An iPhone Is an Extension of the Mind - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2016/02/apple_and_the_fbi_think_iphones_are_safes_a_philosopher_explains_what_they.single.html <comment><USER2> McLuhan:

> With the telegraph Western man began a process of putting his nerves outside > his body. Previous technologies had been extensions of physical organs: the > wheel is a putting-outside-ourselves of the feet; the city wall is a > collective outering of the skin. But electronic media are, instead, > extensions of the central nervous system, an inclusive and simultaneous > field. Since the telegraph we have extended the brains and nerves of man > around the globe. As a result, the electronic age endures a total > uneasiness, as of a man wearing his skull inside and his brain outside. We > have become peculiarly vulnerable. The year of the establishment of the > commercial telegraph in America, 1844, was also the year Kierkegaard > published _The Concept of Dread_.

<comment><USER3> Is "the concept of dread" the same work as "the concept of anxiety" with a different translation of the title, or are they different works?

<comment><USER2> Yeah, different translations. The Danish is "angest" or "angst."

As a native Swedish speaker, I find the common identification of "anxiety" and "ångest" a little strange, because of the strong existential connotations of the latter word...

But it's interesting how McLuhan insinuates a connection between angst in the existential sense and this spatial displacement of the nervous system.

By the way, the quote is from his essay "The Agenbite of Outwit".

[http://projects.chass.utoronto.ca/mcluhan- studies/v1_iss2/1_...](http://projects.chass.utoronto.ca/mcluhan- studies/v1_iss2/1_2art6.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> >> The FBI isn't asking to access an uncrackable safe. It wants to compromise the boundaries of the self.

No. These are phones, not implants. The FBI wants to crack encryption, not skulls. Anyone who equates access to phones with scifi mind scanning needs perspective. If you find your meat self indistinguishable from your "networked self" then you need to get out of the matrix once and a while. Some of us, I think most of us, still have internal and interpersonal lives that are not shared with our devices.

>> There is no reason to allow corporate access to our minds while vigorously denying state access.

Yes there is. A corporation doesn't have access to weaponized drones (at least not yet;). A corporation doesn't want to kill its customers. It wants them happy and spending. On the other hand, governments often want and do kill. A government does not necessarily want its people happy. Therefore, data in the hands of corporations is a very different scenario than data in the hand of government. They should not be equated.

<comment><USER5> >Some of us, I think most of us, still have internal and interpersonal lives that are not shared with our devices.

I'm having difficulty thinking of a single part of my life that isn't shared with my devices.

My smartphone can be used to discover where I am at any given time, and where I probably was at any given time. Reasonable guesses about my state of mind and stream of thoughts could be constructed from my search history on the device. It can access any and all of my personal documents, photos, and financial information. It provides access to a matrix of nearly all of my social and professional contacts, and a fair bit of history regarding my current and historical interactions with them. It provides access to entry and exit logs for the doors and windows in my home, recordings of all persons approaching or entering its doors, and even logs about which lights I turn on and when.

Most noteworthy is that the information above is almost certainly of higher quality and breadth than anything law enforcement previously (in a pre-digital age) could have assembled on their own.

<comment><USER4> Put it down and back away from the phone. There are some of us old enough to remember the days when phone+internet was a thing. Work got done, very good work.

Law enforcement still physically follow people. They can get a location, but a phone in a pocket cannot understand what a person is doing at a location, or even who they talk to. And phones are subject to massive disinformation. (ie plant phone on someone else/leave on bus). So it is impossible for a cop at any terminal to replicate the quality of information gained by a physical tail.

<comment><USER5> >There are some of us old enough to remember the days when phone+internet was a thing. Work got done, very good work.

I don't care how old you happen to be, or how rose-tinted your memories are. My smartphone and associated personal devices and services allow me to meet business, personal, and social goals in an efficient and effective manner. I have access to better information and get things done more quickly with my phone than without. I don't find it to be a drain on my productivity or my lifestyle.

>a phone in a pocket cannot understand what a person is doing at a location, or even who they talk to. And phones are subject to massive disinformation. (ie plant phone on someone else/leave on bus). So it is impossible for a cop at any terminal to replicate the quality of information gained by a physical tail.

This is irrelevant. Law enforcement and prosecutors tend to weaponize whatever personal data can be gleaned from civilians they are targeting, regardless of quality. Aside from my own personal measures to ensure such data is reasonably difficult for an unauthorized party to obtain, there ought to be strong controls on the ability of the state and its agents to acquire such data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> According to the author communication of information to a 3rd party, either another person, or a smartphone, or a pad of paper, is all an "extension of the mind". This premise equivocates the contents of a device, to the contents of a computer to a persons spoken and written word. To me this all makes sense that a repository of information that was communicated from one's mind can be considered an "extension" of it.

He then posits the money question "How much of ourselves should we give over to the state?"

However, it's a huge leap to treat this like a new issue. Humans have been storing mental processes with 3rd parties since the literal beginning of history, and storing them with non-human parties since literally the first written word. This necessarily existed before the "state" in any sense (as a state requires laws, which have to be somehow commuincated.) This means that this debate has been ongoing since literally the beginning of governments.

How/why/when/where the state handles spoken conversations vs written records vs computer records are concepts that have been fairly well established in both US and international law. People certainly hold varying viewpoints, but to contextualize that debate as new because of recent technological advances or the latest news seems clickbaity.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think this is a good philosophical debate that needs to be explored, however I am not sure how I see the safe argument as a poor analog.

On one hand the article proposes that writing something down on paper is an extension of the mind, yet does not even mention the obvious situation that must occur on a regular basis of confidential papers in a safe. These are admissible correct?

I still am searching for something new about smartphone vs older technology such as safes and paper, which must have hundreds of years of legal precedent to reference. Even the idea that the safe destroys it's contents if tampered with is not new ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptex)).

</comment><comment><USER8> >The FBI isn't asking to access an uncrackable safe. It wants to compromise the boundaries of the self.

This article brings up the concept of cognitive liberty. The more we rely on technology and AI the more this may become a concern.

"Cognitive liberty, or the "right to mental self-determination", is the freedom of an individual to control his or her own mental processes, cognition, and consciousness. It has been argued to be both an extension of, and the principle underlying, the right to freedom of thought. Though a relatively recently defined concept, many theorists see cognitive liberty as being of increasing importance as technological advances in neuroscience allow for an ever-expanding ability to directly influence consciousness."

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

<comment><USER9> "the freedom of an individual to control his or her own mental processes, cognition, and consciousness."

if this is a real thing, most of what passes for "education" these days tramples this right extensively.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> How many old laws do we now lament for their lack of foresight or for having been written in a time well before technology like today's could have even been imagined?

Here we have the opportunity to do the opposite. It is inevitable, given the trends in technology, that we will someday be able to directly integrate computing devices into our minds in some way. Perhaps we would use them to store memories themselves, or offload the processing of difficult thoughts or problems. It's hard to say, but if you can imagine controlling a smartphone or computer with only your mind then it's not too hard to imagine all the other potential uses.

We have the opportunity to get it right, here and now. Let's not waste it.

</comment><comment><USER11> There we go! I've been waiting about at least 5 years for someone to write this up. It needs to be carried a little further and the current circumstances will determine what the future holds, but I'm just glad this has been put out.

It will become interesting once the "mind reading" technologies become more accurate though. What happens when you can read someone's mind in passing to, e.g., call their pin that has been established as protected under the Constitution. Look for wire mesh balaclava fashions in the future.

</comment><comment><USER12> >If that is the sole, correct framing of the issue, then society faces a simple question of how to interpret existing statutes in light of constitutional constraints.

It is not the sole framing, nor is it correct. The order is not to weaken the encryption scheme, but to override the kill switch, on a specific phone, that will disable the device if too many incorrect login attempts are made.

<comment><USER13> The core security of any password based encryption is the means to slow or prevent brute force attacks on the password. Weakening the PBKDF to make brute forcing possible is exactly the definition of weakening the scheme.

There are at least 9 phones they want this on today, and other sources have "hundreds" more. So you can say they want to do this on "any specific" phone, but I hope we're well past debating this as if we're talking about a single phone ever.

I couldn't be happier with yesterday's ruling denying the government motion to compel using AWA in a similar case. I think we can see the forest for the trees in these case and should have an honest debate about how much police should be able to control the software on our devices, without trying to skirt the issue by tying it to a particularly haneous crime.

I'm convinced and I believe it's well understood and settled that if AWA works the way the Fed wants in a specific case, it works in every single investigation, regardless of the brand of device or type of software. Magistrate Judge Orenstein certainly saw it that way.

<comment><USER12> An encryption scheme should not be weakenable after the physical medium has been compromised. An encryption scheme is purely a feature of the data, not of the device. An encryption scheme should only be susceptible to brute force attacks and Apple is not being asked to perform a brute force attack, but rather, to deactivate their kill switch.

If you read the order, the software to deactivate the kill switch is only supposed to work with one particular iPhone and Apple is under no obligation to deliver that software to anyone; they are only required to provide access to the device without fear of the kill switch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> s/iPhone/smartphone/g

</comment><comment><USER15> I find the argument that the phone is an "extension of the mind" to be really interesting. If you think about it, doesn't our phone track our behaviors, suggest words when texting, etc.? Our phones are with us almost every single second of the day and we use these phones and store massive amounts of private and personal data and should we be forced to give over that data when forced to? I do not know the answer to this but this opens up the doors for conversations we need to have in such a fast-paced technology world.

</comment><comment><USER16> A book is also an extension of the mind.

<comment><USER17> Paper notebooks might be. [http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/art/inside- leona...](http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/art/inside-leonardo-s- notebook.html)

The cell phone, etc will be a much bigger extension. However, we still need better ways to input, organize and access the information. Handwritten notes, voice memos, pictures, drawings, unstructured and structured data, etc.

Cortana/Siri with hand tracking ( [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QNiZfSsPc0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QNiZfSsPc0) ) and a HoloLens will allow people to organize everything in creative ways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I see these poor young zombies in the street stupefied by their 'smart' digital pacifiers and thank heavens I quickly weaned myself off and back to using just a plain jane phone.

<comment><USER2> What makes you think they're "zombies" or "stupefied"?

<comment><USER18> Daily slaloms around situationally unaware/uncaring moving bodies in street crossings, subway egress zones, ...

Remember kids, this flower of your youth is precious precious precious. Do not waste it glued to a screen.

<comment><USER2> They're probably just talking with their friends. How is that more of a waste of youth than going around staring at the pavement?

If they were zombies they wouldn't be bumping accidentally into you on the sidewalk. They'd be trying to eat your flesh or something.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Consistent hash ring Python library for building distributed apps with Redis - thomas-st https://github.com/closeio/redis-hashring

<comment><AUTHOR> The hash ring is so dumb. I don't understand why it's still a thing (or was a thing to begin with.)

Just hash and mask some number of bits, and map each index you get to some node. Faster, simpler, even enough distribution.

If your number of nodes is not a power of two, map multiple buckets to each node.

When adding nodes, and the # buckets is too low, split each bucket in two by adding one bit to the mask.

Consistent table construction means you only need the set of nodes to construct the take, keeping lookups entirely in core.

Maybe I should blog this, but it feels a bit like "Hey you cab implement modulo power of two with a bit mask! Isn't that so crazy?"

<comment><USER2> You have invented kademila!

As long as the network is "fully connected" by knowing all other members, topology will not really matter.

If you use a Chord or pastry style skip list, you again have the exact same metrics as kademlia.

All of these redis structures are really just re-branded DHTs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> why not use Jump consistent hash?

</comment><comment><USER4> This is good - but isn't this problem is now solved with redis cluster?

<comment><USER5> Redis cluster is clustering for Redis; this is clustering for a certain class of other things, built on top of Redis.</comment></comment>


Apple is locking iPhone battery replacement - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/8/20776965/iphone-xs-max-xr-battery-service-third-party-repair <comment><USER2> They are not locking the replacement, they are refusing to guarantee the performance of parts they can't certify are genuine.

There are third party battery health checking apps on the App Store that replace this functionality.

<comment><USER3> >They are not locking the replacement, they are refusing to guarantee the performance of parts they can't certify are genuine.

According to the article:

> is shown regardless of whether a genuine Apple battery has been installed in > the phone — it all comes down to whether Apple or one of its Authorized > Service Providers installed the replacement.

So the theme is not on the genuinity of the part (unless we assume that Apple doesn't know how to recognize an "own" original part or that third party, unofficial batteries are indistinguishable from the original ones [1]), it is only on the fact that the person that changed it (and regardless of how good the work was performed) did know the "secret handshake".

Very likely it is a matter of either a sequence of commands/taps/whatever or of connecting the device to some program (or server or whatever) to "reset" a flag.

And yes it shouldn't be so different from how a number of cars have "reset codes" for errors or for oil/filter change log.

Now in the car, the on board oomputer has no way to know if the oil you (or the dealer) changed is good or bad, but a battery on a smartphone?

[1] even if it _seems_ I am saying the same thing twice, the meaning is actually slightly different

<comment><USER4> As far as I understand it, it's not uncommon for third party parts to try to appear genuine. There's usually imperfections in the faking that Apple hones in on, but it's a bit of a cat and mouse game.

There's also the possibility of repairs being performed with used or otherwise tampered with genuine parts, which are almost as much of a wildcard as third party parts.

Maybe things have improved with smartphones, but I remember third party replacements for MacBooks with swappable batteries being worse than a crapshoot — on top of bad capacity and faster degradation they also often caused kernel panics and power management issues. I can see why Apple might want to not be stuck with supporting that.

<comment><USER3> Yes, but the point still stands.

If an original (used) battery is installed, it should be recognized as original and graded accordingly to its state (let's say 80% of what it should be).

The current provision doesn't prevent the use of a defective or used or sub- standard battery, it only prevents non-Apple personnel from performing a repair without triggering the (possibly unjustified) alarm.

<comment><USER2> I agree with your original assessment and support this move from Apple. I am glad there is a mechanism for determining whether work done on a device I might purchase (such as a used iPhone) was done by Apple certified technicians. I do not think Apple should spend time or money attempting to certify or measure every battery that a person could put in the phone.

This is a pro-consumer move, because it gives the consumer more information about the state of a product. They can ignore it if they want, it doesn't impact the operation of the device.

<comment><USER5> But there is no reason for Apple to "guarantee the performance of parts they can't certify are genuine".

This is not pro-consumer any more than saying that only Ford-certified auto shops are able to disable the "check engine" light, because Ford can't guarantee the performance of auto parts they can't certify are genuine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > iFixit likens it to an "Oil Change" indicator light in a car that will only > turn off if a Ford dealership changes the oil.

With the whole "iPhones throttle" thing a couple years ago, and how simple this comparison is, hopefully this will get picked up by mainstream news and be changed.

<comment><USER7> HP ink cartridge telling you its empty while you can visibly see liquid is another good comparison.

<comment><USER8> Not really, since the battery still works fine. The HP ink cartridge prevents the printer from printing, though

<comment><USER9> I mean Apple used to say your battery is pretty bad so we'll slow down your device, so your device didn't exactly work fine, just like how the printer prevented you from regularly printing with it.

<comment><USER8> That was an option, not something you're forced to do

<comment><USER9> You were forced to do until the whole slowing down phone on upgrade scandal. As a direct result of this action, Apple discounted battery replacement until the end of 2018.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Seems like a good thing for consumers buying second-hand phones.

That's not to say all third party batteries (or unauthorised replacements of genuine batteries) are bad, but as a consumer it's nice to at least be aware what's in your phone.

<comment><USER11> Its also nice to not be forced to pay the Apple tax to repair your device. Apple is trying their darnedest to prevent independent repair shops from extending the life of Apple products, while Apple tosses boards out, and generates more e-waste, instead of actually repairing components. But yeah, it is certainly nice to have Apple tell you that Apple thinks your Apple authorized battery, that was installed in an Apple authorized store, by an Apple trained and Apple authorized Genius is working just fine. Priorities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Cross referencing other thread, different source, same topic:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20641424](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20641424)

</comment><comment><USER12> Seems like a duplicate of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20641424](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20641424)

</comment><comment><USER13> iPhone sales are down ... better start nickel and diming the loyal "supporters".

</comment><comment><USER14> No one tell Louis Rossman</comment>


RWDPerf – Performance testing for Responsive web design websites - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/lafikl/RWDPerf

<comment><USER2> This seems like a good idea, I know I often forget that a lot of people viewing a resource heavy site might not have the hardware I do.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly! that's why i created it.

Also, i'm planning on build a grunt/gulp plugin to integrate it in the development workflow.

<comment><USER2> A plugin to easily incorporate this into my workflow would be the difference in adoption. Great idea.</comment></comment></comment>


Always get the bigger pizza - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/02/26/282132576/74-476-reasons-you-should-always-get-the-bigger-pizza <comment><USER2> This seems to be working under the false assumption that because something is better value for money you are inherently saving money. You're still spending more by getting the larger pizza, even though it's cheaper per cm^2. This is a trap that is way too easy to fall into, especially since it's exploited so heavily via deals and sales in supermarkets.

<comment><USER3> You're forgetting about leftovers. For a few bucks more you an end up with an extra meal at a lower than average price.

<comment><USER4> Yay. Pizza. Again.

<comment><USER5> Two things. If you really care about the price difference between a med and small, then you may also be in a category that would be willing to eat the same thing again. I.e. You may not have a choice. At any rate it keeps for a day or two in the fridge, so it's not like you have to have it for back to back meals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is why, as a company, you always provide demand curve pricing that allows every potential consumer to spend as much as they possibly can.

When it comes to pizza, the majority of the cost is labor plus fixed costs. The actual material cost of goods is negligible - but perceived value is high.

</comment><comment><USER7> I feel like pizza places made a mistake when they first decided that diameter was the way to go with advertising pizza sizes. Human brains like to think in linear terms (unless the numbers get really big, in which case we seem to switch to logarithmic thinking because we just look at how long the number is), so at worst, you want the relationship between cost of production and the number you advertise to be linear.

Even an educated person is going to intuitively feel like a 16 inch pizza is twice as big as an 8 inch, and a less educated person will actually think as much.

<comment><USER8> Since costs are dominated by labour & fixed costs, the production costs may well be close to linear with diameter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> a) The pizza place I go to, sell it by weight and it is not round, rather rectangles [1].

b) When it comes to food, money should not be the only factor in the equation. There is the health aspect as well, and if you are not that hungry, you better off eat what you need, rather than eat more just because it is cheaper.

This applies on all junk/industrial/processed food - the less you consume, the better!

Your health is important at least as your wealth.

Another example, if you are thirsty and a can of Coke is enough, get the can, despite the fact a larger bottle has x5 drink in it and cost few cents more, simply because a bottler will make you drink more Coke, while you should drink less.

[1] [http://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g293984-d807042...](http://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g293984-d807042-Reviews- Tony_Vespa-Tel_Aviv_Tel_Aviv_District.html)

<comment><USER10> a: Even with rectangular pizzas sold by weight, the larger one is a better value than the small. Consider that the border of the pizza is a 2-3cm wide crust that will probably go to waste because eating that much white bread is awful. In any case, it lacks delicious cheese, sauce, and black olives or pepperoni.

The larger the pizza, the smaller the ratio of fixed width perimeter to center. If the area of the perimeter were to maintain a constant ratio to the total area, it's width would have to increase in proportion. That applies to any 2D shape, not just a circle or square.

In fact, the calculation in op is wrong because a 16" pizza isn't merely four times as large as an 8" pizza. The 1" crust makes the 16" really a 14" while the 8" is really a 6". 14^2/6^2 = 5.44 times as large.

b: If you were to say anything like that in the USA, you'd be reported to the TSA for un-American activities as soon as anyone heard you. And the NSA would hear you, even if you said it inside your own head. So bring a 100ml or smaller bottle of lube with you for the probe next time you fly.

<comment><USER11> It's kind of weird to assume that the person you're talking to, who you know nothing about, naturally won't eat pizza crust. I eat it. I like it. The crust is part of the pizza.

<comment><USER12> Agree...i love the crust...very convenient numbers to prove a point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> You should always let your decisions be dictated by the easiest number to calculate precisely. If it's just a number somebody gave you, that doesn't seem very smart. If you have to guess and wave your hands, that doesn't seem very smart, either. If you compute the number using math, now that's smart. You can graph it, you can pick a nice sharp-looking number of decimal places. You can write the formula using algebra. That's economics.

</comment><comment><USER14> That's also why, when you go to the movies and it turns out tickets cost the same regardless of the film, you should go for the one with the longest running time.

</comment><comment><USER15> This engineer hasn't studied the Toyota Way. Put him in charge of production and he will kill your company.

"We need 5000 widgets"

"That will cost $10,000 but if we make 10000 it will cost $15000 making each one cheaper"

Overproduction kills.

The pizza place is laughing because the cost of production doesn't square with the radius.

<comment><USER16> Depends on the use case and personal preferences, I believe.

For me, as I happen to love pizza, better prices on larger ones is a win. It's either cheaper calories (if I consume it at once) or meal that lasts longer (if I eat a half of it and eat leftovers for a several hours later).

In rare cases I consider I really want just a tiny bit and won't like any more pizza for the next 6 hours I obviously order a smaller one.

<comment><USER15> You need to consider the times you don't eat your leftovers and the times you ate your leftovers because they were there and still ate the other meals you would have without having the pizza

In business, inventory is expensive, especially if you end up throwing it away.

[http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-31/american-...](http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-31/american- automobile-glut-unsold-cars-are-piling-up)

3.27 million unsold cars sitting on the tarmac.

That's two weeks total US car sales, and 10 of the top selling 20 are Japanese marques

[http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html](http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html)

Producing more than twice what you sell makes no sense unless your metric is cost of production per car rather than sales per car produced

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The hidden cost of always getting the bigger pizza is your health. I wonder what the picture will look like when you factor that into the equation...

<comment><USER18> Probably a similar circular diagram system, except replacing pizza diameter with waist diameter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> One reason to get whatever size pizza you want:

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/02/26/282547399/one- reas...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/02/26/282547399/one-reason-to- get-whatever-size-pizza-you-want)

</comment><comment><USER20> A lot of companies use this strategy. For example 24 hour fitness in my area offers a 3 year membership for ~$600 as opposed to paying $24/month. I was happy with my decision to pay monthly because I was able to switch to a new gym a year later.

Buying the bigger pizza only makes sense if you know you or someone else can finish it. If you buy a bigger pizza and don't finish eating it, you end up wasting money.

</comment><comment><USER8> Area is not the best measure of pizza size either. "Regina-style" pizza is a lot thicker than normal pizza -- an 18" pizza at Vern's weighs 10 pounds.

Even better than selling by weight would be selling by calorie. Virtually all customers would get a good impression of both the value and the costs of that pizza.

Too accurate -- it would probably significantly decrease sales.

</comment><comment><USER21> This article is wonderful! The whole point is that you can be more efficient with your pizza money when buying larger pizzas as opposed to smaller pizzas.

And regarding health concerns: you don't have to eat the whole thing at once! Besides, Pizza is pretty much the food of choice for feeding groups, and being more efficient with your group food budget is totally a win.

</comment><comment><USER22> _because the medium was more than twice as big as the small, and it cost only a little bit more. This sort of blew my mind._

Keep in mind that the cost of a pizza is not just the cost of the ingredients (dough and tomato paste also being particularly cheap). The wages of the worker, the fuel for the oven, and the rental for the shop are all constants.

</comment><comment><USER23> I don't get it. If someone is not hungry then what's the point of paying more for a larger pizza when you are probably not going to eat all of it. I am also surprised that we think it's fine to buy more than what we can eat just because we can pay for it!

<comment><USER24> And eat the leftovers for dinner... reheated on a pan, it's actually pretty good:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWIJNaA- JNA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWIJNaA-JNA)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> So you're saying that by purchasing a larger size, the cost per unit is reduced? Astounding!

<comment><USER26> Strangely, that's noy always the case. Sometimes the per-unit price _increases_ at the larger size of an identical product. I've seen this in laundry detergent, for example.

<comment><USER11> I've seen this too. One of the weirder examples was a KFC offering biscuits for 64 cents each or four for $2.57

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Bigger pizza's are also the better choice for increasing the ratio of topping area to crust, assuming constant crust thickness through the various sizes for a given pizzeria.

</comment><comment><USER28> im sorry, this is just astoundingly stupid. the concept that you get more per dollar if you spend more is ubiquitous. thats the only thing this article considers. what the hell?

</comment><comment><USER29> I think to get a more accurate value per pizza size we need to factor in the associated medical costs of always opting for the larger pizza.

</sarcasm>

<comment><USER30> I know this comment is a joke and all, but really as long as the bigger pizza isn't eaten in one sitting there really isn't an issue.

I know I've bought large pizzas with the full intention of eating the whole thing over a few days time.

<comment><USER31> Not sure about that. Your body is only able to absorb so much in one sitting. Eating the pizza all in one sitting might be the healthier option.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Just as I was finally breaking free of the mindset of actually eating all I can at all-you-can-eat buffets...</comment>


Ask HN: Best over-ear headphones 2015 - <AUTHOR>

So this question has been discussed multiple times in many different forums. I've read tons of (often conflicting) advice and recommendations and I'm still none the wiser. I appreciate this is a subjective topic, and so no exhaustive ranking will ever exist. That said I know many of you will relate to my use case: I work as a software engineer in a shared office space, I want to listen to music whilst I work, I want some level of screening from background noise, be it a byproduct of good audio itself, or some form of passive/active noise canceling. Until recently I had a pair of Bose QC15s which were revolutionary to me when I first tried them (likely because I'd never spent more than $50 on headphones). I would be tempted to go ahead and get the updated QC25 and think nothing more of it. I have read however that whilst the noise canceling is by far the best, some amount of audio quality is compromised as a result. I'm now leaning toward something more refined, that isn't making such compromise. My problem is cutting down the myriad of options to a list I can actually attempt to compare myself. As such I'd love to try and get some consensus on the top five options (at least in terms of popularity) for the scenario I describe.<p>Thank you all in advance! <comment><USER2> Lots of companies just updated their line up last week at CES. You should do a round of search on "headphones CES 2015".

Bose QC25 has best noise cancellation. What you can do is wear a good sounding earbud inside it so you can get best of both worlds.

Sennheiser updated their Momentum with Bluetooth, this is actually the one I want to get.

Philips released a MFi headphones with noise canceling powered by your iPhone (so the headphone itself is super light)

Bang and Olufson released BeoPlay H8 which is their premium line of Bluetooth headphones. It's priced the same as Momentum Wireless, but offered only as on- ear option where Momentum can be both on-ear and over-ear.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's perfect, thank you for the tip. I had been looking at the momentums purely on an aesthic level they certainly win, Bluetooth would be an awesome addition - wonder how quickly they burn through battery?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Sony MDR 7506. You can find them at any Guitar Center for about $95.

<comment><AUTHOR> Will be sure to check them out - thank you!</comment></comment>


Hacking the Hacker Stereotypes - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/hacking-the-hacker-stereotypes/ <comment><USER2> "loose 22-year-old group of women within the club called the Haecksen (a pun on the German word for witch)."

In case you're wondering, the German word for witch is _Hexe_ so the name sounds like _witches_. It's interesting with all the language PC in the US (e.g. a lot of articles and books on hackers will use the pronoun _she_ although women in this field, by everybody's admission, are rare) Germans are quite OK with the fact that the word for hacker is masculine. Indeed I think a lot of people would be surprised if there was a movement to change it to _die Hacker_. There's, of course, _die Hackerin_ but a lot of people here would object to that even more, since it's derived from a "male" form of the word.

Similar situation in French, although, as it predicated by their angst over their language, things are not so easy (<http://www.nakedtranslations.com/en/2004/hacker>).

On a different note, this word for witch is why those weird signs are called "Hex Signs" (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_sign>).

</comment><comment><USER3> Forced to? No, they chose to.

Hackers respect skill. If they have it, they get respect. If they don't, they don't. Standing in a group of hackers and saying 'You should respect me' will get nothing but sneers and laughter. Starting a group to say the same will have the same result.

Do they have skill? We don't know, because the article focused on them being women and NOT on their skill.

Yes, that's right: The article is exactly the opposite of what they are trying to do. It's perpetuating the myth that women can't be true hackers and can only claim to be.

<comment><USER4> Nonsense. While many hackers treat women equally, there are also a lot who apply double standards. Women (and feminist guys) working together to highlight this will lead to less sexism and increased respect.

And the article is the exact opposite of perpetuating the myth -- it's highlighting women hackers.

<comment><USER5> No, it's highlighting a group of women who get together and talk while claiming to be hackers. You can find similar groups

An article which actually does highlight a female hacker. Note that the focus is on her hacks, not on her gender (which only comes up tangentially): <http://pastebin.com/8ZN3BVTJ>

<comment><USER4> You appear to have a very narrow definition of hacker. hh66 is one and so are the women in the Wired article.

<comment><USER5> The point of the article I linked to is not that she is a virus writer, the point is that the article is about her hacks. If the article were about a girl who wrote an information retrieval system, a video game or a database, it would similarly highlight a female hacker.

This wired article is about a bunch of girls who get together and whine about men asking them what distro they run.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, I'd be disappointed if Wired ran my picture but omitted links to any of my projects. If this article were about men, we'd be ignoring it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _Zirn says that when meeting new male hacker acquaintances, an intense interview-style process often follows. "It's like they don't believe you, they have all these questions, they want to know what Linux distribution you use."_

I'm not sure^, this is typical of guys in _any_ field. Men tend to argue more about the mechanics of any given field more than women. There's a definite sub-population of guys being all about "the gear" that doesn't exist in the same technical population of women. It's quite similar to photography, where there are a lot of both men and women practicing, but really only men get nuts over the hardware.

Besides, when I meet new hackers, an easy conversation entry point is on operating systems and opinions of tech to get a feel for the other person.

Maybe it's more of a body language thing that isn't getting conveyed through the article's text.

^edit from _I don't agree with this_

<comment><USER4> When you say "I don't agree with this," are you saying that she is not reporting her experiences accurately? Most of the technical women I know say the same thing as she does. Body language and tone are a big part of it. Next time you're at a conference, look at how guys interact with your women friends -- and compare notes afterwards to see what you noticed and what you didn't.

<comment><USER7> You're right about that not being clear. I meant that it's traditional for guys to interact in that way, regardless of gender. Their emotional language may be patronizing, but the content is the exact same as if they were meeting a male hacker for the first time.

I'm more of a design-world person, so I generally don't see the explicit sexism, since women designers are equally respected.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: CreditBitcoins – High-volume Traders Can Buy Instantly on Credit - <AUTHOR> https://www.creditbitcoins.co/

<comment><AUTHOR> I've added social buttons on a separate page for those that like the project but don't want to make a purchase: [https://www.creditbitcoins.co/share](https://www.creditbitcoins.co/share)</comment>


How to Find and Hire Amazing People, Part 1 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.adamsmith.cc/2009/10/how-to-find-and-hire-amazing-people-part-1.html

<comment><USER2> Many startups eg justin.tv use programming problems to screen applications. Do you think this is a good idea? Why does Xobni not use something like that to prevent the avalanche of resumes that greets every job posting?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes it seems like a great idea! It's the equivalent of the computational challenge approach in antispam. : )

That's good advice. I'll likely give it a shot next time around!</comment></comment>


269 people join class-action lawsuit against Google claiming age discrimination - <AUTHOR> https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2017/08/nearly-300-have-joined-google-age-case.html?page=all <comment><USER2> If age alone isn't a reliable factor in determining success, then why do most of the big Silicon Valley companies lean young? Shouldn't economics sort them out if they really aren't getting more bang for their buck with younger employees? Couldn't I get way more done by gaming the market (and therefore _win_ ) if I only hired older employees who were rejected by Google solely for their age? I see lots of conspiracy theories here, but none answer that question.

It seems to me like young employees may have a few properties going for them ( _on average_ ), that may be less true as they age:

-motivation/drive/desire to put in hours

-low cost

-flexibility

-creativity/fresh ideas

-more likely to bond with other young employees, and participate in company culture (instead of having a family they need to spend time with).

To me, it basically means that for basic software engineering, at a certain point you actually do (on average) become less valuable as you age, _unless_ you move up into system architecture, specialism/subject matter expertise, or management.

<comment><USER3> Older people are wiser. Young people quite often don't believe this, but that is because they don't know what they don't know yet.

Problem is, wisdom isn't necessarily a valuable commodity in rank and file. For instance, after many years and lots of faces a person starts learning how to work systems and people. Sometimes this takes the place of actually contributing. An older person who isn't management but who has well practiced political skills and extensive experience working systems for their own benefit is a bit dangerous to have around. Particularly if they aren't fully "on board" (and who is after seeing 20 years of nonsense?). And doubly so if they don't have good work habits or contribution ethics.

Young people in general have more energy and more stamina. They are faster. I think this is biological fact. Quite often they do foolish things, but this is probably overcome by the increased capacity to do. The flexibility. The lack of jadedness. The ability to get excited. The ability to be directed.

There's a reason the military only accepts younger people. And there's a reason you have to be a certain age to be president of the U.S.

I don't think we should pretend everything is equal between ages. It manifestly isn't. But I do think for a certain definition of "old" a person can perform most programming tasks at an equal or greater level than the average younger programmer (if they are dedicated and so inclined and have the experience). But if it's hype and rah rah and running all around and back and forth (which is not to knock these things, sometimes it is what's needed), ya, a younger person is better for that.

Over 40 myself. Pretty sure I'm a far better employee than I was in my 20's but also I wouldn't put up with a fraction of the crap and silly I put up with in my 20's. So I think there's probably different "best spots" for the place one is.

As far as Google, I don't know. They sure are a fat target lately. Every aggrieved group under the sun appears to have the knives out hoping for their pound of flesh. Which is a cost of getting big and rich it appears. I just hope the measures they take or are forced to take don't negatively impact their products. Because I don't really care who they hire so long as the search is good.

<comment><USER4> >Young people in general have more energy and more stamina. They are faster. I think this is biological fact. Quite often they do foolish things, but this is probably overcome by the increased capacity to do. The flexibility. The lack of jadedness. The ability to get excited. The ability to be directed.

>There's a reason the military only accepts younger people.

Sure, they are of course more fit and superior in anything "physical" (which is actually a large part of what a soldier has to do), more resistant to fatigue, long hours, etc. and usually much less prone to (say) ilnesses, backpain, or any other even slightly imparing condition BUT - not so casually - they are introduced in a very rigid schema with a set of very narrow rules and usually with a sergeant major shouting at them as soon as they even think to do anything minimally outside the said rules.

From the outside it seems to me like putting together a bunch of people in the early twenties with no or little rules and no strict supervision/discipline, while undoubtedly a "creative" environment tends to resemble more a uni fraternity than a business place.

I am just guessing, of course, but if you are over 40 and you started working 20 years ago or more you most probably started working in a place where there was a "dress code", some strict work times, a manager twice or more your age that would tell you what to do (but also possibly help you advising how to do it), some more experienced colleagues , etc., in other words some form of "forced" discipline and of mentoring.

And now I will introduce (being over fifty myself, so somehow self-qualified for it) another concept, seniority does NOT mean in itself experience, experience is the SUM of seniority with the attitude to learn, discuss and extract useful lessons from all the things that happened during the (many) previous years and be capable of adapt what was learned to changes that inevitably happen ove the years (be those changes in Law, society or technical matters).

I know quite a few people my age that notwithstanding having worked (often with some financial/personal success) for many years, learned nothing, i.e. are nowhere "wiser" than they were when young.

Experience leads to be wiser, seniority leads to just being older.

<comment><USER5> > I know quite a few people my age that notwithstanding having worked (often > with some financial/personal success) for many years, learned nothing, i.e. > are nowhere "wiser" than they were when young.

That's a pretty big deal.

Someone straight out of school has expectations matching someone straight out of school.

Someone with 20 years of experience has expectations matching someone with 20 years of experience.

However, someone straight out of school is, usually, straight out of school.

Someone with 20 years of experience..might have done nothing of value for 10 of those 20 years. Might not have kept up with technology. Might have poor quality experience. Might be bored with the profession, etc.

So very few people straight out of school are unfit for the job. A much higher percentage of people with a lot of experience would be unfit for a job (unless they're willing to take a few step back, at which point, why not take someone of the same level who is going forward instead of backward?)

<comment><USER3> Very good points.

But one doesn't often get through 20+ years without learning "something" (even if it's not the best things as far as an employer is concerned).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > _In court documents, Fillelkes claimed that a recruiter told her she needed > to put her dates of graduation on her resume so the company could view how > old she was._

That is one (allegedly) dumb recruiter.

<comment><USER7> Filling out online job applications, I noticed they often require graduation dates and won't let you proceed if you leave it blank. Allows them to quickly estimate your age.

<comment><USER8> I haven't encountered this yet. What systems are you applying through?

<comment><USER9> Fully-automated forms for gathering that kind of data are common outside tech and starting to show up in tech at some larger companies, especially those not seen as "startup" (either current or former).

I know someone who tried to apply to a position at a large tech company and could not complete their initial forms; this person has a master's degree from a top-25 university, is soon to have a Ph.D., has studied at the London School of Economics... but left high school early to go straight to college. Date of high-school graduation was a mandatory field in their online form, and nobody at the company could come up with a way to bypass the use of that form (and entering false information, of course, is not permitted). This person may literally have to go back and get a GED _after obtaining a Ph.D._ in order to be able to fill out a job application.

<comment><USER10> Surely they must remember which year they left high school to go to college? That's graduation, early or otherwise.

<comment><USER11> > Surely they must remember which year they left high school to go to college? > That's graduation, early or otherwise.

Graduation is when you are certified by the school as completing graduation requirements, and usually issued a diploma attesting to that fact. Leaving without doing so, even for higher education that doesn't require a high school diploma, is not graduation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Hard to fathom not hiring your future self. Especially if they are qualified and experienced.

At 32 yo, terrified I'll be in this situation soon.

<comment><USER13> It is the one minority that we all inevitably become. "Respect your elders" has all kinds of reason behind it.

<comment><USER14> Petty big minority of about a quarter of the population nowadays and that is only if we're counting retirement age. If you go above 40 then it is somewhere around half of population which does not compute as minority. This means companies are effectively excluding huge swaths of potential workers.

<comment><USER15> Its a minority in the tech workplace.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Could someone please ELI5 how one proves that he was not hired for an engineering position "for which she was qualified" because of one's age?

From my experience there are usually multiple candidates that are perfectly qualified for any opened position but only one (the best?) is hired. What kind of evidence could we expect to see in a case like this?

</comment><comment> barry-cotter [https://www.quora.com/Why-are-so-many-people-over-40-in- Sili...](https://www.quora.com/Why-are-so-many-people-over-40-in-Silicon- Valley-not-able-to-find-jobs/answer/Mehmet-Fidanboylu?share=1)

How Agesism Works at Google

<comment><USER17> > what I have observed is that the majority of people with that kind of > "experience" are basically doing the same job in the past 10 years. So their > minds have become stagnant and inelastic.

10 years experience with, say, C brings:

You write far fewer bugs, and when there is a bug, you find it much faster.

You know what best practices are. This only comes with experience.

You know better than to code up another bubble sort. You can recognize quadratic performance long before it blindsides you in production.

You can identify the "stink" of bad code just by glancing at it.

You're no longer tempted to show off by writing clever code that nobody can maintain.

You do the boring stuff like documentation and tests.

All this means quicker development, better code, fewer costly bugs in production, and someone to coach the newbies and into writing better code.

<comment><USER18> But you'll not be able to answer the harder whiteboard questions. And only those get you hired..

<comment><USER15> Hey you got downvoted, but as someone with 15 years experience, I am definitely worse at whiteboard stuff than when i was straight out of Uni. I do write far better software these days though and can usually design things in a way that avoid the need for too much "clever" code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> When I'm hiring I don't care about age, but I do care about you keeping current and being conversant with the general stack that we use.

That said, I'll also consider you if you don't know our stack as long as it's clear you've been keeping current with 'something' and that you're a great coder.

</comment><comment><USER20> _" In court documents, Fillelkes claimed that a recruiter told her she needed to put her dates of graduation on her resume so the company could view how old she was."_

I had a feeling some people reviewing resumes did that. At least that's one upside of dropping out and finishing my degree years later.

</comment><comment><USER21> Really? I'm 63 and Google in both Mountain View and Sydney are after me.

</comment><comment><USER22> Google and many other tech companies and the investors that ultimately control them fear losing control of their business, in this case an extremely lucrative near-monopoly, to their employees, especially the technical employees. Thus they prefer young, relatively ignorant, naive, hard-working, compliant, inevitably more error-prone employees to more experienced employees, despite the apparent cost. It is a matter of political and economic control.

Thus they have an unwritten rule to minimize the use of employees with more than ten years of hands-on technical experience. They will employ more experienced employees if they absolutely must, but otherwise they avoid it. Hence, there are some but very few technical employees with more than ten years of experience. The numbers trail off with increasing experience and age. There are also exceptions for more experienced employees from usually wealthy families affiliated with the investors.

It is an irrational and hidden class system. It is costly. It is not fair. It almost certainly makes it very difficult to make technical advances and breakthroughs that require more experience, the wisdom of age, etc.

<comment><USER23> What do mean by 'loosing control of their business ... to their employees'?

<comment><USER24> Is anyone going to actually come to the table with some hard numbers here or is this constantly going to be a dick waving contest?

Playing the devil advocate here I bet internally they have metrics telling them there isn't any value that people above 30 add compared to 20 year old straight out of college.

<comment><USER25> It's reasonable to assume that a young workforce is a cheap and compliant workforce, saying that the major employers have run the numbers isn't playing devil's advocate.

The real question is: _why does the garden-variety stereotype overachieving Stanford aspie with sociopathic tendencies defend the practice?_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If you are the victim of ageism in tech (fired/not getting hired, etc): I'm writing an article on the subject. Email me at firstname.lastname@example.com if you want to share your story. You can remain anonymous if you like.

</comment><comment><USER27> Context from history, the 2004 "too old to matter" lawsuit:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Reid_(computer_scienti...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Reid_\(computer_scientist\))

</comment><comment><USER28> I feel that "age discrimination" is not actually due to discriminating against age. It's that some older people are less willing to learn new programming languages and libraries, etc - that is what they will be discriminated against, not their age.

<comment><USER16> The discrimination arises when you start to assume that a specific candidate is "less willing to learn new programming languages" because you have this preconception about his age group and he belongs to that age group.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Ironic, coming at the heels of Google firing someone for being "anti- diversity".

<comment><USER30> That's because diversity doesn't actually mean diversity. It's mostly newspeak, but it amounts to a dynamic set whose members are defined by the fashionable morality of PC culture.

<comment><USER31> what now we're claiming google is some champion for PC culture? they're in the middle of a massive investigation by the department of labor for systemic wage discrimination against their female employees, I don't see how that's exactly championing the kind of PC culture you're talking about.

[1] [https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/dol- goo...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/dol-google-pay- discrimination/522411/)

<comment><USER30> No, Google is not championing PC culture, Google is championing "diversity" which is then defined by PC culture. Also, the wage gap argument is a different argument from the diversity argument. I'm happy to discuss either, but would you mind stating your point more clearly? Lastly, please use your real account when discussing hot button issues because it's hard to differentiate trolls from new accounts.

Edit: For those who disagree then ask yourself this, are all religions equally represented at Google? Are all age groups? All political affiliations? All body types? Are all ability types equally represented at Google? Etc, etc. If not, then why not? And more importantly, why is there no industry-wide effort to correct the injustice that stems from these differences?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Is google going to go thru what uber did?

These kinds of articles do make alot of clicks.

<comment><USER33> I don't quite get what your second sentence is trying to insinuate. Is it:

\- The media is lying to you: there actually is no lawsuit?

\- For the last 12 years, the media and Google colluded to discriminate against anyone above 30 years of age to drive clicks with the inevitable lawsuit, and their payday has finally come?

\- 300 people suing the most prominent internet company for employment discrimination isn't important enough to warrant news coverage?

In case you want to chose option (3), you'll need a cut-off for what's newsworthy. I propose scanning the headlines of important newspapers for the most boring article you can find. Boring articles don't generate many clicks, so that article must have been included "on the merits", and presents an upper bound for the required "newsworthiness".

Doing this exercise on the WSJ right now yields "New GE Chief Delays Part of Boston HQ".

More or less newsworthy than this lawsuit, or Uber's bromance with bankruptcy? You decide!

<comment><USER34> I think it's option 4: The media may have just found its next horse to beat, and will continue to do so for as long as people keep clicking on new stories about it, no matter how thoroughly dead and decomposed that horse may become in the meantime.

<comment><USER14> Some things should be flogged to death or they recur.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> So this is the way Google ends (or at least comes down a peg or two): Not with a bang or a whimper, but the angry muttering of a horde of 'progressives' chewing on each other for not being 'progressive enough'.

<comment><USER6> What does this have to do with being "progressive"? It's against American law to discriminate on the basis of age. Is it a "progressive" notion to follow federal and state law now?</comment></comment>


More Than 12 Weeks and More Than a CS Degree | allenc - <AUTHOR> http://allenc.com/2013/05/more-than-12-weeks-and-more-than-a-cs-degree/ <comment><USER2> I agree that a CS degree can be useful (I have one) = but I would suggest that most of today's startups don't need or utillize a CS major correctly. Most startups are simple to moderately complex web apps, which require someone who knows the framework well.

CS majors that are writing hard core algorithms and shortest path optimizations are few and far between until the startup has reached heavy scale. Just my experience through a few startups...</comment>


Can Transcendence Be Taught? - <AUTHOR> http://www.chronicle.com/article/Can-Transcendence-Be-Taught-/237994 <comment><USER2> My uncle passed away 2 years ago, and he was an erudite man, having read (and memorized) countless books. He never used any of his vast knowledge in his work, and his (nuclear) family "put up" with his penchant for reading and accumulating a vast library. He did not, to my knowledge, discuss science, philosophy, or religion with his wife or kids, all of whom are eminently practical people, dutifully hustling real-estate agents who don't read for pleasure.

We spoke at length while he was in the hospital, many times. He faced his death with serenity. His primary concern was for his wife's well-being, who he knew would miss him terribly.

All of his knowledge died with him, which I found troubling, but he did not.

<comment><USER3> I find the fact that you were troubled troubling. Sounds like your uncle read for fun. Sounds like he did it a lot. This is good. Lots of people suffer their entire lives.

But you're troubled you couldn't squeeze the concentrated knowledge out of him like an orange?

You'll have to read all the books yourself i guess.

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure why I can't flag this post, but if I could I would.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I find it interesting how they conflate "finding comfort" with "finding truth." In my experience, in the existential sense, the latter is the antithesis of the former.

<comment><USER5> One reply: The truth is the truth. If you don't find it comfortable, you are the one who needs to change.

<comment><USER6> Truth is almost never comfortable. And, generally, _ignorance is bliss_ (which is true, however uncomfortable that may be).

<comment><USER7> You're talking about whether the truth "is comfortable" or not; the truth, fact, the history of the motion of particles through space and time, simply is. The notion of "comfortable" is a filter that exists in the mind, through which you can choose to perceive the truth.

<comment><USER6> This looks reductionist and therefore most likely is false. Feeling uncomfortable has some objectivity to it, and no amount of "transcendence" can change that which is objective.

I was talking about less fundamental truths, such as the realization that one's parents are idiots, life is being wasted, every minute a person is getting murdered somewhere in a most horrifying way, girlfriend is getting ugly, etc. Try to get comfortable with that...

<comment><USER7> Well, the feeling of mental discomfort definitely is a physical phenomenon at the neuron level. However, because we have the ability to reflect on our feelings as we feel them, we have the ability to consider them as one signal out of many. The feeling of happiness or sadness or discomfort or fear is a single signal; others include situational awareness, memories, goals, etc (not describing a strict ontology here).

My impression of "transcendence" is the ability to consciously take these signals as input, rather than subconsciously by following feelings. The prerequisite to this is a deep understanding of oneself, the different signals one can perceive, and what real-world phenomena correspond to those signals (vs what the signals themselves say).

There's also a lot of anecdotal evidence that various psychedelics aid in this process, with one theory being that because they often delay or otherwise distort the link between your perception and reality, you have to think logically about how to compensate for the difference between your perception and what you consciously know to be reality. Throw the especially pensive nature induced by some variants of marijuana or LSD into the mix, and you've got a recipe for enlightenment.

By the way, if that sounds plausible, consider that the euphoria associated with consuming those substances may be an evolutionary adaptation. Seeing really is believing; humans have a hard time properly attributing weight to factors they can't directly perceive (even our own suffering isn't enough to motivate us if it's far enough in the future to be abstract to our current selves). As a result, most people don't acquire the ability to consciously perceive their input signals (and compensate for them) until the difference between perception and reality is made literally visible, e.g. by psychedelics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why we are here? It's an accident of evolution.

Why we live only to suffer and die? Because otherwise old animals would consume resources needed for growth, and thus there's evolutionary pressure for limited lifespans.

It's not that those are hard questions. It's that people don't like the answers.

Deal with it.

<comment><USER9> Limited lifespans have nothing to do with resource constraints. There is just nothing to select for longer lifespans beyond the time it takes to reproduce.

<comment><USER10> "There is just nothing to select for longer lifespans beyond the time it takes to reproduce."

Definitely there is. If humans spent a long time learning, and were more productive and fruitful in their later years, developing more intelligent systems, they would theoretically out-compete a civilization that wasn't able to develop such advanced skills and learning - especially related to passing on information.

The missing issue not obvious in genes is the amount of cultural information and learning passed on. A genetically 'superior' race of beings (faster, smarter, more disease resistant) would surely be 'beaten' by a group of lesser beings who were able to cooperate, learn, cognize, master tools, pass on wisdom etc...

<comment><USER11> This is the same conclusion I came to as well thinking about stuff. There are a lot of genes that we don't know what it does. Unless evolutionary feature development is throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks, there definitely is information (not just physical description of how features should be and how it should function, but many valuable data as well) passing from parents to siblings via genes. I came across two some orphaned puppies. They grew up and knew how to do certain stuff and I didn't see anyone teaching them those stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There are a lot of assumptions worked into that, with one of the biggest being, "Who needs transcendence? We suspect humans do."

<comment><USER13> I was thinking more like is transcendence even an actual thing? The Google definition is "existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level." Which in turn needs a definition for "normal" and "physical". Beyond "normal" I can maybe buy into, but beyond "physical", I'm doubting anyone has a convincing example of.

<comment><USER14> I had an experience which I found, and still find, utterly convincing. But if I tried to describe it to you, you probably wouldn't be at all swayed.

William James writes about this in 'The Varieties of Religious Experience'.

<comment><USER12> The same could have been said for Einstein, but the trick was that he could prove it math, and observations. If what you found was real, do you think it could ever find some real expression that's testable? If not, maybe it only felt real, which would make sense if it happened entirely within the realm of your own senses.

<comment><USER15> What if your assumption that things happen outside "the realm of your own senses" is false?

The color blue does not exist outside the realm of our senses. Neither does the concept of a "table".

<comment><USER12> And yet you could establish criteria for both. Blue is defined by specific wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, and a table is an object. Both provide testable predictions, "Light of this wavelength will appear 'blue', and I can bang my shin against this table..."

People who have never met can report having the same experiences with both "Blue" and "Table".

<comment><USER15> It's no different with private subjective experience - it's just that most people lack precise language to describe "transcendent" experiences.

For example, there are mind states called "jhana" that can be reliably accessed by experienced meditators. The language used to describe them is along the lines of "as piti subsides and suka becomes more prevalent, you are entering the 2nd jhana".

We even have language to describe what it's like to experience without an experiencer:

In the seeing, only the seen. In the thinking, only the thought...

<comment><USER12> None of what you're saying addresses any of what I said, you've just sidestepped it with claims of inexpressibility as well as untestability.

<comment><USER15> I agree with what you're saying about the scientific method being a useful tool for discovering repeatable cause and effect.

I'm simply trying (and failing) to offer a perspective that possibly nothing occurs outside of personal sense experience. The experience of blue does not exist within the wavelengths of light, it exists as consciousness. A rock does not experience blue when those wavelengths hit it.

If it is true that we only exist as our senses and consciousness then a transcendent spiritual experience is as real as anything else.

If I haven't convinced you, then I am merely poor at describing what I'm getting at and for that I apologize.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> As possibly the only musicologist on this site, mad props for the chronicle.com link. Also, dying is pretty inconvenient, isn't it?

</comment><comment><USER17> TLDR: You must live in the present, launch yourself on every wave, find your eternity in each moment -- Thoreau

<comment><USER18> I don't think that's a fair summary. It's like summarizing _The Hitchhiker 's Guide to the Galaxy_ as "42".

This article touches on so many points and looks at so many approaches to the issues it raises that it just can't be adequately summarized in a single sentence or even a paragraph.

Some points that it touches on:

\- Why are we here?

\- Is there any meaning to life, death or suffering?

\- Can science, academia, philosophy, or theology offer satisfying answers to these questions?

\- "Are we teaching students everything without teaching them anything regarding the big questions that matter most?"

and many others.

It's a deep article, worthy of careful reading and consideration.

<comment><USER19> You'd find the same things with careful reading and consideration for a shallow article too.

<comment><USER18> I really don't understand what you mean. Are you saying this article is shallow?

<comment><USER19> No, I'm saying "careful thought and consideration" are sources of depth regardless of what kind of article you apply them to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If you're interested in the topic, highly recommend Peter Watts' "False blindness" and "Echopraxia"</comment>


When Women Become Men at Wellesley - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/magazine/when-women-become-men-at-wellesley-college.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0 <comment><USER2> > Of all the people at a multiethnic women's college who could hold the > school's "diversity" seat, the least fitting one was a white man.

> "I thought he'd do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to > have a white man there. It's not just about that position either. Having men > in elected leadership positions undermines the idea of this being a place > where women are the leaders."

I find this concept both depressing and distressing. Any person can be capable, willing, and qualified to take on a role promoting diversity. Their gender, sex, race, or whatever else should not disqualify them and should hardly be a factor. I guess this shows that prejudice is unfortunately still common in modern society. Discriminating against e.g. white men in such a role is just as abhorrent to me as discriminating against any other groups in other circumstances.

Certainly it's their right not to vote for him, but if the basis of their vote is simply his membership in some group, rather than his character or qualifications, then that's prejudice. It's sad and it needs to stop.

We need to cease over-correcting for past discriminating by propagating new discrimination and prejudice into the modern day.

> I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation > where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content > of their character. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Let's put discrimination to rest by selecting people for roles based on what we know about them as individuals: their capability, qualifications, and character. [Edit: minor rephrasing and added content.]

<comment><USER3> It is a fascinating double-standard. Compare to a similar sentiment someone might express:

"I thought Obama would do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a black man as President of the United States."

Such a person would be pilloried as a racist.

It's astonishing how often people imply or explicitly assert that white men don't understand what it's like to live in a society hostile to their race and sex. A cursory glance at, say, the New York Times shows that such hostility is in fact pervasive—even, bizarrely, among white men themselves.

<comment><USER4> White men do not understand, any more than I understand what it feels like to be a rabbit. Your comment is a clear example of that failure -- actually, it's worse, because you don't even understand the problem intellectually. Some white men do acknowledge their privilege, but even for them, it will never be possible to experience true systemic hostility based on their gender or race.

"Occasionally my gender-race is criticized for the oppression it, as a whole, has and continues to heap on other groups" cries the white man. "Hostility! I understand it!" he says.

Meanwhile, all the other groups deal with actual adversity. I mean things worse than newspaper articles pointing out how you start with advantage. Things like disproportionate violence at the hands of the police and the state, disproportionate victimization with sexual violence, inability to move forward in the corporate world, imbalanced expectations regarding family life, dress, body shape, etc. Even things like being less likely to be called back for a job interview because of your name.

Yeah, white men, including you, really do not get it.

<comment><USER5> You don't really need to keep repeating the propaganda from those diversity seminars. We've heard it. And most of us who pay attention know it's all bull. As an example:

 _disproportionate victimization with sexual violence_

Well, look at who is committing all that sexual violence and then talk about how white people are at fault:

[http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0842.pdf](http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0842.pdf)

Most of your other comments are similarly flawed. However, the shortest retort to every bitch and moan that comes from the grievance industry is the simple fact that black people in the US have a higher per capita income than any country in Africa [1]. Most other relevant metrics like education, lifespan, and even crime stats paint a pretty good picture for blacks living under the merciless jackboot of evil whites, when compared to living without all that racism. [2]

[1] Actually, except one. That exception has a pretty straightforward explanation: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_Guinea#mediaviewer/F...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_Guinea#mediaviewer/File:Tree_map_exports_2009_Equatorial_Guinea.jpeg)

[2] Example. Note that most exceptions are Arabic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)

<comment><USER4> > Sexual violence ... white people

????? Obviously, I was referring to men as the oppressing group on this point.

Re. the rest, let me make sure I understand your position. "As long as there is someplace black people are worse off than they are in the US, they have nothing to complain about and white privilege doesn't exist." Am I reading you right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article illustrates how trans men are such an interesting problem for feminist institutions. Either you go along with the current trans party line, which is men are men, trans or cis, and they have no place at a women's institution/space. fin. This is an interesting expression of some really rigid thinking about binary gender. Or you take the "women and trans" position and place yourself as an institution for people of oppressed genders. You include anyone in the category of not cis men. You cease to specifically celebrate femininity at that point. You also start defining yourself in terms of cis men, which can be... problematic.

I'm concerned with how this spills out in the tech industry and our current focus on gender. All of the gender equity campaigns at the moment are inclusive of women, the more liberal include trans women, but none of them appear to have any explicit inclusion of trans men or non binary gender people. Which I find curious since trans masculine people often share the same structural issues with cis women being: lack of access to STEM pre-education in gradeschool/highschool, reproductive realities which are disruptive to a tech career, lack of socialization as boys/access to old boys' network. Trans people, including trans masculine people, do not occur in large enough numbers to have multiple tech industry gender advocacy groups and the best they can do is hope that "women's" groups eventually advocate for them.

I know of zero trans men in leadership positions in tech (eg, visible senior/staff engineers at the large companies, or actual management (PM doesn't count)), but I do know of quite a few trans women in these sorts of positions and even more cis women. Of course, the trans men in leadership could all be stealth, as I am (but I'm just a cog in the machine). I've worked in tech long enough, and have heard the stories of cis men when they think they are talking to another cis man, to know that the people tech are still deeply transphobic and we have such a long way to go.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is a great article. Tons of questions and not many answers, and that's okay. I'm glad to have places to look for inspiration when trying to celebrate my identity as a man in a way that doesn't marginalize anyone. I haven't found any good answers yet. It's really interesting to see how the student body is balancing their desire to be inclusive with a desire to retain an identity and common experiences.

I also appreciated how the author and editor did a great job of making complicated issues about identity and tense and changing pronouns and changing names very simple and human and readable.

</comment><comment><USER8> There's a whole "have your cake and eat it too" mentality going on here that's kind of upsetting. These trans students are men, and yet they are attending a women's college, living in women's dorms. They're apparently making waves because they're trying to remove the emphasis on gender(and women specifically) from a women's college. In other words, tim is trying to rob the university from its identity because he slipped in through a loop hole and feels discriminated against because (surprise!) the school is purpose built to exclude men. Would you agree with an atheist student at a private religious university trying to remove references to god from the school charter? or a religious student trying to add references to god to a public university charter? Of course not! Got to give it to Wellesley for not kicking his ass out upon realizing that he lied about the primary qualification for attendance, but I don't think that give him the right to try and remake the school in his own image.

</comment><comment><USER9> I know two people who "become women" to get better treatment at university. Dance around it as you wish, but today women has 60% higher chance to graduate compared to men.

<comment><USER10> You know two men who became trans for better treatment? Considering the issues trans people face you are full of shit.

Interesting how accounts trying to claim that 'women have it so much better' are always green accounts. If you believe in your comment why not use your actual handle?

Why do you think women have a better chance? What can you do to help men?

<comment><USER9> Take typical nerd, add mild depression and zero social life. I can ensure you that being trans will not make it much worse and will improve relations with authorities significantly. And in their cases it was 'administrative decision'.

I argued a few times in person, results were unpleasant for my person, I am not going to do it again.

65% graduates are women, men do not even have universal voting right in US. Google is your friend.

<comment><USER10> Why do you think more women graduate? Why complain that women have it better than actively trying to make it better for men? I'm trying to figure out why you have such a skewed view of society. You're certainly incorrect about how trans people are treated, especially with authorities.

What do you mean men don't have universal voting rights? Are you talking about felons?

<comment><USER9> Have a look at stats and laws. It is the senate and judges who has this view of society. I am not complaining about women having it better (good for them), I am just complaining men have it worse.

I am saying that in most states being over 18, with clean record and mentally capable, does not automatically mean someone can vote (as women can).

EDIT: there were questions about voting right. I can no longer answer since I was down-voted to oblivion. And because I am obviously "full of shit" I will not add links, just three hints:

\- Men has to register at two places, instead of just one.

\- Voting for men is a reward, not a right

\- I am more worried about student loans, not voting.

<comment><USER11> > I am saying that in most states being over 18, with clean record and > mentally capable, does not automatically mean someone can vote (as women > can).

What are the situations in which men cannot vote if they are over 18, with a clean record and mentally capable?

<comment><USER12> I'm guessing the unpopular poster is referring to selective service, for which men (and, TBH, trans women) must register, or forfeit numerous "rights". Because war. I hesitate to articulate this, being cis and all, but the strenuous denunciations of this greenbean seem to hint of something ugly in one's opinions of the whole notion of trans.

As far as I know, I'm no relation to the Jesse Austin interviewed in TFA.

<comment><USER13> As a trans woman I fully agree with your assessment. They clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

Also, selective service is such an absurdly trivial "obstacle." I registered ages ago, and despite a half-dozen moves (and transitioning) since, I haven't ever done anything else about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> homer_silently_backing_himself_into_the_bushes.gif

</comment><comment><USER15> >"The patriarchy is alive and well," he said. "I don't want to perpetuate it."

I laughed pretty hard at this one, the irony seems pretty lost here for Timothy. This could offer some serious introspection for the echo-chamber that is Wellesley. It's one of those case examples of an entity 'becoming what they hate'.</comment>


U.S. Military Warns of German Copyright Troll Attacks - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-military-warns-of-german-copyright-troll-attacks-131209/ <comment><USER2> Hey, stealing is stealing. Right US government?

I guess they don't like it much when they are on the other side of a copyright trial. So why does Obama keep pushing for stricter and longer copyright laws in the TPP treaty then?!</comment>


How an icebox saves our startup - <AUTHOR> https://blog.hive.com/helping-your-company-say-no-422c57ddb7b7#.otojc33ud <comment><USER2> Requires a bit of discipline to monthly "review the whole icebox and choose a month's worth of activities from the best items in there" but is really the right way to go.

Similarly, in Agile if you're backlog is ranked going into planning then you'll always be pulling from the "best" or "most productive" stories and ideas, not just the new tickets.</comment>


Microsoft does not have a mobile strategy - <AUTHOR> http://semiaccurate.com/2012/07/03/microsoft-does-not-have-a-mobile-strategy/

<comment><USER2> I really wish articles from this author would stop getting voted up on HN. Like the HP/WinRT article last week, there might be a valid opinion in here, but the language is so hostile and overtly biased towards Microsoft that it's virtually impossible to read.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why do uninformed rants from SemiAccurate keep getting posted here? Come on Hacker News, you can do better.

</comment><comment><USER4> That was pure garbage.

</comment><comment><USER5> This guy really has an axe to grind...he's also an idiot.</comment>


More Americans Say They Weigh 200 Lbs. Or More This Decade - <AUTHOR> https://news.gallup.com/poll/268847/americans-say-weigh-200-lbs-decade.aspx <comment><USER2> All indications are that Americans are fatter than ever, but I wish this poll included height as well, for more context. Even though BMI (height + weight) is imperfect, I think it's still more descriptive than just weight alone. Also, the average height of populations changes over time, so naturally their weight will also increase, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's an unhealthy increase.

According to this Time article, American heights increased in previous decades but pretty much stalled out: [https://time.com/4423803/how-tall-100-years- height/](https://time.com/4423803/how-tall-100-years-height/) So I guess the results are pretty much the same even without the height info.

<comment><USER3> I believe the BMI was created for exactly the purpose you described, to track changes across populations. It was not intended to be a diagnostic tool at the individual level.

That said, I suppose if a population generally becomes fitter and increases muscle weight, the overall BMI could become unreliable for the same reason it's not a great tool at the individual level.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thank you sugar and fast food industries.

<comment><USER5> I think it must be something like stress and deteriorating mental health more than those frankly. They existed 30 years ago (and as I understand were more popular then) without as much negative effects.

<comment><USER6> [https://www.statista.com/statistics/203358/food-and- drinks-s...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/203358/food-and-drinks-sales- of-us-restaurants-since-1970/)

I'd say fast food isn't the only culprit, normal restaurant portions are enormous too with the exception of a few health-focused salad chains.

Consumption of restaurant food has continued to increase over the last 30 years as the country gets more and more wealthy.

There are probably a lot of factors involved here of course.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 200 lbs = 90.7 kg</comment>


HTTP 2.0 by Microsoft - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2012/03/microsoft-sees-googles-hand-fo.php

<comment><USER2> Hmh. The acronym is right - something very painful is shaping up. Batten down the hatches for Browser Wars 2.0!</comment>


Ask HN: What are solid but not expensive ways to license desktop apps? - <AUTHOR> When not selling on the Mac or Windows app stores, what is a good way to release and license software on your own, without breaking the bank? Any good recommended licensing services? One that charges per-install rather than a large blanket fee would be nice. And one that can offer monthly app subscriptions rather than pay-once would be nice too.<p>I've worked with Nalpeiron in the past but it was very expensive and at least at the company I worked for, it was a single annual charge of quite a lot. <comment><USER2> I've been working on Keygen[0] for the past 9 months or so, a product/app licensing API with a focus on small- to medium-sized companies. I'll try not to get too sales-y, so Keygen lets you manage licenses for your products via a RESTful API, everything from your users to the machines they're allowed to use.

I'm currently working on adding an administrative dashboard so you can monitor metrics for each product to know what license types your users like, as well as other metrics like license churn, overdue license check-ins and more.

It's currently in closed beta, but I'd be happy to shoot you an invite if you're interested. I'll be offering affordable pricing for small- to medium- sized companies, with plans based on # of products, users and licenses.

I'd love to hear what you'd be willing to pay per month/year for a product like Keygen.

[0]: [https://keygen.sh](https://keygen.sh)

<comment><AUTHOR> Right now the main option I'm considering is Nalpeiron. I'll keep my eyes on keygen, though, thanks for the info.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> How much is piracy currently affecting revenue? It may be the case that improved sales will improve revenue more readily than reducing piracy. Increase sales sufficiently, and the cost of software licensing solutions may become much more palitable.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER4> No idea on their pricing, but I've seen a fair number of audio software companies using iLok ([https://www.paceap.com/](https://www.paceap.com/)).</comment>


SiliconSqueak: A processor optimized for Smalltalk - <AUTHOR> https://www.academia.edu/30686775/SiliconSqueak_Adaptive_Compilation_for_an_Object-Oriented_and_Reconfigurable_Architecture <comment><AUTHOR> The abstract:

 _As the complexity of embedded systems grows, so does the attraction of using object-oriented dynamic languages, like Python or Smalltalk, to implement them. To make this practical, a reduction in the energy and cost of the required computing resources for such languages has become a hot research topic. This project addresses these issues by designing a processor specifi- cally for Smalltalk-80, by optimizing this processor for adaptive compilation, by using both finegrained and coarse grained parallelism to do more work at lower clock speeds and by taking advantage for the reconfigurability of Field Programmable Gate Arrays (which are increasingly present in embedded systems) to adapt the hardware at runtime to variable computing loads._</comment>


Shade – CSS gradient generator - <AUTHOR> http://jxnblk.com/shade

<comment><USER2> I have a feeling the inversion of the overlaid text should be the other way around: white on blue and black on yellow, instead of black on blue and white on yellow.

Really nice tool nonetheless, it has exactly the right controls.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Pretty simple - but really enjoying this gradient generator.

</comment><comment><USER3> nice, it needs a "random" button</comment>