What do grad students in math do all day? - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/stoutbeard/4158578 <comment><USER2> An incredibly accurate depiction of research in any theoretical field, I'd say. Compound that with the fact that during your education you're mostly presented with texts that summarize decades or more of research into a scant few pages as if the people involved had just flowed naturally from one idea to the next, from a problem statement to the incredibly complex idea that unlocks the proof.

When it's finally your turn to try your hand at actual research, it turns out that your contributions are barely a couple of side notes on a restricted subset of a problem in the hope that someone will use that information to find out something that is actually relevant in practice.

Rather than turning me off from academia, it makes me marvel at the tower of minuscule pebbles upon which our modern civilization rests. One day, I might get to place a few more of them on top.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. After doing 2 years I left with a masters and never looked back. What is even scarier than the minuscule contributions you might make is the few that have done anything but minuscule. Those people are amazingly smart.

By the way, cats do like vacuums... <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCzkm2z4-6g>

<comment><USER4> If they're so smart, why aren't they any better at bringing newcomers up to speed?

<comment><USER5> Some thing are hard no matter how you try to explain them. There's lots of stuff that seems to require working through it yourself to understand.

<comment><USER4> Oh, I don't disagree; some topics are inherently intractable. It's just that, in all my experiences, the numbers are more like 1 truly intractable topic for every thousand that some expert will mistakenly claim is intractable simply because they haven't put the effort into tracing out the connections to other topics.

The woman top row of this xkcd pretty much sums up my life:

<http://xkcd.com/566/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Can use use a vacuum cleaner to clean a cat?" ... Yes, but I've found that the cat might not like it. I'd also recommend using the upholstery tool and whatever you do, don't allow the cats tail (or any other part) to come into contact with the rotating brushes. For a moderately dirty cat, the vacuum's suction should be enough. If you have a really dirty cat, or a lot of cats to clean at once, try an automatic car wash instead (just make sure it's the kind where the doors close before the wash starts, otherwise too many escape).

<comment><USER7> My cats hate the vacuum but one of them absolutely loves to be swept on his back with the broom. He's old school like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I did my PhD in the database area, and I really relate to some of the stuff in this article - most particularly the overwhelming difficulty (and pressure involved) in doing something genuinely new. I came in with all these wonderful ideas, and within a few months realised that not only had they all been done, most of them had been done decades ago. Quite the comedown!

It does give you a bit of a cynical outlook on new tech in general.

<comment><USER9> One of the things I've found is that, to really consider myself a "master" of a particular field, I have to know where the research frontier is. "What are the current unanswered problems? How do you extend method X to cover case Y?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Fun read, well-written. I can relate to this somewhat. I recently proofread a paper discussing new applications for hermite polynomials (for english mistakes), and I was blown away by the years of study it would take me to even begin to understand what was going on with my amateur math skills. I guess it can be similar to what a non-programmer feels like when looking at code.

</comment><comment><USER11> I prefer the explanation that I developed back when I was a math student:

Imagine that all of mathematics is represented as a solid sphere (ball). At the core (origin) of this sphere are the most basic concepts in math, that we all learn in elementary and high school. On top of the core are many layers of knowledge that are all interconnected, but lead in different directions from the origin. These layers have names like algebra, calculus, and geometry. On top of those are other layers with names like topology, set theory, number theory, analysis, etc. These layers continue, like an onion, all the way to the surface of the sphere.

All mathematics students begin at the core and climb outward, towards the surface of the sphere. They choose different directions and set out to learn and practice everything that they encounter on their paths through the sphere. Eventually, after many years of study, the students who survive finally reach some point on the outside surface of the sphere. Which exact point on the surface each student reaches depends on the direction that he chose at the start. Once the students reach the surface of the sphere, they have understood everything that is known to mankind about some specific series of subjects within their speciality. Standing on the surface of the sphere, they must then must work to add a new layer to the sphere, to add something new and original to human knowledge.

As time goes by, new theories are developed and added as new layers onto the sphere. In ancient times, a great mathematician could learn everything in the whole of the sphere within a single lifetime. The sphere has grown exponentially, however, and in modern times no one person could ever visit every place in the sphere within a single lifetime. The sphere has become so vast as to defy comprehension, as generation after generation has expanded it with new layers.

When the mathematics students were starting out in the core of the sphere, they were all in the same place. They could easily see and speak to one another. However, when they reach the surface of the sphere, it is as if they are scattered across different points of the surface of a huge planet. A student might be lucky to find himself at a popular spot on the surface, where there are perhaps a handful or even a few dozen other students who he can talk to. Another student, less fortunate, may find himself stranded in a deserted place where there is no one that can hear him and there is no one for him to speak to. The surface is a lonely place, where few souls are encountered and if you do encounter some wandering traveller then you are unlikely to speak to the same language and must communicate by crude gestures like waving of hands.

As more and more matter is added to sphere, the dwellers on its surface drift further and further apart, as the surface area expands. Furthermore, the surface of the sphere grows farther and farther way from the core of the sphere. It takes longer and longer for the students to reach the surface of the sphere, as there is more and more volume to traverse.

<comment><USER2> Agreed, but as a slight counterpoint, some research is about stripping away unnecessary middle layers, to find abstractions, a quicker way to the surface in other words.

If we didn't do this, research would inevitably stop, unless eternal life lies inside a 100 year radius of the sphere (and we can keep learning and getting smarter forever, which I doubt)

<comment><USER12> And, some stuff has been forgotten. Even if it used to seem pretty important.

Speaking about spheres, there's lots of stuff about spherical trigonometry that you can find in old books (say, 1880s to 1920s [1]). They used to think it was math, but it has been determined to not be math any more. It's now stuff that "everyone knows".

[1] [http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer- idx?...](http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer- idx?c=math;cc=math;rgn=full%20text;idno=00640001;didno=00640001;view=image;seq=9;node=00640001%3A5;page=root;size=100)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Speaking of vacuum cleaners, Stephen Pile, my very much favourite author ever, wrote an entry in his hilarious _Book of Heroic Failures_ about the man who almost invented the vacuum cleaner. I reproduce it here verbatim, under the principles of fair use (transformative, educational, not for profit and a tiny amount of his work that won't impinge on his profits - buy his book!)

 _The Man Who Almost Invented The Vacuum Cleaner_

The man officially credited with inventing the vacuum cleaner is Hubert Cecil Booth. However, he got the idea from a man who almost invented it.

In 1901 Booth visited a London music-hall. On the bill was an American inventor with his wonder machine for removing dust from carpets. The machine comprised a box about one foot square with a bag on top.

After watching the act -- which made everyone in the front six rows sneeze -- Booth went round to the inventor's dressing room.

"It should suck not blow," said Booth, coming straight to the point. "Suck?", exclaimed the enraged inventor. "Your machine just moves the dust around the room," Booth informed him. "Suck? Suck? Sucking is not possible," was the inventor's reply and he stormed out. Booth proved that it was by the simple expedient of kneeling down, pursing his lips and sucking the back of an armchair. "I almost choked," he said afterwards.

\---

There's a story here somewhere that aught to relate to mathematics, if only I could find it...

</comment><comment><USER14> > Fortunately, math has an incredibly powerful tool that helps bridge the gap. > Namely, when we come up with concepts, we also come up with very explicit > symbols and notation, along with logical rules for manipulating them. It's a > bit like being handed the technical specifications and diagrams for building > a vacuum cleaner out of parts.

Just to play the devil's advocate ... math has wonderful symbols and methods, but they don't really assist in comprehension unless everyone agrees on their meaning, and then only if everyone already understands the underlying concepts, the axioms. For example, starting in 1910, Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead published "Principia Mathematica" (a borrowed title):

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica>

But, notwithstanding their high intellectual level and the ambitions behind the project, and notwithstanding the system of symbols used, Russell and Whitehead missed a crucial, central point -- their plan to systematize mathematics, place it on a solid logical foundation, make it immune from uncertainty and doubt, was doomed from the start. Kurt Gödel demonstrated this a few years later:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6dels_incompleteness_theo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6dels_incompleteness_theorems)

So much for the power of symbols. The consequences of the Incompleteness theorems are often overstated, but they do falsify the idea that mathematics is logically consistent, or that a set of symbols, however clear and unambiguous, will prevent basic misunderstandings in even the most fertile minds.

<comment><USER15> > The consequences of the Incompleteness theorems are often overstated, but > they do falsify the idea that mathematics is logically consistent, or that a > set of symbols, however clear and unambiguous, will prevent basic > misunderstandings in even the most fertile minds.

The incompleteness theorems don't falsify the idea that mathematics is logically consistent; they do falsify the idea that any reasonable mathematical theory could _prove_ its own logical consistency.

They also don't remove the possibility that there is some metamathematical justification for an unambiguous interpretation of the concept of the natural numbers or even of a set (see all of the work in large cardinals, culminating in Hugh Woodin's recent work on extender models for supercompact cardinals).

<comment><USER14> > The incompleteness theorems don't falsify the idea that mathematics is > logically consistent; they do falsify the idea that any reasonable > mathematical theory could prove its own logical consistency.

Yes, true, but I think that amounts to the same thing. Our inability to prove the thesis casts in doubt our right to assert it at all. That's certainly true for any other mathematical idea. No one was willing to say that Fermat's Last Theorem, or the Four-Color Map Theorem, were proven, until they were.

Nevertheless, I shouldn't have said that the Theorems "falsify" the logical consistency of mathematics. They prevent the notion from being demonstrated, but doesn't invalidate its existence as a hypothesis.

> They also don't remove the possibility that there is some metamathematical > justification for ...

Yes, but that's not a positive claim, it's the assertion that it can't be ruled out. And such an effort might fall afoul of the "sufficiently complex" criterion of Godel's Theorems, which brings us full circle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm just finishing a math PhD. Talking to CS PhD's my impression is that we do pretty much the same thing, we just work on different domains.

<comment><USER17> I'm a CS PhD, and I agree. I always tell people I'm studying math because it gives them much more of a flavor for what I'm actually doing everyday. When I say computer science, people think I'm just programming something.

Also, when people ask me, "So What do you _actually_ do studying math?" I reply, "Sit and stare at the wall for several hours a day. Occasionally I write something down."

<comment><USER18> It does depend a lot on the sub-field of CS.

For systems work you spend a lot of time implementing ideas and running experiments. In a lot of cases it isn't necessarily that difficult to find an interesting idea that's probably viable. The real work is spending a lot of time writing code and work out all the annoying details to get to the point where you have a decent proof of concept.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Yes, when as a math grad student I saw some of that, I developed some opinions and ideas to look for more productive approaches.

Somewhere I read: "There is a famous recipe for rabbit stew that starts out, 'First catch a rabbit'.", and I changed that to, "There is a recipe for how to do applied mathematics, first get an application.".

For more, commonly the main criteria for 'research' is that it be "new, correct, and significant". And quite broadly in some powerful places, e.g., a famous David report, there were complaints that a result in math that met the first two but had no visible applications, inside or outside math, was likely short on "significant". So, eventually it dawned on me that if start with an application (something significant in the real world, although inside math would do also but tends to be more difficult and less highly valued outside math) and get a good solution for that application, then have "significant" handled. Yes, these thoughts did occur to me, but they were only secondary: My real interest was 'significant' outside of math and, in particular, in my bank account.

So, on to "new, correct": In math, "correct" is comparatively easy -- just work in the style of definitions, theorems, and proofs where it is fairly easy to check math correctness.

That leaves the part "new": Surprise! If start with a significant problem from the real world, then likely there is no solid solution for that problem on the shelves of the research libraries. Why? Because it's a really complicated real world out there! So, find in your real problem where current math doesn't really provide a solution and then do some more math to get some math for a better solution for the real problem. Now maybe the math just did that was "new" is not as earth shaking for pure math as, say, resolving the Riemann hypothesis, or, now, P versus NP, but still have covered "new, correct, and significant" and, besides, may have something powerful and valuable for the real problem outside math.

And that new math result got for that one real problem has a nice property: Given a new result in 'pure' math, the probability of an application in the next 12 months is small. Given a new result in math that has an application, the probability of another application in the next 12 months is nicely higher. Moreover, that probability appears to be monotone increasing with the number of known applications. Indeed, one skeptical way to evaluate such a result is to look for two significant applications instead of just one!

There is more going for this approach: Are taking math directions and 'values' based heavily on what solves some problems outside math. Well, where'd we get calculus? Sure, trying to make sense out of elliptical orbits of planets. And calculus is the main well spring of the part of math called 'analysis' that is so far by a wide margin the most applicable part of math (I know, number theory can do good things for computer security; maybe some people studying string theory in physics will want some topology; and people in logic may value work in foundations). But, tough not to notice that calculus led to the study of heat flow and Fourier theory which did great things for signal processing.

But in part the OP is correct: When I went through measure theory, it seemed fantastic stuff, especially since finally I had a better theory of integration for applications. But in Rudin's 'Real and Complex Analysis' he discussed regular Borel measures, and I never saw just why he cared about the 'regular'. Maybe if I'd go back and think about those few pages for a few days I'd see it. Yet, if I did see it, then I'd write it down so I wouldn't have to work to see it again, and I wish that Rudin had done that in his book. The precise definitions, theorems, and proofs are crucial, but too often pure math is written with too little explanation of the view from 50,000 feet.

My view is that the key to much more value from computing over the next few decades will be some novel uses of math and its techniques of definitions, theorems, and proofs. Why? Because for what to do in building our hardware and system software, applications, and larger systems, we need more powerful tools than intuitive heuristics or just programming what in principle we see how to do manually.

So, right, in the short term, my approach to math is to do 'applied' math where essentially we start with an application. Then in the longer term my hope is that such math, as calculus did, will lead to new, grand, powerful structures in pure math.

Yes, if the pure mathematicians can make good progress as isolated from applications as in the OP, then good for them, but I concluded that, in effect, good math needs some good applications from outside math.

Much of this 'philosophy' has come to pass whether deliberately or not: Quite broadly it is accepted that the best research 'mathematizes' its field. So, yes, the leading example is mathematical physics, but math is now just crucial in mechanical, electrical, electronic, and civil engineering, statistics, and operations research. Other fields that try to be more mathematical include finance, economics, psychology, sociology, and, now, genetics. And of course computer science is becoming increasingly mathematical.

As powerful as math has been for these other fields, pure math has essentially been left suffering as the applications, grants, and students based on applications of math go to fields outside math. So, if I were a chair or a dean over a math department, then I would welcome serious attention on important problems from outside math. I would keep fully high standards of definitions, theorems, and proofs. But, for more, first cut it would seem that the criteria "new, correct, and significant" would be easier than those criteria with also "applicable, powerful, and valuable" outside of math, but my view is that this is false, that being applicable is easier just to publishable papers but more importantly to real significance both inside and outside math.

<comment><USER18> Mathematizing a fields is a bit of a double edged sword though and I think needs a great deal of skepticism and caution. Yes, if you do it right you can get insights and prove things more rigorously. If you do it wrong, the mathematics can easily become divorced from reality: it really does require ongoing skepticism and awareness of the connection between whatever mathematical abstractions you've built and reality.

In computer science, assuming constant factors in algorithms don't matter is a useful approximation that makes it much easier to do mathematical analysis. But constant factors are very important in practice.

Also, plenty of academic economics research has gone off the deep end with more and more elaborate mathematical models based on assumptions that don't jive with reality.

<comment><USER20> Excellent observation. In many ways, mathematization has killed many branches of not just academic economics, but practical economics as well. Just look at how many failed policies in the past were driven by the false assumption that if we change X by so many units, such and such economic indicator will move by Y.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > "It is a tool that does suck up dust to make what you walk on in a home > tidy."

This is essentially the idea behind Natural Semantic Metalanguage[1], Andrzej Bogusławski's theory of cross-cultural semantics from the 70s.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_semantic_metalanguage>

</comment><comment><USER22> Funny stuff, and no doubt often accurate, but it wasn't my experience. I wanted to work in game theory, and there weren't an game theorists in the Harvard mathematics department; there were, however, in the business school. So I went over there, and Elon Kohlberg told me of an outstanding problem, and gave me a couple of papers to explain. I worked until I had a proof of the conjecture, and that was that, even though it had in fact been proved elsewhere (the Mertens-Neyman Theorem) a couple of months before I finished.

The whole thing took about a year, after which I stared my post-doc in public policy. After that, I became a stock analyst. After that, I tried some startups (not successfully). Then I became a self-employed industry analyst.

What could be more straightforward than that? :)

</comment><comment><USER23> I used to say what I did every day consisted of counting, coloring, drawing pictures, and talking to people. And mostly, it did.

</comment><comment> not-gro-tsen As a math professor, I was enthusiastic when I read this short piece in Math Horizons, and promptly put it on my office door. The metaphor is a great hook, is well carried out, and leaves the reader with a pretty much spot-on idea of what math research is all about. I am delighted to see it reach a wider audience on the web.

</comment><comment><USER24> I know a lot of guys who started Math Phds...I know no one who actually finished one.

</comment><comment><USER25> math research would be much more relevant if they talked to engineers (and hopefully are listened to).

In college a I was told "quantum mechanics = linear algebra" then I hear "electrical engineering = linear algebra".

They were right.

The PhD is a little different. It becomes so specialized... your papers are geared towards only a handful of experts. Literally you and a few other people are the only in the world who understand it. I thought mathematicians had a lot more common ground, but they don't.

</comment><comment><USER26> Yeah, if you're lucky enough to never have to teach, pass quals, take classes of your own, etc. In reality, research takes up less than 30% of your average day.

</comment><comment><USER27> I read the title wrong and became curious what a grad student in math does all day after they graduate? Is there a lot of work in that field?

<comment><USER28> In the US, the NSA hires a lot of math folks: <https://www.nsa.gov/careers/career_fields/mathematics.shtml>

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> The blog post certainly illustrates the importance of a good copywriter...

"Tool to get rid of dust."

<comment><USER30> Tool not get rid of all dust, only dust tool can get to.

<comment><USER29> You're focusing on the specifics too much. This is actually very akin to a startup. How can you convey what you do in a clear and concise sentence without muddying it with details. My point in the original reply is that conveying the idea of a vacuum cleaner even with the harsh restrictions set, can still be done without sounding like a robot or caveman.

<comment><USER30> There's a very big difference between a tool that gets rid of _all_ dust, and a tool that only gets rid of a small subset of dust.

It may be a specific, but so is the fact that it gets rid of dust...

Today on HN: Math analogy spawns discussion on marketing copy and the properties of vacuum cleaners.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> ... or rather, what does a grad student do in any quantitative field?

<comment><USER32> There are collaborative fields, e.g. Most experimental fields.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I go to my master classes or slack mostly. There's this one guy in my class that do read math books though. But really, it doesn't change anything.

<comment><USER34> Masters or PhD?

<comment><USER33> master

<comment><USER35> jedi master?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Sounds like what math grad students did 50 years ago, before we solved all the pure math even tenuously related to the 4 dimensional reality we live in.

<comment><USER37> You are just wrong. For example, algebraic topology is one of the most abstract subjects I hear conversations about week. It has applications in physics, data analysis, and numerical computing.

Also, saying that reality is 4-dimensional is hooding yourself. The machine learning techniques we use everywhere depend on the math of higher-dimensional spaces, and they wouldn't work if reality couldn't be meaningfully viewed as many-dimensional.

<comment><USER36> Please share a link to an example paper published by a pure math department.

<comment><USER38> <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.2807.pdf>

Went to the Arxiv into the Algebraic Topology category. Any comments?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I thought they worked it out with a pencil as they saying goes.</comment>


Russia reveals secret diamond field containing "trillions of carats" - <AUTHOR> http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2012/0917/Russia-reveals-shiny-state-secret-It-s-awash-in-diamonds <comment><USER2> So I'd really like some explanation of this tidbit:

 _"According to the official news agency, ITAR-Tass, the diamonds at Popigai are "twice as hard" as the usual gemstones, making them ideal for industrial and scientific uses."_

Oh really? I'm familiar with different crystal structure or impurities that can make some diamonds 10 - 25% harder than gemstone class diamonds but 100% harder? That is a new one for me.

And I agree with others a trillion carets of diamond where the largest crystal is .1 caret is not as big a deal where you get 1 - 10 caret diamonds in there as well.

<comment><USER3> It's new for me also.

[http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl...](http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fria.ru%2Fscience%2F20120917%2F752346830.html)

"It is not a diamond. Hardness of this phase (lonsdaleite) 1.54 times higher than that of diamond, and since we have here a nanosized crystallites of cubic diamond and lonsdaleite - it is very sticky matrix that defines high performance Popigai impactites. Lonsdaleite share in some specimens can reach 70%, "- said the official.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Whatever happened to those guys who were making diamonds that could not be detected, I think in Miami?

<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond_pr.html>

<comment><USER5> Like most of the people in the artificial diamond industry, they either were bought out, threatened and changed their process, or were killed.

EDIT: Actually, looks like they went out of business. I'm betting execution didn't match promises.

Artificial gems that try to pass as "real" diamonds have to commit a lot of forgery, not just at the molecular level. Forging the mining certificates, the registration (with GIA, IGS, or other certification services) which actually look at when and where this diamond was mined, etc.

Even if you could perfectly recreate diamonds, you'd find very quickly that selling them for anything other than industrial purposes would be a huge challenge. Jewelers and distributors don't want to piss off DeBeers. Anyone showing up with any kind of volume and quality product that has gone "around" DeBeers somehow would raise far more suspicion than it's worth.

Source: I worked in the jewelry industry for 2 years, and we occasionally had people try and sell us unmarked/unrated diamonds. Totally not worth the trouble.

<comment><USER6> Gemesis is the company mentioned in the article and they still exist. You can buy lab diamonds from their website, even. Of course, they haven't transformed the industry because they are profit motivated, so they just sell their diamonds at 20-30% off rather than at their marginal cost to produce or something.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> From the article:

> _Russian scientists say the news is likely to change the shape of global > diamond markets_ //

Now colour me skeptical but they admit to keeping it a secret to manipulate the diamond prices; what are the chances that they are overplaying the find for the same reason?

<comment><USER8> If you want to talk about manipulating diamond prices, just read about DeBeers - you would be hard pressed to manipulate any market more than diamonds. I wouldn't buy a diamond if you paid me. Want to know the real value of a diamond? Try to sell it. Then I PROMISE you will know the value of a diamond.

<comment><USER9> As it turns out, diamonds fall into a particularly important category of objects which are both (A) Expensive to purchase, but simultaneously (B) Have little resale value.

It is these properties that make them ideal in the context of a marriage proposal. From a game theoretic position, it demonstrates serious intent on the part of the proposer, in that they can't afford to propose to many partners, while, at the same time, protecting (mostly) the proposer from gold diggers, as the person being proposed to will not be able to resell that ring to others.

People who buy diamond rings, therefore, are actually rational actors.

<comment><USER10> Let's discuss the requirements for an ideal marriage proposal gift:

1\. Provides a physical, wearable symbol of commitment.

2\. Is impossible to resell.

3\. Represents a significant economic expenditure.

Mutual tattoos, for instance, satisfy 1 and 2 much better than diamonds, while compromising significantly on 3. But what 3 is really getting at is a demonstration of commitment, and on that count tattoos are even better. You might be able to scrape up more money to buy a ring and propose to another partner later, but unlike diamonds, tattoos really are forever.

The problem with diamonds is that, especially if you follow the old guideline that an engagement ring should cost two months' salary (!), they only demonstrate to a gold digger how much wealth she will be able to extort in the future. Besides, gold diggers will generally enjoy diamonds purely as a status symbol and will generally waste your money on dumb shit that's more similar to diamonds than, say, mutual funds. Her inability to resell the diamond doesn't really factor much into her consideration; the diamond already is what she wants, not the sentiment behind it or the economic power to spend your wealth any more sensibly than that.

<comment><USER9> Actually - I like the tattoo concept. In order for it to be effective, it's not that it has to "Represent a significant economic expenditure" - rather, it has to be something that makes it infeasible for the proposer to do many times. A large economic (for the proposer) commitment is one way of doing this - but tattoos (or better yet, branding/scarring) would be even better.

With regards to the problems with diamonds. Totally agree, I think they are absolutely stupid. In a reasonable/responsible world, the proposer would have to demonstrate the ability to provide material food/water/energy/shelter security. Now that, has "real" value to me.

But, I'm clearly not the target for an engagement ring.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's a fake. <http://ria.ru/science/20120917/752346830.html> Google translate: <http://tinyurl.com/9kqjr3t>

TLDR: There are so called "technical diamonds", they are not good enough for jewelry, bat can be used for making tools, such as drills, etc.

<comment><USER12> Doesn't make it fake; iirc the article doesn't state the diamonds being of gemstone quality / purpose.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> No doubt a couple or three people are sweating profusely over at DeBeers.

<comment><USER14> These are industrial diamonds; nothing Debeers need worry about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Small diamonds barely material for jewels and difficult to extract.

Not a surprise they're not keeping it a secret, otherwise they would only be hurting themselves by driving prices down.

<comment><USER16> Context: They _already_ kept this a secret since the 1970s

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> did someone calculate how many startups could be funded of this piece of jewel:)?

</comment><comment><USER18> So, banks like barclays have been treating diamonds like money, and Russia chooses now to try and upset the diamond industry.

This should be fun.

<comment><USER19> > So, banks like barclays have been treating diamonds like money

Citation needed. Any appraiser with half a brain knows that diamonds' resale value is almost none. I'd be surprised to find a bank putting their money in diamonds. With toxic assets you'd have at least a chance of resale before the inevitable bust.

<comment><USER18> _"Last September, Israel's major banks quietly informed the Israeli government that they faced losses of disastrous proportions from defaulted accounts almost entirely collateralized with diamonds. Three of Israel's largest banks—the Union Bank of Israel, the Israel Discount Bank, and Barclays Discount Bank—had loans of some $660 million outstanding to diamond dealers, which constituted a significant portion of the bank debt in Israel. To be sure, not all of these loans were in jeopardy; but, according to bank estimates, defaults in diamond accounts rose to 20 percent of their loan portfolios. The crisis had to be resolved either by selling the diamonds that had been put up as collateral, which might precipitate a worldwide selling panic, or by some sort of outside assistance from the Israeli government or De Beers or both. The negotiations provided only stopgap assistance: De Beers would buy back a small proportion of the diamonds, and the Israeli government would not force the banks to conform to banking regulations that would result in the liquidation of the stockpile."_

from the article about trying to sell diamonds - [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have- you...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever- tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/6/)

<comment><USER20> Article from 1982, less relevant today. No bank today would ever use diamond as an asset or collateral.

<comment><USER18> oh shit.. Excuse my dumbness for not checking the date on it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Missing Bit: Windows 8 Doesn't Want Your App. Try Again Later - <AUTHOR> http://themissingbit.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/windows-8-doesnt-want-your-app-try.html <comment><USER2> Apparently Microsoft has bugs in their app store submission process.</comment>


Strong profiling is not mathematically optimal for discovering rare malfeasors - <AUTHOR> http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1716.full.pdf+html

<comment><USER3> There's a practical problem when trying to apply this paper to something like airport screening: it minimizes E[stops until terrorist is found], whereas what we really care about and want to minimize is P(terrorist gets through without being stopped).

It's a highly useful analysis as applied to, for instance, profiling for random stop-and-frisk street searches where you're just trying to find as many "evildoers" in a crowd as possible - most city cops would do well to realize that even if "profiling works", they're probably doing it far too aggressively, and actually ending up with fewer arrests per search than they would if they didn't profile at all. The paper's conclusion is not so useful when there may or may not be evildoers coming through your screening station and your task is to make sure that as few get through as possible, given a ceiling on the number of searches that you can do.

btilly mentioned (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4154989>) that the optimal solution (neglecting game theoretical considerations, which are extremely important!) to the airport screening problem is to set a prior probability cutoff based on resources available, and screen everyone in a group that has P(terrorist|group) above that cutoff, but he didn't elaborate. The gist of the proof, by example, is that if you can only screen 10 people out of a line of 100, then to minimize the chance of a terrorist getting through you should never _ever_ use up one valuable screening on someone with P(terrorist) = .02 if there's someone else with P'(terrorist) = .05. You'd have to be crazy to do so, since that's an extra 3% chance that a terrorist gets through, with no additional benefit.

As for the game theory issues, all I'll add there is that _if_ your prior probabilities are "correct" for the sample coming through the gate, then the strategy still holds. The problem is that if you know that terrorists know that you're profiling and might decide to send in lower probability people, your prior probabilities should change accordingly. How far, who can say...the fact is, our priors are extremely uncertain to begin with in this area, so all of this becomes much more subjective.

</comment><comment><USER4> Interesting for its sociopolitical primary application, but this paragraph from the discussion section shows its general relevance to a lot of strong-AI tasks:

 _It applies whenever a ''bell-ringer'' event must be found by sampling with replacement, but can be recognized when seen. For example, one can thus sample paths through a trellis or hidden Markov model when their number is too large to enumerate explicitly, but one path can be recognized (e.g., by secondary testing) as the desired bell ringer. It seems peculiar that the method is not better known._

It _does_ seem a little peculiar, although it's not quite as unknown as the author implies; rather, it provides a mathematical justification for one of the hacks we would sometimes try (often helpfully!) if our figure-of-merit was being overly dominated by high-ranking items: take the square root of the probability[0] and use that. :)

[0] Well, once we'd got to the point of this kind of hackery to improve our performance, it typically wasn't much of a probability anymore, at least not as such; call it a "probability-derived score".

</comment><comment><USER5> Profiling is absurdly counterproductive, but not for the reasons the paper describes. We don't need detailed analysis for this one, simple math will do. Just to be clear, we're talking about heightened security procedures for passengers of Arab ethnicity (as a proxy for people of Muslim faith.)

The problem? The majority of muslims aren't Arab! There are large numbers of: \- asian muslims, Indonesia = world's largest muslim country \- black muslims, across various African countries, i.e. _The Underwear Bomber_ \- white muslims, in the balkans and Chechnya for example \- And of course there's large numbers of muslims in India, Pakistan, and Iran who are not of Arab ethnicity, although they might or might not look similar enough (depending on dress most likely) to get thrown into the same profiling bucket.

The paper goes into the details of how a profiling system would be optimally set up, but the entire issue is moot. The premise that we have a good understanding of what groups should be receiving heightened security screening is itself wrong.

(Note: I couldn't find the statistic with a few minutes of Google searching, so I'll keep looking, but I know I have seen it reported that >50% of muslims in the world are of ethnicities other than Arab.)

<comment><USER6> The paper describes profiling as being statistically optimal, not counterproductive.

Also, no one proposes using Arab ethnicity as a proxy for being Muslim - <USER2> cares if someone is Muslim? Arab ethnicity (or being a Muslim) is used _probabilistic evidence_ (not a proxy) for a person being a terrorist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This analysis completely ignores the cost of _not_ finding malfeasors, does it not?

<comment><USER8> It looks at how you can proportionally allocate resources under the assumption that you're not going to examine everyone deeply. Can you explain why the cost of a false negative affects the allocation of limited resources, under its assumptions?

<comment><USER7> I don't care about false negatives, per se - only whether or not things get blown up. It seems to be optimizing for the wrong thing - minimizing samples, rather than minimizing total cost of malfeasance and its countermeasures. In the real world, resources available for countermeasures are not fixed, but are a function of the perceived cost of terrorism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Great to hear that some of my "no duh" thoughts have mathematical backing!

I've always found ethnic profiling rather strange. If we assume, correctly, that the vast majority of people are not "malfeasors" and the fact that said "malfeasors" will plan against any and all barriers which we put into place, why on Earth would you think that those you "nab" at airports and the like would be anything but innocent?

Seems like you'd only nab "malfeasors" who would've failed anyway, and in turn antognized a large population for little to no benefit.

What better way to breed "malfeasors" than to select and irritate a large number of people for long periods of time for no particular reason?

Contempt breeds contempt breeds contempt.

One last thought: Malfeasance is a result of some cause. Treating malfeasance is all well and good. But I always assumed that it would've been better to address the root cause that creates "malfeasors", which are (in no particular order); brutal poverty, constant assault and general mistreatment by those other than themselves.

I wonder what would have happened had we flooded the Middle East with cheap food/consumables and paid for hospitals, schools and infrastructure instead of going in and starting a rather prolonged war.

I suppose it probably doesn't matter now - the damage is done.

<comment><USER3> Don't overstate the result here: this paper says that (mathematically speaking) if you want to find terrorists in a crowd with as few checks as possible, it _is_ optimal to profile rather aggressively, you just shouldn't do so directly in proportion to the probability that each person is a terrorist, but instead sample in proportion to the square root of that probability.

This is not super surprising mathematically - there's no reason we ever should have assumed that P(terrorist|race) is exactly proportional to the optimal sampling frequency if we want to find terrorists when all we know is race, all we'd assume up front is that there's _some_ relation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> MIT researchers published a paper showing this simple mathematical fact in 2002 when the terrorism scare first appeared in the US.</comment>


Show HN: Visioner – Automatically renames your pictures using Google Vision - <AUTHOR> https://visionerapp.com <comment><USER2> Looks promising. Is there going to be one for Windows and Linux. What version of Mac OSX does it require? You should also add screenshots/demo of application to the website

<comment><AUTHOR> Great idea, I'll add some screens! It's made with Electron ([http://electron.atom.io/](http://electron.atom.io/)), so it should be easy to make a Linux or even Windows version.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The most needed tool for a world in which people take thousands of pictures and later can't find anything because they're all named DSP_1459.JPG

</comment><comment><USER4> How is this free and unlimited, if Google Vision is paid?

<comment><AUTHOR> Because there isn't a lot of users yet.</comment></comment>


Astronaut Selection - <AUTHOR> http://astronauts.nasa.gov/content/broch00.htm <comment><USER2> On a related note, there is an excellent anime series on what it takes to become an astronaut called "Space Brothers" [1]. It's about two brothers, the younger becomes a NASA astronaut, while the older tries to catch up by applying to join JAXA (Japanese space agency). It's quite accurate in its portrayal of qualifying examinations and tests, yet still is entertaining to watch.

[1]: [http://myanimelist.net/anime/12431/Uchuu_Kyoudai](http://myanimelist.net/anime/12431/Uchuu_Kyoudai)

<comment><USER3> I found it very slow and dull. My group gave up when we accidentally skipped an episode _and didn 't realize_.

<comment><USER2> Oh come on don't tell me you didn't at least enjoy the tests done by JAXA? The traitor one was really interesting.

<comment><USER3> Didn't get that far. Dropped it around 10 or 11 (just after the bus journey). 5 hours is more than enough of a chance to give a series.

<comment><USER4> > _5 hours is more than enough of a chance to give a series._

Five hours is more than enough. Five hours is enough time for the writers to take a genre, deconstruct it, salt the earth, collect all the pieces in one place and build a bonfire, dance around the flames thrice widdershins while invoking ancient and mysterious rites, take off and nuke the site from orbit (just to be sure)... and finally, on the site of the wreck, rebuild it all again more beautiful than it had ever been, in the process winning every award in the book and _forever altering the future of the genre._

But then, maybe I've just been utterly spoiled by _Puella Magi Madoka Magica_ (12 episodes, 300m). :b

<comment><USER5> I guess I'm a very impatient man. I gave up around the second episode.

<comment><USER4> ... of _Madoka_? Makes sense. The first two-and-three-quarter episodes deliberately conformed to the banal clichés of the genre, as a trap to snare unwary tween girls into thinking there would be lots of happiness and sparkles, instead of death, angst, pain, death, and more death. :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The ESA had a similar program in 2008, but the next round has not been announced yet it seems:

[http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/European...](http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/European_Astronaut_Selection)

Being an astronaut sounds pretty cool, but personally I don't even feel very comfortable in a plane, hence sitting in a rocket with 500,000 kg of explosives underneath me is not something I would really consider doing, independent of the fact that it's of course doubtful if I would even physically/psychologically qualify for such a task. I hope though that as I get older space travel will become both safer and more affordable, because I would really love to see our planet from outside its atmosphere, even if just for a minute.

<comment><USER7> The stated minimum requirements and the actual minimum-to-have-a-shot requirements are different, and they are different now than they used to be. Nowadays astronauts training for the ISS need to be generalists capable of doing everything. During the Space Shuttle era astronauts flew for a couple weeks at a time, and they were able to specialize in certain aspects. This meant that some people focused on EVA (spacewaks), some on robotics, some on flying the Shuttle, etc. Now, amongst other things, everyone needs to be EVA- capable, which means everyone needs to be physically capable of operating inside the space suit. I train astronauts to do EVAs, and working inside the space suit is a very physically demanding job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Salaries for civilian Astronaut Candidates are based on the Federal Government's General Schedule pay scales for grades GS-11 through GS-14"

From [http://www.federaljobs.net/salarybase.htm#SALARY_TABLE_2015-...](http://www.federaljobs.net/salarybase.htm#SALARY_TABLE_2015-GS) it sounds like civilian astronaut salaries then range from $51k to $112k per year. That feels pretty low, but presumably astonauts assigned to a mission can make money through public speaking, etc.

<comment><USER9> Plus a minimum 14% cost-of-living adjustment, plus benefits associated with a job with the Federal government. Assuming you've got a PhD that immediately puts you in the GS 13/14 range, which is about $80-112k plus the above.

Nobody applies to be an astronaut to get rich, but for a well-educated person $150k in pay and benefits is absolutely possible, which is a great paycheck, especially in Houston.

<comment><USER10> Having a PhD offers no such guarantee in the federal government. I have a GS-11 friend who has an aerospace engineering PhD, granted only 4 years into her employment, but still no guarantee.

The GS grades are not about education, but job responsibility. The grade for a given position also depends on the agency you're working for and where. An engineer with the AF working for ACC might be a GS-11, but a GS-12 if they switched to AFMC, or GS-13 if they did the same job with AFMC at another base.

<comment><USER9> > _Having a PhD offers no such guarantee in the federal government._

I misread the GS site, you are correct.

Still quite a bit above the median in terms of salary, which was my only real point (and that if you are primarily motivated by money, advanced degrees and Federal government employment is probably not in your future, anyway).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> For anyone who hasn't already read it, I highly recommend 'An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth' by Chris Hadfield. It's a highlt entertaining read with lots of anecdotes from his training and time in space. The book really gives you an appreciation for the immense levels of dedication and focus required to become an astronaut. I also think his work ethic and positive outlook on life is pretty inspirational for anyone, not just those interested in space.

</comment><comment><USER12> Amazing, astronaut candidates are paid less that a Silicon Valley software dev.

<comment> saiya-jin so are 90% of other high-tech skilled jobs

<comment><USER13> And pretty much everyone on (or off in this case!) the planet.

A lot of HN readers seem really, seriously out of touch on the income front.

<comment><USER5> It surprises me very much. I understand that many in tech may not have close friends from outside tech, but family? Do so many people are second-generation technologists, so they don't end up in those uncomfortable situations where they avoid the topic of salaries near their siblings, parents, or SO?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I wonder how they screen mental health and what the requirements are related to that. Being out there can be a psychological strain.

<comment><USER15> From the experts themselves:

[http://www.space.com/26799-nasa-astronauts-psychological- eva...](http://www.space.com/26799-nasa-astronauts-psychological- evaluation.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Too bad that is required to be U.S. citizen for the application. It is totally understandable but I wish I have a chance.

<comment><USER17> If you move there now you could be a citizen in 5 years...

<comment><USER16> I don't think relocation is enough to get citizenship. As far as I know it is possible if you are lucky for getting green card.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Does anyone know what the "anthropometric requirements for both the specific vehicle and the extravehicular activity mobility unit" are? I assume there are both maximum and minimum heights, but weight probably isn't a direct factor (just a factor as it affects your girth). Anyone have numbers?

</comment><comment><USER19> Feet? Pounds? Incredible. I move for the introduction of the metric system.

<comment><USER20> Why? Works for them.

<comment><USER21> Uhh, no, it doesn't: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter?oldformat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter?oldformat=true)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I watched a press conference about astronaut selection from the 60s. The press mostly wanted to know about religious persuasions and marital statuses which felt like major culture shock to me.

<comment><USER23> You might like to read The Right Stuff [1], the film is good too but the book goes into quite a bit of detail on how the astronauts were seen as representing the nation.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_Stuff_%28book%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_Stuff_%28book%29)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Since the end of the shuttles in 2011 only four US astronauts go into orbit a year. Basically NASA has two of six astronauts on the space state, for an average of six month terms. While the ISS was being constructed as many as 20 astronauts went into space a year, for about a week.

</comment><comment><USER13> The kid I grew up literally next door to became an astronaut. It'd be hard for me to be any more jealous. :-)

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

</comment><comment><USER25> I wonder what the chance of a software developer would be for making it to selection :)

</comment><comment><USER26> The thought of going to space is certainly enticing, but since I don't like turbulent flights or rollercoasters, this is probably not for me.

</comment><comment><USER27> They mention "Russian language training" in the Astronaut Candidate training program.

Interesting.

<comment><USER28> Why interesting? Any NASA astronaut who goes to space currently has to work with Russians on the ISS, and gets there via a Russian launch vehicle. Basic knowledge of the language is a must, if for nothing other than "don't press the button labeled 'self-destruct' in Russian".

<comment><USER27> Oh, sure. I didn't realized that at first. It must be my programmer brain telling me "English is the one global language" all the time.

(note: I'm not an English native speaker)

<comment><USER29> It is, until it isn't. I wonder how long would English last as the lingua franca of the west if the USA focused inward like Canada.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm too tall, unfortunately. But I am a white male, so I guess I'll just have to settle for a job as a CEO.

</comment><comment><USER31> They just lost a great candidate because of the citizenship requirements... ;-)

<comment><USER32> lol

They also don't seem to need computer scientists :\

<comment> Al-Khwarizmi I don't know how the taxonomy of degrees works in the US, but wouldn't computer science be considered either a mathematics or an engineering field? Also, there is a list of engineering and science-related degrees that are excluded, and computer science is not on it...

<comment><USER33> It's generally in the engineering school at universities. A CS degree might make the qualifications it's just that there's no reason to send a programmer to space right now. Maybe there would be a need on a Mars mission where you can't just ssh in from the ground but they'll probably want someone with another applicable degree.

<comment><USER34> They don't need a reason to send a programmer into space.

What they need is to send people into space that are smart enough to understand the myriad systems around the, maintain them, and conduct the various experiments and other tasks planned. Basically, they're looking for smart people that they can train to have the needed skills, rather than people that have the needed skills outright. (Since nobody actually does.)

A pure CS degree might put you at (an overcomeable) disadvantage, since they seem to value the ability to do experimental science. But it can and has been overcome, see:

[http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/chamitoff.html](http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/chamitoff.html)

Also, note that astronauts tend to be selected late in life - mid-30s and early-40s - since NASA likes accomplished people.

<comment><USER7> Steve Swanson is a CS PhD: [http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/swanson.html](http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/swanson.html)

<comment><USER35> Though his Bachelor's was still in Engineering - Physics.

<comment><USER7> True. From my perspective (I train astronauts and work in Mission Control) it's most important to be able to quickly learn a wide range of general engineering principles. You need to be able to understand how the International Space Station works, which in some cases requires a computer background and in other cases more of a mechanical background (and everywhere in between). Astronauts are constantly in some training program learning (or re-training) some aspect of their job. In some respect they are full time students.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Its high time that humanity moved past the notion that sending meatbags into space is a good idea. Pampering to Star Trek fans has squandered trillions of dollars pursuing the "meatbags in space" chimera and all they have to show for is a crammed toilet in LEO (soon to be decommissioned since all the "bubbles in space" experiments than 10 year-olds can conceive have been carried out) and the abominable space shuttle. Had robotic exploration being pursued instead we would have had thriving Lunar and perhaps asteroid belt mining by now. What's more, at this point it would have made economic sense and it would create wealth rather than destroy it. Some grandiose ideas are fun but they get you nowhere, and leave you worse off as they represent a gigantic misallocation of capital. The Pyramids for instance, did not propel humanity in an era of skyscraper building.

<comment><USER37> July 1st 1492: It's high time that humanity moved past the notion that sending meatbags onto the oceans is a good idea. Pampering to fans of stories about shorter routes to Asia has squandered a great many dubloons pursuing the 'meatbags on the waves' chimera and all we have to show for it is a severe case of scurvy and a bunch of rotten timber. We already know how to get to Asia overland, why _on earth_ would we bother finding a longer, more dangerous and probably slower route around the other side. Besides, everybody knows the Earth is flat.

Some grandiose ideas are fun but they get you nowhere and leave you worse off as they represent a gigantic mis-allocation of capital.

<comment><USER36> Relying on analogies to guide one's thinking is so common and so wrong, I guess there must be some Latin phrase to describe it. Plus, as I am sure you are aware, the attempted analogy is broken on more points than I care to enumerate.

<comment><USER37> It's a friendly way of telling you that your position is bull-shit. Not everything we as humanity can do should be looked at through the lens of immediate utility. If that point passed you by then apologies I'll try to make more watertight analogies in the future.

The ability to set up colonies in space has very little to do with star trek fandom (I can't stand it so no 'star trek' fan here). It is a way to expand our envelope, to reduce our viewpoint of Earth as a special place in the universe (it's only special to us right now) and it will, in the longer term yield dividends in ways that we probably can not even think of today, just like Columbus probably had no idea of the magnitude of the future consequences of his voyage.

If every bit of research or every human activity to date would be viewed with the eye towards immediate economic sense then we'd still be hunter gatherers living in Africa, all of us.

Discovery, curiosity and a drive to expand our envelopes both in a physical sense and in a mental sense are valuable too, even if they don't show up next week on some balance sheet of humanity, Inc.

<comment><USER36> We live in a big universe that's greatly unexplored both at the macro- and the micro- level, both in the physical and the spiritual realms (since you allude to less material motives in your reply). Anything we do (even large-scale, government-sponsored meditation) has the _potential_ to "yield dividents in ways we probably can not even think of today". That's why you need economic calculation (and a firm grounding) to quantify that _potential_ and decide which of the infinite projects that individuals, governments, or humanity can undertake makes the more sense. Colombus voyage actually made perfect sense from that perspective as it was all about economic calculation.

<comment><USER37> You seem to be stuck on economy so I'll limit to that.

The Potential of successful colonization of another planet is a total unknown, just like the potential of colonizing another continent is a total unknown. At least we know the other planet exist, whereas America was a bit of a surprise for Columbus.

Letting economic calculations guide you in the day-to-day running of a business is fine. But we as humanity can afford a little bit of money set aside for things that have no immediate value. Art and culture are amongst our most valuable possessions, but their value seems to be appreciating with time relative to the time when they were created. Much of our scientific knowledge had no immediate value at the time of discovery.

Columbus voyage may have made 'perfect sense' from an economic perspective in hindsight _because it worked_ , but there was no guarantee that it would and plenty of people were arguing this was a waste of resources at the time.

I'm just as proud or more so of what humanity has achieved when economic gain wasn't the immediate focus as I am of the things we've achieved when economic gain was at the forefront of our thoughts guiding us to make our decisions. There is room for _both_ of those.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Pentagon Just Simulated a Nuclear War with Russia - sahin-boydas https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2020/2/21/us-nukes-russia-in-simulation-exercise <comment><AUTHOR> "Dumb ways to Die".

In previous decades, several times Soviet officers gave the US the benefit of the doubt when the warning systems indicated that a missile attack was under way.

When today's Russian officers see something similar, they may not be at all so willing to doubt that the US is attacking.</comment>


AutoMLPipeline – Create and evaluate machine learning pipeline architectures - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/IBM/AutoMLPipeline.jl <comment><USER2> This is a lovely bit of programming, and showcases how amazing Julia is. BUT : standard warning, pouring data into a machine and looking for the best results according to your test of choice is highly unlikely to yield a good real world outcome. You might get something that appears to be useful for a while, but there is every reason to believe that it will blow up in your face further down the line.

You are literally playing with things that you don't understand! Don't do this kids!

<comment><USER3> Can you expand on this? If you're monitoring for data drift and retraining every so often after deployment (not just "set it and forget it"), what are the problems that can happen?

<comment><USER4> WARNING: NOT AN ML EXPERT.

I believe this falls under the category of "data snooping" wherein you are effectively creating a model-of-models and increasing your degrees of freedom. That increased level of complexity/number of DoF means you are far more likely to over-train.

You are more likely to pick a model with no predictive power that "happened to be right" about past data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm confused, possibly because I never invested the time in Julia: is this some improvement over the standard Julia data pipeline? It looks like a Hadleyverse flavored R pipeline.

<comment><USER6> It's seems like a new competing approach in the ML space. The standard julia data pipeline right now usually involves either directly using an independent package for each step (or rolling your own since Julia has strong native support for fast data/number manipulation) or using a package that combines all those functionalities like MLJ.jl [1] for ML and Queryverse.jl [2] for data manipulation and visualization. The advantage is that since Julia lang focuses on composability, those frameworks can easily share core functionality so library creators don't need to reinvent the wheel and all frameworks can benefit from each other works.

[1] [https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/MLJ.jl](https://github.com/alan- turing-institute/MLJ.jl)

[2] [https://www.queryverse.org/](https://www.queryverse.org/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Haven't seen the |> operator before. Is this Julia specific?

e.g. used here: pdec = @pipeline (numf |> pca) + (numf |> ica)

<comment><USER8> I believe that it appears in a few other functional languages. Off the top of my head:

* F# and Elm have the same operator

* Haskell's lens library (I think) has the same one. In the standard library there is `$` which functions as a "reverse" pipe

* R's magrittr (part of the tidyverse which almost functions as an enhanced standard library) has `%>%` which works similarly

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> That's a nice readme</comment>


Show HN: TeamTab, a simple tool to keep teams in sync - <AUTHOR> https://www.teamtab.co/discover-teamtab.html <comment><USER2> This is basically original Twitter. Nice work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha, we never thought about is this way ;) TeamTab is restricted to collaboration within a team and has no feed feature (the main view is a compact user list).

<comment><USER2> Yeah the feed is a lie, keep the compacted user list view ordered by most recent update.

A dashboard is almost always better then a feed.</comment></comment></comment>


Probabilistic programming does in 50 lines of code what used to take thousands - <AUTHOR> http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/better-probabilistic-programming-0413 <comment><USER2> If anyone wants to jump into this, Josh Tenenbaum and Noah Goodman put together this amazing interactive book for learning probabilistic programming with Church: [https://probmods.org/](https://probmods.org/)

<comment><USER3> Great project but very weird choice of language. How probable is it (pun intended) that the person coming to learn about probabilistic programming would already know functional programming?

<comment><USER4> Isn't functional programming a standard part of any computer science curriculum? Why would you expect programmers not to know it?

<comment><USER5> Even the places where it is a part of the curriculum, it is often such a small part that unless people specifically take courses related to functional programming you can't expect them to be able to actually _use_ it. Or remember much of it for that matter.

Heck, I spent months on a binge reading functional programming research papers, and it still doesn't mean I know any functional languages other than very superficially.

<comment><USER4> That's true of any language though. If you know Java, you don't automatically know C#, but the core concepts will still mostly transfer. You'll still know Object-Oriented Programming, even if you've never used C# and can't write HelloWorld without looking something up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is that 50 lines of code, or 50 lines of using a library that's thousands of lines of code?

<comment><USER7> What do we say about languages built on C? Is it 100 lines of code but there are hundreds of thousands of lines of code for that higher level language you just coded?

I don't think libraries count in terms of code. We all use code to program. Standing on the shoulder that preceded us. Using a library and a function should just count for the most part.

<comment><USER8> True, but the parent commenter is getting at something important. The article suggests that researchers have found a new, much more concise way to express the solutions to difficult problems. That's different from a library, which merely packages pre-built solutions to a finite set of problems.

It's like the difference between a complete kitchen that fits in your pocket and an iPhone app that lets you order a burrito. The article suggests something like the former. A library which encapsulates 1000 lines of code into a single function call is like the latter.

<comment><USER9> Even a "kitchen that fits in your pocket" isn't general enough. A library that parses a DSL, such that you can then code in that DSL, is still a lame duck if that library, _plus_ the encodings of all the useful solutions in the domain, add up to more code than just the solutions would be when expressed in a general language. The ROI of (learning the DSL + maintaining the library) would be negative.

On the other hand, there are things like Prolog. You _can_ think of Prolog as a backtracking constraint-solving library, and then another library that parses a DSL for expressing facts and procedural constraints and feeds it to the first library. But Prolog's language isn't really a DSL, because it isn't particular to any domain: there's no closed solution-space where Prolog applies. The efficiency gains you get from Prolog's elision of proceduralized contraint-solution code _can_ apply to any program you write. And so its value is unbounded; its ROI is certainly positive, whatever the cost was to implement it.

That's the comparison that's useful here, I think. Is this something that only solves problems in one domain? Or is this something that could be applied to (at least some little bits of) any problem you encounter?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > "It goes beyond image classification — the most popular task in computer > vision — and tries to answer one of the most fundamental questions in > computer vision: What is the right representation of visual scenes?

Can someone knowledgeable in graphics research explain the context that this question comes from?

If I am reading the question correctly, I infer that the question suggests that there exists a right way to reproduce the visual experience of reality. To me, this sounds like a question that is equally valid to have no answer (or many answers) in aesthetics, art, and philosophy, etc.

<comment><USER11> Think about Dreaming. "seeing" during a dream state works by experiencing pure data representation of the real world. People fluent in lucid dreaming can tell you something funny happens when you try to thorough examine objects while sleeping. Constructed worlds tend to be skin deep, and fall apart when poked. Everything is build with ideas drawn from your experience.

Its Plato's Allegory of the Cave all the way down.

Imagine "watching" a movie compressed using your very own prior knowledge. Every scene could be described in couple of hundred lines of plaintext. Today we do this by reading a book :) What if we could build an algorithm able to render movies from books?

<comment><USER12> > What if we could build an algorithm able to render movies from books?

Bob Coyne has been working on a system for generating images of still scenes from text descriptions for about 15 years now:

[https://www.wordseye.com/](https://www.wordseye.com/) [http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~coyne/papers/wordseye_siggraph.p...](http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~coyne/papers/wordseye_siggraph.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Yes, you can specify extremely powerful statistical models in only a few lines of code using probabilistic programming.

However, at this point, unless you design your program in a very specific way and use a lot of tricks, your sampler is very unlikely to converge, and you won't get any meaningful result without a gargantuan amount of computing power.

</comment><comment><USER14> Also [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9363496](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9363496) from yesterday.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> No experience but looks like they are organizing a summer school on probabilistic programming languages. [http://ppaml.galois.com/wiki/wiki/SummerSchools/2015/Announc...](http://ppaml.galois.com/wiki/wiki/SummerSchools/2015/Announcement)

</comment><comment><USER15> relevant paper: [http://mrkulk.github.io/www_cvpr15/1999.pdf](http://mrkulk.github.io/www_cvpr15/1999.pdf)

<comment><USER16> Thanks for that. As far as I can tell the compiler for the Picture language hasn't been published?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Anybody here on HN have experience with probabilistic-programming ? This looks quite disruptive if it works.

<comment><USER18> I've played with it a bit and, in my opinion, the principles behind it at least, the streamlined and optimized simulation of bayesian generative models is the best chance we have to solve artificial general intelligence.

Reading probmods.org and dippl.org made me go from being very pessimistic I would see it in my lifetime to a solid maybe.

<comment><USER13> It's a very powerful statistical technique, yes, but I doubt it will be enough for AI. The problem is that you need to sample efficiently from the posterior distribution, and for anything AI related, MCMC isn't going to cut it.

Let's take a step back and consider a logical problem. Can you put N socks in N-1 boxes such that no box contains more than one socks? Obviously not, it's the pigeonhole principle.

Convert that question into a Boolean circuit, and throw a SAT solver at it. It will die. In fact, using only first order logic, a proof of the pigeonhole principle _requires_ an exponential number of terms. Looking at logical propositions alone is too myopic to solve the problem, you have to formulate higher level theories about the structure of the problem to solve it (in this case, natural numbers).

The same goes for probabilistic programming. As long as the paradigm is to treat the problem as a black box energy function to sample from, it is doomed to be inefficient. Try writing a simple HMM and the system will choke, even though there are efficient algorithms to sample from such a model.

If you look at deep learning techniques, they take an interesting approach which is to learn to approximate the generative distribution _and_ the inference distribution at the same time. This is the basis of the work around autoencoders, deep belief networks, and it guarantees that you can tractably sample from your latent representation.

<comment><USER18> I have been out of the machine learning field for years and I haven't look into deep learning methods even though they are intriguing (just not sufficiently bayesian to pique my curiosity enough to spend my limited free time on it). I do believe that automatically building a hierarchical structure (as I assume happens in deep learning) is the way to abstract away complexity but I think this is achievable within a generative bayesian monte carlo approach.

For example, I have been toying with using MCMH similarly to how it is used in dippl.org to write a kind of probabilistic program that generates other programs by sampling from a probabilistic programming language grammar. A bit like with the arithmetic generator here: [https://probmods.org/learning-as- conditional-inference.html#...](https://probmods.org/learning-as-conditional- inference.html#example-inferring-an-arithmetic-expression) but for whole programs.

After the MCMH has converged to a program that generates approximately correct output, you can tune grammar hyperparameters on the higher likelihood output program samples so that next time it will converge faster.

I don't know if this counts as approximating "the generative distribution and the inference distribution at the same time" under your definition but my hope is that the learned grammar rules are good abstractions for hierarchical generators of learned concepts.

Of course the worry is that my approach will not converge very fast but there are reasons to think that having a suitably arranged hyperparametrized probabilistic grammar might use the Occams' razor inherent in bayesian methods to produce exponentially fewer, simpler grammar rules that generate approximations when it doesn't have enough data to converge to more complex and precise programs and that these simple rules which rely on fewer parameters might provide the necessary intermediate steps to then pivot to more complex rules. These smaller steps help MCMH to find a convergence path. Not sure how well it will work for complex problems however. My idea is still half baked. I have ton's of loose ends and details I have not figured out, some of which I might not even have a solution, as well as little time to work on this (this is just a hobby for me).

Anyways, all that to say that probabilistic programming can go beyond just hardcoding a generative model and running it.

<comment><USER13> Using a probabilistic program to generate and interpret a program is an interesting idea, but I think you're missing the main problem.

How do you sample from the set of programs that produce the correct (or approximately correct) output?

You could use rejection sampling, but that would take very long as only a tiny fraction of all possible programs produce the desired output.

You could use a MCMC method, but the problem here is designing a proposal density. There is no reason to expect programs which are almost correct to be syntactically close to programs which aren't. Changing a single bit in a program tends to radically alter its behavior, in a very non linear way. Program space does not map smoothly to output space.

You mention hyperparameters, but what would those be? If you're building a probabilistic grammar, they might be things like emissions probabilities... but tweaking the proportion of "if" statements you produce, as opposed to, say, function calls, is hardly going to make you better at sampling from the set of correct programs.

In general, the idea of meta-learning is a powerful one, but without a way to guide the search, I don't see it as feasible.

<comment><USER18> " There is no reason to expect programs which are almost correct to be syntactically close to programs which aren't. Changing a single bit in a program tends to radically alter its behavior, in a very non linear way. Program space does not map smoothly to output space."

You correctly identify the main hurdle. I admit I am not sure it will work.

However, I think it might be possible to design the programming language such that changing a few bits doesn't usually radically alter the output.

For example, let's say you are trying to learn a grammar to draw a blue irregular polygon. If there are primitives with fewer parameters that can get you an approximate output, say a circle, this makes possible a learning path that looks like "circle"->"blue circle"->"simple blue polygon"->"complex blue polygon". In addition to that, if the grammar rules that generate similar output can be clustered in the space of grammar rules, small jumps in this space may give you small output changes. Using bayesian priors will naturally use the simpler, fewer parameter shapes first and pivot to more complex ones as enough information is learned while, I think, creating these more complex rules close to the simple ones in the space of grammar rules. That is my hope anyways. I got it working as expected-ish with a simple vision example like I just described.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Ah, so they wrote a DSL just for doing Bayesian inverse-vision models, and apparently they've now got it to accuracy rates competitive with most other major vision methods?

Good job!

</comment><comment><USER20> Probabilistic prediction: this is primarily going to be used for robots that monitor, kill or assist with killing people.

<comment><USER4> Alternatively, one could monitor, save, or assist with saving people.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is Startup School right for starting with a new idea? - <AUTHOR> I'm working on building Early Warning Systems that use ML and space data for Public Health problems and can see a commercial application for governments and communities. But I just started work, and this is a longer problem than most SAAS offerings, do you think Startup School is worth it in this case? <comment><USER2> Probably best to ask that question in the thread! [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17558452](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17558452)</comment>


Comment Tags - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comment_(computer_programming)#Tags <comment><AUTHOR> Posted this because I'm curious if people have seen other interesting conventions in comments, or similar useful tricks.</comment>


Border Security: We can take your laptop anywhere we want for as long as we want - <AUTHOR> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/08/us_government_p.html

<comment><USER2> This sort of thing is always mind boggling. If someone was going to try to smuggle data, why wouldn't they do it over the web?

This program just inconveniences the innocent while solving nothing.

<comment><USER3> Surely they know this. They _must_. There are a few other reasons why a government might implement pointless security exercises like these, however.

A wiser head than mine once said that in order to understand a seemingly "pointless" bit of policy, try instead to understand what the natural result of that policy would be, and then the "point" would become apparent.

...But I'll stop there because next thing you know, we'll be talking politics at HN.

<comment><USER4> I don't believe that the point is IP. I remember when traveling Europe, a number of customs officials demanded that I turn on my laptop in order to prove that it was real. I think that the concern is that an electronic device could be used to conceal a bomb, or a similar tool.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I won't mention my political opinion on this, that's for Reddit, but this has some implications for what you ought to bring across borders on your laptop. Basically this prevents you from carrying sensitive documents such as businessplans, patent applications, source code, etc. Clearing this from my laptop would be a major hassle. Having it available securely online for when I arrive would be an even bigger hassle.

<comment><USER6> getdropbox.com?

<comment><USER5> And PGP

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is really sad. Such a great country founded on such beautiful ideals... It really does not deserve this.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, some of the old School House Rock videos seem rather fictional to me these days (particularly "No More Kings"). I'd love to see a modern remix of that with some well chosen TV footage on YouTube.

<comment><USER9> <http://www.piratesandemperors.com/> isn't exactly what you're looking for, but it's close.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Your papers, please!

What's next, secret torture prisons? Oh...

<comment><USER11> That's rather Reddit-esque.

<comment><USER12> I am interested to know at what point usa.gov starts becoming a problem for hackers such as pg and his followers?

As someone who resides outside the USA, news articles like this cause a HUGE problem for me if I ever wanted to visit the USA.

As a hacker I am already used to being treated to varying degrees as a 'freak' by regular folks.. What happens if a border guard decides to pick on me and then isn't happy when I try to explain why my laptop has no GUI? According to what I've read, not only do I have no rights but I may be detained in uncomfortable conditions for weeks before they send me back to my home country.

<comment> tsetse-fly pg and his followers? I really hate how this site feels like a cult sometimes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> the fun thing is when the same people who vote for these policies, then turn around and attack China for doing the same thing.

<comment><USER14> China doesn't do this. In a dozen times crossing the Chinese border the guards have never even spoken to me.

You also have a cool button system at the stand which you can rate your experience with the border guard.

<comment><USER13> there was a story this week where one of the senators who is pro-stuff like this in US, was speaking out about how China is an oppressive regime because they plan to monitor internet usage from hotels during the olympics. And this was the same senator who is pro-warrantless wiretapping

<comment><USER15> If you're going to drop anecdotes like that, please at least name the senator.

<comment><USER16> <http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/kansas-senator.html>

Sam Brownback, Kansas.

<comment><USER15> Thank you.

By the way, I think Mark Twain had it slightly wrong. He should have said "shameless" instead of "an idiot".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> There are two seperate issues, keeping your data secure from the government reading it, and making sure you have a copy of the data you want on both sides of the border in case they do take your laptop. Both require different solutions. The first takes heavy encryption, the latter a cloud service.

Mind you the government does not have a right to your password - since it is stored in your mind and you have to basically testify to the password it is a violation of the 5th amendment. However if you have a physical key, they can get a warrant for the key, so use a password and some solid encryption and take multiple copies of data.

<comment><USER18> "Mind you the government does not have a right to your password"

They also don't have to let you back in the country. If your plan is to just not tell the agent your password, you might be in for an adventure. From Schneier's earlier article on this subject...

"The border agent is likely to start this whole process with a "please type in your password". Of course you can refuse, but the agent can search you further, detain you longer, refuse you entry into the country and otherwise ruin your day."

<comment><USER19> Very true. What you could do is set up a bunk login and password that deletes everything upon being entered.

<comment><USER20> Or just use TrueCrypt with a hidden volume.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Most of the discussion regarding laptop seizure at the border seems to focus upon how to protect your data. This is important, but I already do this. I'm an independent programmer/artist and my laptop is my main tool, and very expensive. If my laptop was seized randomly for an indefinite time period, I'd have to spend $3K to replace it, which is not an insignificant amount of money.

I see this provision mostly being used by customs agents who want to steal someone's laptop or ipod for themselves.

</comment><comment><USER22> Only a stupid terrorist would put his secret plans to kidnap Britney Spears in his laptop.

</comment><comment><USER23> it has been going on for what, about 200 years now ? just about _any_ government has retained the right to inspect _anything_ that enters it's borders, citizenship notwithstanding. this is nothing new, it just applies to laptops (and friends) now.

i am not saying whether it is right or wrong, just providing some context. why the sudden outrage ?

</comment><comment><USER24> I can understand the need for security, but policies such as this make people like me _less_ likely to visit the U.S. unless I had to (being ethnic type and Muslim already makes it hard enough).

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Federal agents may take a traveler's laptop or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed. Also, officials may share copies of the laptop's contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption, or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, US Customs and Border Protection and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

[...]

DHS officials said that the newly disclosed policies — which apply to anyone entering the country, including US citizens — are reasonable and necessary to prevent terrorism.

[...]

The policies cover 'any device capable of storing information in digital or analog form,' including hard drives, flash drives, cell phones, iPods, pagers, beepers, and video and audio tapes. They also cover 'all papers and other written documentation,' including books, pamphlets and 'written materials commonly referred to as "pocket trash..."

<comment><USER25> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Constitution is our Contract with the Government, and the Judicial Branch our process. Writing your Representative helps, but giving to lawyers who fight and defend the Constitution from overreaching/overreacting Government Officials is equally important and extremely patriotic IMO.

<comment><USER26> I don't want to go political here, but I'd simply remind you that customs has _always_ had the ability to inspect and detain materials crossing the border, whether your personal property or not. It is not unreasonable for the federal government to control materiel moving over the border. There's not even a "reasonable clause" notion here, as a complete and thorough search are asssumed at ports of entry -- otherwise the government would be defrauding the social contract by not being concerned enough about what's happening there.

How else would you run a border? Hey guys, what do you feel like showing me that you're moving? This laptop smells like it has encrypted money on it?

They're not investigating a crime, they're controlling movement. That's their job.

There used to be (and still is, I think) a crime of carrying so much undeclared cash across the border -- whether or not its yours or not. One could argue that the IP contained on a laptop easily could be more valuable than the cash limit, but there are no similar regulations on IP movement. With cell phones becoming e-wallets, seems like it would be easy to walk across the border with a couple hundred k loaded on your cell phone. Strange world, eh?

Encrypt your data and put it in the cloud. Much easier to do than either figuring out what a perfect world would look like or implementing it.

<comment><USER27> $10,000 is the limit for transporting undeclared "financial instruments" across the border.

This can be in the form of cash, certificates of deposit, bonds, stocks, and I suppose anything else that has the semblance of real money (gold, etc).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Looks like a good idea to apply to YC with!

<comment><USER29> Not sure why people downmodded this comment. Government policies like this pose a real personal and business privacy problem. Any service that solves it in a convenient way surely has the potential to be profitable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Does this violate the 4th amendment or is there some kind of exception for border crossing? (Personally I don't think there should be.)</comment>


Help me win this web contest (Vote for beer) - <AUTHOR> http://contestwinner.rs.af.cm

<comment><AUTHOR> Fellow HN-ers. Just entered a contest with Appfog and Rackspace to vote on the beer they want to serve for their after party. If you want to enter, you can go to <http://get.appfog.com/appsandbeers>

Anyways, I'd really like to attempt to win. Go ahead and check out the page and possibly help me win! Thanks!</comment>


Imprudent Acts and Great Bastards: Sex Advice from 1861 - <AUTHOR> http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2015/02/12/imprudent-acts-and-great-bastards/

<comment><USER2> The article: "This fact is applied to the offspring of great geniuses, who are supposed to be thinking of something else when they beget their children, and hence their descendants are often much below them in intellect."

In a blog post, I read that this is called "regression to the mean," and IIRC you are basically the average of your four grandparents in IQ. So he's wrong, but clever.

<comment><USER3> > IIRC you are basically the average of your four grandparents in IQ. So he's > wrong, but clever.

Assuming that's true, it would be better phrased as "you are on average the average of your four grandparents in IQ" otherwise you'd never have geniuses ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A similar book from 1904 is "Vivilore": [https://archive.org/details/vivilorepathwayt00meleuoft](https://archive.org/details/vivilorepathwayt00meleuoft)

I got a copy of this in a table of junk in an auction. It's an interesting mix of good advice, sexist advice, absolutely terrible advice, and complete junk like phrenology and palm reading.

</comment><comment><USER5> The rare case in which the comments are more entertaining than the article.

<comment><USER6> haha yeah that justin stewart guy is a riot

<comment><USER7> I knew a guy with a similar problem. He only liked the women he was pursuing before he slept with them, because he did so much sweet talking and manipulation to get to that point, that he didn't respect them for falling for it afterwards (in his words, in a candid moment). He was aware the problem was him, and not them, but that doesn't always make it immediately easy to change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If I were to seek advice from an era and a place that sure wouldn't be America (or England) in the 1800s. Tell me about the France of Rabelais or Villon, the Italy of Machiavelli, even the plague-ridden London of Shakespeare, the China of the Tang. And so forth.

</comment><comment><USER9> Any modern-ish scientific writings like these (18th century onward) where the English, although awash with fluffy phrases and words that make any writer cringe, is readable enough to where one can grasp the gist are a pleasure to read. People spoke with such authority and a matter-of-factness that nowadays is laughable. The concept of there being unknown unknowns must have never registered for so many of the day.

<comment><USER10> > The concept of there being unknown unknowns must have never registered for > so many of the day.

"I think history is a lot more interesting and makes a lot more sense when you finally realize that people in the past were just as aware and smart as us, as opposed to the bumbling idiots we often assume them to be." \-- rthomas6 : [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9032743](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9032743)

I disagree with rthomas6 from the cross post linked above. I think in the past people were intellectually dishonest which led them to write and act like know-it-all pathological liars.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, that doesn't happen anymore. Our elite are the real deal.

<comment><USER7> No, but perhaps the common person has enough education now to see and call out the bullshit that may have been able to pass in ages past.

It's not that our elites are better, it's that they aren't viewed as exempt from common mishaps and misbehaviors as they perhaps were in the past.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


One SaaS Marketing Experiment Produced These 80/20 Insights… - <AUTHOR> http://www.saastimes.com/saas-pay-per-click-marketing-experiment-data

<comment><USER2> I'm not as familiar with adwords as I want to be. What exactly are the ad groups? Is it the positioning he is referring to? What exactly is suppose to jump out at me?

<comment><AUTHOR> Adwords accounts are organized differently depending on the industry and/or products being advertised. Generally, one concept or idea will get it's own ad group with an associated array of keywords. An ad group is just a concept or a topic that can be described in different ways by a variety of keywords.

Here's an example to illustrate.

Suppose you were promoting email marketing software for photographers. This is a discreet concept that can be expressed many ways:

email marketing for photographers email marketing for photographer email marketing photographer

The single concept, email marketing for photographers would get it's own 'ad group'. Other related concepts such as email list building for photography business are unique enough to merit a seperate ad group.

The reason why Adwords is organized this way is to ensure that advertisers are laser-targeted with relevancy.

It's in both your and Google's best interests to ensure that your Adwords account is generating as many clicks as possible, and by having separate ad groups you can custom tailor the ads within each ad group to be super relevant.

You end up with an army of 'mini sales people' that work 24/7/365. And that's Adwords alone. When you combine Adwords with SEO and email marketing to drive conversions you get a very powerful system indeed.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm always amazed at how an experiment-driven mindset helps uncover pockets of extreme interest among people clicking carefully-crafted ads or links!

<comment><USER3> Interesting article. The cost of the ad reflects it's impact, but what about other off-beat search terms that might not have the same cost and combined could yield the same click rates?</comment></comment>


Serious topic in a light hearted font (MHRD India) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/FeeEnhancementOrder2016-2017.pdf <comment><USER2> Background on fee hikes: [http://indiatoday.intoday.in/education/story/fee- hike-for-ni...](http://indiatoday.intoday.in/education/story/fee-hike-for- nits-iisers/1/700616.html)</comment>