Why Professors at San Jose State Won't Use a Harvard Professor's MOOC - <AUTHOR> http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Professors-at-San-Jose/138941/?cid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en <comment><USER2> I read the original open letter and think that there's quite a bit of misleading and FUDding, of course, masterfully done coming from a philosophy prof. I approach this from a different angle:

"We believe the purchasing of online and blended courses is not driven by concerns about pedagogy, but by an effort to restructure the U.S. university system in general ..."

I agree with him completely here, a large part of this discussion is not about pedagogy but is financially driven. However, unlike him, I think this is a good thing at a time where many universities are battling high costs and students loans have reached record high levels.

The problem with his main argument (and with similar arguments about teacher ratings, etc.) is that it pits the best possible case against the proposed idea in trying to refute it: Isn't having an excellent prof/teacher in flesh and blood who cares about your education better than some canned video? Well, obviously it is, but the point is a lot of professors/teachers are _not_ like that, they, like everything else, have a distribution of excellence.

If we rephrase the argument as: Isn't having lecture videos of good faculty preferable to having an underpaid, uncaring professor/teacher or the option of canceling that course because the university cannot afford it? This is the question that Prof. Hadreas needs to answer, I think.

<comment><USER3> I agree with your general sentiments, but, and you are certainly not alone in this, you glossed over the financial issues facing universities. In many cases, the budget issues facing universities are not all endogenous, unavoidable problems.

I think a better strategy would be to figure out why, exactly, universities are so strapped for cash (I've worked in higher education, it isn't a simple issue) and target those issues instead.

This is not to say that pedagogical advances can't be made, but as you pointed out, these advances, to the extent possible, should not be influenced by budget constraints lest we end up with cheaper, but proportionally worse, education.

<comment><USER4> _This is not to say that pedagogical advances can't be made, but as you pointed out, these advances, to the extent possible, should not be influenced by budget constraints lest we end up with cheaper, but proportionally worse, education._

Why do you believe that worse but cheaper education wouldn't provide a better value to students?

<comment><USER3> I see your point. I was thinking (though I didn't state it explicitly, apologies) of "worse" to mean "worse value". For instance, reducing the quality by, say 10%, but reducing the price by 50% would probably be a good value for many students, I agree with that. My concern is that the quality would drop "more" than the price.

This concern is partially motivated by my background. I used to work for a university doing academic technology-related stuff. In my opinion, many of the technologies that were being acquired didn't contribute much to the quality of the education offered (beyond looking sexy when prospective students came in for tours). However, the tech was often extremely expensive and, in fact, required additional fees in many cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One of the former chairs of our department (CS at the University of Chicago) has a saying, "all curriculum reforms initially succeed."

So I'm not surprised that the pilot program had great pass rates, as pilot programs are usually staffed by eager people with amazing support networks who are interested in putting in the time to make it work. It'll be more interesting if SJSU does ramp up their experiments to start to include professors or lecturers who are just fulfilling their service requirements and seeing what the difference is between student performance under those faculty and the prior model.

<comment><USER6> In all fairness, undergrad CS at UChicago has gotten way more awesome in the last few years. There wasn't even an active ACM on campus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> We can separate the debate in a few distinct classes:

1\. Superstar class - Excellent researcher and excellent teacher - A good MOOC is not a threat but an opportunity for you to bring even more understanding to your students. Or the superstar hosts his own MOOC.

2\. I'd rather do research class - Excellent researcher, but not excellent teacher - A good MOOC is not a threat but an opportunity for you to spend less time teaching, while you can still focus on teaching about your own research as a plus. Or only teach MS and PhD-level courses, where the market in courses would be too specialised for MOOCs.

3\. I'd rather teach class - Not excellent researcher, but excellent teacher - A good MOOC is not a threat but an opportunity for you to get extra and world- class material to your students, while leveraging your teaching skills for that personal touch.

4\. I'd rather just do nothing - Not an excellent researcher, but not an excellent teacher either - A good MOOC is a big threat to your business model. You won't cut it research-wise, so your in the C-league of universities, but the MOOC will make your failings as a teacher a lot more obvious. A good class is just a few mouse clicks away for students, and why pay if you can get it for free?

Of course there is a signalling effect at work as well. But I find it hard to imagine you would get much signalling from a school filled with class-4 teachers. Both you and your future employers know what universities and colleges are class-4.

The future that Peter J. Hadreas deplores is the one where class-4 disappears and "cheap" education is met by class-3 educators. It's a background fight IMHO. And one where students are the winners. The best students still get to go to the best universities. But all the other students at least get lectured by the best teachers, and get taught by enthusiastic teachers instead of bored B-level researchers.

</comment><comment><USER8> Educators are going to need to deliver in-person value in excess of their cost. The writing is on the wall, there is no technological limitation preventing world-class instructors from teaching everyone. This will doubtlessly be the first of many attempts by the entrenched to prevent this superior education from becoming the norm, out of fear they can't actually deliver real value aside from presenting slides.

<comment><USER9> There is a limitation: questions and answers. The place professors will have value is in direct student communication.

<comment><USER8> Certainly that's the new value prop, but wasn't a lot of that previously handled by teaching assistants?

Personally, I think the Udacity "continuous Socratic method" approach is better than traditional lectures because it forces constant thought and engagement.

<comment><USER10> It's still on a computer. I don't think it's a replacement. Not even close.

<comment><USER11> It sounds like you're begging the question (in the "correct" sense, not the modern vernacular sense). Computer education can't be as good as non-computer education, so therefore computer education isn't as good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Speaking for my self, a UK student 14 ish years ago doing Computer Science...

I found lectures mostly a waste of time. What I found was that the lecturers were simply presenting the latest chapter from the prescribed text book. So, I ended up reading the chapter the night before and just used the lecture as confirmation of what I thought I had learned by reading. Very occasionally I used the lecture to ask some question, but that was rare. By Year 2, I barely went to lectures and simply studied at home, handed in the required work, then did the exams.

Now, I fully accept that what I did does not suit all, in fact I am happy to be considered a minority case, but, and here is the point I'm waffling towards, I did have to question the true value of actual lecturers if all they did was present chapters of a text book. A video on-line might well have been better.

Another thing I ended up questioning was the length of the degree course. It could have been very easily done in 2 years, if not less.

<comment><USER13> Some lecturers are truly outstanding, and a joy to listen to. I went to a small undergraduate college, with small class sizes and many passionate, engaging professors, where classes were a mixture of lecture and discussion.

But a straight up lecture? I'd rather read a book. And really, even with good lecturers, most of my real learning comes from applying the knowledge somehow: writing computer programs, writing essays, etc.

<comment><USER14> I also went to a small undergraduate college, with small class sizes and many passionate, engaging professors, where classes were a mixture of lecture and discussion. And half of the classes still bored the crap out of me.

Even with a great teacher, the speed at which the material is presented is never going to match each person's learning flow. Too slow for things they get instantly, too fast for concepts they have trouble with, and everyone is different.

And even debate in a small class is inefficient. Contrast a debate in a 20-person class with a debate in the HN comment threads. The class will sometimes be focused on a thread I'm not interested in. Sometimes I will want to chime in, but others are holding the floor. Time is a scarce resource and 20 students are contesting it. On HN, we can all read and comment simultaneously. No downtime.

<comment><USER13> I'm sorry you had such a worthless experience. What learning methods seem to work best for you?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm sure the acronym MOOC is obvious to those in the area, but I wasn't sure what it stood for, and it seems sloppy to me that it wasn't defined in the article.

All it takes is writing "Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)" the first time it was used.

<comment><USER9> I completely agree, but The Chronicle is _the_ higher ed trade magazine. It may be like I saying MMO in a gamer magazine or TDD in a developer's blog.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> My first thought was this was another case of the "old guard" being afraid of change, but I read their letter and I actually agree with some of their points.

The obvious downside is the lack of interaction with the lecturing professor.

This was another point I hadn't thought of:

 _"The thought of the exact same social justice course being taught in various philosophy departments across the country is downright scary - something out of a dystopian novel"_

[https://chronicle.com/article/The-Document-an-Open- Letter/13...](https://chronicle.com/article/The-Document-an-Open- Letter/138937/)

MOOCs are great for low cost and continuing education. I'm doing one right now, but it feels very lacking compared to my college experience, and I keep wondering how it's integrated in "real" courses.

<comment><USER17> > "The thought of the exact same social justice course being taught in various > philosophy departments across the country is downright scary"

Which is why every professor writes their own books, right? It's be scary if lots of people across the country were learning from the same textbooks.

<comment><USER18> Almost every child is taught algebra. The methods may very but the end result is the same. We are forcing children as young as 9 to learn a doctrine originating from Islam! What dystopian world are we living in?!?!?!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> At the risk of setting up false dichotomies, I wonder:

Will a MOOC instructor answer my emails, take a phone call, or meet with me in person?

Will a MOOC instructor help me network with potential employers and internship sponsors?

Will a MOOC instructor be my mentor and help me navigate an increasingly difficult job market?

Will a MOOC instructor connect me to other like-minded students and professors?

Will a MOOC instructor act as an advisor for any interest groups or clubs at my school?

Will a MOOC instructor know who I am?

<comment><USER20> No. That's why the course is free.

I, for one, have gotten way more than my money's worth from Coursera classes. They have been amazingly educational and terribly useful.

<comment> B-Con Since you paid nothing, I'm not sure how strong of a praise that is. ;-)

Personally, I'd say I got my time's worth. Time is worth a lot, and I've put a lot into the classes, and I feel it has all been more than worthwhile.

<comment><USER20> I knew someone was going to say that :P I did get my time's worth back in multiples.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I have a ton of sympathy for the professors. You've certainly have put in a lot of work to become a professor, studied your whole life, and then out of the blue you're potentially obsolete.

The article kind of bugged me simply because the professors didn't admit any self-interest. Everything was posed in terms of altruistic concern for their student's well being. I kind of doubt that's the case. While they may have some concern for the students, I'm inclined to believe their motivations are driven primarily by self-interest (which is totally normal but less admirable).

</comment><comment><USER22> The coming widespread adoption of MOOCs is another great example of what Jaron Lanier calls Mass Unemployment Events. Driverless cars will be another.

Together we trudge on towards a future requiring a basic minimum income.

<comment><USER23> Certainly, the world's economy would have collapsed when cars came and the horse and buggy creators lost their jobs, the printing press forced manual copiers out of business, automatic telephone switches made operators lose their job, etc.

(Funny story: I have a professor that was in the Center of Mass group for NASA, where they painstakingly calculated the center of mass of each object and part of the shuttle, then computed the center of mass for the whole shuttle. Of course, a computer can do that instantly now.)

I honestly do feel bad for the people that lose their job when new tech comes around, but why should I be forced to subsidize an outdated way of life? Plus, it isn't like new tech kills jobs overnight; the writing is on the wall, and in the case of driverless cars and MOOCs, the transition will probably take at least a decade.

History has shown that improvements in technology increase the standard of living across the board for all classes. A minimum basic income will hurt us in this instance because people will not have an incentive to have jobs that actually produce value to others.

<comment><USER22> > Certainly, the world's economy would have collapsed when cars came and the > horse and buggy creators lost their jobs, the printing press forced manual > copiers out of business, automatic telephone switches made operators lose > their job, etc.

Transportation advances caused great economic difficulties from 1870-1890 [1]

What happens if the hits keep coming as technological innovation accelerates and new mass employment industries are not created?

> I honestly do feel bad for the people that lose their job when new tech > comes around, but why should I be forced to subsidize an outdated way of > life?

I would say a basic minimum income would be investing in defense against violent revolutions. At some point people will just revolt if they are starved or even lack upward mobility.

> Plus, it isn't like new tech kills jobs overnight; the writing is on the > wall, and in the case of driverless cars and MOOCs, the transition will > probably take at least a decade.

There are long ramp up times for retraining and educating people. And I don't think education is going to be enough.

I think the most radical and unpalatable truth is that a huge segment of humans are just not going to be intelligent enough to provide value in the coming robot and machine intelligence run economy.

Our brains and memories could be so much greater, and we should engineer ourselves with all deliberate speed.

Humans have to upgrade themselves before they are obsolete.

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

<comment><USER24> > What happens if the hits keep coming as technological innovation accelerates > and new mass employment industries are not created?

I would not invest too much time into speculative futurology at this point.

I mean, if somebody brings data, we can talk about those. Without that data, I don't think anyone can predict correctly whether we will end up in

a) a dystopia with most people not being able to find work and starving or

b) a utopia where the cost of life is so low that anyone can live fully without even working.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The actual "open letter" sent by the SJSU philosophy department: [http://chronicle.com/article/The-Document-an-Open- Letter/138...](http://chronicle.com/article/The-Document-an-Open- Letter/138937/)

</comment><comment><USER26> For me it all comes down to class size. If you are in a philosophy class with more than 15 students, how can it be said that one is having consistent and meaningful 2 way interaction with the other students and the teacher? It's simply not possible.

To the prof's who think lecturing to a class of >15 students is teaching them in a way that is different from what the students can get thru video, I say you're fooling yourselves. And you know this to be true.

What's beautiful about where this is headed is a) it's inevitable, and b) it will lead to a better education experience. How can it not be of benefit if the 100-level mundane subject matter is handled via video (with perhaps a teacher being available for questions and tutoring), and have the higher level courses be of smaller class size with mostly in-person teaching? We could probably prune some of the teaching staff and still deliver a better experience.

</comment><comment><USER27> Maybe this is a sign that we need to further bifurcate undergraduate & professional education from research. The two functions are not necessarily related, nor do they need to be performed by the same person. Undergrads need more education and training at a lower cost, and technology is the way to achieve that. The current university system is unsustainable because technology is threatening it, it's unsustainable because few can actually afford it anymore. MOOCs aren't threatening social justice, they are creating it, by making the curricula available outside of the ivory tower. MOOCs aren't for current university students, they're for anyone with an internet connection and a desire to learn. Who cares if it's not quite up to the quality standards of a university course because of the lack of personal interaction? It's free to access, what could be more democratic than that?

</comment><comment><USER28> I wonder what effect online education will have on the diversity of thought?

Before, I was mostly thinking that online education is good for things with well-established and fairly uniform curricula (e.g. many math, science, and engineering courses). But it really struck me that the class in question was called "Justice". To think that we'd just have a few notable professors writing the curriculum for such a broad and subjective course is disturbing.

</comment><comment><USER10> Hear hear! Finally some rebellion. I'll save the analysis for later, but this in general is an encouraging response. MOOCs might enable certain extensions of learning when it's not possible or desirable (financially or otherwise) to have access to real teaching, but they should not and hopefully will never replace or even _claim to replace_ real universities with real professors.

Reduction of education to simple learning of facts and information will drive the world into the ground. It has certainly already begun, as have the results. What we need is more generalized, humanist, liberal arts and sciences education, not less. I swear to you if I have to work with one more one-track single-minded robot programmer I'm going to start cursing.

For pete's sake, get some breadth and human contact—the only way to a true education. I want to see more of this type of response to MOOCs, and frankly, I wouldn't care if the entire concept was forcibly rejected from society. That would be a start.

</comment><comment><USER29> > The letter is part of a brewing debate about how MOOCs might deepen the > divide between wealthy universities, which produce MOOCs, and less wealthy > ones, which buy licenses to use those MOOCs from providers like edX.

Why are only top universities producing MOOCs anyway? Do San Jose lack any renowned classes, or just the will to MOOCify them?

<comment><USER30> Why would you buy a MOOC from anywhere but a top university? MOOCs will bring winner-take-all economics to higher ed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> It is great that you posted this here. This is a big discussion that we will have in the following years.Obviously we have to find the right model for public universities. Clearly the MOOC classes can provide a lot of benefits. But we also want to keep good professors in College.

I personally think that MOOCs should supplement the lectures and professors should focus on directing discussions in class, solving problems, directing projects, making sure no one is left behind, providing his own view and experience.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is a perfect example of failing to understand the open source mindset.

MOOC's are two things, a curriculum and a means of teaching. If either of those are subpar, you can both evaluate that, and/or make a case for why they are detrimental. Aside from that, these are just tools and pieces of content. It's not an existential threat to professors any more than Wordpress is an existential threat to web developers, and certainly not a threat to content publishers.

</comment><comment><USER33> MOOCs give me the ability to continue my education without doing into debt and delay having a family. Education should be free. San Jose State is probably a better school than where I got my degree, but I don't believe for a second that every class is taught by a caring well paid professor. They use TAs, Graduate Assistants, and over worked nontenured visiting professors just like any other cashed strapped University.

</comment><comment><USER34> "Professors who care about public education should not produce products that will replace professors, dismantle departments, and provide a diminished education for students in public universities."

This last sentence frames the discussion perfectly, and I agree with its sentiment but not the unnecessarily gloomy warning to other professors. An MOOC is a tool in the toolbox and can be used or abused. The sentiment is to not abuse this tool. The warning is to not make poor tools but is stated in an underhanded way that could derail a very healthy discussion. MOOC's have unfathomable potential as a tool for educating people in a much larger circle than rich students attending a "high quality" university and that context should not be covered up when it does not favor your rhetoric. So I am glad to hear his warnings and hope others heed them. But I also hope people continue to improve this tool in the educational tool-box. There, I fixed the last sentence of the open letter.

"Professors who care about education should strive to produce products that enhance education for students in public universities and students everywhere."

</comment><comment><USER23> I say we let the market decide. People like me who much prefer MOOCs to brick- and-mortar universities will gladly stop paying tuition, and people who value traditional universities can support them. Surely, the number of traditional universities will decrease, but it isn't inconceivable that they survive with a better learning model than the lecture-test model that has been around for centuries.

</comment><comment><USER35> Some professors are taking the availability of MOOC material to invert their time. Rather than everyone spending time listening to a lecture, they assign the online lecture as homework, and then use class time to answer questions, work problem-sets, and address items that weren't included in the MOOC.

</comment><comment><USER36> "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

These San Jose professor are simply trying to fight inevitable disruption of the current university system, which is simply broken.

</comment><comment><USER37> > "Let's not kid ourselves; administrators at the CSU are beginning a process > of replacing faculty with cheap online education."

Sounds about right. Salaries are the number 1 expense, so it's a great place to cut.

</comment><comment><USER38> > provide a diminished education for students in public universities

That sentence makes no sense.

UC Berkeley produces edX content, and it's a public university.</comment>


Google Has Own $26.5bil Trading Floor, Predicts Market With Search Data?  - <AUTHOR> http://www.ozcarguide.com/business-money/investing/3241-google-trading-floor

<comment><USER2> There is a story told, I think in Ken Auletta's book, by Eric Schmidt from the earlier days of the company where Sergey proposes starting a hedge fund because they have so much better data than anyone else. Schmidt cautions against the notion due to perhaps significant legal implications.

Something that would perhaps counter this are complaints on zerohedge and elsewhere that Goldman's privacy policy on some of its data services leave open the possibility for them to use usage data for prop trading.

There must be people within Google wondering that if others are getting away with this, why can't they? There must also be people worried about the company's dependence on a single source of revenue...

</comment><comment><USER3> Aren't they kicking off the trading floor to manage their cash, rather than to becoming a hedge fund/investment bank ?

I remember reading an article in the recent past where they have hired some ex-IB traders (Goldmans, Lehmans, etc) to run their Treasury department.

The new hires were due to the fact that they were changing their risk profile of their portfolio. I read they were looking for some bond traders as they're planning on moving towards corporation bonds rather than treasuries/govvies.

I need to look for that article.

<comment><USER4> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1385741>

[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_23/b41810335...](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_23/b4181033582670.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> After reading "The Black Swan" by Taleb and finally understanding some of the issues with predictability. These kind of claims just sound like astrology to me.

brown9-2-2 is right the latter part of the headline is pure speculation.

<comment><USER6> Careful. "The Black Swan" is a pop non-fiction book, and reading it won't give you an intimate understanding of markets. Taleb has taken his share of criticism (<http://www.efalken.com/papers/Taleb2.html>) and his ability to capitalize on the deep insights he'd like you to believe he has is somewhat questionable ([http://www.businessinsider.com/did-nassim-talebs-universa- ge...](http://www.businessinsider.com/did-nassim-talebs-universa-get-killed- on-thursdays-big-bet-2010-5))

<comment><USER5> Let me put it like this. If the market where predictable we would live in a very different world.

So the proof is in the pudding. No one predicts markets unless they somehow control them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> brown9-2 The latter part of this headline is nothing but speculation in the article.

</comment><comment><USER7> As to the question of whether Google could exploit their search data to predict the stock market: <http://messymatters.com/searchpred> (summary: not really)

<comment><USER8> Slightly less short summary:

In some things search can add a slight benefit to predictive analysis (from the current baseline strategy), in others it doesn't really help at all and even in the cases it does it's only marginally useful, "we find search volume on its own is predictive of future outcomes, but search is nevertheless outperformed by baseline models trained on publicly available data; combining search and baseline models generally leads to modest improvements."

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is Google following RedHat?

[http://saviorodrigues.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/is-red- hat-a-...](http://saviorodrigues.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/is-red-hat-a- software-firm-or-financial-institution/)

</comment><comment><USER10> Hmm I remember reading somewhere before about Google Venture's acquisition of (or rather, investment in) a startup company who was working on a product that could predict future events. Maybe with this Google can predict markets as well. link: [http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/05/04/2010-05-04_googl...](http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/05/04/2010-05-04_google_invests_in_company_that_tries_to_predict_the_future.html)

</comment><comment> joe-mccann Could Google be using their search data for...

equals

easiest way to drive traffic to your site.

Quite frankly, data that is scraped and analyzed by the algos and quant funds is probably much more relevant, but it does not mean Google could not define a strategy based on search data; however, it is pure speculation and link bait to just throw the assertion out there willy nilly.

<comment><USER8> Agree 100%, without actually showing how search data would be used it's kind of pointless. At first though it seems OBVIOUS that they'd be using search data, but when you actually think about it, what would the application be? Would the market effects in search show up fast enough to be relevant to the market? And for HFT it's useless.

Would be more that interested in being proven wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is nonsense - I know people in quant funds who have tried to do things like this. All the boring stuff that Google doesn't care about, like SEC filings and Quarterly Reports, matter _far_ more than aggregate attention. I'm sorry but if you're making decisions for a multi-million dollar fund, and you tell investors that your investments are based on the twitterings of the unwashed masses, you'll be sent home before you've had your lunch.

Even if there is value in their data (and I do imagine enough PhD's could find some reasonable strategies) - there would be such a public outcry that it wouldn't be worth it from a PR perspective.

</comment><comment><USER12> In terms of them predicting markets with search data lots of commentators are saying no way, but I strongly disagree.

Google can predict flu-like illnesses within 92% accuracy of CDC data which is dervied from labratory testing.

Furthermore trading stocks seems to me to be a behavior that would be easy to predict through Google's "intent-based" algorithms used for serving advertising.

EG - For instance knowing how many searches there are a day for "is AAPL overpriced" vs. "is AAPL underpriced" you'd have data that would begin to correlate to market value - with enough data points you could make some pretty darn educated guesses about what a given stock would do.

Toss in a hundred PHDs, a few dozen traders from the greediest depths of wallstreet and the question shouldn't be CAN they do it, but WHEN will they do it.

Reference:

[http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/18/how- accurate-i...](http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/18/how-accurate-is- google-flu-trends/)

<comment><USER13> > For instance knowing how many searches there are a day for "is AAPL > overpriced" vs. "is AAPL underpriced" you'd have data that would begin to > correlate to market value - with enough data points you could make some > pretty darn educated guesses about what a given stock would do.

You may be right but the only thing that really moves the market is the large institutional funds. None of these funds are going to do a google search for "Is apple overpriced" and then say OMG we've got to sell apple now.

<comment><USER14> Fact: some non-US companies explicitly forbid their people to search using google, especially patents through google's service.

<comment><USER15> Interesting fact, happen to have a source?

<comment><USER14> NDA, but remains a fact, nevertheless...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The search data is probably less useful than all the other data they have regarding how much money individuals and corporations will pay for various words. Or all the private email they process for "other purposes relating to offering you Gmail".</comment>


Making It In Silicon Valley When You Have Zero Connections - <AUTHOR> http://westonludeke.com/2011/11/26/how-to-find-your-dream-job-w-zero-connections/

<comment><USER2> There's some good advice in here regarding attitude and hustle.

Can I give one more piece of advice? If you (correctly) figure out that the reason you aren't getting given jobs / funding / etc is a lack of connections, then you should optimize for achieving connections. This doesn't come naturally to everybody, myself included, but it isn't harder than lots of things which are table stakes to being an engineer.

Similarly, if you keep getting told No and think you need social proof... then get social proof. Plan B, whining about how humans have exploitable deficiencies in decisionmaking processes such as requiring social proof, is distinctly suboptimal.

<comment><USER3> Plan B section 2, whining about how exploitable deficiencies opens up people to being defrauded by vendors, consultants and recruiters who can talk the talk but not walk the walk, is still legitimate (though not constructive). There's getting social proof, and then there's not being a douche. Sometimes the line isn't clear either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you want to network, it's a good idea to create something of value first.

I did this in the form of a magazine (<http://www.interestingtimesmagazine.com>) which has allowed me to reach out to a ton of people.

I am always sending out links to people and hooking various e-acquaintances up with each other ("why don't you interview this friend of mine for your podcast?").

When you do this for long enough, I think everything just starts to fall into place.

It's not something I do with a conscious plan, most of it is just because I see an opportunity to do something cool (ie get my buddy on a podcast or whatever).

In the cheesy New Age hoodoo-voodoo $29.95 frou-frou flim-flam world of self- help we call this having _abundance mentality_. It has a lot of connotations, one of them being that if you see a resource as available and abundant to you, and don't come from a super-greedy frame of mind, things will be easier. There is probably a logical explanation why this works too.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Habits_of_Highly_Effe...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Habits_of_Highly_Effective_People#Abundance_mentality)

</comment><comment><USER5> Sorry for stating the obvious. If you come to SV and have zero connections, then make connections. It's really easy, there are events, meetups, talks, hackathons, you-name-it pretty much every day. The culture is so pervasive that sometimes you make industry connections even without trying (e.g. at the climbing gym).

</comment><comment><USER6> I enjoyed this article, but I think it could be titled "Making it in Silicon Valley when you have zero technical skills". Also not sure the blog is for Hustlers and Geeks, seems like it's more for hustlers.

Which is alright. I remember the huge parties in the first dot com boom, when I met a guy who answered the question "what do you do?" with "I work with startups". "What do you do for them?" "Everything". Interestingly, people at these parties weren't especially interested in meeting developers.

The culture seems very different now. For starters, people don't waste nearly as much money on big parties, and the value of technical skills seems to have risen dramatically... well, it was always useful, but now people actually understand that value.

I would figure step 1 of making it is to pursue an idea and create a minimum viable product. If you have programming ability, you (along with a couple of friends, I would hope) will have something to pitch. Otherwise, all you can do is say vague things like "I work with startups".

<comment><AUTHOR> I consider a "Geek" anyone who likes tech things, they don't have to be technical.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Edit: I originally wrote a paragraph with lots of F-words to make the point that the author was using so many expletives that they lost impact. Got downvoted, probably because the point was ironically lost amongst the expletives, so removed the offending paragraph.

Other than that, once I decoded it, I enjoyed the article.

<comment><USER8> Aww man, don't edit because of downvotes. I saw it before you edited and I knew what you meant. It's more important to make a point than to appease the karma police (not related to the Radiohead song). Fuck the karma po-lice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This guy might find a way to make it into my office and shake my hand, but I'd never hire him.

Anyone who can write the sentence "I'm a salesman and a hustler to my core" with a straight face has the wrong kind of passion.

If you're driven by a love for programming, or designing products, or the joy of developing a business, it will show.

This blogger sounds like he's just driven by the desire to make money and retire young, and is looking to get in to a startup because he's got visions of stock options dancing in his head.

<comment><USER10> You might not hire him but I might. The truth of the matter is that sometimes you do need people like him. Hustle to me is the willingness and ability to get things done. This guy just chose to apply hustle to sales. There's nothing wrong with that.

Better code, design or "joy of developing a business" don't always win in the market and I'm willing to bet that the one that hustles harder will.

Besides I'm pretty sure start-ups, founders, companies are all driven by some desire to make money. Difference between you might be degree. Just because you're not comfortable with it doesn't justify pontification.

I just found the manner in which you laid judgement a bit harsh.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The only thing I would add is to not place so much emphasis on shaking _the_ CEO's hand more than any other founder.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're exactly right... any founder would be just as good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is perfect for me - I have zero connections, and after I graduate I hope to make it in SV. Thanks for posting.

<comment><USER8> Why I'm SV? Are you from Cali? Why not make it where you are first. Use the resources you have easy access to before jumping on the bandwagon. If I could give some advice to anyone with dreams of VCs, startups, and, Ferraris I'd tell them to exhaust every resource you currently have available, build up some cred, _then_ move out to SV but only if that's the right place for you to grow as a founder or as whatever you're trying to become.

<comment><USER12> I'm from England. I want to move to the US for various reasons. SV merely happens to be my first choice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This kind of comes off as thinly veiled marketing for Ramit. I subscribe to his emails and I'm a fan but I didn't expect to see this here I'm the front page.

That didn't bother me as much as something else in the post. The article assumes you should want to make it in SV. I'd say ask yourself why you want to make it SV? Do you really need to go there to make it? I have a lot of respect for silicon valley and the things that come from there but there are too many people who want to make it in SV because it's trendy. They read HN and want to be just like the cool hip startup founders.

We should be doing what's right for us and our companies. Not all of us even belong in the entrepreneurship game. I briefly dreamed of coming to SV and trying to make it with a cool tech startup. Then I realized that I had no business there right now. It would be far better to get some momentum here in Chicago, build up some success, and grow my companies to the size they are meant to be while avoiding VCs on purpose.

There's too much hype around Silicon Valley and I'm afraid it's trendiness will be the death of its reputation for innovation. If things continue this way I fear that SV will be known for hollow, get rich quick types. Like Wall Street on the west coast. Do what's right for you. You might not want to make it in SV after all. Try to make it in Salt Lake or St. Louis, Hickville Alabama or Chicago or wherever it is you find yourself. I doubt anyone could succeed in a new location without the skills to make connections to succeed in their original location.

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't mean for it to come off as marketing for Ramit. He has written some good stuff and I got something out of it, so I thought I would share to "pay it forward" so to speak to other people.

While I specifically was writing about Silicon Valley, I think many of the lessons could be applied to other cities and other industries. If you can build your startup in Chicago and can be successful, like Groupon or 37signals, I applaud that as well!

<comment><USER8> Well then I stand corrected. I trust you're not a paid shill for Ramit so I'm not so concerned about the marketing anymore. Like I said, I like Ramit, I'm a subscriber, and I once had a brief back and forth exchange with him over email. He's a nice guy.

I get that you were speaking specifically about Silicon Valley. My criticism has more to do with the general trend I see of people advocating that you should rush out to SV and try to strike it rich in Startupland. This post just got me thinking of that so please don't think I was being critical of you. I was just reminded of something related and was speaking about that. The Ramit thing was critical of you but I trust you're sincere so, like I said, I stand corrected on that point.</comment></comment></comment>


Where are they now? The stories of what happened to ten dot-coms from the first bubble - <AUTHOR> http://www.thestandard.com/node/107162

<comment><USER2> This would be a lot more useful if it were all one one page, or at least if all the links were on one page.

<comment><AUTHOR> All of the links to the profiles appear in the first paragraph of the featured article. The companies/services are Boo, TheGlobe.com, Pets.com, Webvan, eToys, DrKoop.com, Garden.com, Kozmo, Excite@Home, and Entertaindom.

<comment><USER3> \- I don't care how easy it is to click through then click the back button; then again ...

\- Whenever you build content for page views and NOT users you make a grand mistake, user satisfaction is what makes those page views worth anything.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually, this content was built because it's interesting (and therefore satisfying for users), it ties into our coverage areas and historical mission, and it supports our business.

The format was derived from a British music magazine that I used to read, as described here:

[http://ilamont.blogspot.com/2008/05/dot-com-nostalgia- whatev...](http://ilamont.blogspot.com/2008/05/dot-com-nostalgia-whatever- happened-to.html)

If this were a single-page article, the length would be more than 5300 words long -- or the equivalent of around 20 double-spaced typed pages on A4 paper. Do you think that's more enjoyable to read or scroll through?

Yes, I could have comissioned it as a feature-style article, which probably would have been half as long or less, but I really don't think it would have been as effective or readable as the profiles. For instance, the profiles allow you to easily skip over companies and sections you don't want to read, whereas a feature would force you to skim.

As for generating page views, it's unfortunate that this drives so much online journalism today, but this special feature would have been commissioned regardless if we were using page views, time spent on site, or some other metric.

One of these days, a new business model will come to dominate online media -- maybe even invented by one of the Y Combinator companies -- and I honestly hope it will encourage media outlets to return to an emphasis of quality over quantity. We're in the age of the page view right now, but it won't last forever.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, I don't know that putting it all on one page is the solution, but having each page linked to from each page might help a lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm shocked that another company would buy the rights to the Pets.com puppet. Yes, the thing was briefly well recognized, but why would you want to spend marketing dollars on a failed brand, and associate your brand with it?

Here's an idea: For my next company I'll try to buy the rights to the image of Jar Jar Binks. That should go over well.

<comment><USER6> > I'm shocked that another company would buy the rights to the Pets.com > puppet.

There's a precedent in the UK. A company in the UK that provided a digital television service ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV_Digital> ) used a monkey puppet to promote its service. Like Pets.com, it failed. Like Pets.com, the rights to the puppet now belong to another company.

The monkey puppet is now used to advertise tea. The tea company was famous for adverts featuring clothed chimpanzees dubbed to promote the brand ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PG_Tips#Advertising> ). However, due to the advance of animal rights, the company now uses a monkey puppet which is widely recognised in the UK.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Does the title imply that a second bubble is upon us?</comment>


The Next Big Blue-Collar Job Is Coding - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/2017/02/programming-is-the-new-blue-collar-job/amp <comment><USER2> 2016 article that has been posted to HN 8 times:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=The%20Next%20Big%20Blue- Collar...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=The%20Next%20Big%20Blue- Collar%20Job%20Is%20Coding&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)</comment>


Array#isArray for older browsers – 19 stars on GitHub - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/juliangruber/isarray <comment><USER2> Somehow reminds me of leftpad...</comment>


AMD vs. Intel 2020: Who Makes the Best CPUs? - <AUTHOR> https://www.tomshardware.com/features/amd-vs-intel-cpus <comment><USER2> I really hate these articles, they're click bait intended to sow discourse among fanbois and drive traffic to the site. People who have recently built systems read them and either feel validation or regret. That just spawns comments from people either trying to justify their loser choice or flaunt their lucky choice of the winner. The loyalists crawl out of wood work to make comments like "I still prefer x because y". These articles draw broad conclusions and influence perception across the board, even if they mention performance tiers, that brand X is always superior to brand Y.

I've been building systems for almost 30 years and in that time Intel has mostly been the performance champion AND has always screwed you over on price. Sometimes they lead by a lot, sometimes by very little or not at all but their platform is always more expensive.

Both Intel and AMD introduce a brand (e.g. Pentium, Ahtlon) as their new flagship and then overtime erode the brand each year with lower spec products. Eventually they stop introducing higher spec products altogether and the brand sinks to the bottom of their product lineup as a new brand takes the top ranks (e.g. i9, Ryzen).

Depending on when you get into building PCs you might have brand loyalty because maybe your first system was a Celeron you unlocked and ran at PIII speeds. Or maybe you picked up a first gen Althon that was the performance king for a few quarters, or the Athlon II when Intel was floundering with Netburst. Maybe you started out with Core and in your view Intel has always dominated AMD. Regardless your perceptions are skewed.

Identify your workload and your budget, buy the best thing that meets your needs regardless of brand. Intel is historically more stable and less problematic. AMD usually offers significantly more performance per $ on the low end. Then again that all takes too much effort, just buy whatever makes you feel good about yourself on the internet according to these click bait articles.

<comment><USER3> You're a bit out of date here.

AMD has largely taken the performance crown thanks to their Zen CPU platform and move to using TSMC for their process as Intel has lagged behind, with major problems deriving from their inability to get 10nm working.

If it helps to give you some perspective on how such a drastic change could occur, Intel's 10nm process was originally meant to be ready for release in 2014!, and yet they still haven't managed to scale out production after six years of debugging and failure.

It's a combination of AMD simultaneously doing extremely well and Intel severely stagnating that has allowed this to happen.

<comment><USER2> > You're a bit out of date here.

I have no idea what you're talking about with your vague remark AND I think your attempt at pedantry has only helped to solidify the point I was making.

<comment><USER3> Did you read the rest of my comment at all? I can appreciate disagreement, but that means taking the time to consider and look at what the other person has to say as well.

<comment><USER2> I did read your comment in it's entirety. It was unclear what specifically you were referring to because it was poorly written.

You remarked "You're a bit out of date here" without any clarification. Given that I spoke historically and in generalities, it's unclear what you were referring to.

As far as I could tell you were dismissing everything I said AND then you went on to state technical facts surrounding recent events that in no way conflicted or invalidated anything I said.

Now you're asserting that it was a failure on my part to read your comment in full and comprehend what you said, allowing you to dismiss anything I say in response.

Basically you're trying to say I'm either misinformed or stupid, when in reality you're just not taking the time to write a coherent argument.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The AMD Ryzen platform holds so much promise. There's just one problem: all of their consumer chipset motherboards are terrible. Really, really flakey and bad. If you're used to slapping in name-brand memory to a board and booting it up, LOL good luck with AMD! Your options for current gen Ryzens are:

x570 -> Requires active cooling (fans) on the chipset because it throws off too much heat. The proprietray fan will die and your motherboard needs replacing. Congrats! Also, the PCIe lane configurations are weird (x8 x8 x8).

x470 -> Don't even look at your memory the wrong way if you want it to boot. Also, you need an older gen Ryzen/Athlon to update the BIOS to something that works with Ryzen 3000. Sure, there are stickers all over the box touting 'Ryzen 3000 compatibility!' but that's only after you update the BIOS. The BIOS the board ships with won't work at all.

b450 -> Dicier to run new stuff on such an older platform. The implementations are supposedly power weak for higher core count 3900/3950 CPUs.

AMD really dropped the ball on these chipset. They're the things that are leading to terrible user experiences and why folks end up going back to Intel after countless dollars wasted on shipping, RMAs, and swapping gear. No motherboard manufacturer actually designs anything. They just bundle chips together and change logos in the BIOS. Some might have a "flashback" button that works on half the boards, but there's little to differentiate one from the other.

If you want something that just works and is fast, stick with Intel because their chipsets are better. I'm writing this on a 3900x, too...

EDIT: Since many are doubting what I went through, let me list the permutations of boards, DIMMs, and CPUs.

CPUs: 3900x and 220GE DIMMs: Corsair Ballistix, G.Skill FlareX, Samsung ECC (unbuffered) Boards: x470 Taichi and Hero VII

I finally got my third Taichi to boot with a 220GE to the point that I could flash a BIOS to something "stable" for the 3900x.

I've literally built hundreds of servers and PCs in my lifetime (including AMD Romes). I know what I'm doing. This ecosystem just isn't mature yet!

<comment><USER5> This is all pretty much FUD.

> x570 -> Requires active cooling (fans) on the chipset because it throws off > too much heat. The proprietray fan will die and your motherboard needs > replacing.

AMD does require fans on the chipsets for X570 boards, but different board makers have treated this differently. My understanding is that some boards don't spin it up unless you're putting some serious PCIE 4.0 bandwidth in. Either way, "The fan will die and needs replacing" may be true someday (as it would be with any fan), but is not a guarantee.

>x470 -> Don't even look at your memory the wrong way if you want it to boot. Also, you need an older gen Ryzen/Athlon to update the BIOS to something that works with Ryzen 3000. Sure, there are stickers all over the box touting 'Ryzen 3000 compatibility!' but that's only after you update the BIOS. The BIOS the board ships with won't work at all.

First gen Ryzen (1000 series chips) had some memory compatibility issues, but 2000 and 3000 chips haven't had many issues. It's true that you needed to do a BIOS upgrade on x470/B450 boards when 3000 series chips were released, but those stickers indicate that the board maker installed a newer BIOS and they should work out of the box. Unless you manage to find an X470 board that's been sitting on the shelf since before last July any x470 board you buy today is extremely likely to be compatible with all currently released Ryzen chips out of the box.

> b450 -> Dicier to run new stuff on such an older platform. The > implementations are supposedly power weak for higher core count 3900/3950 > CPUs.

3000 series chips use a smaller process and are more power efficient per-core than 2000 and 1000 series chips, so you should have no issue running an 8 core chip in a B450 board. 12-core and 16-core chips _might_ have some issues, but who buys a $79 motherboard and sticks a $500/$900 CPU in it?

<comment><USER4> >First gen Ryzen (1000 series chips) had some memory compatibility issues, but 2000 and 3000 chips haven't had many issues. It's true that you needed to do a BIOS upgrade on x470/B450 boards when 3000 series chips were released, but those stickers indicate that the board maker installed a newer BIOS and they should work out of the box. Unless you manage to find an X470 board that's been sitting on the shelf since before last July any x470 board you buy today is extremely likely to be compatible with all currently released Ryzen chips out of the box.<

I went through a pair of x470 Taichi's from Amazon last month. Both had non- compatible BIOS that wouldn't work with 3000-series. One so old that Dr Debug wouldn't even do anything. Just blank.

It's not just me. Read the negative product reviews of almost any x470 boards, and you'll see memory and non-POST issues very recently (followed by the response macro from mfg'er saying everything is fine just use 1 DIMM, etc). It's very much a crapshoot with AMD chipsets. You get a good one and everything's great. You get a few bad ones and you're stuck in swap/return/RMA hell.

Also, how can it be FUD when it's exactly what I went through?

Edit: The "Ryzen 3000 compatible" stickers do NOT mean it will work out of the box. It means that it CAN work...after you update the BIOS with an old CPU.

AMD will offer you a CPU "boot kit" to get it going, but you're risking on missing out on many 30 day return windows with shipping, covid19, processing, etc. Avoid it all and just get an Intel until the next refresh.

<comment><USER6> Interesting on your x470 experience. I bought a X470 Taichi U from Scan UK in early February, and the 3600 chip worked.

I was wary of the issue you raise, but lucked out, and figured the issues you talk of had washed through. Maybe the warehouse staff who boxed it looked at the order and gave me a recent unit.

What action could AMD take to improve the situation? I wanted to go to AMD because I expect to get strong upgrade options from it - certainly to a 3950x, and possibly further. But - a complication of that is that older motherboards need BIOS updates.

I am surprised at how slap-dash the motherboard is. It supports ECC ram - great. But BIOS configuration is a confused mess.

<comment> m-p-3 Some motherboards supports flashing BIOS through a USB thumbdrive without a CPU, IMO this kinda of problem would be a non-issue if all of them did this.

<comment><USER4> To some degree, yes. However, that assumes a functioning BIOS release is available and works...many incremental releases are no functioning despite release notes saying otherwise. Many times, you can't downgrade the BIOS either. So you're stuck with a bad board waiting for a beta BIOS...fun times!

The workstation/server platforms ARE better. Having a BMC to flash/recover things is much more reliable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am a little out of date on this topic but what effect does Spectre/Meltdown and other mitigations have on newer processors? Is it fundamentally just a software fix going forward? Seems like we are willing to sacrifice in the order of 10% performance at least in the previous generations....

<comment><USER8> For many workloads the effect was significantly more than 10%.

I had to disable mitigations to complete a filesystem checksum, it was on the order of 1000x slower.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Given that amd has the lead in power consumption per performance, is it now the cpu of choice in the datacenter?

<comment><USER10> Some engineering software I use, uses Intel MPI libraries, and I suspect the math kernel also. The software runs 30% faster on an i7 versus a Ryzen 7, both with equivalent clock rate and number of cores.

Given the forthcoming i9 will hit 5.3 GHz, I'm choosing Intel for my next build. Until AMD comes out with libraries and compilers targeting scientific computing, Intel may still have the lead.

<comment><USER11> Do Intel consumer chips support ECC memory now? Without ECC, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable doing any scientific computing or production serving. (I would consider using them for things like CI, though, because the price sure is good.)

<comment><USER10> No, and only 64 GB max of non-ECC at that. I typically don't run simulation of more than 1 hour though, and I'll know when the results are wrong. My use case is CAD/real-time design for RF and EM; multiple smaller simulations of parametric sweeps, Monte Carlo, and optimization.

Ryzen does support ECC, and > 64 GB, so that is a plus.

<comment><USER11> I don't care too much about the results of my own programs, but I do worry very much about OS-level data structures. If some bit gets flipped in memory while you're extracting an update, that program will just randomly be weird forever. If some bit gets flipped in your filesystem, your data randomly disappears. Given how frequent both auto-updates and bit flips are in practice, no doubt something on my computer is corrupted somewhere. Or maybe only my backup is corrupted. Maybe it will never cause a problem, or maybe my computer will just one day become unusable. I have spent so much time debugging random failures that I see ECC memory as at least avoiding one set of possibilities, reducing the inevitable system integration time that building your own computer requires.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is AMD now a better choice for Linux, especially given the ongoing stability problems with Intel's Linux graphics drivers?

<comment><USER13> When everything lines up AMD integrated graphics are very very pleasant on Linux. But you will also find random Kernel versions with obnoxious regressions and bugs you have to hunt down and fix or work around.

<comment><USER14> those are rare, and almost non-existant in LTS kernels.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> For me the single biggest factor is still single threaded performance. There are still many apps that are not multithreaded so all those extra cores are useless. Single thread performance will benefit any application. Intel still holds the lead in this category.

<comment><USER16> I don't like this argument for three reasons:

1\. The single thread performance gap is very small (5-10% depending on application) or even non-existent in some cases.

2\. Your computer runs more than one process at any given moment. The more cores, the more processes you can run without an impact on performance

3\. That single core performance comes at the cost of efficiency and general power usage. Intel has had to clock their 14nm process very high to achieve that small lead in single thread performance.

<comment><USER17> The key words in the parent post are 'for me'.

Imagine you have a single core compilation process that takes two minutes that you must run 50 times a day. This can happen. Ten percent brings 12 seconds per compile or ten minutes a day. This might not sound great but it means you can get an extra five compiles done. You can also get increased likelihood that you can remember what you were working on. Therefore the marginal gain in single thread performance is well worth having in this use case. The expense of genuine Intel becomes worth it even if you don't have so many cores.

<comment><USER18> I have a dual core dev machine. Using _-j 2_ builds twice as fast (approx 35 mins -> 17 mins). Are current compiles really obligatory single thread? Because I sure would like to prop up intel with my wallet.

<comment><USER19> Most web development toolchains depend on Node.js, which compiles on a single core.

<comment><USER20> Node takes advantage of multiple cores.

The code is all async by default and that is easy to load onto green threads.

This used to be implemented with callback hell, now it's Promises which is actually really cosy (and what Rust is adopting).

Random article I found on it: [https://medium.com/better-programming/is-node- js-really-sing...](https://medium.com/better-programming/is-node-js-really- single-threaded-7ea59bcc8d64)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Russia Says Five Died in Blast Where Radiation Spike Reported - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-10/russia-says-five-died-in-blast-where-radiation-spike-reported <comment><USER2> The combination of

\- a missile test

\- involving "isotope power sources in a liquid propulsion system"

sounds seriously bad.

Am I reading too much between the lines or is this related to the crazy nuclear propulsion ICBM idea they threw out a while ago?

<comment><USER3> Not ICBM, cruise missile, and it ain't crazy (well, from a technical standpoint - as a weapon, it's totally crazy Dead Hand stuff) - see Project Pluto.

What's being reported, given the context of their proclamation about nuclear powered missiles a while back, I think it's a reasonable supposition in the absence of further information that they had _something_ go very wrong with a static fire of a nuclear ramjet - probably not a nuclear detonation, but I wouldn't be surprised if they a) had a supercritical moment and b) sprayed the reactor guts over a substantial area.

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

<comment><USER4> > I think it's a reasonable supposition in the absence of further information > that they had something go very wrong with a static fire of a nuclear ramjet > - probably not a nuclear detonation

Can you explain this a bit more for those of us who know almost nothing about missiles/nuclear weapons. If I'm understanding the Project Pluto wikipedia correctly a ramjet isn't able to fire from a standstill and a nuclear ramjet would require both initial forward motion and then a nuclear detonation (not sure if that's the right word, perhaps just "reaction").

So I guess my question is, how would they safely static fire these types of missiles for testing purposes? Assuming Russia's project uses a similar setup to Project Pluto and has conventional rocket boosters to get the missile to ramjet speed is that what they'd be static firing - the boosters? And if they're testing the boosters attached to the nuclear ramjet without allowing the ramjet's reactor to go critical what would have to go wrong with the static fire that would result in radiation?

<comment><USER5> If the ramjet didn't go critical it wouldn't be of much use. The key number when you are talking about an operating reactor is called the multiplication factor--when an atom fissions __on average __how many other atoms will be split by the neutrons released from that fission.

When this number is less than one things just peacefully sit there. If an atom fissions the chain soon dies out. If this number is more than one things get hotter and hotter until it comes apart. If this were the whole story there would be no nuclear power, but there's one very useful detail--a small number of those neutrons are not emitted at once. This gives you a margin to control things.

When the immediate neutrons are enough to cause more than one fission you have the state known as prompt critical, you have lost control, the reactor will run wild and destroy itself. (An atom bomb is the same idea, except rather than just edging past 1 a bombmaker pushes the ratio as high as possible so it takes a city with it in destroying itself.) I am aware of two cases where reactors had issues with control rods and crossed the prompt critical line, both were immediately destroyed. SL-1 and Chernobyl.

The zone between critical and prompt critical gives you a way to control things. You have time to turn the heat up or down as needed. A nuclear ramjet is going to be designed to operate at a very high power density, it's going to be a lot closer to the line than a reactor is normally run. Stick one toe over the line and you get what SpaceX calls a RUD.

Alternately, it might have run too hot, something softened or melted and the core shape changed to cross the prompt critical line, same outcome.

<comment><USER4> Interesting, so because a nuclear ramjet runs closer to the line there's less time to make adjustments and control things to prevent RUD. I guess that makes testing all the more difficult/dangerous.

Thanks for such a thorough explanation that I could actually follow! Much appreciated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I find it really hard to ever know what's real when it comes to Russia.

<comment><USER7> Anything that can be reliably measured. Height of pile of dead journalists, that kind of thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > "short-term increase in radiation"

Guess they are lying like in 1986.

<comment><USER9> Well, the big difference now is that there aren't lots of radiation from external readings, so I doubt there's a big disaster such as Chernobyl. We also have better instruments nowadays.

Of course, different winds could mean it won't be picked up by Northern Europe like last time.

<comment><USER10> For comparison, here [1] is a wiki article on a different recent radioactive release from Russia (of Ruthenium-106). International parties detected it very quickly, but it took a fair time to trace it back to it's probable source at the Mayak facility. This current event seems in some ways more serious, in other ways less, but a bit better in terms of the transparency in the Russian governmental response (they've at least acknowledged it).

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_radioactivity_increas...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_radioactivity_increase_in_Europe_in_autumn_2017)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> And they said there'd be no Season 2 of Chernobyl.

</comment><comment><USER12> NASA film on nuclear rocket development in the 60's [https://youtube.com/watch?v=eDNX65d-FBY](https://youtube.com/watch?v=eDNX65d-FBY)

</comment><comment><USER13> Slightly related: this arte documentary about nuclear weapons:

[https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/082249-000-A/the-new-cold- war/](https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/082249-000-A/the-new-cold-war/)

TLDW:

* Russia has comparatively poor capabilities in traditional weapons so they use nuclear weapons to compensate.

* USA is developing nuclear weapons for submarines that they can park at the coast of strategically important places without having to bother with criticism from the host country.

* With Trump in office, European states are wondering about whether to launch a European nuclear program for self defense.

* Baltic states are hard to defend, easy to invade. The NATO presence in the Baltics serves mainly the goal to appease the local population than to prevent any serious invasion attempt.

<comment><USER14> I thought the Baltic strategy was to have a force in place that the Russians would have to kill to get the baltics. That force couldn't stop the Russians but their defeat would cause a casus belli that gives NATO enough domestic political capital to go fully to war with Russia.

<comment><USER13> That's probably a component as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Additional details here:

[https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29356/russia-admits- my...](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29356/russia-admits-mysterious- missile-engine-explosion-involved-nuclear-isotope-power-source)

</comment><comment><USER16> Putin announced in 2018 that they had nuclear-powered missiles that can fly almost indefinitely (and also hypersonic cruise missiles, supersonic nuclear torpedoes, and a couple of other terrifying doom machines). Historically, when the Russians officially disclose the existence of weapon, it's real.

<comment><USER17> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval)

370km/h. Under water.

<comment><USER18> That's pretty old design. Doesn't China have a supersonic submarine/torpedo now?

<comment><USER16> When the Kursk went under, there were reportedly Chinese officials onboard. They were almost certainly there to see a demonstration of super-cavitating torpedoes, and it didn't end well. So who knows what they decided afterward.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Thoughts On Building Your Startup Whilst In College - <AUTHOR> http://leostartsup.com/2011/06/thoughts-on-building-your-startup-whilst-in-college/

<comment><USER2> It's becoming more of a risk nowadays than when I was in school. Many schools now set up policies where the school can seize ownership of the student's original work. This is outrageous of course and just one more reason to stay out of college.

I've said this before; I'll bring it up once again since it's on topic here and may help someone exploring this thread. If I had my life to live again, the one thing I would change is start my business 4 years earlier and avoid the debt and wasted time and opportunity cost of going to college. That said, one good thing about it was that back in the old days schools didn't attempt to steal the original private work of their undergraduate students. With that situation having changed at some schools, there is even less reason to bother with the distraction and debt.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Bugsy,

Thanks for your thoughts on this. Yes, I think the debt is a lot of an issue and also the Intellectual Property thing. You are absolutely right, one really has to be careful here.

Great to hear you would have started even earlier, much motivation for me! :)

<comment><USER2> These are tricky discussions since many people have strong opinions.

I'm going to assume you're a bit like me. Self motivated, been designing things since a young age. Reads a lot. Talks to people to find out what they are up to. I even did the thing you mention where I stopping going to all lectures one semester and just took the midterm and final and did the projects. That semester I got all As though, doing the bare minimum, which I suppose for myself was more than the maximum others were doing.

Someone like yourself is naturally intellectually curious and likes to create things and explore. The structure of college is not really necessary especially with a technical degree. Engineering programs tend to have reduced general ed/humanities requirements anyway. For something like a classics background, perhaps college is really beneficial. For engineering, nearly everything was things I already knew about since I'd been making things and reading tech journals since adolescence. As to the professors, very few had any life experience designing working software used by other people. Most professors simply don't know very much about design, creating things, or running a business. Most have lived sheltered lives, straight to teaching from grad school. If I was studying Russian literature I would not be impressed by a professor who could not read Russian and had not read any Russian literature. Likewise, the situation where professors of computer science do not actually practice in the field is quite bizarre.

You've designed a product, listened to customers, and brought your business from nothing to profitability. That is more than most attempted entrepreneurs have managed, and more than most of your professors. You've done this while managing passing grades, that is quite an accomplishment, it's more of one than getting a degree.

I liked what you said about how when you hunkered down and focused on the business is when things did well. Don't be shy, just go for it. That was a good move. I also understand about the possible naysaying and negative influence of parents, this is the old saying "A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family." It's not just prophets though, it's most things. New town, new start, new person. It's interesting that college allows you free time and space to succeed, completely aside from the classes. Would be nice if you could keep your apartment and just deregister and stop going to class but hang out in the area, much as the original vision Jefferson had for University of Virginia as a learning community, where there would be no classes and no hierarchy, just people working on their own projects.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, thanks so much for wording out your thoughts in such detail here.

Absolutely, I think your very spot on with your analysis. Your experience of your own college life does sound very familiar. Shutting myself off from everything was the only way to get something working.

Yes, the fact that many of the people teaching me, never went through any similar patterns was a big problem for me. Not that I don't like to be given advice from someone, I was just having trouble if it is coming from someone with little background.

Thanks on the kind words on managing the degree and the startup. I think, I am fortunately doing a degree (Management at a Business School) where you can easily sneak through exams and still get decent marks.

Absolutely, even though one tries to say "All thoughts are my own" they never quite are and if you are living under the same roof with your parents it is even more difficult.

Never heard that this was the way Jefferson imagined it, but very true, that's exactly how I think it should be. Simply using the environment and forgetting about actual classes.

Thanks for this great discussion here, you have given me much comfort in my doing. I hope to chat with you more in the future. If you get a chance, hit me up @LeoWid on Twitter, would love talk more. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> One of the main advantages is that you have three months off for Summer vacation. Even if you're working, that's a lot of free time!

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Danoc,

Absolutely, I think this is the main reason, you are free and no one expects you to earn money. :)

In my case, I am going to Silicon Valley for the summer, I think, just going away for 3 months would be much harder with a job.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What will you learn this year?  - <AUTHOR>

Every year, I pick a topic I want to learn more about. Not just by professional imperatives but mostly by sheer curiosity.
At one point, it was C++, Japanese, Monte-Carlo, Business, Politics, Economics, etc... This year, it's investing and finance in general and the financial crisis in particular (for obvious reasons).<p>With the new year still wet behind the ears, what have you decided to learn about? <comment><USER2> Go back to the basics - This year, there is only book that I want to read - SICP. I get through that, and I know I will be a better developer for the rest of my days...

Of course I am currently reading Real World Haskell (just took a break to read HN), so its not quite the start I wanted, but hopefully learning Haskell will bring me to a closer understanding of the math behind programming

Less multi-tasking - I started this a week ago, when I was working I switched off the twitter client, the email, and the phone. And I got so much more done with so less effort.

Finding myself - More time meditating, and writing (like a journal). Time over the last 2 years has flown by and I feel like I have nothing to show for it. Meditating had always helped me compose myself, not to mention it will help with finding the "zone" (Along the lines of less multi-tasking)

More hacking, actually putting what I learn to metal. I tend to be academic in nature, but deep inside I know I that its when I put it to use that it really resonates with me

Finally, just being happy. Fretting over every new technology that I feel I just have to know about gives me the satisfaction of knowing about it, without getting enough depth to "know" it.

<comment><AUTHOR>
           Go back to the basics - This year, there is only book that I want to read - SICP.

I actually started going over it (along with the videos of the lectures) a couple of weeks ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm going to learn about making money via subscription payments. I've launched a few apps, some that I'm very proud of, but nothing that attempts to make money in the most straightforward way: charging for use. Consequently I've never felt like I really understood this simple thing, or how easy it would be to deploy it on a new or existing app.

More broadly, my goal is to learn about bringing a business to life. Having quit my day job and switched to consulting in the last year, I'd really like to start exploring new opportunities that could make money while I sleep.

<comment><USER4> I'm in the same boat. I want to learn to think of ideas for apps that would create real value that either consumers or businesses would be willing to pay for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> My plans:

      - dedicate an hour a day to nothing but reading
      - ditto for exercise
      - finish the MIT opencourseware course on intro neuroscience (scored the textbook on eBay for $14)
      - start a software project and bring it to being released
      - build an arduinome if finances permit
      - learn to dance
      - finally complete my pilot's license and get a glider certification (again, finances permitting)
      - go climbing outdoors as much as possible, time and weather permitting.
      - figure out what I want to do professionally for the next few years (current job obligation ending summer)

<comment><USER6> If you build an arduinome, please document the process and put it online somewhere. It looks interesting; the Monome has always been one of those things that is super fascinating to me, but I could never justify buying.

<comment><USER7> _"... If you build an arduinome, please document the process and put it online somewhere ..."_

and if either of you decide to build one consider building them commercially. there is currently a bit of demand for the Monome & possibly the arduinome ~ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monome>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Judo. I was so happy when I was doing it previously and I'm disappointed I ever stopped (graduated from college). But, the best dojo in town is right near my house, so there we go.

After that, I want to focus on polish. I too often focus on the end result but I'm bad at getting to the done-done stage - specifically, UI/UX.

</comment><comment><USER9> Lots of mathematics, abstract algebra, computability, topology, linear algebra. Also, I want to understand more about theoretical computer science.

</comment><comment><USER10> Technical: 1\. Chalk up one more for SICP. I got started via the ebook. I'll probably shoot for 80% coverage of the exercises. 2\. Also I'm hoping to get through the mathematical preliminaries section in TAOCP. 3\. The "Great Algorithms" course that was posted here seems like particularly ripe fruit.

Non-technical: 1\. Set better goals. I'm am freaking awful at setting goals. Need to focus on and experiment with setting goals.

</comment><comment><USER11> I want to learn more about social psychology. I've just read Cialdini's book "influence" and have become fascinated with the subject.

As far as technical stuff goes I'd like to go through SICP - I had a small exposure to lisp years ago and would like to try it out again.

I'm also going to be doing some courses with the UK's open university (distance learning) - a math refresher and a course on processors/hardware.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'd like to learn more about economics. I'm happy to hear suggestions about what I should read.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=415683>

Someone who likes to read a lot elsewhere in cyberspace just recommended to me the Becker-Posner blog.

<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/>

<comment><USER13> Here are the blogs I'd start with: For behavioral and general economics, my two favorites are Tyler Cowen and The Big Picture

<http://www.marginalrevolution.com/>

<http://bigpicture.typepad.com/>

For Development/Macroeconomics two great ones (besides Becker/Posner) are Greg Mankiw & Danny Rodrik

<http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/>

<http://rodrik.typepad.com/>

Mankiw is a bit more traditional than Rodrik, so they tend to have some great back & forth, and when the discussion jumps above college-level they tend to link/explain things. </econ nerd>

<comment><USER12> Thanks for the suggestions. I see Big Picture just moved to a new URL.

<http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The raising of my daughter.

<comment><USER15> You'll do great. How old is she?

<comment><USER14> 8 months old in a few days!

<comment><USER15> Good age! She's interactive now.

Before you buy any books on parenting strategies, you need this book:

[http://www.amazon.com/Doggy-Picture-Book-Thingy- Things/dp/07...](http://www.amazon.com/Doggy-Picture-Book-Thingy- Things/dp/0786806427)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Public speaking. I'm signing up to some Toastmasters meetings and learning to do that well.

<comment><USER17> Cool. I've been doing it for over a year now and it's a lot of fun and very helpful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Keeping costs as low as possible long term.

</comment><comment><USER19> The main thing I want to learn more about is cryptology, and in particular cryptanalysis. I've been collecting papers that I want to read but I'm still missing a lot of the mathematical background that I need to understand them.

I'm currently working through a new book called _Applied Cryptanalysis - Breaking Ciphers in the Real World_ and plan to fill in the math as needed from other sources.

Like many other people I also have SICP on my list and it will remain there until I have finished it including most of the exercises.

I have also been learning Haskell over the last year and plan to continue using it as much as possible, especially for mathematical oriented projects such as implementing attacks from the cryptanalysis book.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm just starting to learn about web development with Clojure. Even though I'm barely beyond the "hello world" stage, I've put my app on Slicehost at <http://ericlavigne.net> and I'm documenting the learning process on my blog at <http://ericlavigne.wordpress.com>

</comment><comment><USER21> How to turn a one-man startup into a real company.

</comment><comment><USER22> Learn to manage my time better and stop procastinating with HN :-)

More seriously, I want to read SICP seriously and play again with Ocaml (I used it quite a bit in university and really liked this language)

On things outside of programming, I'm going to get my chinese back into shape...

</comment><comment><USER15> The math behind signal processing; curing and drying ham and salami.

</comment><comment><USER23> I want to learn more about marketing and SEO. I have the basics, but I want to take it a step further.

</comment><comment><USER24> 1, Get a solid foundation on statistical learning theory and machine learning. I'm currently working my way through the cs229 course online on the stanford site

2, Learn how to network with people and start a company and apply to Ycombinator for the summer 09 cycle.

</comment><comment><USER25> be serious about javascript, re-learn C, re-learn stats, master user interface design

<comment><USER26> I strongly recommend: \- jQuery (all the documentation you'll need is online) \- O'Reilly JavaScript: The Definitive Guide \- Firebug Javascript Debugger for Firefox. \- Emacs Javascript Mode \- Some virtual machine environment for IE6 testing (IE6 testing will be your biggest chore, but it's essential for any public website)

Also, read the source code of sites you like or to see how novel effects work.

This should be (almost) everything that you'll need.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Violin. Started 3 weeks ago.

</comment><comment><USER28> 1\. Statistics: Hate the way it was taught in college.

2\. And maybe the Guitar. I'll start by learning to tune it first, which was the reason it's gathering dust in the first place.

<comment><USER29> Guitar string frequencies are 82 Hz, 110 Hz, 147 Hz, 196 Hz, 247 Hz, and 330 Hz. Generate each frequency and twist the knobs until you can no longer hear a beat frequency. Or buy a tuner.

If the strings are hard to keep in tune you will want to replace them. In that case google "change guitar strings".

Then you search "smoke on the water tab", and you should be good from there.

<comment><USER30> Good advice. When buying a tuner look for a "chromatic" meaning it can tune ALL frequencies (within a certain range) no more than $40. This will give you more flexibility down the road. String names from high (the skinny one) to low are E B G D A E. And your first string change will probably be awful. Leave extra room and try to keep the winds even. Good Luck!

<comment><USER6> Along the lines of the first string change; don't try to tune the strings until they're all on and in the general vicinity of the correct tension.

It takes some practice until you realize you really have to tune all six strings at once until everything is tuned approximately right. Then you can fine tune on a string-by-string basis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Time management: I want to become expert at time management. Math and business in general. Regarding programming instead, SICP, Erlang and Closures are what I'm working right now.

</comment><comment><USER32> To read (at least phonetically) and write in Armenian.

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm definitely going to learn more math this year. And maybe I would want to do something non web based but interesting.

</comment><comment><USER34> Back to On Lisp (printed out) this year.

</comment><comment><USER35> I decided to learn about deciding to learn about something.

</comment><comment><USER36> Ruby!

<comment><USER37> I want to learn Ruby too! Especially with Rails. I just want to get rid of PHP. Maybe it's not going to happen this year completely, but at least i will try. I find it's a fantastic framework. I worked with CakePHP and CodeIgniter before, but any PHP framework is just far behind the ruby syntax.

<comment><USER38> Erk, exactly (swap CodeIgnitor for ZF) the same position I'm in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Statistics and Eskrima.

</comment><comment><USER40> Math.

</comment><comment><USER41> French.

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm going to learn more philosophy and maybe some physics.

<comment><AUTHOR> I always thought that physics is the mother of all philosophy (at least the of "natural" kind)... then again, I am a physicist. :D

<comment><USER42> No, no, it's the other way around :)

Physics is "natural philosophy", one branch of philosophy. There is also philosophy of knowledge, existence, morals, political philosophy, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Juggle and ride a unicycle at the same time, and be more creative when trying to sneak a tow up hills in traffic on my bike.</comment>