google is at risk of forming a monopoly and are at risk of becoming Bell 2.0. Unfortunately due to the lack of quality ISP's, the first to offer residential fiber to the perimeter will rapidly absorb the market.

<comment><USER35> Maybe in some areas. Here in Austin AT&T, Time Warner and the local ISP Grande are all now offering cheap plans from 300Mbps to full gigabit because Google is coming to town and they need to compete. I pay something around $50 for 300Mbps (no cap) from Time Warner and it works great.

<comment><USER36> yep, that's been my experience too. google fiber forced the entrenched providers to become competitive. now, they have become competitive, and I have no clear motivation to switch to google fiber.

I may still switch, but I'm about a half mile away from the "sign up now" zones.

<comment><USER37> This is exactly what Google needs - in order for their vision of the future to happen people need to have far better connections on average than they do now. When Google Fiber enters a market, everyone wins - even if you don't switch to Google as your ISP.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Surprised they want a 1 year commitment and are charging a construction fee. EPB here in Chattanooga offers $69.99 month to month pricing for 1Gbps (and no construction fee).

</comment><comment><USER39> Man—was really hoping they'd go for Nashville next!

<comment><USER40> They haven't chosen their next city yet. Austin was selected on April 9, 2013, and Provo was selected a week later.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fiber#Locations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fiber#Locations)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Welcome to the 21st century, Austin!

<comment><USER42> Not really. In Stockholm, I have 250Mb down, 100Mb up. Costs 50 bucks/month.

<comment><USER43> I think these two graphs are interesting. Fiber and low prices for broadband seems to be correlated (Japan, Korea). Unfortunately there isn't more data points in the Economist graph.

I think it helps if the fiber is owned by a party other than the access provider, e.g. the community or city, to avoid having a monopoly squeeze out all the consumer surplus.

How will this work with Google Fiber?

[http://cdn.static- economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecac...](http://cdn.static- economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original- size/images/2014/03/blogs/schumpeter/20140301_wbc414.png)

[http://www.nbr.co.nz/sites/default/files/images/oecd- broadba...](http://www.nbr.co.nz/sites/default/files/images/oecd-broadband- June-2013-border_0.jpg)

Full html pages (where images were found): \- [http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/oecd-broadband-stats-show-nz- im...](http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/oecd-broadband-stats-show-nz-improving- still-could-do-better-internetnz-boss-ck-150641) \- [http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2014/03/telecoms-m...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2014/03/telecoms- mexico)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> You're welcome.

From, Kansas City</comment>


Drive-by Rowhammer attack uses GPU to compromise an Android phone - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/05/drive-by-rowhammer-attack-uses-gpu-to-compromise-an-android-phone/ <comment><USER2> So fundamentally, due to mitigatable-but-impossible-to-fully-patch hardware exploits like Rowhammer and Spectre, client-based sandboxing cannot be relied upon.

Seems that a good approach for the average HN user is to disable Javascript for _all_ sites, but whitelisting trusted sources (of course with HTTP MITM over compromised routers, never execute any code with questionable integrity, so anything delivered over a non-TLS connection)

Goes without saying one should only use the minimal possible amount of native applications too: ideally none except perhaps the smartphone OS-vendor's trusted applications (your OS-vendor can already arbitrarily execute code and read memory). Using the OS-vendor's web browser with Javascript disabled shouldn't be too much of a security risk.

<comment><USER3> Even seemingly trusted web sites are often pulling in JavaScript libraries from third party CDNs, analytics services, and advertising networks. It's almost impossible to be certain that none of those are compromised.

<comment><USER4> Decentraleyes[0] is a great plugin that intercepts many popular 3rd party CDN requests and replaces them with local copies. It's not a silver bullet, but it reduces CDN-based tracking and the chance of the attack described in the parent comment.

Subresource integrity[1] is a technology that's been available for a while that also mitigates this attack, if used properly by website owners.

[0]: [https://decentraleyes.org/](https://decentraleyes.org/) and [https://github.com/Synzvato/decentraleyes](https://github.com/Synzvato/decentraleyes) [1]: [https://www.w3.org/TR/SRI/](https://www.w3.org/TR/SRI/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I will be joining a long line of people with "I told you..." said in address of dotcom browser devs shoveling OpenGL with effectively raw GPU memory access into browsers.

<comment><USER6> It's a hardware flaw in this case though, and apps are another vector. Android even has drive by ("instant") apps these days.

(And WebGL is far from raw gpu access)

<comment><USER7> But that's exactly the point - the more hardware you expose to web browsers, the bigger the attack surface for web-based attacks.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, it's a valid position to want to limit the web platform's capabilities so that implementations are simpler and have fewer places where bugs can happen. The other position is that walled garden platforms (like Apple/Google app stores) could then make the web irrelevant as an app platform.

It would be nice if there were 2 "profiles" that web pages could conform to, browsers would only enable "simple content" profile by default...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Pretty much ready to ditch my smartphone. iPhones are too expensive and affordable Android phones are a security mess since they never get updated.

<comment><USER9> Apple is using the same commodity DRAM chips as everyone else. I doubt they are immune.

<comment><USER10> No need to "doubt". Just try Rowhammer via GLitch on a test iOS device. It will either work, or it will not. We need more people trying this out, informing vendors, and reporting their results in a REPLICABLE fashion.

<comment><USER11> >Just try Rowhammer via GLitch on a test iOS device

from TFA:

>the PoC currently works only on a Nexus 5 phone

<comment><USER12> This makes me _more_ certain iOS will end up being _more_ vulnerable to this type of attack.

It's almost certainly quite hardware specific, and if you were weaponising this there's way more homogeneous hardware on iOS than Android. Get this working on iPhone 7/8/X and you've probably got 75% of the "high value" iOS device fleet covered.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It is interesting to note that DDR and DDR2 are more immune to this kind of attack. Older computers with decently patches OS/browser would be safer to use for those who want to avoid Row hammer.

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

</comment><comment><USER14> Question: How would this type of attack be implemented without using Javascript?

</comment><comment><USER15> Well webgl, canvas and audio functionality of javacript are anyway nice to be disabled due to browser fingerprinting, now there is just another good case to disable webgl. But this is getting crazy, I think that todays CPUs, need a serious step back and rethinking.

</comment><comment><USER16> rowhammer is the best name yet for a security vulnerability.

<comment><USER17> Rowhammer has been around for a while</comment></comment>


The case for not being born - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-case-for-not-being-born <comment><AUTHOR> Life is bad but death is not preferable. No course of action is offered - <USER2> procreating may be morally preferable within this system of belief but in the main it will change nothing - humanity will not change its course.

The philosopher wishes to remain reclusive so as not to taint the force of his argument by allowing cheap psychologizing of his character. But this reclusiveness is itself telling - his philosophy is yet another attempt to fetishize the act of doing philosophy by elevating it above the fray of human action- a superior form of life unrestrained by corporeal needs. Here taken to its logical limit.

</comment><comment><USER3> Unless the philosopher puts his money where his mouth is I call bullshit.</comment>


Ask HN: What did you get for Christmas? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I'm a Jew. I got Chinese food.

<comment><USER3> And saw a movie :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Today I got some social obligations I couldn't get out of, and...that was it.

</comment><comment><USER5> Hmm, let see, all my family's back in India, so a whole day on the internet with my reader feed running on empty. Close to zero posts everywhere except HN today.

</comment><comment><USER6> A day to myself. :)

</comment><comment><USER7> Sony LiveView controller for my Android - haven't played with it yet but hoping it's a good prototype of what might be increasingly common auxiliary controller for mobile devices.

Mongoose poop coffee beans.

Hopefully Metaprogramming Ruby but it's yet to arrive...

A Faith No More t-shirt that says, "HAPPY BIRTHDAY FUCKER".

Got Dance Central for my sister, for her xbox Kinect, it's awesome.

Happy days :)

</comment><comment><USER8> From my fiancée I got a Dell Inspiron Zino media center pc, a Dell Inspiron 15 laptop, a foldable mountain bike and a 2 year membership to 24 Hour Fitness. She got a digital camera with a memory card filled with pictures of Bali, Indonesia. A half hour later, she got the plane tickets and hotel reservations for the actual trip.

<comment><USER9> Brilliant! I'm in Bali at the moment, it's great. Hope you're coming in the summer. Enjoy your Christmas Break and Indonesia :)

<comment><USER8> We've wanted to go to Bali for a while, so we're really excited!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I got a kindle and a feeling of disappointment that many of the books on my wishless don't have kindle versions :(

<comment><USER11> Here is a tip: use instapaper with kindle. When you are at your computer mark articles as "Save for Later", then convert all those articles into one Kindle- formatted file and drag and drop to your kindle to read them anywhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> My whole family felt entirely spoiled this year so next year we're ditching gifts and donating to the Pinball Clement Foundation (<http://www.mpcf.ca/>).

Anywho, Neoprene iPad Case, microSD card for phone, desperately needed wallet, RobotShop gift card.

</comment><comment><USER13> A sweater, hockey pants, hockey puck and a HEXbug (<http://www.hexbug.com/original>). We give each member of our immediate family a gift, so that's why there's so many :)

</comment><comment><USER14> A long sleeved Canada t-shirt, a hoody, a word and number puzzle book, a wooden 3d puzzle, lots of chocolate, and I bought myself some ice skates and a trip to Ontario to see 2 of my sisters and their families.

</comment><comment><USER15> Girlfriend got me ReWork, yeps she rocks [http://sendmetolaunch.com/recap-of- day-7-merry-christmas-to-...](http://sendmetolaunch.com/recap-of-day-7-merry- christmas-to-all)

</comment><comment><USER16> Gryffindor scarf, Solio solar charger, and the WakeMate my parents pre-ordered for me for Christmas last year should finally be here in a few days for this Christmas!

</comment><comment><USER17> My christmas Gift <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2038971>

</comment><comment><USER18> A New Order DVD, Alexsander Orlov's biography 'A Simples Life', a Wacom Bamboo, some hand-sewn leather gloves, and an orgasmotron.

</comment><comment><USER19> Gran Turismo 5. Also some jacks and jackstands. Guess there was a 'car' theme this year.

</comment><comment><USER20> Quite a lot of Coffee. Perfect for all night programming sessions!

</comment><comment><USER21> A Magic Flight Launch Box and a George Forman grill. :)

</comment><comment><USER22> neocube, winter hat & scarf, snowboard gloves, 30 piece fine precision screwdriver set, tshirts, socks, sweets

</comment><comment><USER9> British citizenship and some chocolates.

</comment><comment><USER23>
      Four days off!

      Snow! (A rarity where I live.)

      A very, very productive day for some of my websites. :-) :-)

</comment><comment><USER24> Nothing.

</comment><comment><USER25> Arduino Uno!

</comment><comment><USER26> it vibrates. Guess.

iPhone 4.

</comment><comment><USER27> Socks

</comment><comment><USER28> I am not Cristina but still I got together with friends and drank a lot of chocolate based drinks (we even tried taking shots of melted black chocolate, my advice, DON'T).</comment>


The iPhone's new chip should worry Intel - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/16/12939310/iphone-7-a10-fusion-processor-apple-intel-future <comment> norea-armozel I think the author misses some key points here. First, the iOS libraries are optimized for the hardware on the iPhone and other devices. It's why they do so well up to a certain point (and why they sunset certain products with regard to iOS upgrades). Whereas Intel's strength is that their processors and other suite of hardware is ready to serve millions of customers right now. Plus, the iPhone is not going to replace the web server, enterprise cloud deployments, and the like any time soon (unless someone rams net neutrality down the throats of all Telcos in all mediums). The author really needs to stop trying to think Apple has this grand vision of getting into cloud hosting, workstations, and enterprise. They have no interest in it otherwise why don't they have divisions for it anymore? Sales on consumer devices like the iPhone are more comfortable for them and they optimized their business models on it. The only thing they want to do now is expand the software and services aspect of the iOS. Hardware is purely a means to achieve that goal.</comment>


Hosting Apocalypse - <AUTHOR> http://blog.layerboom.com/2008/10/16/hosting-apocalypse/

<comment><USER2> in response to the article:

1 - Windows Server is not used much in any open Internet context. Even if you look at using this in-house, using Microsoft's cloud to run your windows clients from 1000 miles away will always have bandwidth hiccups. i.e. "GUI replication doesn't belong in the cloud"

2 - This article assumes only the U.S. Maybe EU where Amazon also has servers now. There are severe restrictions for hosting in other countries, like China, where growth is high and this type of model won't work due to gov restrictions.</comment>


Prove me wrong! - <AUTHOR> Fire is a living organism. Prove me wrong! <comment><USER2> In highschool we had the same example. Back then we required cells to call something living. A virus is not alive.

I don't see how to define organism without cells.

<comment><AUTHOR> Even scientists are unsure about the status of viruses. Why can't fire have the same unsure status? XD

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is a semantic argument. The outcome depends on how you define "living".

Any definition that includes fire (i.e. hot air) is so broad that it makes the word "living" meaningless and useless. If you included fire, you'd perhaps have to include water or any other fluid.

<comment><AUTHOR> The argument cannot be made for water as it does not respire or digest. Yes, the definition of life that fire fits in is broad. But it is still the definition of life.

<comment><USER3> I don't know how you define "respire", but water dissolves and releases gases. Fire is a gas, so it can't "respire" the same way. It is just one gas or another.

As for digestion, water is a powerful solvent that breaks many things down. Fire just heats them up, which may or may not change their chemical structure.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fire takes in Oxygen and gives out CO2. That is respiration. Fire converts fuel into energy. That is digestion.

<comment><USER3> You do not know what fire is. I'm serious. You should look it up.

For starters, you're confusing combustion with fire.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Life is a system that decreases entropy locally. Fire increases entropy locally.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Living organisms are a subset of fire—controlled exothermic processes. But when your exothermic process becomes uncontrollable, your life-force is used up quickly.

<comment><AUTHOR> Damn... That's deep. Totally agree.</comment></comment>


Bret Victor's Bookshelf - <AUTHOR> http://worrydream.com/Shelf2015/ <comment><AUTHOR> Rotated version:

[http://i.imgur.com/pKscQRm.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/pKscQRm.jpg)

Edit: working on typing these up with links, Tesseract couldn't handle it :P

Anyone know how to retrieve Amazon links from book titles?

If anyone wants to help: [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lWnncM61FsDb47jMheTc...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lWnncM61FsDb47jMheTc2BP-c1YaWo6BYeblpd0Iiqk/edit?usp=sharing)

<comment><USER2>
      Scrollable rotated version.

Thanks.

Edit: I tried running the image against couple of OCRs but was futile.

Found categorized list [0] on his site. May be dated.

[0] [http://worrydream.com/#!/Links](http://worrydream.com/#!/Links)

<comment><USER3> Procrastination to the rescue! I want this list for myself so I decided to hand-transcribe it while I avoid doing a bit of real work. I'm 1/5 of the way through but figured I'd share what I've got so far:

(edit: deleted link, use Jack's instead)

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha, damn. Was about to suggest we merge spreadsheets but we've both done the same bit!

Come join?

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lWnncM61FsDb47jMheTc...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lWnncM61FsDb47jMheTc2BP-c1YaWo6BYeblpd0Iiqk/edit#gid=0)

<comment><USER3> I'm on it!

Although I SHUDDER to think of the combined hourly billing rate of everyone who's contributing here :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I stopped buying printed books a few years ago, with a couple of exceptions which I kinda regret because they take up space. I love my collection, but it's now split between <20 books at home, and several boxes in storage. Yay, cramped California living!

That said, the bulk of my book collection is now digital, with thousands of PDFs and DJVUs on my laptop, ipad, and network storage. It doesn't have the cachet of a physical bookshelf, though. Maybe I'll print out "ls -R" and tape that to an empty wall?

<comment><USER5> With rare exception, if I read a good book, I then gift it to someone, loan it to a co-worker, or donate it.

Ironically a bookshelf might be a collection of books the owner wouldn't recommend reading over some other title. Not saying this is the case in the OP photo.

<comment><USER6> A friend of mine looked over my Netflix streaming queue. He remarked that all of the shows on there sucked. I pointed out that after I watched a show, I deleted it from the queue, so what was left was the dregs :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You can tell a lot about a person from his bookshelves and I know this is a guy after my own heart.

He has almost every non-fiction book on my Goodreads list: Books Scientists Should Read Before The Age Of 20. [https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/75031.Books_Scientists_S...](https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/75031.Books_Scientists_Should_Read_Before_The_Age_of_20)

Forget Amazon recommendations: this is the basis for my 2016 reading list.

Thanks for those that have worked hard to list the books!

</comment><comment><USER8> I would strongly recommend "The Death and Life of Great American Cities." It will help you balance out Silicon Valley's ideal that everything should be large, efficient, and centrally controlled.

<comment><USER9> Efficient, perhaps; Centrally controlled, I'm not so sure it is a Silicon Valley ideal (i.e. one likes it when they own it, but it's not generally an ideal preached by the SV community.)

<comment><USER8> You see the hypocrisy inherent to that then yes? They want it to be large and owned by "them"... but not centrally controlled?

<comment><USER9> It might be hypocritical, but it is a logically consistent point of view. If you desire to exert control on X and it is feasible, you advocate central control when you are the center. On the other hand, if you do not have the power to be the central control and you see some other entity controlling it centrally, you advocate for decentralization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> How is it possible that this guy can read so many books? SICP alone, for me anyway, takes me about a year to get through. And a lot of these books are pretty dense.

<comment><USER11> You might like

      * http://blog.fogus.me/2012/02/22/reading/
      * http://blog.fogus.me/2012/05/23/extreme-reading/

(Not written by Victor, but a perspective from someone who has similar things said to them on the regular)

<comment><USER12> Clickable:

[http://blog.fogus.me/2012/02/22/reading/](http://blog.fogus.me/2012/02/22/reading/)

[http://blog.fogus.me/2012/05/23/extreme- reading/](http://blog.fogus.me/2012/05/23/extreme-reading/)

<comment><USER11> You'd think after years I would remember that it doesn't automatically link, the way I did it. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder how many were fully read? I have started tracking my books with little star stickers after I fully read them. My goal is to get 1 star on all of them, 2 stars if I want to consider myself knowledgeable and 3 stars for expert level.

<comment><USER13> I also wonder which ones Bret actually recommends. I have what I call are my "top shelf" books, right now they actually do fit on the top shelf.

<comment><USER14> There is a separate list of recommended books on his site: [http://worrydream.com/#!/Links](http://worrydream.com/#!/Links) and corresponding HN discussion from a while ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7578795](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7578795)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> His shelf seems to be an almost perfect superset of mine, the only obvious thing I don't see is Fire In The Valley by Michael Swaine and Paul Freiberger, a very nice history of the early PC revolution in Silicon Valley. I should probably get him a copy so I can just use a picture of his wall with the stuff I don't have blacked out.

</comment><comment><USER16> Just as I thought, he's smarter than I am.

<comment><USER4> Because he has books on display? Nah.

If you listed every worthwhile book or article you'd read in the last ten years, and all the thoughtful discussions you'd had, you'd probably be surprised. And even more important, the number of books read is not really a great metric. I might take 2 months to go through a math book while the next guy read 15 sci-fi and economics books. But here's the real kicker: neither of us will remember more than a handful of top takeaways two years from now.

<comment><USER16> I have a lot of the books on his shelf, but his do cover a lot of dense material that I avoid through sloth.

But seriously, he's _very_ good at what he does.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Interesting that Bret is a big fan of Geometric Algebra (keeping several books on the topic), which is alluring to amateurs, but dismissed by professional mathematicians/physicists as a vanity effort to rename standard concepts.

<comment><USER7> Roger Penrose's Road to Reality makes use of Clifford Algebra and Grassmann Products, so at least some serious physicists are using it seriously.

Even though I had come across it before, I had a real revelation when I read David Hestenes short paper on it (from Bret Victor's website) [http://worrydream.com/refs/Hestenes- ReformingTheMathematical...](http://worrydream.com/refs/Hestenes- ReformingTheMathematicalLanguageOfPhysics.pdf) It is indeed beautiful to see how complex geometry and vector fields are connected via GA. I found especially revealing the relationship between electric and magnetic fields. I agree with the article that whatever its absolute merits, it would be a good way to teach new physicists. I have already ordered my copy of "Clifford Algebra to Geometric Calculus".

Whether it is actually more practical to do work in General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, or indeed Quantum Field Theory etc., I'll have to leave for the experts in those fields. From an outsider's perspective, it is a delight to understand some of the connections between different disciplines in a more intuitive way.

In any case, I would imagine that GA is exceptionally useful for computer graphics and physical simulations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I believe they're called _shelfies_

</comment><comment><USER19> If you read the original bookshelf as a matrix look at row 3 column 3. I recognized at least 5 books on geometric algebra and geometric calculus. This is the way geometry will be done in the future.

<comment><USER20> This comment is the opposite opinion to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10849162](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10849162). Interesting

<comment><USER19> We pursue unification in physics, so why not in math?

[http://faculty.luther.edu/~macdonal/](http://faculty.luther.edu/~macdonal/) [http://geometry.mrao.cam.ac.uk/2015/10/geometric- algebra-201...](http://geometry.mrao.cam.ac.uk/2015/10/geometric- algebra-2015/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Timeless way of building is right there where I thought it would be.

</comment><comment><USER22> Are any of the CDG kids sharing the computer-that-fits-in-a-room dealie they have in this library?

<comment><AUTHOR> Curious as to what you meant by this comment?

<comment><USER22> The actual space is really really cool and is the instantiation of their longer-term project, which is supposed to be an attempt to reify D. Engelbart's vision for what computation is to be.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've heard rumours about it, I guess it's not open to the public in any way?

What did you mean by connecting it with Bret's bookshelf though?

<comment><USER23> This bookshelf is located at CDG.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Lots of food for thought. I scanned the rotated version by jarmitage, increasingly worried Byrne's version of Euclid's elements wasn't tere. Wrong, it was further away :)

</comment><comment><USER25> This is mine. [http://i.imgur.com/9KuR1Hz.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/9KuR1Hz.jpg)

<comment><USER20> Seconding the low-res thing.

Another person here took a sequence of shots and just linked the individual images.

If you like tinkering, the step up from that would be stitching the images together with something like Hugin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> lots of great stuff on this bookshelf! does anyone know how old he is? this is a lot of years of reading!

</comment><comment><USER27> Who is Bret Victor?

<comment><USER28> A bay area resident who has several thoughtful writings and talks about human computer interaction and more recently a piece on global climate change. AFAIK he is unemployed so he has lots of free time to work on personal projects which may be inspired by the readings on his bookshelf.

<comment><USER22> He's one of the PI-like people at the CDG.

([http://www.fastcodesign.com/3046437/5-steps-to-recreate- xero...](http://www.fastcodesign.com/3046437/5-steps-to-recreate-xerox-parcs- design-magic-from-the-guy-who-helped-make-it))

<comment><USER29> Thanks for the link. But what do you mean by "PI-like people"? I can't match that acronym to anything off-hand.

<comment><USER30> Probably refers to "PI", the 1998 movie written and directed by Darren Aronofsky. The main character was an eccentric mathematician who was obsessed with patterns in the decimal expansion of the transcendal number pi. If you have not seen the movie I would encourage you to look for it as my summary is not adequate.

<comment><USER22> No, I'm afraid not. He didn't seem incredibly eccentric to me, anyhow, just a ridiculously hard worker

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> the whole earth catalogs :)

</comment><comment><USER32> I estimate that I also own about 20% of those same books.

</comment><comment><USER33> Why particularly Bret Victor's bookshelf is of importance?

</comment><comment><USER34> HERE IN MY GARAGE.

Books on a shelf aren't impressive.

</comment><comment><USER35> Who is Brett Victor and why is his bookshelf/collection so small?

<comment><USER11> This is his bookshelf from this year.

<comment><USER36> Is this really just books he read in 2015? I know some people read exceptionally fast, but 600 books (> 2 a day) strikes me as too many.

<comment><USER22> it's the CDG's library, there's other people in there and it's definitely not just 2015</comment></comment></comment></comment>