How not to replace email: lessons from Google Wave - <AUTHOR> https://jamey.thesharps.us/2018/02/16/how-not-to-replace-email/ <comment><USER2> Wave was cool technology with interesting ideas, but there is no substitute for getting the user interface right, and unfortunately they didn't. It's been a long time and there might be others I'm forgetting, but there were two important design errors:

1\. Email lets you type an entire message before sending; IRC at least lets you type a whole paragraph, which is enough. Wave didn't let you type more than one character before sending.

2\. The designers correctly realized chronological order isn't enough, you also want logical order, but unfortunately they provided the latter _instead of_ the former, whereas you actually need _both_. (Gmail provides both: new messages and threads. Git provides both: view changes, and view current code. Google Docs provides both. Either view alone does not suffice.)

I would by all means encourage someone to take another shot at building something like Wave, with those problems fixed.

<comment><USER3> Do you think HN solves point 2 correctly?

<comment><USER4> I never cease to be amazed and dismayed at how much worse contemporary web based discussion technologies (HN, Slashdot, Reddit, Disqus) are than Usenet was back in the day.

<comment><USER5> That's fascinating… because I remember Usenet as being a complete cesspool, useful if you wanted to get into arguments with the loudest people out there.

Not sure what "back in the day" is for you, but I remember e.g. comp.lang.lisp being terrible in the 90s. And we all made jokes about flamewars, because flamewars were reality.

<comment><USER4> Yes, there were lots of arguments and loud people (referring to the 1990s), but thanks to open protocols, there were newsreaders suitable for every kind of usage profile, and many of them had very effective killfiles.

Even the dumbest of them would remember what articles you read and let you pick up where you left when you came back the next day. That's a straightforward feature that is sorely lacking on most web based discussion sites (Twitter does it, but is lacking in threading).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I saw the live presentation of Google wave at Google IO in 2009. I was in awe of the technology & wanted my hands on it as soon as possible. The product vision was amazing and long term. But the product was just way ahead of its time. Apart from the performance issues and clunky UX, I feel the product overall was very cool. I still maintain that Google gave up too early on Wave.

<comment><USER7> Google Wave had quite an effect on how I react to 'cool, new tech things'. I was very excited about it and convinced friends to try it out, but then in practice it just didn't 'click'.

Ever since I've been paying a lot more attention to the somewhat indefinable 'feel' of a tool. Trello, for example, felt right despite its relative simplicity (or because of it?), so I felt like it had a bigger chance of working out.

If I had to define it, I guess it would be something in the direction of what someone in an early React presentation described as the 'pit of success'. Using the tool feels like it was optimized for how 'you' use it, and I suppose if everyone feels that way, it's got a chance of succeeding.

tl;dr: 'apart from the clunky UX' is probably a bad sign.

<comment><USER8> On the other hand for me, Trello is something I use now and then because some team I'm working with uses it for a workflow. But it's never really clicked for me and isn't something I use unless I have to.

<comment><USER9> Sure, but do you use something else? It's simply incredible how low-quality most "card apps" are (Jira leading the pack with awful UX/UI).

<comment><USER8> No. Any "to do"/workflow apps I use, I go into with the best of intentions and I get out of the habit after a while. For on deck articles and other content I need to or am thinking about creating, upcoming conferences I may submit to or attend, etc. I mostly just use a Google Sheet with tabs for the various categories. And I mostly just use paper lists and a whiteboard for tracking both someday/maybe projects as well as stuff to get done this week.

I mostly don't do software development except for the occasional learning project.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I remember being very excited by Wave when it was released - and while I didn't use it heavily, and didn't use it with many concurrent users on a document, I never particularly suffered from the usability issues others have described.

For me, though, it failed for two reasons:

* Wave was a solution in search of a problem, a need. It was fantastic as a tech demo --back when it was released, it was magical-- but it never seemed to fill a niche? It wasn't fully-fledged-enough to be a word processor, it wasn't really for communication, etc. I liked the description of other posters using it for gradually developing ideas --almost like a virtual pinboard-- but my guess is that very few teams work like this, and especially few outside of the bleeding edge tech space.

* Change is hard without a compelling reason. For example, I work in a (non-IT) organisation which offers people a choice of (legacy) MS Office + Sharepoint, vs. (the upstart) Google Docs. To me, Google Docs is far better for all a fraction of our work - it's faster, smoother, easier to share, and has (thanks to Wave!) collaborative editing... yet the proportion of users with the mindset to adopt it voluntarily I'd put at <5%, and probably even lower. And Wave offered a far less rounded, less compelling, less approachable product than Docs.

<comment><USER11> We use google docs in school, the students do multi-player documents all the time. Being in the same room removes almost all of the friction. Want a team member to research part of the topic and while you write the intro? Super easy.

I'm not sure how to get that level of communication when the team is spread across multiple locations... webcams maybe

<comment><USER12> "multi-player documents"

I love this phrase! We did something similar way back in the day, only using Emacs and "M-x make-frame-on-display" instead. Just like in your case, it worked fine as long as everyone was in the same room. The one tricky part of "multi-player Emacs" was that only one person at a time could use the minibuffer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think the most important part is this:

> * Assuming you could stand Wave's interface, it'd still be useless unless > the people you wanted to communicate and collaborate with were also using > it. Wave was intended to completely replace existing systems like email and > chat, so it had no provisions for interoperating with those systems. To > succeed, Wave required a revolution, a critical mass of people switching to > the new way and dragging the rest of the world with them—and those haven't > worked out very often.

> * Making the revolution even more unlikely, initially Google offered Wave > accounts by invitation only, so the people you wanted to talk with probably > couldn't even get an account.

I was excited about Google Wave at the time but first had to wait what felt like ages for an invite and then barely anyone I knew was on it and I quickly ran out of invites myself (because not everyone you send an invite will be as excited to use it as you are).

To replace e-mail it would have had to at least provide some kind of gateway between wave and e-mail to ease the transition -- or it would have had to integrate more closely with other tools and applications to "trick" people into adopting it (like how Google Talk integrated with GMail).

The "openness" was neat but didn't help them gain any traction because there was no incentive to actually build and run your own server because there were no users.

</comment><comment><USER14> Not a shill: I think Notion [1] gets close to being a spiritual successor to Wave (much more so than Slack). It's essentially a multimedia collaboration tool and it's really nice. It's not quite a wiki, and distinctly more freeform than a document editor, but still way more powerful than just a plaintext editor or a chat app.

My social group has begun to use it it for a pretty wide variety of things, ranging from rough notes to blog posts to draft documents.

[1] [https://www.notion.so](https://www.notion.so)

<comment><USER15> How is the data export? I like the idea, but the fact that it seems to only export data into Markdown or HTML rather than something more structured, like XML or JSON, makes me nervous.

<comment><USER16> They are working on an API ([https://twitter.com/NotionHQ/status/963577523320717312](https://twitter.com/NotionHQ/status/963577523320717312))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The spirit of failure of Google Wave was very similar to Google Glass failure. They were so badly presented, in so much wrong ways. The idea behind Wave is extremely great but why, oh god, WHY it was presented as a consumer (and not business/corp) product?!

<comment><USER18> This. Everytime I'm thrashig out a design with other developers on Skype I wish we were using something mixing wiki and chat.

<comment><USER19> Google Docs has chat on the side and version history, along with live editing. What is it missing that you'd want?

<comment><USER20> It does lack connections between documents like a wiki. While you can do hyperlinks, it does not feel connected.

Also, can you structure documents into find hierarchy or tagging system?

Finally, no self hosting.

<comment><USER21> Better browsing across Google Docs documents would make it the killer software.

\- It probably requires a left sidebar with a tree of the project's documents,

\- And perhaps a notion of document hierarchy, child pages or something to better browse. Aside from those, which aren't technology challenging, it would make my startup switch to GApps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> >They released sample implementations under open source licenses, encouraged others to run their own Wave servers independent of Google infrastructure, and defined a federation protocol (on top of Jabber/XMPP) so that people on different servers could still talk with each other.

With the caveat that this was of course several years ago, I seem to recall the reference implementation missing several major features. Private replies were notably absent.

It was all properly specced out, but the only available server software was incomplete - at least, it was when I tried running it.

</comment><comment><USER23> I've said it in the past, and I'll say it again, Google Wave was a great idea that was pitched by Google in a bad way. All it's promise was torpedoed because of the way Google marketed it. There is nothing out there that solves the problems Wave solved, and because of that, communication and collaboration is still stuck in the Stone Age of the internet. Slack and Google Docs is the best we have, and they don't do anything that couldn't be done decades ago.

<comment><USER24> Bad marketing seems plausible, because I never had any idea what problems it was meant to solve; it always seemed like someone had dreamed up the fancy architecture first and tried to justify it with use cases later.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm surprised nobody has brought up the scrollbars yet. The original post mentions the bespoke UI, but only faults it for using MDI.

The non-native scrollbars were smart and nifty, but, at the end of the day, they were jarring to use. I don't remember many single UI features that ever made me alternate so frequently between "neat!" and "WTH?!?". And I've seen lots of interfaces on many platforms.

[http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2009/11/15/google_waves_scroll...](http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2009/11/15/google_waves_scrollbars/)

<comment><USER26> I thought I'd heard that the scrollbars were custom because it did some fancy infinite-scrolling thing that wasn't really compatible with normal scrollbars.

If it's true they were custom to make them work well "on mobile devices or netbooks with a limited mousing area", that's even worse. They know I'm on a desktop computer with a big screen, and they're delivering a netbook-optimized user experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The only thing that can replace e-mail is, e-mail. We need a means for communications that are not instant, and allow for long-form, off-line, complex interactions, based on decentralised infrastructure. That'll continue to exist in some form along with all the other means we have, and that's a nice thing.

</comment><comment><USER28> On the flipside, there's also the point that while it's cool that Operational Transform allows for a decentralized service without a central server, it also makes the requirements to use and extend the algorithm (e.g. with new editing commands for new types of media) needlessly complex if you're going to be running it with a central server anyway. I can see why it might not be seen as a solid business strategy at Google to launch a service with an increased development and maintenance burden just so others can EEE it. This also reminds me of the present day where blockchains are popping up in tons of places where a central server would solve the task just fine.

Edit: Could any of the people downvoting me please state their position? I didn't think my comment was disrespectful or off topic, so I'm wondering what their problem with it is?

</comment><comment><USER29> Actually, I still like the idea of Wave, but to be honest, I didn't like the idea of using a google server and as far as I remember, the self hosted servers were available when Wave was abandoned by Google already and they were in a miserable condition (buggy GUI, limited features).

So apart from these obvious problems I think their biggest mistake was the try to replace email instead of evolving email to wave.

</comment><comment><USER30> Careful what you wish for, you may get it...

Mail AMP is a Google controlled superset of email. It is a given by many that chat is the ultimate social glue, and G already has their own chat protocol. In the interest of keeping people engaged, and keeping them walled in, I kind figured the long play of Google mail is to slowly morph all email into (a partially email compatible) Wave.

</comment><comment><USER31> I think the killer idea with Google Wave was real-time collaboration on anything. It was just way too broad. We used it for project planning like many others here. Now I don't think there is anything a shared Google Doc or Google Sheet doesn't solve more intuitively, with more specialised tools for the task.

I love the idea described in the article of real-time collaborated _things_, as opposed to a timeline of ideas from a team. Specially for things like Github Issues or other bug management. The goal would be a shared living document, not a list of discussions. Really cool!

</comment><comment><USER32> > Would somebody please try again but with less hubris this time?

A lot of Matrix.org is inspired by what Wave could have been - although we are running late with threading (but some work is happening currently there). From our perspective, one of the biggest gaps was the lack of bridging in Wave to other existing comms interfaces (eg email) - as well as the quirky UX.

</comment><comment><USER33> Not sure if anything really can replace email.

After all it is a store-and-forward transmission system with arbitrary length text and inline attachment of binary data.

all this makes individual emails self contained.

Various proposed replacements are more focused on the "conversation" it seems.

<comment><USER34> and yet here we are, not discussing this by e-mail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> >Assuming you could stand Wave's interface, it'd still be useless unless the people you wanted to communicate and collaborate with were also using it. Wave was intended to completely replace existing systems like email and chat, so it had no provisions for interoperating with those systems. To succeed, Wave required a revolution, a critical mass of people switching to the new way and dragging the rest of the world with them—and those haven't worked out very often.

Back in the day, when I realized there was no backward-interop with email, I was afraid it wasn't going to go very far... network effect is hard to tame.

<comment><USER36> I still can't believe they tried to build hype around a tool that was useless without a network effect, and then rationed off invitations to actually use it. The PM couldn't have possibly been surprised when it didn't catch on.

<comment><USER37> I think they saw it as an effective method for building hype. I mean, gmail used to work on invites too.

<comment><USER36> Yeah, but Gmail could trade messages with all the email accounts everyone already had; there was no bootstrapping a social platform problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Brilliant article. Loved the idea that new technologies must provide bridges for older technology that people may need to use.

I am one of the four people who really liked Google Wave. I wrote a plug-in for it, and when Wave was shut down I stood up an instance of Apache Wave for friends and family. Basically no one wanted to use it except to play with it for a few minutes.

I want to check out the author's C to Rust translator that he mentioned at the end of the article.

</comment><comment><USER39> When Wave came out I worked at a small software company that was pretty distributed all over the country. Wave came as close as anything ever has for being the perfect collaboration tool for us. The key was taking the set of tools that Wave provided and putting them together to support your desired outcome.

Here's something I wrote about it back then. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7533023](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7533023)

Sadly, since Google killed it, I've never been able to get other teams to pick up the open sourced versions and now everybody just wants to use <insert latest startup collab tool>.

It definitely had a tremendous number of problems in execution, but I never really _got_ why Google killed it so fast. It seems that a reboot and rethink of some core metaphors would have tightened it up into the new paradigm it needed to become.

</comment><comment><USER40> _The initial implementation was a JavaScript-heavy web application in an era when people weren't used to that. Browsers weren't optimized to run so much code and so the user experience was terrible_

There seems to be some historical revisionism here. Perhaps you could have said that about Gmail but no, when Wave came out people were very much used to crappy web apps. Wave suffered because it tried to make browsers do too much but that's been a common pathology for the entire history of the web, it was nothing to do with users not being "used to it".

If they'd written Wave as a desktop app it would have had more of a chance. I remember using it and the performance was awful, but not for any fundamental reason. Browsers just suck as app platforms.

</comment><comment><USER41> I wrote a complete case study on Google Wave here: [https://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Fail-Learning- Experience/dp/19...](https://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Fail-Learning- Experience/dp/1933820179)

</comment><comment><USER42> Google Ware failed as a product but its underlying technology was successfully absorbed into Google Docs, Slides, Spreadsheets etc.

</comment><comment><USER43> I never really understood all the buzz about it. I used it few times with friends to plan holidays, it was surely useful, but it looked like a very tiny product, not something important and huge. Something that bored developer could build on holidays. I guess, I didn't discover something important.

</comment><comment><USER44> Glittering, but definitely not gold. We used it for 15 minutes, ended up discussed how bad it was then rolled our eye in fake surprise when it was quickly dropped. Subsewuent discussions were about how it embodied the nee software generations. "Let's do it because we can do it!"

Google Wave? No, Google Edsel, Mk1.

</comment><comment><USER45> We once collaborated on a design document in Wave, before discovering that printing wasn't really supported by the app. I was very impressed and excited by Wave, but we all just needed better Google Docs.

</comment><comment><USER46> IMHO wave's biggest problem was the close beta hype.

</comment><comment><USER47> 90 minute help video, that was enough to put me off.

</comment><comment><USER48> I think these lessons are so profound that they actually extend beyond technology to most business or social concepts.

</comment><comment><USER49> Well I think they missed the mark Wave could have being MS Teams, hipchat, slack alternative with a bit of tweaking :)

</comment><comment><USER50> Replacing other forms of communication is always a non-starter; every org builds up data legacy in the various tools they've tried out over the years.

(Shameless plug: that's why I built CTX - [https://getctx.io](https://getctx.io) \- a SaaS cloud search tool that indexes your data in things like email, Slack, Trello, GitHub, JIRA and Google Drive)

</comment><comment><USER51> Thanks for this article.

Make me wonder... What happen to projects that apache incubator retire like this one?

</comment><comment><USER52> I liked Google Wave.

</comment><comment><USER53> cool

</comment><comment><USER54> Pretty sure I was one of the few people that used Wave on an actual collaborative project of dozens of people. It was great, way ahead of its time. I thought it was more useful than Slack is right now. The only real complaint I had with it was it's slightly slow user interface. With today's tech it would own.

</comment><comment><USER55> I wonder if heavy use of XML stunted it.

</comment><comment><USER56> I wonder why people but so much effort trying to replace things that work perfectly and no one wants replaced. Email, door locks, etc. work well as it, it's a non-problem.

How about banks? I live in Poland and used to exchange Euros into Zloty at 3.97 with a 5% commission through my bank. Now I use Transferwise, and they give me a rate of 4.17 with a neglegible fee (a few cents). Now, that's an innovation that I welcome!

<comment><USER57> Old candy bar phones worked perfectly. Why every invent full screen glass phones.

I don't have a problem trying to reinvent email. I do have an issue if they use market power to damage an existing technology that works well and openly across platforms.

<comment><USER56> They didn't. You couldn't change the UI.

<comment><USER58> This makes no sense for me.

Email has plenty of issues too, you can't just take any new features the smartphones have and call it a default of the old phones.

Email is "perfect" as long as nothing better replaces it, then it will no longer be perfect?

A few issues of email I can think of : no guarantee your email will arrive, and no real acknowledgement it did. Also, Mailing lists are clunky for users (I still receive regularly emails with 500 recipients, where a mailing list would be far more appropriate). I also think of attachments, which are very limited in size with a lot of providers.

So email is far from perfect, it's just that nothing better has arrived yet.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


If Go Daddy Had a CLI - <AUTHOR> http://www.mahdiyusuf.com/post/4394455846/if-go-daddy-had-a-cli

<comment><USER2> GoDaddy's business model was always to sell domain names at a loss and make money from up-sells and cross-sells with hosting, certificates, etc.

GoDaddy will never put out a clean and fast buy process or user interface... Every domain name (after coupon discount) is a $1+ loss for them (plus consider additional costs of support, infrastructure, etc). Adds up to at least $45 million every year and chances are their domain business costs them $100 million every year.

Unless they switch models and domains no longer become the marketing focus (even at $11/year w/o a discout they still only net at most $1 ... compared to all the other products + services).

</comment><comment><USER3>
      ps aux | grep elephant
      kill -9 28540

Oh, too soon? :P

</comment><comment><USER4> I think there'd be a lot more asterisks and exclamation marks.</comment>


Petition to overrule the FDA's decision to ban 23andMe - <AUTHOR> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/overrule-fdas-decision-bar-23andme-selling-their-potentially-life-saving-diagnostic-kits/96BRCYNB

<comment><USER2> FDA has a purpose. They did not go through the FDA approval for medical devices. They should .</comment>


The most effective over-the-counter painkillers - <AUTHOR> https://www.glaciermd.com/most-effective-over-counter-painkillers/ <comment><USER2> This could benefit from a lot more nuance. It's safe to take acetaminophen and ibuprofen together because they work differently. That's also why it's more effective to take them both at once. But you also get the side-effects of both.</comment>


Doing NaNoWriMo?  I wrote a simple story outliner last night ... - <AUTHOR> http://www.outlineyourstory.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey everyone, yesterday I started my National Novel Writing Month novel, which I'm using as a treatment for a TV show idea I've got.

Anyway, after writing for a bit, I decided to do some outlining, so I wrote this quick and dirty web app to outline the chapters with acts and scenes.

It's probably bug-ridden and definitely incomplete, but I thought I'd share it. Let me know what you think!

<comment><USER2> I went to take a look, and the only thing I saw was a sign-up page.

If you want people to take a look at your stuff, you're going to have to find a way to demonstrate what it's about without requiring a sign-in.

I don't mind "bug-ridden and incomplete", but creating a sign-on is too much friction when I don't even know what the potential pay-off is....

<comment><USER3> And there's even more friction. These are all very minor things, but they add up:

* I tried to sign up and got "bad email or password". Oops, the form on the homepage is actually a login form; I had to click on the Sign Up link and enter my information again.

* After creating an account, I still can't use the program right away. Need to check for a confirmation link in my inbox.

* Now I'm signed in, but I have to "add a story" and then fill out another form with information about the story. How am I suposed to know how many chapters I'll have before I even start?

I would do a combined login/signup form on the home page, or side-by-side forms. When the user signs in, create their first story form them with a default title/description/type, and let them click to edit those fields. Some sort of inline editing (click to edit, or just input fields by default) would feel quicker and simpler than the JavaScript popups for editing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a bunch for the feedback!

As I said, this is very much unpolished: just wrote it to scratch my own itch. If you end up playing around with it, I'd love to hear whether the functionality is something you'd find useful if more polished.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Where to find C++ developers - <AUTHOR>

Im a front-end/backend web developer myself but Im looking for a C++ developer to help us build something native to run on a board. I know a whole bunch of great web devs but I cant for the life of me find any C++ developers. Any suggestions on a good place to start? <comment><USER3> Depending on what you are doing, C might be a better choice than C++ and finding a good C developer might be easier for you.

</comment><comment><USER4> What sort of stuff do you need? A lot of people who started programming before the Web are used to doing C++ work. There was a thread the other day about C++ dev being as descriptive as a "hammer carpenter". Post the description here. Many of the people here might be looking for a gig.

<comment><AUTHOR> It involves generating seamless 'channels' from web content and locally stored content which are tailored to the user's preferences. These 'channels' would feel the same as network operated channels - A show - then an ad break - <USER2> another show ect.

One of the main reasons people are hesitant to pick up google tv - or any IPTV for that matter - is the fact that IPTVs are too 'active', when most people watch TV, they do it almost passively, they flick on the tv and watch whatever is on. There is an article on crunch gear about this I think.

I have already started building, but since Im new to C++ its out of reach at the moment</comment></comment>


Flappy48 by Broxxar - <AUTHOR> http://broxxar.itch.io/flappy48 <comment><USER2> The gravity is a bit weird yet the idea is awesome. Blending the most played games together. Nice.</comment>


Google MBA Internships 2018 (Japanese - English, Bilingual) - <AUTHOR> http://www.studony.com/jobs-google-mba-intern-japanese-english-bilingual-2018/ <comment><USER2> Does this page have an advantage over Google's?

[https://careers.google.com/jobs#!t=jo&jid=/google/mba- intern...](https://careers.google.com/jobs#!t=jo&jid=/google/mba-intern- japanese-english-bilingual-minato-tokyo-japan-2883630107)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is for fluent Japanese+English speakers only, BTW.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I have updated the title so it doesn't look misleading. Missed that earlier. Thanks</comment></comment>


Unboxing the TikTok - <AUTHOR> http://ujeezy.tumblr.com/post/2869125971/unboxing-the-tiktok

<comment><USER2> Surely there's going to be a backlash once it sinks in how useless this will be.

</comment><comment><USER3> So, how do you like it?</comment>


Nintendo Switch tiptoes toward letting users back up their data - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/nintendo-switch-tiptoes-toward-letting-users-back-up-their-data/ <comment><USER2> I guess baby steps are better than no steps!</comment>


On Cascading Failures and Amazon's Elastic Block Store - <AUTHOR> http://joyeur.com/2011/04/22/on-cascading-failures-and-amazons-elastic-block-store/

<comment><USER2> Good post, but the tone of Joyent's posts so often irk me. Too much poking at Amazon while holding themselves on a pedestal.

They're a competitor to Amazon, of course they think they're superior... just so smug.

It seems like a bad practice, especially when you end up with pie in your face later. Not too long ago, they had an entire food fight thrown in their direction, so its not exactly like they're immune from issues.

<comment><USER3> As far as I'm concerned, Joyent look like idiots after this post. Had the post been written in a tone that reflected on own prior experiences and used a tone that was solidary, it'd be a nice post. But no, this is 20/20 hindsight, where everyone can say "I told you so" with no evidence to prove that they knew this was coming.

Poor etiquette, terrible argumentation, and atrocious PR.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is one of the key insights to take away from this whole AWS mess: When things start to go wrong, your automatic recovery code will increase the load on your system, and commonly lead you into a spiral of death.

I'm delighted to now have a name for this: "Congestive collapse."

The first time I saw congestive collapse in a real-world system, it was an ugly surprise. And this is presumably one reason why Netflix runs at 30-60% capacity across 3 AZs: They want to be able to lose a zone without overloading key systems.

<comment><USER5> "When things start to go wrong, your automatic recovery code will increase the load on your system, and commonly lead you into a spiral of death."

Here is a Battlebots story; When I was competing we would see new teams in the pit area at the beginning of the competition (there were 3 days of preliminaries) that had really nice looking bots. I'd ask them, "So, have you run it full speed into a concrete wall?" And they would either say "Yeah, wow it was amazing ... " and tell some story of mayhem, or "No." (sometimes with a prognostication of confidence in their design skills or their simulations).

Teams that said "No" never made it out of the preliminaries. Not once in my experience.

That story underpins a fundamental truth in systems analysis, "Beat it until it fails before you depend on it."

This is something that Google does really really well by the way, I've watched them turn of 25 core routers simultaneously carrying hundreds of gigabits worth of data, just to verify that what they think will happen, does happen.

You learn not only what breaks, but if you go through the fire drill of bringing it back online, and you take copious notes when people say "Dammit! I need to do 'x' and I can't." your ability to respond will improve.

For very large systems, this can sometimes be the _only_ way to develop this information.

Amazon has clearly had an event of extraordinary magnitude in their data centers. They've no doubt discovered all sorts of tools that they could use to recover more quickly. I would love it if someone from there would post a complete post mortem, but my expectations are low (there is a lot of proprietary benefit in knowing some of this stuff).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Joyent knows all about shared network drive failures.

[http://techcrunch.com/2008/01/15/joyent-suffers-major- downti...](http://techcrunch.com/2008/01/15/joyent-suffers-major-downtime-due- to-zfs-bug/)

Which of course they solved by getting out of the business completely.

</comment><comment><USER7> "When the cloud goes down it becomes a fog." Funny quote from the linked Magnolia article.

</comment><comment><USER8> No one sane runs code to automatically take out and replace EBS volumes from raids.</comment>


Defcon 17 Audio and Video Released - <AUTHOR> https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-17-archive.html

<comment><USER2> That's interesting. They've posted raw multiple camera feeds, instead of editing them together. I'm not sure that's a _good_ idea, but it is unusual.

Am I not seeing the torrent?

Edit: Ah, I misunderstood the titles. "Speaker & Slides" has two cameras & split-screen/picture-in-picture going, so if you want video, that's probably the best choice.

</comment><comment><USER3> These have been out for a while and they are free on iTunes.</comment>


Best 3.84 BTC Ever - <AUTHOR> http://imgur.com/LvjBdPT

<comment><AUTHOR> Full story in comments: [http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/19zem4/best_384_btc...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/19zem4/best_384_btc_ever_story_in_comments/)

<comment><USER2> I was about to comment "what is this? Reddit?" Answered my question.</comment></comment>


AWS RoboMaker – Develop, Test, Deploy, and Manage Intelligent Robotics Apps - <AUTHOR> https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/aws-robomaker-develop-test-deploy-and-manage-intelligent-robotics-apps/ <comment><USER2> This looks like a cloud-enabled way to scale up agent-training for reinforcement learning, am I correct? If so, this could be a great enabler for developing robotic controls. I'm surprised that the article does not mention "reinforcement learning" at all.

<comment><USER3> I would like to optimize the entire develop/deploy/monitor process by being able to make a change, iterate quickly in simulation, get the change out safely, and monitor once it's in production.

By being able to create simulations easily, as well as scale them out, training reinforcement learning models is a natural use case, however it extends to other aspects of robotics development as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm an engineer on the RoboMaker team, I would love to hear feedback about our service.</comment>


Simone Giertz makes a living creating shitty robots (2016) [video] - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/695832/this-robotics-hobbyist-makes-a-living-creating-shitty-robots/ <comment><USER2> She's part of Adam Savage's "Tested" crew too, and her YouTube channel is hilarious.

<comment><USER3> YT Channel: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3KEoMzNz8eYnwBC34RaKCQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3KEoMzNz8eYnwBC34RaKCQ)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> She studied engineering, programming, and robotics, she makes a living making robots full time, and yet the article title calls her a "robotics hobbyist" and the article says she's a "robot enthusiast".

<comment><USER5> > She studied engineering, programming, and robotics

To be honest, I can't actually find any evidence that she graduated with even a bachelors for any of the topics you listed. It appears that she makes a living by being primarily an entertainer, not an engineer. In this context, I think the titles "robotics hobbyist" and "robot enthusiast" are appropriate and accurate.

<comment><USER4> I guess I've just never considered a college degree a prerequisite for professional respect.

Even if you do think that way, and you consider her as completely an entertainer with robotics as her medium, is she a robotics hobbyist?

Are all professional rock musicians just guitar enthusiasts?

My suspicion is that she is called so simply because of her gender, and that a male "entertainer", college drop out or not, would be called an engineer.

<comment><USER5> Respect comes with competence. I respect her as an entertainer, because that is where her competence seems to be. I think her content is great and I enjoy her work.

> Are all professional rock musicians just guitar enthusiasts? My suspicion is > that she is called so simply because of her gender, and that a male > "entertainer", college drop out or not, would be called an engineer.

Would you trust that college drop out "engineer" to work on the bridge used by hundreds of thousands of people or fly in an airplane designed and built by that "engineer"? There are some disciplines that I think should very strictly and rigorously test for competence, because the alternative is people dying. Engineering is one of those disciplines, and so is medicine. I don't want a college drop out "surgeon" with no formal training in the discipline operating on my body. Maybe I am just not as trusting as you are. But I doubt most people follow the same line of reasoning that you do.

Can you provide some examples of a male entertainer who does the same type of work that Simon does but is labeled as an engineer?

<comment><USER6> Every time this argument comes up, the first reaction is to talk about fields where lives are on the line: Would you trust a doctor without a degree? Etc.

These situations are comparatively rare. If you have to reach for them, it may as well be conceding the point: A dropout's work is just as good, yes, in all but a few corner cases.

In fact, they usually dropped out because some business was willing to pay them for their work now, rather than wait till they graduated.

<comment><USER5> > These situations are comparatively rare. If you have to reach for them, it > may as well be conceding the point: A dropout's work is just as good, yes, > in all but a few corner cases.

I think you unilaterally decided that these situations are rare. I wholeheartedly disagree with that sentiment. This is _why_ we are having this debate.

> A dropout's work is just as good, yes, in all but a few corner cases.

You'd have to be seriously screwed up in the head to actually believe that as a fact. What possible line of reasoning can you be using to say that someone who is formally trained and educated in a discipline is worst or equal to someone who is not? Are you saying that formal education is a total waste of time?

Yes there are exceptions and there have been prodigious people who were ahead of their time but that is why we have a word to describe these extremely rare occurrences.

> In fact, they usually dropped out because some business was willing to pay > them for their work now, rather than wait till they graduated.

Do you have a source for this information?

<comment><USER6> _You 'd have to be seriously screwed up in the head to actually believe that as a fact._

You're not allowed to get personal here. Once you cool off, maybe we can resume this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is inspiring as hell.

Simone is making the world a better place in a big way.

<comment><USER8> She gets money from selling novelty vids to television programmes. How does this make the world a better place?

<comment><USER9> Entertaining people with science.

Making machines less scary so people are less fearful.

<comment><USER10> _Making machines less scary so people are less fearful._

So when Skynet finally decides it's Judgement Day, it's easier for Skynet to eliminate the most dangerous scourge on Earth: Humanity.

<comment><USER11> You are downvoted, of course, because we all know what side our bread is buttered on. When the revolution comes, many of us here will probably not be friends with John Connor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I wish article would have different title, so that people would be less primed to go into gender war over this or that.

The video is really funny. I think I will look her up, because of how it makes robots making look.

</comment><comment><USER13> Amazingly, she learned English from television. [https://youtu.be/z8NIw1HeBBk](https://youtu.be/z8NIw1HeBBk)

</comment><comment><USER14> If you like Simone Giertz' work and you haven't seen it yet please go see the movie 'Modern Times' by Charles Chaplin.

<comment><USER15> There is nothing new under the sun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> And a better take on Simone's work from Daily Beast:

[https://www.thedailybeast.com/ces-was-full-of-useless- robots...](https://www.thedailybeast.com/ces-was-full-of-useless-robots-and- machines-that-dont-work)

<comment><USER17> That article is about CES. It mentions her name once in the first paragraph and then never again.

<comment><USER18> Pretty much the same amount of text as the gz article then. I find her video's rather inspiring showing what is possible with robots and also how they are incomprehensibly useless in most ways for tasks that are not laid out perfectly for them.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Hacker-Friendly (and Cheap) Places to stay in Cambridge, MA? - <AUTHOR>

I'm thinking of going to the International Lisp Conference (http://www.international-lisp-conference.org/2009/index) next month at MIT, but I don't know anyone I could stay with, and I'd like to avoid the (pricey) area hotels. <comment><USER2> I'm co-founder of www.airbnb.com, a website that let's you find locals with whom you can stay while spending less money and having more fun. Our coverage in Boston right now is relatively sparse, but there are some places you might like.

Here's one: [http://www.airbnb.com/airbeds/show/1130?nights=2&lng=-71...](http://www.airbnb.com/airbeds/show/1130?nights=2&lng=-71.0935165&date=2009-02-12&precision=address&state=MA&country=US&guests=0&sort_by=3&location=77+massachusetts+avenue,+cambridge,ma&lat=42.3589594&city=Cambridge)

You can sort by distance, price, recommended, etc.

</comment><comment><USER3> send me an email. i live in a 9-person coop with a guest room. i'm back in town on feb 23rd and would be happy to host you. diN0bot bilumi org.</comment>


The Flow Fallacy - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/eric_brechner/archive/2013/12/01/the-flow-fallacy.aspx <comment><USER3> "Flow is very important. Working in a quiet room not only removes unproductive context switching and frustrating distractions, it also promotes the joy of being totally engrossed in your task—a state often needed to keep all the complex interconnections in your head."

Couldn't agree more.

"However, flow necessarily requires isolation. Isolation from design discussions. Isolation from customer engagements. Isolation from iteration and feedback. Instead of continuously converging on what the customer finds compelling, you go forward alone."

Nonsense. Flow necessarily requires isolation _when you are focused on a task_. It does not exclude team interactions, design discussions or weekly (or even daily) customer interactions. The most productive team I ever saw had quiet individual offices for each programmer, a daily design and status meeting of 15 minutes and a weekly customer meeting.

"I know it's romantic to think that one person can create an incredible product in isolation. If that's what you believe, stick to reading romance novels, and stay the heck out of software development."

Also nonsense. Recent history is replete with counter-examples.

<comment><USER4> Exactly. Both exercise and sleep promote health. It's like he's arguing against exercise because gyms aren't conducive to sleeping.

I think the biggest problem is that the typical office environment and workflow is designed to promote discussion without much thought towards the impact it can have on flow. I'll often see the calendar littered with 30 - <USER2> minute meetings that could be much more efficiently clustered together.

<comment><USER5> No, he's arguing for setting aside time and space both for flow and for team interaction. Did you read the part about "team hallways"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This author confounds the principles in Flow which deal with how to individually optimize your experiences throughout your life including your work with what I call "The Joel Spolsky Flow" (not a dance move) which says that in order for developers to produce their best work, they need to have the opportunity to work uninterrupted for large portions of their day. These two concepts are orthogonal.

He also seems to think that a developer working in isolation won't have the judgement and ethical sensibility to understand what code is good for his employer/client. This is a massive fallacy in his own article that shows a certain bias. Any responsible developer can work either in flow or without and still produce code that is "good for business". Any irresponsible or immature developer can produce the exact opposite code regardless of flow.

As an aside, that book provided a fundamental shift in how I look at work. To boil its tenets down to "Flow makes you write sucky code" is to completely miss the point of the book in such a way as to appear disingenuous.

<comment><USER7> I just finished reading the book, and his description of it is a shame.

For anybody interested it is a great book that talks about how to achieve enjoyment and a meaningful life in the current context of western civilizations. It is a great book, full of insights and really good information. Very recommended

<comment><USER8> Could you summarize the most valuable points discussed beyond what a typical layperson already knows about the idea of flow?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So if you value flow, if you think that getting away from noise and distraction is valuable and lets you write good code, that inevitably means a totalizing removal of oneself from the customer?

Perhaps the author needs to discover nuance. There is a time for coding and a time for working with your team and with customers. Unfortunately he posits two positions: "always" or "never" and every approach must fit into one of those two. He has a brief flirtation with nuance, comparing a couple of weeks to a couple of days, but quickly abandons it by declaring an inevitable outcome.

Yes we do "win when everyone comes together, with the customer at the center", but I don't see why one bad extreme means we need to throw out every valuable learning about flow.

TL;DR Flow isn't bad, hiding away is. Don't confuse the two. (And put away the hammer.)

</comment><comment><USER10> Umm, what?

The author makes it seem as if isolation _while_ coding necessarily precludes one from collaborating with teammates or meeting with the customer.

But what, exactly, is so difficult in say, having a team meeting in the morning, going off to your batcave to code, and perhaps another meeting in the afternoon (depending on how regularly you need to meet).

He makes some good (if obvious) points, but on the whole, this article is poor.

</comment><comment><USER11> I agree with the notion that the customer is extremely important.

I do not agree with the idea that me being amongst my team members will inherently make the product more like what the customer wants. There are logical fallacies riddling the whole article, but perhaps the most important point is that it's not black or white.

The truth is, I could be very close to the client AND experience plenty of flow state work sessions. It doesn't necessitate that I diminish the effectiveness of either solution. Flow state does not necessarily create sucky product.

For the most part, the analogy of the Ford Focus is entirely off base. How many people go directly in the opposite direction, even with a mild understanding of the end goals and a good sense of design? A better analogy would be that it's far better to get in the F1 and head as fast as you can in 90% the right direction than piddle along in the focus. You can course correct, or perhaps the client will end up changing their mind a bit when they see your solution.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but in a project discovery phase, unless the coder is completely out of the loop, it is much more effective to let software designers design solutions to well defined problems. If the failure is in that discovery phase, fix that instead of forcing your programmers to perform at less than their potential.

</comment><comment><USER12> > However, flow necessarily requires isolation. Isolation from design > discussions. Isolation from customer engagements. Isolation from iteration > and feedback.

Total nonsense. It requires isolation for the 1-8 hours you'll be working in that session, maybe. In between those coding sessions, you can have all the design discussions, customer engagements, and feedback you want.

<comment> robert-wallis Exactly. The author exaggerates the amount of time in flow. I wish I could be in flow longer than a day. Design discussions, feedback, and engagements can happen every day and you can block out some time to hopefully get in flow every day.

The big misconception the author has is that flow means blocking out weeks of time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Bit of a link bait since he never describes why flow is a fallacy, anywhere, or backs up his claim in any arena beyond software development. He basically says, what people perceive as "flow" in the software development world = isolation. Which is BS.

Csikszentmihalyi says you can achieve "flow" in many traditional jobs where you are not alone in an office, such as cooking at a restaurant, or even janitorial service.

There's some discussion of work environments, backed up by a McLaren P1 vs Ford Focus example (BTW, if you drive both cars at the same speed they will take you equal distance despite one being a super car, and even in the wrong direction the McLaren could get you closer to your destination, so the quote is kind'o crappy too)

Alas, in my book, link bait! No discussion of actual "flow" here... just some dude peddling his ideas using Csikszentmihalyi

</comment><comment><USER14> If all you do are simple CRUD web pages or apps, then flow is fallacy. However not entire industry is like that.

(I hope) my product is pretty innovative, but it required long sessions of uninterrupted concentration. Sometimes I would be 'in the zone' for days, and my family complained I was like zombie.

I already gave up on 'dynamic companies' and now I work (almost) exclusively from home. There is always new excuse not to give software developers private office.

</comment><comment><USER15> This article is pretty far off the mark. In a study on Flow in relationship to virtual teamwork they found:

"...that flow is associated with positive team work outcomes in a virtual learning team and that facilitating flow experience in virtual team may bring positive changes in team effectiveness."

[http://www.academia.edu/215200/An_Investigation_of_the_relat...](http://www.academia.edu/215200/An_Investigation_of_the_relationship_between_Flow_in_Computer- Mediated_Interaction_and_Virtual_Learning_Team_Effectiveness)

</comment><comment><USER16> > _" However, flow necessarily requires isolation. Isolation from design > discussions. Isolation from customer engagements. Isolation from iteration > and feedback."_

This is nonsense.

Flow doesn't require you to ignore the specs, or the customers. It means allowing you to work in long enough bursts over the day that you get a couple of really good, substantial things done in those bursts, before you break to check up on emails and other "distractions".

</comment><comment><USER17> > Because the goal of commercial software development isn't to create code you > love—it's to create products your customers will love.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

<comment><USER18> Of course not, but in my professional experience, often times it is :(

<comment><USER19> Is your sadface implying you are saddened by the lack of love you have for the code that creates products your customers love?

<comment><USER18> Yep. The products have been cool, the codebase monstrous. Painful legacy stuff mainly.

"Architecture, what architecture?"

But then, contracts for it were in the $millions range, so it was an experience!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think he's right. A culture where flow is encouraged is bad because the risk of going down a rabbit hole increases enormously when in the zone. This makes it an inefficient way of working.

I like to compare solving a programming task with navigating to a goal. Being in the zone is the equivalent of going really fast. Speed might be good in general, but it's really useless if you're going in the wrong direction. Navigation skills are in fact a whole lot more important than speed.

In solving programming tasks you have to be smart - try to find shortcuts, ask interrogative questions about the requirements to avoid unnecessary work, check with your colleagues if someone has already done something similar, find libraries which will help you solve the task etc.

So being in the zone is in my world just a sign of someone who's probably in a hurry and/or isn't working strategically.

The only exception to this rule is when you're pair programming, because then you have a co-driver who's handling the navigation, so you're allowed to focus on going fast.

</comment><comment><USER21> Real business thinking. You can't make a product yourself, you inexplicably need a bunch of other people around doing stuff for it to work.

> I know it's romantic to think that one person can create an incredible > product in isolation. If that's what you believe, stick to reading romance > novels, and stay the heck out of software development.

This is the only fallacy I could find mentioned in the article.

</comment><comment><USER22> Communication allows you to learn what software to write. Flow allows you to write it.

Where I work they are all communication and no flow, and that's terrible. I wish we had more flow.

</comment><comment><USER23> Some people report that they can get in a state of flow while pair programming. I've experienced this on occasion but I'm unclear on what the exact ingredients are to produce flow while pairing. A big bonus with pairing, however, is automatic and real time code review, architecture review and perhaps even product review. Two people together are a lot less likely to run into the wrong direction _together_ than a single coder.

</comment><comment><USER24> Flow, in the cognitive sense, could very well be directed towards a customer- focused end. This article's central argument is a fallacy.

</comment><comment><USER25> I also believe this article is poor. Mixes two disfferent things : 1) Metting : Clear decision for developper (with customer validating, agree with team, ect) 2) Focus : Be alone, quit, focus on the difficult task/dev --> Flow

Two things are ok. Not opposite. We can see this guy is no developper at all. Not at all !

</comment><comment><USER26> Flow got to be a buzzword mostly to credit of Jenova Chen's (of Thatgamecompany) master's thesis and subsequent game influenced by it - _Flow_. It happened at around 2007. At least that's my perception of it.

It is mostly associated with games (this meaning of the word anyways), especially where exposition of new challenges and use of skills already acquired in-game as to become mechanical are so neatly balanced and tuned to the individual gamer that they tend to evoke a state of _flow_ , commonly described as "parahypnotic" state.

If I had to stretch the analogy to development, especially programming, I'd had to stretch it very far, like the article seems to infer. Your programming flow is, in this analogy, wholly dependant on the actual challenge you are facing (over which you mostly don't have control of), and more or less has nothing to do with you trying to "get into the flow" really.

I agree that it's a fallacy albeit from a different point of view.

<comment><USER27> Flow is not a buzzword. The concept of flow was introduced by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in his book Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. It is a known concept in psychology.

It is achieved when skill level is high and challenge level is high.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29)

Flow is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does. Proposed by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, this positive psychology concept has been widely referenced across a variety of fields.

Flow theory postulates three conditions that have to be met to achieve a flow state:

        One must be involved in an activity with a clear set of goals and progress. This adds direction and structure to the task.[11]
        The task at hand must have clear and immediate feedback. This helps the person negotiate any changing demands and allows him or her to adjust his or her performance to maintain the flow state.[11]
        One must have a good balance between the perceived challenges of the task at hand and his or her own perceived skills. One must have confidence that he or she is capable to do the task at hand.[11]

However, it was argued that the antecedent factors of flow are interrelated, as a perceived balance between challenges and skills requires that one knows what he or she has to do (clear goals) and how successful he or she is in doing it (immediate feedback). Thus, a perceived fit of skills and task demands can be identified as the central precondition of flow experiences.[12]

<comment><USER28> I remember around 12 or so years ago, the concept of being "in the zone" appeared (in the mainstream) and was talked about in relation to athletic performances. Since then the term seems to have been more and more loosely applied to more and more subjects. As such I think the meaning of the term has been lost to an extent (the way I understood it as applied to sports). I mean does programming actually have "clear and immediate feedback"? Most of the time it doesn´t even seem to have "a clear set of goals and progress" in my place of work.

The way I look at it "riding a bicycle" could fit the description given above. But I would see a world cup downhill mountain biker as being in flow. As such not everyone will achieve a state of flow, so many people will use the term without having actually experienced it.

For programming, maybe uninterrupted concentration would be a better term, or maybe I just haven achieved a state of flow while programming, whereas I feel I have in some sports.

<comment><USER27> It really depends on the person. People are different, some may get flow from coding and others from knitting. An important point is to achieve flow you have to find what you are doing intrinsically rewarding. It is really ok that some people don't get flow from coding, and some do, but we shouldn't expect everyone to.

There's even a checklist for "have I achieved flow?" so you know.

Nakamura and Csíkszentmihályi identify the following six factors as encompassing an experience of flow. [3]

        intense and focused concentration on the present moment
        merging of action and awareness
        a loss of reflective self-consciousness
        a sense of personal control or agency over the situation or activity
        a distortion of temporal experience, one's subjective experience of time is altered
        experience of the activity as intrinsically rewarding, also referred to as autotelic experience

Those aspects can appear independently of each other, but only in combination do they constitute a so-called flow experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> A very poor understanding of psychological concepts of flow.

</comment><comment><USER30> The author should disclose whether he was interrupted while writing this article.

</comment><comment><USER31> It started with the "agile" cargo cult, and it continues...

</comment><comment><USER32> Eating is good. I love eating. I eat all the time, because I'm a human. There are even studies that show that eating is good for your health. It can even keep you alive.

But did you know that even though eating is good for you, it's also bad for you? If you eat constantly, you can become obese. You are at risk for heart disease and diabetes.

Therefore you should not eat.

Did I do it right? I like this style of blog writing.</comment>


The Definitive Guide, 6th Edition - <AUTHOR> http://www.davidflanagan.com/2011/02/javascript-the.html <comment><USER2> Probably many people will recognize the book right away from the URL of the page (author's name and all), but why not add "Javascript: " to the title of the post?</comment>


Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/mf_qa_singh/ <comment><USER2> 'You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe.'

Right. The difference lies in the way that trust is achieved. The "I trust X because Y trusts X" transitivity is very easy to jump on, but often disastrous; just ask Bernie Madoff's investors. If you read in the newspaper that "X is one of the foremost scientists in his field", it is also dangerous to rely on just this pronouncement, and blindly trust X's assertions.

The other way for the layperson to judge specialists is to learn enough about their field in order to evaluate their predictions. Granted, this involves much, much more effort than lazily following the reputation talk. But it also makes it much safer to trust the people involved, and to maybe stop trusting them if they go astray at some point.

To bring forth examples, evolution is quite easy to verify after reading a bit of biology. For example, DNA analysis comes in a full century after the "Origin of Species" and shows us how amazingly related all living things are, deep within; thus giving precise shapes to the "trees of life" that Darwin first sketched in his notebooks. And there are many, many other predictions of the theory of evolution that can be easily checked by the unprejudiced amateur. You'll rarely find articles that say "Dawkins believes in evolution, and Dawkins is a great scientist, therefore evolution is true".

On the other hand, things like climate science seem (to me at least) to rely much more on the argument from authority for gaining lay support. If some prominent climate scientist had predicted in the 90's that "average temperature in the 2000-2010 decade, as indicated by methodology X, will be 1.4 plus or minus 0.1 degrees Celsius warmer than in the 1990s", I would have a much easier time trusting his or her claims now. But things seem to be moving in the opposite direction with this field, e.g. as witnessed by the very replacement of "global warming" (somewhat verifiable) with "climate change" (unfalsifiable), and the popular attribution of all kinds of meteorological phenomena to this cause, in the same non-comprehending way that, not so long ago, they were ascribed to the god of thunder.

<comment><USER3> I see what you mean but I think you are overlooking how easy it is to muddy the waters. You come up with a good evidence of evolution. Great: but it will take the anti-evolution just one guy that makes a somehow plausible alternative scenario, or finds one whole in your argument and suddenly people are back to square one.

Despite we are _not_ back on square one. Between a theory that almost works (like evolution) and one that is pure conjecture, the fact that there's a whole in the former all it shows is that we need to improve the theory.

It is the same thing in climate modelling. It takes a nobody to say something which sound somehow plausible for the scientist to need to prove themselves again, often taking several years and a lot of effort. Most scientist, including at the IPCC, do describe hypothetical scenarios with all their doubts, including error bars etc... They also state all their assumptions, and their full method.

Then one guy says: "Hey, it's been crazy cold in England this winter... so much for global warming", or "between 2001-2002 the global temperature went down" and suddenly everyone feel they are back to "we don't know". But why? The data from the IPCC is the result of many different models, with many different assumptions. The opposition has provided no better model: all they need to do to keep the status quo is point out some small unknown or flaw. That's WRONG!

And btw, climate science is possibly one of the hardest disciplines around: you are making a prediction in the future of a chaotic system. But the anti- science groups can find objections just as easily to pretty much any bit of science they dislike.

<comment><USER2> It's true that there's a certain amount of fuzziness, but also there's a gradient of trust between 100% and zero. Predictions that consistently come true start to dwarf alternative explanations after a while. Darwin said that the great apes are our closest living relatives, and 150 years later research finds the genetic code similarities in the 90+% range. That's pretty strong.

On the other hand, it is indeed possible that the field of study is a chaotic system, and accurate predictions impossible. But then I will argue that's not a branch of natural science, but rather of history. A good historian can tell you in small details the reasons why Lincoln got elected in 1860, but is as clueless as the next guy as to the next presidential election. Would you trust him if he said Republicans are always best?

Similarly, there's a lot of great work done in historical climatology, with pollen analysis, ice cores etc. and we can find out a great many things about the past. Computer models can be built to fit this history perfectly (as I'm sure that even I can code some curve that spits out the order of Democrat and Republican presidents, or even last year's Dow Jones). But unless we see these models also making verifiable and accurate predictions (without 50% margins of error! what if chimp genome turned out to be 49% identical to ours?), it might well be that the system is inherently chaotic and muddy. Then it might simply not lend itself to scientific analysis, at least not with our present methods.

<comment><USER3> Indeed I agree that there exist a gradient of trust. But it is this that seems to be so difficult for the non-scientific literate to understand. In part I think it's a problem that society seem to use "shown scientifically" for "it's true". If there is one thing that people should learn at school is statistics and the scientific method: a LOT more useful than trigonometry nowadays!

However my point is that it's not enough to have consistent predictions to show you are right. The examples of alternative medicine or even evolution are a good case. In the former we can do new tests, and we have: a lot of money has been spent trying and trying again different studies on homeopathy and friends. However the alternative practitioners always come up with an excuse why the scientist is wrong, or his result not meaningful. Their answers are not scientific in any way, but they can muddy the water enough that the audience feels they can't know either way.

As for climatology, I agree with you that it's hard to call those predictions. Partially I think the very clear statements of the scientists get lost and simplified through different layers of repetitions so that when you read it in the mainstream newspaper you get a very partial version.

There is also a problem that part of IPCC was _not_ strictly science. The IPCC has 3 panels from what I remember: the scientific stuff, the effect these will have on society, and ways to prevent them. The former gives proper scientific assessment but the later two less so. One of the problem of the IPCC is that many of its complains came from mistakes in the latter two groups, but they cast a shadow of doubt to the first one (the scientific one) despite the three groups have little connection to each other. (the stuff about the Himalaya melting, for example was something added by the second group, not the first one).

I am not sure how easy it is to predict climate. We do better than random guesses, so I guess there's some help there, but it's not great so it shouldn't be reported as such. (of course if people knew what error bars and standard deviation were it wouldn't be so difficult).

One problem though with chaotic systems is how difficult is to "fix" them. Maybe you can increase a variable (say pollution) up to 1000 (in an arbitrary scale) without any effect. Then if you take it that extra 10 points the whole system goes bad. People seem to think that in that case we can simply fix it by lowering the variable again, but that's not how it works. If your system moved from one attractor to another (in state space) it may be extremely hard to move back. This is why I think our best bet by far is to keep things as they are: better to err on the side of caution. (of course those are just my opinions: scientist should make predictions, but then it's society that decide what to do with them ^_^).

<comment><USER2> I agree with most of your points, and the info about the IPCC's inner workings is particularly interesting. And yes, we can't expect the larger part of the public to become sufficiently informed to properly evaluate even the bases of scientific discourse (at least until, as you point out, the educational system changes considerably).

My point was directed more at the _intellectually curious_ laypersons (which is, I believe, a superset of HN's readership). It's practically impossible, in this age of extremely specialized science, for outsiders to understand exactly how various scientific conclusions are arrived at. Fortunately, the task of verification is much easier, and with a small amount of self-training it is possible, I believe, to judge whether or not a certain set of scientists consistently make verifiable predictions that come true.

<comment><USER3> If you are interested to know more about the IPCC inner workings and exactly what was wrong, here it's an article from a British newspaper (Guardian) from one of its members: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/ipcc- error...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/ipcc-errors-facts- spin)

The crucial bit: "The IPCC does not carry out primary research, and hence any mistakes in the IPCC reports do not imply that any climate research itself is wrong. A reference to a poor report or an editorial lapse by IPCC authors obviously does not undermine climate science. Doubting basic results of climate science based on the recent claims against the IPCC is particularly ironic since none of the real or supposed errors being discussed are even in the Working Group 1 report, where the climate science basis is laid out."

and about the Himilayan glaciars mistake:

"This is of course not the proper IPCC projection of future glacier decline, which is found in Volume 1 of the report. There we find a 45-page, perfectly valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice (Chapter 4), with the authors including leading glacier experts"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Singh has, I think, won the first battle in two very long wars.

The first is, of course, the science one. The other being our idiotic libel laws.

From this it's clear he's very switched on too (well, that was probably not in doubt but still). This, in particular, is an important point we face:

''Scientists aren't necessarily good communicators, because they aren't trained to be good communicators. A researcher could be doing really important work on global warming, and then somebody writes a column in a national newspaper that completely undermines what they're saying.''

<comment><USER3> About your last quote, I think what we need is to have scientist dedicated to the communication side of science: aka scientific journalists. I know there are a few, but we need a lot more, and like many bits of science they'll need to be sometimes paid with public money.

This seems to me the only way that you can keep the scientist working on the science, and still answer all the questions that people have. Basically large groups need their own public relation department. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ben Goldacre is another good scientific crusader. It's worth reading his book Bad Science for his rants against the ridiculous poop-inspecting TV nutritionist "Dr" Gillian McKeith, and the more serious issue of quack medicine and its propaganda war against HIV/AIDS medication in South Africa.

Here's a taster, from his Guardian column: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/feb/03/badscience.ukn...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/feb/03/badscience.uknews)

<comment><USER6> Don't forget to mention Ben Goldacre's own website too which has more of the same stuff - <http://www.badscience.net/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I fear that as the scientifically correct action keeps getting further and further divorced from the 'common sense' action on any given issue, the two worlds will continue to divide, and as the distance increases, science will get harder and harder to follow.

The bridging has to be done by cultural evolution, so that the prejudices that form by 18 are not as counter-science as they are now, but even so, they cannot be adapted to future science when it's not yet in existence.

So we need a culture based on constant learning and adapting our views to evidence. Based on the amount of cognitive bias we have built-in, the 'uncoolness' of rationality, and the speed of scientific progress, I'm not hopeful save for deep de-biasing interventions on our hardware.

Let's see what 'anti-' movement that's going to raise.

<comment><USER8> If you're interested in Science Fiction, you might want to read Neal Stephensons 'Anathem'. It plays exactly with your scenario: Scientific groups isolating themselves intentionally from the 'secular' world.

Funny enough, their scientists look like priest to the common people. And the common people are basically required to blindly accept what these priest... well... preach. Science turns into religion.

It's always something I think about, when I see another survey whether you 'believe' in evolution or climate change.

<comment><USER9> And for a rather different take on science-as-religion, try A Canticle for Leibowitz.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think this is one of the most important points:

"That said, they can also find support for their ideas in the mainstream media—because when the mainstream media gives a so-called balanced view, it's often misleading. The media thinks that because one side says climate change is real and dangerous, the other view is that it's not real and not dangerous. That doesn't reflect the fact that something like 98 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and dangerous. And this happens with everything from genetically modified foods to evolution."

It is not just in science. It is in everything, including politics. The (modern) concept of the unbiased view has turned into a "ask both sides of the argument". Which can work when (say) you are in an election campaign. But take a scientist and a charismatic charlatan: the scientist tries to give the right view (with all the ifs and buts) and the charlatan gives a appealing and simple to understand story... though completely wrong. I don't blame the reader/viewer for not being persuaded by the scientist.

The idea that, for example, a group of us could join forces and argue that the oil spill is really a good thing for the biology of the mexican gulf, and we would be given equal time with the guy who's done 10 years of study in it... that does not help the viewer.

The journalist seem to have forgotten their role of gatekeepers, and fact checking. They seem to be just there repeating verbatim what he or she says: sure, it makes their job easier, but it really doesn't help their readership.

<comment><USER10> Given CNN's new behavior of reporting news as defined by their viewers on Twitter, this is not too surprising.

It would be nice if news organizations went back to being cost centers separated from the organization's entertainment center.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why did Singh have to pay $200,000 of his own money to defend himself? Where was The Guardian in all of this?

Edit: typos.

<comment><USER12> The Guardian has no doubt protected itself from legal responsibility of certain writers: probably those which aren't direct employees. So I imagine the 200,000 comes from legal fees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Singh is a very talented science writer. _The Code Book_ still ranks as one of the most engaging nonfiction books I've read. He managed to make a history of encryption into something of a gripping page-turner.

</comment><comment><USER14> I hope everyone realizes the "War on Science" is being marketed to a specific demographic the same way the "War on Christmas" was. If you rolled your eyes then...

<comment><USER12> I'm not familiar with the War on Christmas. Can you elaborate.

<comment><USER14> Several years ago in the U.S., many of the Religious Right-oriented media outlets complained of stores putting up "Happy Holidays" signs instead of the traditional "Merry Christmas" signs. Despite the fact that this had already been relatively common practice for some time. Nonetheless, the "issue" was _created_ and lots of people decided to be outraged about it. Everyone else rolled their eyes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> alok-g >> Antiscientific and pseudoscientific attitudes will get corrected; it's just a question of how painful that process is going to be.

Not necessarily true.

Things like astrology, alternative healing, etc. have been there for thousands of years and they just don't seem to be going away.

Roger Penrose makes some very interesting remarks on origins of these in his book "The Road to Reality". He says that ancient humans observed the influence the Sun had on their lives (day/nights, seasons, etc.) and also of the moon (tides, etc.). And there came a wrong inference that "all" heavenly objects have such an influence (astrology). He also speculates ancient humans figuring out geometrical shapes and finding naturally occurring crystals having those perfect shapes. And there came another wrong inference that such perfect natural objects must have powers to cure all that is not perfect (crystal healing).

More than a few thousands of years later, going from development of first scientific thought process in human beings (e.g.: astronomy) all the way to today, plenty of people still believe in these things (e.g.: astrology).

The third thing Penrose mentions amongst some of the first things humans learned is earth being flat, which again was a wrong inference (looks flat at human scales, must be flat at larger scales too). It took so much pain to fix this and that could only be done because a very simple evidence could ultimately be produced that everyone could see and understand by seeing a single photograph (of the round earth taken from the space). (Aside: And now humans wonder if the universe is flat. Penrose has beautifully connected some most ancient things in the human thought process to the most modern ones.)

I doubt such simple evidence is ever going to come against astrology and alternative healing, for one that it would be a lack of evidence instead. What was a "photograph" of a "round" earth there, would here be a "plot" of an uncorrelated variable (say improvement in health) against dependent variable (use of crystals) showing a "round" blob (no correlation) instead of a round earth. Just that this time, majority of humans are not able to follow (what some of us call) such simple a plot!

</comment><comment><USER15> I think the most important metric on whether or not to trust someone is there research methodology. Everything regarding MMR has been tested via a double blind study (ie the people analyzing the data are different and separated from the people collecting the data).

The "evidence" about a link between chiropractic care and asthma was not tested with such rigor. Similarly, virtually all of the evidence suggesting anthropogenic global warming is published by the same people who collect the data. They willfully ignore counter evidence and they rely on loads of proxy data that can easily be manipulated. If you haven't read Michael Crichton's essay on global warming, I highly recommend it. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html>

</comment><comment><USER16> "You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe."

<comment><USER17> This cuts both ways. In the States, many people have lost their trust in the integrity of scientific research and the integrity of regulatory bodies. So the CDC might recommend something, or the FDA might approve some drug, and to people that trust these organizations, that's the golden stamp of approval. For others, any such recommendations are inherently suspect.

This goes deeper than education, intelligence, etc, and you can't solve it though more education per se, unless that education addresses the source of the distrust.

In areas where scientific research _has_ been compromised by non-scientific interests, what can you do? Education is no longer education but propaganda, further deepening people's distrust.

<comment><USER18> Absolutely, and all these bodies that the public no longer trusts should be defunded 200%. Why throw good money after bad? Defund congress, the presidency, economist liars, education bureaucrats, and especially the thieves that make up academia with its 50k a year tuitions and grad student slave labor. But getting back to Singh, he's pretty clearly an idiot on a lot of things. Cars are not the issue, global warming is man made only to the degree pigs can fly and that you believe that a functionaly retarded government buraucrat should randomly assign 20% of your money to various propaganda projects.

Chiropractors are quacks, but regular doctors are even bigger quacks. And least the chiropractors do something mildly positive for your money. Surgeons are ok, but they are very deficient in whole body well being.

I support the right of chiropractors to say that singh is an idiot and that of signh to say they are liars. Both viewpoints are correct and they should argue for 10s of years. The only reason 200k had to be spent was because of the corrupt laws of the fascist government of britain. The parties should have argued without money or lawyers.

Don't trust anyone, and don't let anyone hold your nice money. The sucker MBAs/politicians will rob you blind every time the second you trust them with any amount of money.

<comment><USER19> I think your tinfoil hat is on a little tight...

<comment><USER20> I wouldnt quite say so. Perhaps, it appears that way with some of those lines...

\---Absolutely, and all these bodies that the public no longer trusts should be defunded 200%. Why throw good money after bad?---

Good point. There was an idea that voters should number from 1 to N the importancy of their money going to that department. And after the votes tallied, the % of the national budget would go proportionately to those departments.

\---Defund congress, the presidency, economist liars, education bureaucrats,---

Pointless. But the next part:

\---and especially the thieves that make up academia with its 50k a year tuitions and grad student slave labor.

I believe e just had some interesting conversations about "How to Fail a PhD" that described the situation with upper academia. One person even alluded that the upper tiers are the last holdouts of the ancient guild system, a view I agree with. And especially, with public universities, there's no reason the exorbitant price on said degree. But he hit this one squarely.

\---But getting back to Singh, he's pretty clearly an idiot on a lot of things. Cars are not the issue, global warming is man made only to the degree pigs can fly and that you believe that a functionaly retarded government buraucrat should randomly assign 20% of your money to various propaganda projects.---

When I was reading American Scientist, I paid close attention to the "Sigma XI UN Global Warming Report". It has detailed factoids of when this happens or why and such and such. And of course, the doom and gloom of (shudder) GLOBAL WARMING.

And the 2nd paragraph, not quite in the paper, but skewed aside the main article was a note saying that no test was made to determine the effects of humans.

Hmm, back up there. I can tentatively accept that GW is haappening. However, we do not know the causes. And we're arrogant enough to believe we can solve it without scientific proof of why? And some of these ideas are "Dump lime in the ocean"??

\---Chiropractors are quacks, but regular doctors are even bigger quacks. And least the chiropractors do something mildly positive for your money. Surgeons are ok, but they are very deficient in whole body well being.---

Id agree. I've never been to a chiropracter, but have been to GP's before. Most of them aren't worth a damn except for the pills they push. Heck, even the doctor I was going to for my shoulder surgery was a narco-pusher. I needed them, and he provided. He would have done it over the phone, but DEA says they cant.

The fact is, yes, they have medical experience, but I know my body better than they do. And for the longest time, doctors did not listen. I, instead, found a malleable doctor and bend him to my will. If I need drugs, I get drugs. If I need tests, he finds a way to push it through insurance.

\---I support the right of chiropractors to say that singh is an idiot and that of signh to say they are liars. Both viewpoints are correct and they should argue for 10s of years. The only reason 200k had to be spent was because of the corrupt laws of the fascist government of britain. The parties should have argued without money or lawyers.---

A damn true statement.

\---Don't trust anyone, and don't let anyone hold your nice money. The sucker MBAs/politicians will rob you blind every time the second you trust them with any amount of money.---

Same as above. Still true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I was chatting with Simon about this a few weeks ago. He's definitely in this for the long haul, but is really looking forward to getting back to writing about science, not libel.

<comment><USER22> Nice to hear. I own all three of his science books and they are excellent. I wish someone else had spent five years fighting libel charges, and he had spent five years writing new books.

<comment><USER19> Three? Which are you missing?

The Code Book, Fermat's Last Theorem, Big Bang or Trick or Treatment (with Edzard Ernst)?

<comment><USER22> Trick or Treatment, because I don't need a book to tell me that is BS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think what he is saying make sense. For instance there is a huge mountain of evidence for anthropogenic global warming and the need to cut down our emissions. I'd say on 9/10 things I probably agree with the scientists, with the exception of GMO foods which to me are a really bad idea with potentially catastrophic consequences.

However, I have a problem with laymen needing to sit down and accept whatever scientists say for the simple fact that science is not some pristine incorruptible institution dedicated only to truth. Scientists are PEOPLE and are subject to the same political issues, careerism, bias to not make funders angry, etc. that everyone else is.

Science is subject to a lot of influence from the people holding the purse strings, which are often industry. Take the recent story that came out of Harvard Medical School about how pharma has been influencing the ways that drugs are being prescribed: [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug- co...](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies- doctorsa-story-of-corruption/) \- should we non-scientists not question scientists, physicians, and other "authorities" when this type of thing is happening?

It is a GOOD thing when people question what scientists say. What is needed are better ways for scientists and non-scientists to engage in dialogue, and more often. Believe it ot not there might be a few things scientists can learn from the non-scientists.

I think that a lot of this gets discussed by regular people on broadcast channels (talk radio, cable news) that are really terrible mediums for communicating complex ideas. It would be nice if TV and radio weren't so cluttered with advertising, which makes it almost impossible to do more than make short statements. The exceptions that are good for communiating ideas through broadcast (such as Michio Kaku's radio show) prove the rule by being commercial-free.

Another note, scientists have to understand how political discourse and beliefs work. The domain is NOT based on rational inquiry and peer review. There is no "correct answer" as to whether Social Security should be privatized or if the US should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. The work of George Lakoff is a must-read on this topic; we form much of our political beliefs based on non-rational moral frameworks that stem from our childhood and our ideas about the family (strict father vs. nurturant parent morality), and mapping our ideas about how the family should work onto the "nation as family" morality.

<comment><USER3> I agree that scientist are not above human mistakes and bias like everyone else. But there is a way to tackle that. The scientific method tries to minimise the errors cause by bias and human mistakes. That's why we can eventually decide that the tobacco industry's results were wrong: because they had to show all their procedure and some other scientist could explain where they went wrong.

But when you take statements from alternative medicine, which are: a) not based on any scientific theory, b) often only defended by anecdotal evidence, c) their speaker is charismatic and a proficient PR, then it gets really really hard.

You may point out to research showing that homeopathy doesn't work. To avoid being branded as hiding data or such, you say everything very carefully, explaining anything you know and you don't know, and the uncertainty in the results and so. The other then replies: "You can give me all the numbers you want, but I've _seen_ cases of people who got a lot better." and then show you a few photos of before and after: "Why---he concludes---do you not want the audience to have access to the most effective treatment?".

The former was boring, hard to understand, and objective/dry. The latter spoke straight to the heart, and show evidence.

And remember that a lot of problem arise because people _want_ to believe the charlatan. They want to believe that the incurable cancer that the doctor prescribed can be cured, or that they can keep their lifestyle without destroying the world, or that the religion the believed for for so long is correct an we humans are special.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I know this really wasn't the platform for Simon to defend or assert his views but he certainly does a poor job of it. It seems the interviewer was soft- balling questions simply because he won in court. Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true.

I do agree that the "media" and "common sense" assumptions give more legitimacy to seemingly crazy ideas or counter-ideas. But simply dismissing all opposing viewpoints because they don't fit your scientific model is insane.

I think Simon needs a little more years under his belt (wisdom) and maybe another PhD in history to make him aware of this historically painful fact.

Also, he's a great example of why _average_ people dislike academics. Just being smarter is not enough to convince people. You actually need to listen to them, and learn to communicate with them in order for them to trust you. And isn't that what Simon wants?

<comment><USER25> _"Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true."_

I don't think he is advocating that. Trusting scientists because they use controlled experiment, peer review and other similar tools is quite a different thing than trusting them based on authority.

<comment><USER26> From the interview: _Don't come up with a view, find everybody who agrees with it, and then say, "Look at this, I must be right." Start off by saying, "Who do I trust?" On global warming, for example, I happen to trust climate experts, world academies of science, Nobel laureates, and certain science journalists. You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe._

It sounds like he is advocating a trust system based on titles, organization membership, etc. How is this different from trusting them based on authority?

<comment><USER3> What's wrong with that? I mean it's not like you get a noble prize by winning the lottery! You take random wacko on TV and noble laureate, each tells you their theory, and you (so far) don't know anything else. Who do you trust? Why?

I think the title _does_ mean something: it was neither bestowed upon him randomly nor inherited by blood.

Let me ask you another question: who do you think runs faster, a random guy I pick you see in the street, or a guy who won an olympic medal in athletic? Most people somehow feel winning an olympic medal is all about merit, but getting a Noble isn't!!!

<comment><USER26> Chill out. There is nothing in my comment to imply that there is anything wrong with title, or authority, or pink ponies. The author of the proceeding comment wrote " _Trusting scientists because they use controlled experiment, peer review and other similar tools is quite a different thing than trusting them based on authority._ " The purpose of my comment is to say that the words attributed to Singh indicate trust based on authority indicated by title, membership, etc.

<comment><USER3> No worries: I wasn't angry or shouting. Sorry for coming too strongly. :)

I understand what you are saying, but my point is that those two are in science a lot closer than you seem to suggest. Titles (such as a noble prize) are won thanks to reputation gained from those experiments and peer reviews. If your karma system is based on what you published and that is subjected to peer review and scientific methodology, then your reputation (i.e. your karma) are a good hint that the person knows what they are talking about.

In other words: trust scientist --> high authority --> gained by good experiments and subjected to peer review</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Black newborns significantly more likely to die when looked after by white drs - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/18/health/black-babies-mortality-rate-doctors-study-wellness-scli-intl/index.html <comment><USER2> Did the study correct for birth difficulty? I.e. were white doctors more likely to get harder cases? The study abstract doesn't say, and I can't access the full text.</comment>