Choosing a Linux Tracer - <AUTHOR> http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2015-07-08/choosing-a-linux-tracer.html <comment><USER2> That's a pretty great overview. I've learned SystemTap myself because that's what's easy to get going in my environment. I was very surprised once I "got" it. It can do pretty much anything you'd ever need. I haven't needed to look at anything else yet, although I've been meaning to play with the LTTNG tools, as I like the idea of setting up the experiment just once, recording everything, then investigating afterwards. This [1] is a good walkthrough of that workflow.

[1] [http://lttng.org/blog/2015/02/04/web-request-latency-root- ca...](http://lttng.org/blog/2015/02/04/web-request-latency-root-cause/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Can't stop reading this as Linux Tux Racer.</comment>


All the lonely people - <AUTHOR> http://www.ucobserver.org/society/2016/06/lonely_people/ <comment><USER2> Again, something my grandfather taught me, was that it was important to walk around your neighborhood and say "hi" to the people who lived there. He called it "Being neighborly."

We also, periodically but not on a particular schedule, put together a block BBQ where people can bring food, or not, and share a moment together to talk about what is going in or what they are worried about etc. Generally people respond well to the outreach, and as a consequence I know all of my neighbors on sight, and have shared experiences with many of them creating perhaps not a deep bond, but one which certainly gives anyone permission to approach and talk without an invitation.

It pays benefits in surprising ways, when our dog was terrified of a pile of beeping smoke detectors and ran off without us looking, one of our neighbors both recognized him, and knew us, so called us to tell us they had brought him in and we could pick him up when ever we wanted.

One of the families on our street has their grandmother living with them now. She is suffering some dementia like the woman in the article but everyone on the street knows her and I think keeps an eye out for her.

All from being neighborly and just walking around and talking to people.

<comment><USER3> I was also brought up to greet people, but try to greet neighbors in London, UK and they will look at you like you fell from the sky. Most of them will not even give a response. Big cities are a lot like this now.

<comment><USER4> Keep greeting them - they will come around.

I am from the US South and not saying hello (or waving when they pass by) is considered bad manners. I have done this all my life and people have told me that they like it when someone says "good morning" with a smile. Maybe I am lucky or biased, but I don't care. I like it when people are nice and I treat people the way that I want to be treated.

I sometimes have to spend a lot of time in New York and the people are the same. I just push through it. They won't change me because I like it when people are pleasant. Plus, the world is a nicer place when people are nice to you.

<comment><USER5> One problem in New York is that the vast majority of people who try to talk to you on the street want something--they're selling something, canvassing for a candidate, begging, creepily flirting or running a scam--and another big segment are under the influence or mentally ill. Usually the best case is a lost tourist asking for directions. The worst case, that everyone's aware of, is someone trying to get you to stop walking so they can assault you and/or rob you by force or trickery.

<comment><USER6> I was actually just about to post this, almost word for word, before I read your reply.

I often see lamentations about people not being friendly to strangers in big cities. I've never quite understood it. It's one thing to not greet or acknowledge a person if you're already having some sort of interaction with them, i.e. holding the door for someone as you leave a store. Of course you should say something or at least smile and node politely, perhaps making brief eye contact, in that case. But, outside of situations similar in nature to that I actually think it's pretty rude to accost strangers in a crowded public place. People are going about their business and you're attempting to force them to give you attention, even if that's not your intent.

Experience has taught me that above a certain threshold of crowdedness the _only_ people who are greeting me want something from me in at least one of the ways you mentioned. Everyone else is out and about because they have something to do. When I go to the middle of nowhere Kansas from time to time things are different. There you wave to passing cars and say "hi" to everyone even if you've never seen them before. The odds that some random person is going to try and sell you a watch at the intersection of Main St. and State Highway Whatever is pretty much zero. And, there aren't a hundred other things attempting to distract people so demanding a brief bit of their attention isn't rude at all.

<comment><USER7> This is my problem with strangers saying hello out of the blue - they think I should stop everything and give them my attention. And in their head they think they're doing something selfless!

<comment><USER8> Yep. A nod will suffice for greetings in almost all public spaces. When I recognize the tell-tale signs I've been 'marked', I am always prepared to respond with the unusually effective "negative" response and leave it at that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The more I read about this, the more weird I think I must be. I've always preferred being alone. My time in San Francisco was utter hell. I couldn't get a moment away from people and noise. Now I live in complete isolation. My nearest neighbor is two miles down a dirt road. I only go into town to stock up on foods, which I vacuum seal and stuff in the deep freeze (enough to last me 3 months at a time). I've never been happier than I am now.

<comment><USER10> I get that feeling as well, sometimes. Even though I don't want quite your level of isolation, I don't mind working alone or not talking to anyone else in person for days (except my wife).

I sometimes think of it as the 'tyranny of the extroverts'. Since they are, well, extroverted, they are the ones controlling the narrative of what's 'normal', while the introverts are too introverted to really speak up. Extroverts are the ones saying cities are better than rural areas since there's more to do, etc (see other HN threads).

I'm with you, though. I will take a quiet, rural or semi-rural area over a city any day.

<comment><USER11> > I don't mind working alone or not talking to anyone else in person for days > (except my wife)

IMO, there's a huge difference about loneliness between not talking to zero people or only talking to one, in particular if that one person is important in your life such as your wife, as opposed to having had a short chat with the cleaning lady in the hall a week ago.

I appreciate that kstenerud was talking about the zero people scenario, and that it's possible to prefer it that way. I think it depends on how well you have the other parts of your life in order?

<comment><USER10> I agree. There's certainly a continuum for the desire to be around others. kstenerud is very much at the extreme. But he's not the only one, and there's nothing at all wrong with that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> One institution not mention (and given the publication, I find it a bit odd) is the local churches. It is one of the large connection points that have started to fade. The amount of social welfare the churches supported has not been replaced.

<comment><USER13> This is something that needs to be addressed. We are becoming more secular over time, but we aren't replacing the communities that churches create with secular equivalents, at least not on the same scale. Feeling connected is important, we really need to work on that.

<comment><USER14> Germany has the Vereinswesen, which are small clubs around a common hobby (such as shooting, football, gymnastics, orchestra, basketball, etc.) that are usually part of a larger Verband, which may be state or country-wide like the DFB (German Football Federation), the DBB (German Basketball Federation), DSB (German Shooting and Archery Federation), or the BDMV (Association of German Music Societies).

That could be a model.

<comment><USER15> And it is in many countries, but for some reason the U.S. doesn't seem to work that way. I was a bit surprised when my son spent a year in high school in the U.S. and I found out how youth football (soccer) system works there. Over here in Europe, we have a plethora of local clubs that collect the young and old to train and play, and to work together to organise everything, fund it, and so on. In the U.S. the football (again, soccer) seems to be predominantly organised by schools, and a very small part of players belong to actual soccer clubs. I understand the same is true with other sports (American football, baseball, basketball, etc). Similarly we have lots of clubs that arrange things like music and orchestra trainings for youth, whereas in the U.S. this is also organized around schools.

This is good in many ways - for instance, the integration of activities to the school day helps it for kids - but at the same time, it makes the school's "quality" (in terms of what the teachers and staff are like and what kind of parents the children have) all so important. If the school fails, then everything will. And if you don't have kids at school, can you really contribute to the community in the same way as a seasoned football veteran can in a local club?

<comment><USER16> meetup.com seems to be alive in every city....

<comment><USER17> How is the target audience for Meetup elsewhere? I live in Berlin and I noticed that it's almost exclusively developers (which is fun, but sometimes weird - I went to a street cycling meetup and everybody else was a dev too). Maybe the dominance of German clubs in organized leisure is the reason for that.

<comment><USER18> Because meetup.com is what the expat nerds know

I've given up on it though sometimes you find something "outside of the circle"

It's like craigslist in Berlin: there are only scams because Americans think it works the same as in the US, when Germans have never even heard of it

<comment><USER17> That was my impression too. In particular the types of meetups seem very limited to tech topics. Some are ok, mostly those that are actually meant for non-topic specific networking, like hiking groups etc, generally sports outside of clubs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> some_hero-_- I was a semi introvert and extrovert guy but after working for one startup for more than 3 years in isolated environment makes me feel like i am fully introvert. There is no one with whom i can express my feelings openly. I don't have friends to hangout, and the most depressing thing is the people of my age have all this thing. What's more awkward is I can't even able to approach people, seems like i forgotten how to interact.

The other reason might be, i was afraid to not look like looser. Most of the people consider me quite successful and showing such weakness in front of society is not acceptable.

I have lot of ideas in my mind but i don't have energy to execute. My bank balance is good but it doesn't bring happiness. I don't have time on my hand. Sometimes i feel like i do sucide but i am strong men.

I don't recommend anyone to start a startup unless he socially fit and not under his early 20s.

<comment><USER19> Isolation is so painful; it's literally traumatic for people. You are not at all the only one; in fact, what you are experiencing is a perfectly normal reaction. Humans are fundamentally social beings; without other people to socialize with, our cognitive and emotional systems don't function properly. For example, for children, I believe it's well established that even abuse by parents is better for them than abandonment. A much more extreme example is people in solitary confinement, who experience serious mental and emotional problems due to their almost complete lack of human contact (beyond anything even isolated people experience out in society).

Your social skills and energy will return naturally when you feel better. Consider finding a good therapist who you feel comfortable with. Not only will you have someone to talk to, but they can help you understand and manage your problems and help you develop the skills to do the things you want to do.

I would love to read on HN someday that it worked out well for you. Take care.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Having community, closeness, and realness is so important for our growth but so lacking in our environments. The only way most people know to find community is through partnership (which has its obvious flaws e.g. divorce rates), or in the work place, which is often lacking in meaningful connection. Family structures are weak, and the communities formerly facilitated by religions are not being supplemented in our new, growingly secular world.

The internet can provide some amount of valuable community and support, but it's limited. Words in text can only convey so much. You can't be held. You can't shout and scream and be irrational. It's easier to hide than confront difficult emotions.

Therapy is so valuable, and its stigmatization hurts us all, but it's also limited. It's just one person, with one set of beliefs. They aren't there with you in the heat of a difficult situation. And honestly, there's something so gross about having to pay hundreds of dollars just to find someone to be real with.

</comment><comment><USER21> I don't know Canada well enough yet, but I can tell you what life used to be like in the UK in my mum's time as a kid, around 55 years back in the North East of England. All families lived near each other and you lived near your school. You'd walk home past your nan's house and stop in there or at your uncles. Maybe when you got home your mum was out at the shops - ok go to your nan's a few yards away. Or just go to your neighbour, she knows you and should your mum be delayed long will feed you.

Then people decided that housing was an asset, an investment. The people that decided this were in finance, they made the credit available which sets the price. Access to local housing was limited. You had to go and get the best paying job you could just to compete in the "market". This meant moving away.

There were other reasons too like the destruction of local industry (forced out in part as land prices rose making them uncompetitive vs countries without efficient rent extraction). Plus brain drain into rentier activity in the capital. But for me land prices are at the heart of destroying communities.

I don't see community returning until we expel the usurers from the temple. Why is living on a piece of land so damn expensive? We don't have time for each other any more as we work insane hours. Both husband and wife have to work, leaving no time for other work in the community like stopping in to see a neighbour. All these tasks that were unpaid are now "on the clock" and the banks get a cut via renting money via debt creation for land.

My mum didn't have loads of libraries or "urban design" somehow coaxing people to interact. What that street did have is that they were not living in a time where ever single person was giving a big wedge of their wages to the banks thereby forcing them all to work all the time.

<comment><USER22> I sometimes do worry about that. If banks didn't create mortgages, would houses be more affordable. It's obscene that I will give half of my life's income to the bank to pay off my mortgage.

<comment><USER23> People need places to live, so absolutely there would still be houses. Perhaps not as many of the more expensive housing stock with hardwood floors and granite counter tops.

The evidence of this is the very strong inverse correlation between interest rates and housing prices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Where I currently live in (Bangalore, India), the community includes a large no of young people who've migrated from rural to urban places due to work or for studies. A lot of us are also first time graduates with financial dependents.

In tech industry (where I work), the current work culture has made sustaining a friends circle (support system) outside of work really hard; even more so when they live in different cities.

I personally see co-workers & friends who struggle to cope with stress at work, staying away from home/family/trying to sustain a relationship. The sad part is that it rarely gets spoken about. In our case time not invested in relationships during 20's (when one is also building his/her career) is a major reason for loneliness as people get older. Nothing that we have done so far has equipped us to handle it. An over-competitive job market only makes things worse. Prioritizing family/friends often gets interpreted as not being motivated/hardworking enough and has huge penalties (direct and indirect) associated with it.

I really hope corporates begin to see the importance of healthy & happy workers not just on book, but in practice as well.

</comment><comment><USER25> When I lived in different cities people would find it extremely weird when I talked to them or said hi on the street; guys would think I wanted something from them and girls would think I wanted them. With many people around me constantly, it was a very lonely experience; hard to get to know people (I have a weird/rare first name and one of the bar guys of our local (popular) cafe we went to _every_ friday had the same first name; after 2 years he didn't know what I _always_ ordered or who I was) at all, let alone make friends. I started to believe the statement which people always put forward; you don't make new good friends after 30. I had colleagues at the office including my some of my long term high school / uni friends but there was no point of living in an (expensive) city for that.

We packed up and left (it was a decision on a drunk night when, once more, we found ourselves sitting in a Kirchner painting of a place where no-one looks at or interacts with each other) for a tiny place deep in the mountains of another country (we moved from the Netherlands to Spain). Everyone talks to everyone here, a few years in we not only made new friends but even people we would call new best friends. Our closest neighbour is 5 minutes walk and the closest bar 10 minutes, so if we don't want to see anyone, we can and if we want a party with a mix of friends and strangers: at least 2 times a week, but in the summer 4 times a week, we can.

Because this is a place tourists usually avoid (it is high up in the mountains and most people really don't like that; they want beach and some blue drink with a parasol), the people that do want to live here (and weren't born here) have the same kind of attitude. Great place to work with a laptop in the sun.

<comment><USER26> That sounds nice. What town/mountains?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I've been involved in a number of "community building" initiatives. What I've learned is that it is easy to start the community, but soon enough people start getting political and the infighting begins - it often only takes one or two people to ruin it for everybody else.

</comment><comment><USER28> I wonder if the story about H1B visas and older americans being sacked provides a hint of a back story here. It seems to me that social solidarity impedes immediate profits; things like healthcare and pensions are very awkward for folks who want to smash open the value locked up in corporations for redeployment into yachts and sports cars. The consequences have been out of the public eye till now, but as the boomer bulge starts being the focus of this, and as boomers discover that they are working till they are 80 and retiring poor maybe things will change. How to change things - well that's going to be one of the challenges of the future.

</comment><comment><USER29> I've been thinking about this a little over the past few weeks, and one thing that seems to be missing these days is communities where there is even the slightest barrier to entry.

In the old days (even 20-30 years ago), geography served that purpose, and after that, what seems to have been a golden age where vaguely like-minded people could congregate and get to know each other on amateur radio, CB radio, BBSs, usenet, IRC, etc.

It seems like these days, all we have are massive communities like facebook, meetup, etc, and although there are interest-specific groups, there just isn't any friction to keep the idiots out, and you're not much more likely to meet interesting people there than you are on the street or in a subway car.

I'd be interested to hear of anybody's experience with any modern communities that have even just a tiny barrier to entry, which serves the purpose of making them even just a little bit more efficient at allowing people to find each other and network.

</comment><comment><USER30> I grew up in Canada and now in the US and after reading this, the first thing I thought of after reading this is - there are vastly fewer neighborhood bars in Canada. Strict drunk driving laws (obviously more important) and cold winters seemed to lead to the only viable bars being large clubs or in downtown cores where there's tourists.

<comment><USER31> That's a very interesting thought. I've also noticed that in Metro Vancouver the majority of pubs are on busy streets or in dense city areas, rather than neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the people I know (mostly 20-somethings) tend to gravitate towards the city core for social outings, and so I end up very rarely trying the few neighborly pubs in the suburbs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> When it comes down to traveling, all you need is saving your energy, arranging time and making the trip different. Different? Is this the right word in here? Yes, indeed! I learnt it from my experience. [http://www.hotelyouwant.com/](http://www.hotelyouwant.com/) will simplify this problem quick as a wink. In fact, even if you are on vacation having plenty of time, let us be honest, you do not want to pursue a research, potter on the Internet coming across with unreliable sites. You want it to be quick, reliable and suitable. Everybody wants. For fair, it is so good when everything you are looking for is put together at one place. I've found it. The platform provides decent and extraordinary places to hole up. They do not have just a worn-out hotel that can be seen in any town. Guys make the process of searching easier, more interesting and time-saving. There you have a mine of stunning spots to stay at in any part of world. Any plans to travel to the USA or Japan, Argentina or Tunisia? Now it's evident where to go. Browse the website, pick the suitable country, read the posts. They're giving the most relevant information on the most unusual and unique hotels and must-have places to be visited. It cannot be that simple and convenient, but it is. It is just worth trying because it helps out. Have a nice trip!

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm so angry about that issue. Long post ahead.

I remember an experience of mine. At 19, I wanted to flee my dad's home, which was in Paris's center-near suburb, because my mother in law was emotionally harassing me, she was very intolerant towards my presence at home and it was generating a great deal of anxiety in me.

Before taking off, I called my dad, and he convinced me to rent AND PAY for a small apartment 20min from home. I went to school, still the same isolated and nerdy teen. The 3rd year, as I was failing to get a degree and diving into depression, I did not look for a school program (getting registered in higher education in france is very weird), so I stayed at this small apartment, ALL EXPENSES PAID! I just let myself be abandoned. I stayed on my computer all day long, going to bed 2h later than the day before, so at some points I was getting in bed at 9am, and waking up at 17pm.

Only my grand parents came in to help me do some shopping (I never had a driving license).

During that 3rd year, the 2007 crash came in, my father sent me to my mother (who has been chronically unemployed in a small remote town) because he could not pay that rent anymore.

My mother really helped me because I had social contact with her and my sister, and it helped me a lot. I found a girlfriend, but we're fighting, and for the life of me I just can't contemplate the thought of being alone again, it terrifies me. So essentially I'm in that "friend zone", but I don't complain and we are still good friends.

My thought on loneliness ? I think modern society, with individualism, has compartmentalized personal space to such a degree that people don't have ANY opportunity to talk to people. We all have our own personal:

* washing machine * fridge * oven * kitchen * toilet * bathroom * tableware * terrace

Individualism means that compartmentalization of ownership allows for better management of resources. The REALITY, is that we don't share ANYTHING. We actually live in our own prison cell. This is fine if you have a job that implies social interaction, but for those who don't have a job, or have a job that doesn't involve social interaction, you will lose your social skills pretty quickly. And that's not a myth, that's what psychiatry says.

My cynicism tells me that despite the fact that modern democracies have a higher standard of living for all sorts of reasons, I can really envision a disintegration of that modern society if nothing gets done. I can really envision why much poorer countries can thrive and surpass wealthier countries for that reason only: because ultimately, if social atrophy increases, it doesn't predict good things...

<comment><USER33> I'm reading that comment again, and by rent and pay I meant that he paid for it. (english is not my main language, sorry). I was actually not independent financially. I would have preferred being in a foster home or anything else than being spoon-fed by my family.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> OT: No part of this article is visible above the fold.

[http://i.imgur.com/h12ea4h.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/h12ea4h.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER35> and unlike solving the problem of horizontal scaling, a mathematical equation or something with a clear solution, there is no clear, Silicon Valley style cure to this problem.

You can't exactly Facebookify people who are lonely.

Also, AFAIR(r=recall), Japan has a similar issue of loneliness.

Makes you wonder though. Even if you cure the economic (poverty) and health issues (living into your old age), something else will probably get you (depression, loneliness, boredom, etc.)

<comment><USER36> I can't help but remember Calhoun's utopia experiment: [http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-mouse- utopias-1...](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-mouse- utopias-1960s-led-grim-predictions-humans-180954423/)

<comment><USER37> Counterintuitive, amazing, horrifying. Everyone should read about this experiment. I would love to know if it has been re-created.

<comment><USER38> If you like that, you'll _love_ this:

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

<comment><USER39> Where we learn more about the experimenter than the subject.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm not sure that the root causes are accurate in this article. I think loneliness transcends poverty and in many cases can be aggravated by wealth: many of the poorer people I know have to depend on social connections for things which I can buy.

Also, this comment seems really off:

> The homeless are, almost by definition, alone.

In my understanding, many homeless people frequently communicate with each other.

</comment><comment><USER41> As far as I understand - according to the article, loneliness in itself is not a bad thing for the health but what it brings with itself - the possibility of depression, possible risk of suicide, inactivity hence possibility of obesity and diabetes. I wonder how it affects the people who genuinely prefer being alone, and like it!

<comment><USER42> I think loneliness by definition includes the negative effects. What you're talking about is 'solitude'.

>I wonder how it affects the people who genuinely prefer being alone, and like it!

I'm one of those people who loves being alone, and I often ask myself the same question. From my experience so far, the risks you mention are lower overall, but they're still there. I

t is often interaction with others that prompts me to be more physically active, eat healthier, etc, in the same way I suppose that it's generally easier to commit to doing or not doing something if you're responsible to someone else.

I find that as much as I love being alone, my thinking and behavior slowly 'deteriorates' and sometimes it can actively make me unhappy. I do think this can be alleviated to a large degree by being disciplined, but then that in itself is often easier with others 'watching you'.

It's fascinating and I'm now wondering how much research has been done into solitude, rather than loneliness specifically...

<comment><USER43> What if "solitude" is just a social and personal acceptable way to talk about "loneliness"?

I was thinking about those people who call themselves "expats" and not "immigrants".

In other way: the rich is "solo", the poor is "lonely".

<comment><USER10> I'd say it's a difference in desire, although I'm sure there's some amount of denial out there ("I'm not lonely, I'm just solitary")

If you want human interaction but don't get it, that's loneliness. If you truly don't want it to begin with, that's solitude.

If you don't want human interaction but get it anyway, that's hell (to an introvert, anyway).

<comment><USER42> I agree, although 'choice' does play a small role, at least in my experience. I've noticed that when the option of social connection is _not_ available to me, I am more likely to feel lonely (with all else being equal).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> In the states I found people will look you in the eye when oassing by and some will say hello. Most will respond back if you say hello or how are you.

When I'm in Mexico it's almost rude not greet someone with a customary "buenas dias/tardes/noches"

In Japan rarely people will look you in the eye period.

<comment><USER45> On the other hand, try asking for help on the street in Japan. The level of helpfulness of random people is amazingly high.

<comment><USER44> Most definitely. Most countries I've found that's true. Save for the last time I was in Paris haha.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Definitely Nordic. I think I'm Nordic though I was born and live in Australia :-)

[http://virtualwayfarer.com/nordic-conversations-are- differen...](http://virtualwayfarer.com/nordic-conversations-are-different)

(oops - finger spasm made me move this from a reply to top level and lose me 3 karma points!)

</comment><comment><USER47> Loneliness is a curse of some cultures.

</comment><comment><USER48> As one of my favorite musical groups so aptly put it "The Lonely People Are Getting Lonelier"

</comment><comment><USER49> People are assholes :(

<comment><USER50> I live in a city, and I hear people screaming incoherently outside my window on a nightly basis. This is because my neighborhood has a sizable homeless population.

Am I an asshole for not making nightly 911 calls to report this?

<comment><USER25> One of the reasons I left the city and will never return; it drove me crazy. When I hear someone scream where I live now I know it is serious, I know who it is and I know that at least 5 other people already called the police (or ambulance/fire dep). It also rarely happens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Where _do_ they all come from?

<comment><USER52> Beatles

<comment><USER53> dont be silly

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Due to lack of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility) and not [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility)

</comment><comment><USER55> > When she couldn't find her way back home, confused and scared, she screamed > for help. She banged on people's doors and tried to claw her way into > vehicles, setting off car alarms.

> Neither offered to help, nor called 911 — they pulled the curtains shut and > went back to bed.

This is a insult to my intelligence. This sort of emotive bullshit is both a lie (This is not what happened) and totally unconstructive.

There is a serious topic around this issue of care for people above food and shelter, it's just a shame this article is so piss poorly written.

<comment><USER56> So you doubt that the reporting is accurate? I don't. It's very believable to me that people would ignore some disturbance outside in a suburban neighborhood.

Granted, this is an anecdote that illustrates one of the stranger aspects of isolation, and probably wouldn't happen everywhere, but I think that's the point: in some places, absolutely no one will help you.

So, to say it's a lie without any evidence to the contrary is unconstructive.

<comment><USER55> > So, to say it's a lie without any evidence to the contrary is > unconstructive.

Sorry, it is of course a lie. You shouldn't need evidence.

If you think this sort of thing happens you are a very very broken human being.

'You' are the actual problem, because the people in these stories are not real. But people who believe these stories are.

I shouldn't need to link evidence but I will in the hope that perhaps the truly awful humans who think people will knowingly leave a screaming a grandmother to die in the cold might change the awful way they think.

[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/toronto- womans-d...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/toronto-womans- desperate-attempt-to-stay-alive-in-freezing-temperatures/article562552/)

<comment><USER57> What's your point?

The story that you've linked to tells basically the same story as The Observer article does. It does close with:

> Mr. Fisher believes his neighbours would have helped Ms. Chiu, had they > known what was happening, and may simply have not heard her cries for help. > "I don't like to believe that people heard her and did nothing."

But that's not evidence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Do not get that lonely. What for? Use my expertise not to feel blue. It is essential to have a solid foundation for your trip and what else but a good hotel can reinforce it. I know it for sure as I have stayed at one. I found myself in Canada and was in a need of a hotel to stay at for a couple of days. I came across with www.hotelyouwant.com/america/canada/ and was so much delighted. Thus guys made feel great there, no time to feel upset and lonely. Be brave!

</comment><comment><USER32> Do not get that lonely. What for? Use my expertise not to feel blue. It is essential to have a solid foundation for your trip and what else but a good hotel can reinforce it. I know it for sure as I have stayed at one. I found myself in Canada and was in a need of a hotel to stay at for a couple of days. I came across with www.hotelyouwant.com/america/canada/ and was so much delighted. Thus guys made feel great there, no time to feel upset and lonely. Be brave!</comment>


Take The Rejection Therapy Challenge - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/take-the-rejection-therapy-challenge-2010-10

<comment><USER2> I'm one who would probably benefit from this sort of radical treatment, but I'm way too chicken.

</comment><comment><USER3> Along the same lines as Paul Buchheit's "Serendipity Finds You" piece, except Rejection Therapy is the actual prescription to beating (what he calls) ego- fear. Fascinating.

</comment><comment><USER4> social anxiety is a staggering problem. I've read that 1 in 4 adults have it (citation needed, too lazy to look it up).

If this gives people hope, an alternative to gobbling prescription drugs, then all the power to it.</comment>


Experiments with 'Static' JavaScript: As Fast As Native Code? - <AUTHOR> http://mozakai.blogspot.com/2010/07/experiments-with-static-javascript-as.html# <comment><USER2> Bit of a silly article IMO.

1) Given a perfect compiler, once compiled any interpreted code would be as fast as a native implementation.

2) How good a job your compiler does is dependent on many things, majorly the complexity of the code being compiled.

Fannkuch is extremely trivial code and really boils down to indirect array manipulation. It's interesting when comparing native/interpreted code because it indicates how much overhead is incurred with indirect memory access, but it's not something that provides any indication of how statically compiled javascript would generally perform against native code.

</comment><comment><USER3> _But if a JavaScript program - or part of a program - happens to be implicitly statically typed, and in other ways 'performance-friendly', then we should be able to compile at least such code and run it very quickly._

You don't need static typing in order to compile to machine code.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, but it saves you having to emit machine code that does type checking and dispatch at run-time. You _need_ type information if you want inner-loop performance that is competitive with languages (like C) that are designed for efficient compilation.

The generated code for something like "a = b + c" is very, very different if you know at compile-time whether _b_ and _c_ are strings or numbers or something else. Modern JavaScript VMs go to a lot of effort to guess or infer type information before JIT compilation.

<comment><USER4> Actually modern JavaScript engines depend on dynamic type discovery (via different forms of tracing) much more than on global static analysis.

<comment><USER5> Is there a good analysis anywhere on the pros/cons of that, and what languages it's most suited to? Lisp is also a dynamically typed (and otherwise quite dynamic) language, yet SBCL uses static type inference for its optimizations instead. Some difference in Lisp v. Javascript, or just different choices by the implementors?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > So, how about if we could compile JavaScript into native code?

Isn't that what all modern JavaScript engines do? If so, how are the results for the experiment so good? My guess is that he didn't take the compilation time into account in his own method.

</comment><comment><USER7> Anything compiled to native code is going to be fast by comparison. (They are just characters in a text file.) The trick is to do it with all the features of an interpreter.

</comment><comment><USER8> Somebody should measure fannkuchredux in Opera and compare that with C implementation speed. For some scenarios Opera's Javascript JIT already achieves speeds close to C.

</comment><comment><USER9> check out shed skin, a Python to C++ compiler: <http://code.google.com/p/shedskin/>

</comment><comment><USER10> JavaScript + static types = ActionScript 3</comment>


Never mind talent: Practice, practice, practice - <AUTHOR> http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/181637371.html <comment><USER3> I've long felt that my intelligence is only average, and I've always tried to compensate by working hard. It had been 20 years since my last calculus class when I returned to college, and I was quite worried I'd not be able to keep up. I worked my way through most of a small calculus book before starting the class, to refresh what I'd forgotten. During the class, I spent something like 5-6 hours per day during the week working on Calculus, and around 10 hours per day on the weekends. I worked and reworked every problem until I fully understood what was going on, comparing my answers to the answer key for the odd problems, and computer algebra systems for the even ones when possible. I worked so hard it would have been embarrassing to admit it to my classmates. Only a retard would have to work so much, I thought, but I was determined to be the best I could. I ended up at the top of the class.

The point is, if you're really determined, working hard can go a long way. The key is to try not to worry about the other people that make it look easy. Later I heard this quote:

"If people knew how hard I had to work to gain my mastery, it would not seem so wonderful at all." - <USER2>

<comment><USER4> You know, the title of the article is "Never mind talent, practice, practice, practice."

I really think that this ability to doggedly focus, practice, and maintain this level of effort is, itself, a talent.

I mean, I can't study for 10 minutes straight, much less 10 hours. It's certainly a talent I wish I had.

<comment><USER5> >>I mean, I can't study for 10 minutes straight, much less 10 hours. It's certainly a talent I wish I had.

I bet if you try enough you can add another 5 minutes to those 10 minutes. And then later another 5 minutes, and then later another 5... And so on and some day you will go to 10 hours.

People often ask how somebody can sleep only for 6 hours. Or get up to work at 3 AM in the morning. That's possible only after trying hard enough for weeks a little bit at a time.

<comment><USER6> In relation to your bottom paragraph:

I play a text based online game where activity is extremely important and I often only have 3 or 4 hours of sleep every day, and even that is broken in to chunks so I can be online every 3 hours - and this is for the past 5 and a half years.

Outside of the obvious physical and mental stress it can put you under, you are perfectly right when you say that it takes time to perfect, at first I was tired from having 8 hours of sleep, now I can have 3 hours of sleep per night, wake up and operate at 100%.

I'm not sure when, but somewhere along the line I lost the need for sleep, I don't get tired any more or yawn and even on nights where I _can_ sleep as long as I want, I find myself only wanting 4 or 5 hours anyway.

I'm without a doubt the highest ranked player on the game, fought for through perseverance and a refusal to let my ego take a hit, but was it worth it? I'm not sure.

<comment><USER5> Please note though you can train yourself to sleep only 4 hours a day, it doesn't mean you must. What I mean to say is, rest is essential to any long term productive endeavor. I think athletes and gym freaks can attest to this. How much you rest and how quickly recover from stress can decide how productive while you are awake. And probably affects your larger health situation on the longer run too.

>>but was it worth it? I'm not sure.

I won't comment on your habits and whats important to you. But speaking objectively. I would say its bad use of time.

If you are in need of entertainment, which demands a lot of engaging activity I would advice you start to learn playing a music instrument. Again not risking your health in the course of it, but music is a liberating experience. Especially if you learn how to play yourself. It can be very joyful.

And its generally a good skill to have and a lot better than fighting for internet points.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So what about when you have someone like me who works hard and still fails? I vary my methods. change my environment to make it easier, pay for training, do what ever. I examine what I did wrong, I still get it wrong, no matter what.

Let me share with you an anecdote: In undergrad, I took an intro computer networking class. Everyone else could understand what was going on. There was no assigned reading material and lectures didn't follow from any text. I always was the lowest student in the class, no matter how hard I tried. Everyone else could understand it quickly. I worked hard on that class but it didn't matter. Not everyone who works hard will show positive results, I guess. I more or less flunked my way through school. Sometimes I'd work hard, sometimes not. It didn't seem to matter.

Or, if I'm facing someone who has worked hard and is also very intelligent? I don't have a chance.

The rhetoric of these articles and the rest of these posts here have a coded meaning behind them: there are no disadvantaged people or students -- only stupid or lazy ones. It's a corollary of Survivor Bias. If you work hard, everything will be peachy-keen OK and nothing will go wrong. If you work hard and fail, you deserve only scorn.

For me, it was, never mind if you work so hard that ignored everything else, worked so hard to not get beaten by your parents, worked so hard to get mastery of material -- I must be still too lazy or stupid since I failed.

I don't know what it is that I don't have that everyone else does. I'm likely to not ever know.

This is a topic that I'm very familiar with so that's why I wrote a lot about it and sound perhaps a little crazy.

<comment><USER8> The nature of this comment tells me 2 things:

1) You have keen analytical and writing skills, intelligence is not a lack for what you want to achieve.

2) You suffer from victim mentality being too concerned about the abilities of others while easily dismissive of your own. No matter how much/hard you work, without being able to chuck this aside, every failure will be magnified and your successes will be mitigated to an irrational degree.

The fact of the matter is the road to mastery is paved with tons of mistakes, tons of situations where you will feel like an absolute moron. You have to learn to reframe those moments and treasure them, because they are signals that you are encountering moments of true growth. Learn to compete against your own competence and not others. You don't know what they've been through to get where they are.

Whenever something seems unreasonably tough, break it down into simpler problems to digest. Hack the art of learning itself. Don't look at the same problem until you're blue in the face, change it up so that there is a measurable degree of progress.

Your blockage is more emotional than intellectual.

<comment><USER7> If I never quit and I never win, what do you want from me?

<comment><USER8> Winning? How do you define that?

If it's one big goal - "I want to be an X" - well guess what, you're going to have to have a thousand smaller victories to get there. And by the time you _do_ get there you're most certainly going to have bigger goals beyond that on the horizon. Otherwise life will get very boring.

It's the messy room syndrome, for you only have two hands you can't will the whole thing into becoming clean at once. You have to pick some part of it that you can handle and make it clean, then move onto another part. As you make your way through interesting patterns will emerge that will allow you to clean smarter, so the first act of cleaning will go much slower than the last act. You still only have 2 hands, but you have something else - wisdom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This article appeals to our deepest and most widely-held educational values, which makes it all the more dangerous, being wrong in several ways.

The author rightly belittles the concept of talent but it seems to have found its way in through the back door: "Two of our four turned out to be musically gifted and before long were shuttled out of Suzuki to hard-core classical violin teachers."

(Talent is just the way we describe people who have some competence in a field which is inexplicit; nobody knows why they are good, otherwise one could learn it.)

Another thing to point out is that apparently none of the children have developed careers in music or composition (yet), so it remains to be seen if they have any creativity intact.

Why might they have lost creativity in adulthood? Because of childhood coercion. Those long hours of practice -- children don't do that without being forced. It can be subtle, such as the worry of a slight loss of parental affection, sibling rivalry encouraged, etc.

Children will _play_ for hours on end and this is where true learning occurs. Some children are bright enough to make their 'practice' a form of play, so they manage to improve despite appearances.

Creative adults continue to play, it's just that the subject matter appears more serious. But progress remains open-ended, with stops and starts, switching between activities, and _unpredictable_ (not 'guaranteed') results. The unpredictable nature of achievement follows from a law of epistemology: we can't predict future knowledge (including our own).

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Paul Graham has mentioned similar issues several times in essays posted on his personal website. For example, he wrote in "What You'll Wish You'd Known" (January 2005),

<http://www.paulgraham.com/hs.html>

". . . . In fact I suspect if you had the sixteen year old Shakespeare or Einstein in school with you, they'd seem impressive, but not totally unlike your other friends.

"Which is an uncomfortable thought. If they were just like us, then they had to work very hard to do what they did. And that's one reason we like to believe in genius. It gives us an excuse for being lazy. . . . "

In "How do Do What You Love" (January 2006),

<http://www.paulgraham.com/love.html>

he wrote,

"Sometimes jumping from one sort of work to another is a sign of energy, and sometimes it's a sign of laziness. Are you dropping out, or boldly carving a new path? You often can't tell yourself. Plenty of people who will later do great things seem to be disappointments early on, when they're trying to find their niche.

"Is there some test you can use to keep yourself honest? One is to try to do a good job at whatever you're doing, even if you don't like it. Then at least you'll know you're not using dissatisfaction as an excuse for being lazy. Perhaps more importantly, you'll get into the habit of doing things well."

And in "The Anatomy of Determination" (December 2009),

<http://www.paulgraham.com/determination.html>

he wrote,

"In most domains, talent is overrated compared to determination—partly because it makes a better story, partly because it gives onlookers an excuse for being lazy, and partly because after a while determination starts to look like talent."

Mathematician Hung-hsi Wu wrote an article more than a decade ago, Basic skills versus conceptual understanding: A bogus dichotomy in mathematics education, American Educator, Fall 1999, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 14-19, 50-52,

<http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/fall1999/wu.pdf>

to point out that any distinction between understanding a topic and having basic skills in the topic is a "bogus dichotomy." The two go together like two sides of the same coin.

<comment><USER3> Excellent stuff. Along the same lines: Someone once told me that the difference between a professional and an amateur is that a professional keeps working on it long after it stops being fun.

This is true in the discussion of Penn & Teller below, as well as game programming, and probably all worthy endeavors. Wish I could remember the reference...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I studied violin at Juilliard with the great Dorothy DeLay. She taught the greats such as Perlman and Midori, and she insisted that 'talent' was nothing more than a 'mood.' I will always treat her viewpoint on this as gold having taught so many youngsters over the decades. So, work hard, and think big of yourselves as your reward (although that can be so hard to do!)

</comment><comment><USER11> Interesting to consider, though not discussed much in the article: quality of practice is paramount. Thoughtful and deliberate generates incremental progress. Casual, mentally checked-out practice isn't practice at all. Some discussion & sources here: [http://ideas.time.com/2012/01/25/the-myth-of- practice-makes-...](http://ideas.time.com/2012/01/25/the-myth-of-practice- makes-perfect/)

One mantra tossed around of late is "_perfect_ practice makes perfect," meaning not to never make mistakes, but to be conscious and analytical when you do.

</comment><comment><USER12> One of my personality traits is that I don't like taking shortcuts. In fact, I hate taking them. I much prefer doing things "properly" and thoroughly. From painstakingly teaching myself programming to not incessantly 'cheesing' in SC2 to washing the dishes multiple times to brushing my teeth slowly.

I am often ridiculed by my wife, and I always wondered where I got this from. This trait is something I want to teach my kids, but I never knew quite how.

Until I read this article and it reminded me that I too did the Suzuki program, into classical violin after. I remembered practicing a lot - and I remember getting frustrated frequently.

I also remember the short burst of adrenaline I would feel, and the overwhelming feeling of accomplishment, when I get that 'trill' just perfect or when I perfected my vibrato.

Even though I have since put down the violin, I feel the same accomplishment when I tackle something hard (in programming) and I eventually figure it out.

I need to remember to thank my parents for insisting that I keep at the violin, even when I was very frustrated and wanted to rage quit.

</comment><comment><USER13> Genius is not a thing, but a process. Genius need the proper environment to cultivate talents like our well endowed genetically engineered corns need fertilizers and pesticides.

It doesn't matters if you have an IQ of 200 when you're born several thousand years too early. You never make use of your genius, except to make lot of babies and become the chief of your tribe, if you're lucky.

Granted, there's lot of people who are innately smarter than you, but chance are they're also stuck in various positions of life where they can't become a genius like a job at wal-mart, or having children too early, or is stuck in a hut in a third world country somewhere.

If you're reading this, chance are you have the money and the time to rearrange your environment and your behaviors to achieve mastery. The hard part is figuring out how to do that and how to sustain that.

<comment><USER7> > It doesn't matters if you have an IQ of 200 when you're born several > thousand years too early. You never make use of your genius, except to make > lot of babies and become the chief of your tribe, if you're lucky.

If you're in a stone age tribe, that is probably the most important thing you can do. Just because some stone age chieftain can't figure out how to smelt iron doesn't mean that they failed or are wasting their talents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> If anyone is curious as to the research on this topic, check out Carol Dweck's book "Mindset." It has a ton of examples from academia, sports and business on fixed vs. growth mentalities and how that plays into a person's success in life.

</comment><comment><USER15> In light of evolutionary psychology, talent is a combination of domain- specific neural adaptations and illusions. We know from data mining and machine learning that more data equals better results. Since one example of machine learning is neural networks (i.e. you), we know that more data (i.e. practice) leads to improved performance. For example, we know that the brain implements certain cognitive adaptations multiple times in differing but co- adaptive formats. If you had four neural clusters dedicated to spatial visualization and your friend had only three, you would be better at geometry. But if your friend practiced a lot, he could repurpose chunks of his neocortex to use his three clusters and then some with finer heuristics, with the result of beating you in geometry even though you had more "talent" and potential at equivalent practice rates. Moral of the story: don't worry about talent, practice makes better, kids.

</comment><comment><USER16> Well, yes and no. I remember reading, when I was in my teens, about a star guard in Louisiana who spent 8 or 10 hours a day playing basketball during his summers. I realized then that "adequate driveway player" was about where I was and would remain; I didn't have the drive to put in that kind of work. I realized also, though, that a) my body probably wouldn't stand up to that kind of intense work, and b) even if it did, I would be a much better but not much more than high-school JV quality.

That said, the best do work damned hard.

</comment><comment><USER17> "Me, I want to be a natural. I want to show up at the first class and discover I have a knack for whatever it is we're going to study - pottery, Japanese calligraphy, racquetball, oil painting, flute. I don't mind work, as long as it comes easily, with guaranteed results. But I'm usually the class dunce, or at least that's what it feels like as I struggle to keep up after the going gets tough. Eventually I quit, loath to spend precious effort on what could be a mediocre outcome."

This almost hurt me phisically.

</comment><comment><USER18> Interestingly, this is exactly compatible with what Andrea Dwork writes about in "Mindset" [1]: people whose identity evolves around being "smart" or "talented" are often less willing to take on risks or big projects than those who have grown up being praised for their efforts.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Mindset-Psychology-Success-Carol- Dweck...](http://www.amazon.com/Mindset-Psychology-Success-Carol- Dweck/dp/0345472322/)

</comment><comment><USER19> I would say you have to consider the competition. (how competitive is the market you want to participate in). If you compete with very hardworking people ('everybody in the field works hard') then talent will be a differentiator. If you compete in a competition/market where for some reason hard work is not yet common then your hard work can be your differentiator. Choose your fights wisely.

</comment><comment><USER20> My favorite PG essay: <http://www.paulgraham.com/determination.html>

      In most domains, talent is overrated compared to determination—partly because it makes a better story, partly because it gives onlookers an excuse for being lazy, and partly because *after a while determination starts to look like talent*.

</comment><comment><USER21> A great book that explores this subject in more depth is Matthew Syed's book "Bounce - The myth of talent and the power of practice".

</comment><comment><USER22> My girlfriend is a violinist and violin pedagogue. Everybody has always called her gifted but she has resisted every time and said: it is all about having the gift to be able to do 4 hours of intense practice each day from an early age.

Not everybody has the ability to practice this hard.

</comment><comment><USER23> Practice in studying the most talent ones.)

</comment><comment><USER24> HEY EVERYONE: ONE DAY, YOURE GOING TO DIE.

<comment><USER25> You have a natural talent for comedy!

<comment><USER24> I just feel that sometimes on HN people forget this.

<comment><USER26> What on earth does it have to do with the topic?

<comment><USER24> Because I feel that people on HN try to micromanage their neurons to an extent that they evaluate themselves as if they were computer hardware....

"Well I only have so much RAM to do this task, but if increase my computer processing power through deliberate practice..."

I was a bit offhand, I admit. I was in a bad mood when I made that comment. But I stand by the fact people on HN take themselves and their capabilities way too seriously, without any thought to the fact, say, that the internet and programming are only a minuscule fraction of our history as intelligent lifeforms. While I love the internet/programming/topics discussed on HN, I just think that people here are too hard on themselves. You're not a computer with specs, you are the results of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google Fiber Forces Users to Give Up Their Legal Right to Sue - <AUTHOR> https://consumerist.com/2016/06/16/google-fiber-copies-comcast-att-forces-users-to-give-up-their-legal-right-to-sue/ <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11924410](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11924410)</comment>


Mailchimp bans anti-vaccination content - <AUTHOR> https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/email-marketer-mailchimp-bans-anti-vaccination-content-n1017221 <comment><USER2> I am hardly an anti-vaxxer, but I really don't like companies like Mailchimp taking up a position for me.

<comment><USER3> Why? It isn't the government, it isn't protected speech. A company can take a stand for whatever moral position it feels is correct, they are protected by free speech, just like anti vaxxers are protected.

<comment><USER2> Sure, except that isn't true [1].

1\. [https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally- discriminat...](https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally- discriminated-against-gay-couple/)

<comment><USER4> and that's not really the same thing. That couple could buy a cake anywhere else if they wanted.

The thing is with social networking websites, there's nothing mandating that the company must allow content on their network that they personally find abhorrent.

Imagine if, pedophiles complained about their freedom of speech to sexualize children in a textual sense. In some countries that would be illegal because it would be child pornography, in others would it be freedom of speech? Would the company be not allowed to remove it? No.

The consistent message social networking/services say is that it's not within the well being of the community to allow "fake and harmful content", in the previous example they would say that it is "harmful".</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Anti-surveillance mask lets you pass as someone else - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnet.com/news/urme-anti-surveillance-mask-lets-you-pass-as-someone-else/?ttag=fbwp <comment><USER2> Has anyone here actually tried wearing a mask in public for any length of time? I've done it for a day on public transit. Oddly, people seemed more likely to ask me for help, but I'm not sure what it would be like if I tried it for a year.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is not protection. It is a creative way of giving in.

</comment><comment><USER4> Title statement is absolutely false. This mask makes you look like an inhabitant of the uncanny valley.

<comment><USER5> It's not false. It states in the article that the mask has passed Facebook's facial recognition to match as the artist. Of course we can't know if this will pass a government facial recognition system, but the point isn't "confuse humans" it is "confuse machines".</comment></comment>


Partnership agreement sample - <AUTHOR>

<comment><AUTHOR> There are many articles on the internet where we can read about how important is to start a startup with partner, but nothing about how to do it and how to avoid some mistakes. If you have some links related to this topic and partnership agreement samples, please post them here.</comment>


Missions could see NASA spacecraft heading to Uranus and Neptune - <AUTHOR> http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2017/06/nasa-wants-to-probe-uranus-in-search-of.html <comment><USER2> Original Title: "NASA WANTS TO PROBE URANUS IN SEARCH OF GAS"

All jokes aside, these missions are still pretty far off and article doesn't really go into depth of what this research can help accomplish for future generations. Thoughts?

<comment><USER3> Just curious, was the word pronounced the same way as today when they picked the planet's name? Or was it picked by non-English speaking people?

<comment><USER4> It sounds bad only in English and partly because of the foreign spelling. In Bulgarian it the name spells and reads "Uran".

<comment><USER5> > _In Bulgarian it the name spells and reads "Uran"_

Uranus was discovered by British-Hanoverian William Herschel [1] and named after the Greek god of the sky, Οὐρανός [2], which anglifies to Ouranos.

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

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus_(mythology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus_\(mythology\))

<comment><USER4> The comical pronunciation is only comical when Our-/Ur- as a prefix resembles a relevant word in your language. The second part of the joke comes from the greek spelling/pronunciation which is also not used by all countries/languages referring to the same planet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wait and hope for someone with more planetary knowledge than I have to explain the lack of interest in Venus as a habitable planet and thus the center of NASA's attention ahead of Neptune, Uranus, and of course, Mars.

Based on what I've read, which includes a paper from a NASA (or was it JPL?) engineer, Venus' surface is not very hospitabl, but at a certain altitude it looks like an oasis in the Solar System:

Venus (at ~50-55 km altitude) / Mars (surface): (all stats from Wikipedia, and yes not always complete or comparable)

* Gravity: 0.9G / 0.38G

* Pressure: ~1 atm / 0.00628 atm (prevents liquid water)

* Temperature: 27-75 deg C / -63 deg C (mean)

* Shortest distance from Earth (for logistics): 40M km / 55M km

* Sunlight (energy): More than Earth / 43% of Earth

Also, oxygen and nitrogen are lighter than the CO2-heavy atmosphere, so a balloon of O2 and N2 would float conveniently at 50 km. The CO2 in the atmosphere also could be a valuable resource.

<comment><USER7> I'm not an expert, but the wikipedia page alone doesn't paint that bright a picture.

> Venus is shrouded by an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds of sulfuric > acid.

We know very little about it. Also, I'm sure you'll need to coat any probes/spacecraft to protect against the sulfuric acid.

> The water has probably photodissociated, and the free hydrogen has been > swept into interplanetary space by the solar wind because of the lack of a > planetary magnetic field.

So basically same chance of water (maybe worse) as Mars.

> Venus (at ~50-55 km altitude)

So we'd have to have floating habitats even if we knew this zone was actually habitable (it's still a sulfurous environment). This also means much higher energy costs along with other logistical challenges.

> Shortest distance from Earth (for logistics): 40M km / 55M km

Yeah, but you're fighting solar winds so the question is how much less are the energy costs. Also, from a logistics perspective, communication might be important & the unfriendly atmosphere may pose additional challenges/costs.

<comment><USER8> However, an interesting aspect of floating habitats in the Venusian stratosphere is that a terrestrial breathable gas mix (80% N2 / 18% O2 / 2% trace others) is a lifting gas that's about as effective as Helium here on Earth. (Venus's atmosphere is > 90% carbon dioxide, which has a significantly higher molecular weight than air.) And it's protected from solar UV and radiation to a considerable extent by the layers of atmosphere above it. So your entire balloon -- or, more likely, dirigible airship -- can be inhabited volume, rather than just a cramped gondola slung underneath.

Photovoltaic power might sound problematic at first in view of the long Venusian night (a single day lasts up to 116 Earth days), but at altitude there are strong jet streams and winds circulate around the equator roughly every hundred hours. So you're not stuck running on battery power for months on end, but you may need some maneuvering capability.

This is not to minimize the problems associated with activity in the Venusian atmosphere -- but it's not _quite_ the impossible hell-hole it's been portrayed as.

<comment><USER9> You'd be floating in a haze of CO2 and sulphuric acid garnished with hydrogen sulphide, battered by raging convective winds which would make it very hard indeed to stay at a fixed altitude - which means the outer temperature would fluctuate by 10C to 50C or so without massively powerful altitude control.

You can't just drift there as if you're in a hot air balloon eating sandwiches and enjoying the view.

Venus might not be completely impossible, but it's still one of the less hospitable destinations in the solar system.

Also, smelly because of the H2S.

<comment><USER10> On the other hand, Mars requires you to live in a radiation-shielded pressure vessel.

I think the real killer is that it's hard to build and maintain infrastructure when floating on balloons - much easier to run a spaceport on Mars, or to get to all the useful surface resource deposits. On Venus you'd have to build literal castles in the air, using only only what you can pull out of the atmosphere or ship in from orbit.

Not to mention Mars is at the bottom of a much shallower gravity well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Coincidentally this week Fermat's Library highlighted a paper about the Voyager mission, the only spacecraft (Voyager 2) to visit Uranus and Neptune.

Super interesting paper. Turns out Voyager was the first spacecraft that could be reprogrammed "mid flight". In fact, if it wasn't for that we would have not gotten back images of Uranus or Neptune!

[https://fermatslibrary.com/s/voyager-mission- telecommunicati...](https://fermatslibrary.com/s/voyager-mission- telecommunication-firsts)

</comment><comment><USER12> I can't in good faith upvote a story on a website that has more junk advertisement then content per character and has stories like "VOYAGER 2 MAY HAVE BEEN HACKED AS IT ENTERED DEEP SPACE" featured next to this.

<comment><USER13> The title of this linked article is "NASA Wants To Probe Uranus In Search Of Gas

"

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm glad, we really need to better understand how the Ice Giants[1] in our solar system work.

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

</comment><comment><USER15> I really do wish NASA had a focus. The 60s showed the power of NASA given a clear goal and direction, but now a days they feel like they're operating a mile wide and an inch deep.

Probes are great, but I think many overestimate the amount of information they can genuinely provide. Even on Mars where we have had multiple rovers on the surface, there are still ongoing debates about things such as whether the streaks on the planet's surface are water, which NASA made a large announcement of, or indeed just sand which is where the latest interpretation stands. And that's for a very peaceful and close planet (in comparison to Uranus or Neptune) that we ostensibly have a great understanding of.

I don't really care what their goal would be, as long as it would be a goal that they could work towards - a base on the moon, a base on mars, expanding the ISS, or anything - preferably with a human element as that's what attracts people to space, and thus gets the money to make these missions become reality. But these probes are not really advancing society.

And here I would make an exception for things like the Kepler missions. Those were a directed mission with a specific, valuable, and _new_ purpose that could (and did) provide information that substantially advanced society. Let's go shoot some probes off around Uranus and Neptune and grab some pics and atmospheric readings is better than nothing but it feels like spending funding for the sake of spending funding.

<comment><USER16> Not a down voter, but: This isn't accurate. Planetary science (as in the OP) tends to be more diverse and exploratory than Earth or Astrophysics, but it still has a strategy. It's not just stamp collecting. See: [https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/focus- areas](https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/focus-areas)

<comment><USER15> I'm not sure what your link is supposed to show?

<comment><USER16> Well, you wondered,

"I don't really care what their goal would be, as long as it would be a goal that they could work towards..."

and that link shows the basic four orienting science questions (right panel in blue text) - how did life begin, how did the solar system evolve, how did the planets originate, etc.

Those are the top-level questions that the National Academies panel doing the Decadal Survey arrived at and that motivates the portfolio of planetary missions that are planned. I would have linked to the Decadal Survey (overview at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Science_Decadal_Surv...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Science_Decadal_Survey)), but the report itself is a very long pdf - and this gets into the strategy in detail.

For instance, the next Mars mission (Mars 2020) is set up to address the "life" question, and the "how did the planet [Mars] evolve" question, etc.

<comment><USER15> Do you know what the Uranus probe's goals are? They're laid out here [1]. It's to measure wind speed and atmospheric densities/temperatures. And that is typical. This is what I was getting at when I said that these probes do not achieve near what many people seem to think they can. We have a limited budget and I think this budget should be directed towards things that can advance us in the most meaningful ways possible. Measuring the wind speed and density on Uranus does not really fit the bill there.

Think about SpaceX. What they've done should have been impossible. A private company operating on a shoestring budget revolutionized space in 15 years? That doesn't mean Musk is a genius, it means that our current space system is simply incompetent. There are certainly many reasons for this, including congress using NASA as a jobs program, but I think a lack of direction is also a major reason. 'Discovering how life began and evolved on Earth' as a mission statement is like a philsopher stating his goal is to 'discover the meaning of existence.' It's a goal that's so impossible and so broad that anything can be justified in its name.

'Easier' goals are in many ways much harder since you need to remain focused. And when NASA has focus they, at least in the past, have shown themselves capable of amazing things. Going from having never even put a man in orbit, to putting a man on the moon in a decade? Think about that, if you even can. In today's times that should seem completely unbelievable. And we should be capable of exponentially more now a days. And that is where we should set our sights. The point I'm getting at is that if you aim low, that's always where you're going to hit. Aim high and you might miss, but at least you're pointed in the right direction.

\---

As one brief aside, those mission statements immediately made me think of Oumuamua [2] -- that cylindrical weird interstellar object ( _it 's exact nature is, and will likely remain unknown - the name translates to 'first scout', as the imagination might imagine_) currently looping around the sun on its pass through and on its way out of our solar system. Being able to get ships and ideally humans onto that thing would be groundbreaking and actually go a long ways towards pushing those mission statements, abstract though they may be, forward. But our space program and technology is so backwards and dated that we're instead left watching jaws agape as arguably the single most relevant tracked celestial object lackadaisically (...as lackadaisical as 30km/s can be) laps us on its way on out of our solar system. It's again absurd that the primary interest in trying to perform an intercept with this object has come from the private industry. But hey, at least we'll know the wind speed in Uranus...

[1] - [https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/201700...](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170006873.pdf)

[2] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BBOumuamua](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BBOumuamua)

<comment><USER16> The instrument you link (I actually do know one of the co-authors on the paper you reference) isn't a full-up mission focused on the wind speed issue. It's one instrument that would be part of a larger flagship mission (i.e., many instruments on one spacecraft). When you put all the instruments together on a spacecraft, maybe you learn more about the history of Uranus. Isn't "send an orbiter to Uranus" a goal?

You mention the ambiguity of the animating goals. Part of this is just linguistic: of course you want to push down these top-level goals to more granular, 0/1 goals ("was there an ancient lake at this site on Mars?" Answer: yes). That's what the NAS report does. Now that we know how abundant water was on ancient Mars, we'd like to return samples to see if there was life. That's the next couple of missions.

You raise a worthwhile point, I think, about immediately-graspable 0/1 goals, like "man on moon". I see your point - but I'm really only here to talk about the unmanned program because my limited expertise covers part of that area.

You like SpaceX. So do I - two good friends left my lab to work there. But their achievement ("revolutionized space") is not unique. The little Mars pathfinder had about that much history. There are plenty of other examples over the same time period, like exoplanet discovery (as you noted), cosmology, and a host of Earth science stuff.

<comment><USER15> You definitely make some good points. I think my issue here is not so much just the goal orientation, but rather goals that will directly advance other interests simultaneously. Again getting back to the point that funding since funding is limited, it seems like it would make the most sense to think of the big picture with that funding rather than thinking in the short term of what would be neat to do with their current funding?

So to make this more clear, one reason I think what SpaceX has already achieved and especially what they plan to achieve is so revolutionary is because of how it would impact other programs. Like you mention one of NASA's big goals is a sample return mission. And this is going to be highly complex and highly expensive. The OSIRIS-REx mission mission is a billion dollar, 7 year mission to get 0.1-2kg of debris from an asteroid that comes within 0.0002AU of Earth with a 6 year period. That's really not reasonable. These missions would be trivialized with technologies such as the BFR. Such technology would also enable vastly greater scope and scale of these sort of missions. A Uranus orbiter will provide some science that might have some value, but it's not really advancing anything. The chance of revolutionary discovery is practically 0, and it will be unlikely to have a meaningful effect on future missions or projects.

Basically it feels quite odd that we're using technology that is comparable in both price and capability to what we were using the 70s. It's quite peculiar, and I think this has been the major hold up in us achieving much more in space. Imagine for a minute that it's 1969. We've just seen live footage of men walking and driving rovers on the moon. And I tell you that in 50 years NASA's vision for a flagship mission will be sending a probe to Uranus. And no man would ever leave low earth orbit again after 1972. Wouldn't you say something has gone very wrong? And this wrongness continues to persist, and I think it is because of this _' Well I have $x. What should I spend it all on?'_ as opposed to aiming for directed evolution and progress.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Cancel SLS. Cancel Orion.

Mass produce satellites and space station modules instead.

<comment><USER18> These programs for NASA are just as much a job creation program as it is a mission.

I think with Trump the easiest sell would be more American manufacturing than a Uranus mission.

<comment><USER17> Constellation/SLS was important when there wasn't a commercial launch market because the programs maintained technical and manufacturing know-how.

Now that there are several competitive and reliable commercial launch providers who maintain that know-how, we need to stop subsidizing bloated defense contractors and instead spend that money on buying launches and making satellites.

<comment><USER18> Why would the US give up all of their launch capabilities to private companies? From a strategic point of view it's not a good approach. I'm sure someone in Washington is making a similar case.

I agree there should be a balence but NASA shouldn't have to solely rely on the likes of Space X. Bloated defense contractors are a symptom of the problem, look at the scope creep of the F35.

Is it the government contractors or unclear/ever changing requirements?

<comment><USER19> I don't know that NASA has ever built a heavy launch system in-house without contractor help.

What's missing is a few more start-ups like SpaceX to totally crowd out the likes of Boeing from the contractor feeding trough.

<comment><USER18> No they don't build in house. Like I said it's as much of a job creation program as it is a space one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Title gore.

</comment><comment><USER21> Is that the best or worst pun ever?

<comment><USER22> Was thinking the same thing :D

<comment><USER23> The most effective clickbait has readers believing they've caught on to something.</comment></comment></comment>