The link between premarital sex and marriage stability - <AUTHOR> https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability <comment><USER2> At university I took a class about this sort of stuff and one of the eye opening things was the studies about how the couples with the best sex life were actually old, married, religious couples. If you want great sex, then going to church and having a lifelong, selfless, loving commitment to your partner seems to help a lot; but that sure makes sense anyways...

There are a lot of studies about how pornography and such also makes it hard to have healthy, connected relationships. Church-going folks probably avoid quite a bit of those pitfalls as well, which helps in the longrun.

Also, if anyone is looking for world class research on family/couple stuff, Gottman institute is awesome: [https://www.gottman.com/](https://www.gottman.com/)

<comment><USER3> > [...] _the couples with the best sex life were actually old, married, > religious couples._

How did the measure the quality of the sex in religious couples to compare it with the quality of sex in non religious couples? Self report? Gesell chamber? Videos? Some attached sensors?

Are all religions equal?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _The odds of divorce are lowest with zero or one premarital partners._

Makes sense to me. Those people are either the least interested in pursuing sexual relationships solely for pleasure or the least able to do so, so might feel more compelled to stick with a marriage that isn't 100% as they either won't be doing it for sex or might feel unable to find someone else.

However, I think the more interesting thing to research would be links between _peri_ marital sex and marriage stability :-D

<comment><USER5> This is mostly because low divorce rates as well as virgin marriages are both highly correlated with religion, which is explained in the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This guy mentions and then dismisses without rationale the idea that women who have ten partners might have other life experiences that make them less likely to stay married. He doesn't even consider the notion that a woman who has zero partners is damaged in ways that make her unable to leave a bad relationship.

That he is does not even mention the effects of the man's sexuality (or the nature of a man who would choose a virgin or a woman who had ten or more partners) tells me that this is polemic.

This IFS is a conservative organization working to convince us that 'traditional' families are the bedrock of society. This article is manipulation.

<comment><USER7> Keep stuff like this in mind when reading all social science papers. In softer sciences the bias of the researchers seems to have a very strong effect on the outcome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wow. Not a word about the man's number of sexual partners in the marriages that stayed together or divorced.

On the other hand, it's apparently very interesting if the woman is a virgin or not when married.

<comment><USER9> End of 5th paragraph:

>"unfortunately, the NSFG doesn't have full data on men's premarital sexual behavior, and in any event they recall their own marital histories less reliably than do women)"

<comment><USER7> Men can't remember if they had sex?

<comment><USER10> I believe they tend to over-remember, if anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In the USA, there are a number of factors which lead to marriage stability. One is education - high school dropouts have a high divorce rate, college graduates have a lower divorce rate. Another is age at marriage - people who marry before the age of 23 tend to have a higher divorce rate than those who marry at or after 23. Income factors in as well - those with a good income tend to have more stable marriages ( [https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/marriage-and- divor...](https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/marriage-and-divorce- patterns-by-gender-race-and-educational-attainment.htm) ).

In terms of premarital sexual partners, the given chart shows divorce rates after five years of marriage. It doesn't tell me much - I would think if one were going to divorce, the best time to do so would be within the first few years, before having children. There are many studies of divorce rates after 15 or 20 years, that is what I would be curious to see.

<comment><USER12> >Divorce rates show a trend in couples that, on average, divorce around seven years.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_seven- year_itch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_seven-year_itch)

(sorry for a tertiary source)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So much about quantity and nothing about quality? How about If women had better premarital sex they were more likely to get a divorce?

<comment><USER14> Sure, but the author is really just trying to explain the data that is available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Doesn't mention much about how Men's relationship between divorce and the number of sexual partners influence in those cases of divorce.

<comment><USER16> The article mentions that this data is not available (and that men are also less reliable w.r.t. accuracy)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have issues with this study but this is definitely flagging abuse. Mods need to clarify that flagging is for spam, trolling, and ads, not disagreement.

</comment><comment><USER17> Usually, I just read HN, but I signed up to ask HN about this.

I really hope I'm not a crackpot, and would love to get my view changed.

I've been thinking that marriage and relationship-seeking as a man is just a bad bet if you aren't a "top tier" man in terms of looks, income, charisma - the "full package". I'm objectively at the middle of the bell curve (run-of- the-mill software engineer, got good grades at an average school, not short but not tall, not fat but not fit, face a "6") but with a hint of (diagnosed as a child) Aspergers that dings my "full package" rating, and I've only had one good relationship.

Statistics like this show that premarital sex and divorce are correlated.

Anecdotally, it seems the U.S. judicial system heavily favors the woman in a man-woman divorce. My father, my uncle, 2 of my coworkers - much of their assets completely wiped. I have read research indicating that this is true in general i.e. divorces tend to be a greater loss for the man.

I believe premarital (and extramarital) sex is far more easily found in these times due to the profileration of dating apps, and as a consequence of internet-scale, the sheer number of options for women (who are typically the ones with choice) are exponentially greater than any other time before this.

As another commenter mentioned, people are only as faithful as their knowledge of their options. It's now common knowledge that you have an INCREDIBLE amount of options, if you're desired.

So, with the onus of choice and the economy of scale, it seems like a woman will always be able to find a superior replacement to an average or below- average man - even if only for one night.

I can't make myself smarter or more beautiful (I can and do work out, but those improvements only do so much). I already have enough problems socially that dating is an uphill battle. Why should I try when there is a charismatic 9/10 a "swipe" away?

Cards on the table - after finally seeing romantic success after 20 years of life, saving my paychecks for a ring and marriage, and then having it all come crashing down early this year really broke me, and I found myself easily trapped into reading and studying "incel" and "red pill" ideologies to try and provide the right model to be viewing the world of human romantic relationships, and it was a good deal of work to rise out of that trap, but I'm left with wondering what parts of "the black pill" are very real and what parts are useless. It really seems like given the premises 1) as a living organism, I should be in the business of making my species survive another generation and 2) Others in my species deem me unfit to reproduce, then I can only accomplish (1) by increasing the amount of resources in the world available to those who ARE fit to reproduce, which can be done in 2 different ways...

</comment><comment><USER18> Correlation is not causation.

</comment><comment><USER12> I think it is interesting that a conservative think-tank uses the term 'studies' in their name. Disciplines with a <object of interest> studies title usually denotes a theoretical kinship with Critical theory or generally adhering to a postmodern humanistic philosophy of science.

The author is a professor of Family and Consumer Studies at University of Utah. That discipline is usually denoted Family and Consumer Sciences or domestic science. The same discipline being split between researchers favoring either a studies or science name is nothing new. But almost all examples I can think of involves a dispute between a hard/soft approach.[0] Which is not really the case here. So in my opinion would a generalist be excused from presuming that this institute is rooted in the liberal goals of critical social theory, instead of what it really is.

I have no evidence that professor Wolfinger is nothing but a serious scholar. But it still smells a little like scholarly black hat SEO'ing to me.

[0] Crudely said a soft approach involves a focus on theory, relativizing empirical evidence, and activism.

</comment><comment><USER19> Reinforcing that people are as faithful as [their knowledge of] options.

This is a study about women, it applies to men as well.

The remaining question would be the utility of marriage stability. As in, this study and most responses to this would be about a desired outcome, about premarital sex or marital stability being "good" or "bad".

There are lots of examples of problems people and families have outside of wedlock, or in unstable marriages, but I would say that is a societal fault for not providing additional frameworks to follow, leaving people to guess and fail at it.

<comment><USER20> > The remaining question would be the utility of marriage stability.

Completely agree. Context about specifics of marriage matter. There isn't even a single notion of utility.

Perhaps another way to drive the point home is to enumerate possible (immediate) causes of divorce:

infidelity, money, poor communication, frequent arguments, weight gain, unrealistic expectations, lack of intimacy, lack of equality, lack of preparation for marriage, abuse. +

In many cases, ending an existing marriage is going to be a much better outcome then alternatives for at least one of the partners involved.

Cherry-picking a more extreme example: what's the utility of a stable abusive marriage to the person getting abused?

\+ 10 most common reasons for divorce, Marriage.com . Who knows if this data is any good, but it's enough to start taking

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why does the article's title say this is "counter-intuitive"? If anything, it seems completely intuitive to me; promiscuous people, regardless of sex, are most likely to cheat and not want to stay married.

<comment><USER22> I can only assume it's because of the "have fun first, settle down later" mindset many people tend to have with regards to sex and relationships. I agree, though, it's not a great title.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Great, can we get an article from the Family Research Council next?

[https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Family_S...](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Family_Studies)

This is a right-wing think tank that's promoting barely-disguised "traditional values." The quality of their "research" is garbage.

<comment><USER14> I had the same initial reaction when I saw this. But the article appears to be pretty reasonable actually. I didn't catch strong hints of an agenda.

<comment><USER24> The best sort of agenda-driven study is one that doesn't openly look that way, though. Lots of ways to subtly mislead with cherry-picked stats or the "men don't report reliably anyways, so we can't consider that" hand-waving this article does.

<comment><USER25> > Lots of ways to subtly mislead with cherry-picked stats or the "men don't > report reliably anyways, so we can't consider that" hand-waving this article > does.

Yikes, let's not be misleading in turn. That's not why they don't have those stats. Here's the actual reason and context you conveniently left out:

" _unfortunately, the NSFG doesn't have full data on men's premarital sexual behavior_ , and in any event they recall their own marital histories less reliably than do women)"

Demonstrate why they are incorrect or misleading as opposed to setting up a strawman.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Is this a joke?

Hey men, thinking of putting a ring on it? Better find out how many guys she's fucked before you showed up.

Never mind how many women you've slept with. That's not part of our study, Because Sluts. Amirite?!

<comment><USER21> Yes, that's exactly how it works. This is nothing particularly new.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Great research, next up, a more granular look: what specific types of sex increase stability the most? Oral? Anal? Role play?

"Honey we need to purchase this anal training kit with matching strap on. _For the marriage_. I read it on Hacker News!"

<comment><USER2> The best type of sex to have a stable marriage is the loving, selfless type where you are actively trying to promote the well-being and happiness of your partner. That sort comes from a relationship where you are actively trying to promote the happiness and interests of your partner in all parts of your relationship, which is the most stable anyways.</comment></comment>


Show HN: I am trying to re-define communication - <AUTHOR> http://mhop.to/u1Afp4 I am trying to build a way to let people communicate not only with text- but also emotion and animation. Its a great challenge, part of which is developing a language syntax in a message format that anyone can use easily and still work with existing technology. <comment><USER2> Nice demo, though I'm not completely sure how you are 're-defin[e]'ing communication.

Is there a pun I'm missing? Why the hyphen?

before clicking the link, I thought 'well, at least you've targeted a huge market.

But upon seeing the animated message, I couldn't figure out why that 're- defines' communication.

You've definitely done a great job of making it easy to create a cool visual message and edit that message, but do I want colourful animated messages? I'm just not sure.

<comment><AUTHOR> re defining it by allowing people to communicate with animation as well as text. I guess it would be more accurate to say I am trying to open another channel of communication or providing a new method of communication. Ideally I am allowing anyone to create a message with animation and use that to send communication.</comment></comment>


On Two Decades of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri - <AUTHOR> https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-08-18-on-two-decades-of-sid-meiers-alpha-centauri <comment><USER2> It's interesting to examine Alpha Centauri's political perspectives in light of the fact that it was released in 1999. The triumph of "the old world's liberal order" seemed so permanent that public intellectuals were writing paeans to "the end of history," yet here was a game premised on the ultimate breakdown and fragmentation of that order.

</comment><comment><USER3> Coincidentally, I last played this game about a week ago. The article does a better job of describing it than I could, but I will say that it's a deep game worth playing many times over. You'll keep learning quirks and tricks and optimizations for years.

</comment><comment><USER4> This doesn't even get into the expansion, which I find odd. Sure there's aliens, but what about the Free Drones, or the Data Angels? It feels like there's a clear analogy to some of the discussion going on today (re: Google) where the morality of the DA might matter. Or, if you want to go environmentalist about it, the Pirates. The article talks about altering the sea levels, and there's a faction who actually prefers the ocean to land.

It is pretty telling to me what the devs thought that the Spartans canonically lose in their vendetta against the Gaians after the mind worms are controlled. And the Fundies can't catch up before that 10 year research prohibition bites them hard.</comment>


How long before Apple, Google and Facebook are disrupted  - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/28/stranded-vessels/

<comment><USER2> Apple produces products we all buy for the brand it represents. Google owns the market on information and have started to enter the hardware industry. Facebook owns the market on stalking cute friends. We are all willing to pay for a physical product that ties in all our favorite free apps. I'm not worried about Apple's future. Google is in a good place. We have no idea what products they have hidden. Facebook: you'll need to monetize cyber stalking or find something more helpful for the world</comment>


Steve Jobs single-handedly restructured the mobile industry - <AUTHOR> http://cdixon.org/2010/06/06/steve-jobs-single-handedly-restructured-the-mobile-industry/

<comment><USER2> Apple did a lot to start to bring the US up to speed with the rest of the world in terms of mobile technology, yes, and it certainly deserves praise for the success that the iPhone has been, but what Apple provided was a usable platform. "Smartphones" before then had been slow, ugly, generally not that sexy, and it's hard to excite people about your mobile software when they aren't even excited about their hardware. The iPhone did do a lot to help bring mobile software to the average consumer, but the notion that it did it in a vacuum is silly. There were lots of technologies that paved the way for the iPhone to be a success before it. Apple did not singlehandedly invent the concept of the smartphone, nor was it the first to introduce usable mobile computing platforms to consumers. RIM was doing that long before Apple ever had a thought of entering the mobile game.

The author simultaneously praises Apple for the single-handed creation/salvation of an entire industry, and then turns around and says "Android's only great because it's stood on the shoulders of giants". Boy, that's a convenient bit of selective application of history.

> Yes, Apple has rejected some apps for seemingly arbtrary or selfish reasons > and imposed aggressive controls on developers. But the iPhone also paved the > way for Android and a new wave of handset development. The people griping > about Apple's "closed system" are generally people who are new to the > industry and didn't realize how bad it was before.

Now this is just silly. The people that gripe about Apple's "closed system" are people who know how bad it was, and are frustrated that Apple is repeating many of the "closed system" problems that made mobile software so terrible in the first place. The iPhone is a marvelous device, but it's completely disingenuous to praise the iPhone for bringing accessibility to a "closed market" and then in the same breath to hand-wave its own closed nature away. It's better than the previous iterations; that doesn't make its iteration "best". The people who are frustrated with the closed nature of the platform are people who have tasted how good an accessible platform can be, and who are frustrated at the roadblocks that Apple has placed in their way.

I love the iPhone - it's a marvelous piece of hardware, and I absolutely acknowledge that it thoroughly changed the landscape of mobile consumer computing in the US, but I own an Android phone because Apple's policies make me hesitate to buy into a platform that is locked down and guarded by one man's whims, or to financially support a company that is so xenophobic and who actively and aggressively stifles competition. I own an Android phone not because I forget how bad older-school mobile software was (to write, distribute, obtain, run, the whole pipeline), but because I remember clearly how bad the old system was, and to have a phone in my hand that I can do just nearly anything I want with is a very welcome relief and advancement from the mobile platforms of yore.

<comment><USER3>
      Apple did not singlehandedly invent the concept of the smartphone

Neither did the Wright brothers invent the concept of a plane, but they will be forever remembered as its inventors because they build the first plane that flew. So will be Apple, for building the first smartphone that _really_ took off in the market. The concept was not new, and there were dozens of attempts before, but none that _flew_.

<comment><USER4> The iPhone was not the first smartphone that _really_ took off, Blackberry was. They were dominating before Apple arrived.

I would guess that most of the confusion around this point is that Apple's rate of adoption was high given that it came so late into the game, satisfying a part of the market that wasn't before. Apple also has the most marketing, and adoption in the _consumer_ market specifically.

There are tons of businesses that deploy blackberries to a substantial portion of their staff, this is not true with iPhone and is unlikely to change.

One can probably find the numbers if they look, I've only got anecdotal experience for now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > In the US, before the iPhone, the carriers (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile) > had an ironclad grip on the rest of the value chain – particularly, handset > makers and app makers.

This is like one of those myths where if you say it enough time, people start to believe it. There were tons of smartphones available before the iPhone that let you install any software that you wanted. My first smartphone was the Sony Ericsson P800 and it was released in 2002! I had to change carriers to use to, too.

The original iPhone was a great device with a wonderful interface, but it wasn't the invention of the smartphone. It did, however, sell the mainstream consumer market on smartphones. (The business market was long sold on the Blackberry).

The author isn't completely wrong -- the explosive growth of smartphones (and not just iPhones) has completely changed the equation. Before, everyone _was_ trying to get on the carriers dumb phones but even if they succeeded it would mostly be a waste of time -- the phones were just too dumb and nobody cared about the crappy experience they provided.

There is way too much credit to Apple and Steve Jobs here.

<comment><USER6> You might be able to install any software you want, but the on-phone app stores and what they carry have been controlled by the carriers. That's the primary distribution channel, and the one largely responsible for providing app makers with the financial incentive to make apps.

<comment><USER5> Before the iPhone, smartphones didn't have on-phone app stores. You downloaded/purchased your applications off the web just like you do on your desktop. There was a good market for software for smartphones with lots of developers and distributors. The article would have us believe that none of that existed before Steve Jobs but that's just not true.

Dumb phones had carrier stores (and their firmware heavily customized). However, nobody I know has ever bought app for their regular 'dumb' mobile phone. Even the apps that were for free (like music players) were so horrible that they usually went unused.

<comment><USER6> Really? Granted, I never paid much attention to smart phones before the iPhone, but I find it hard to believe that none of them had on-phone app stores.

At any rate, games on dumb phones were definitely making money (I remember reading plenty of articles about how mobile phone gaming was getting huge pre- iPhone), and if you wanted to sell your dumb phone game, you had to go through the carriers.

<comment><USER5> > but I find it hard to believe that none of them had on-phone app stores.

They didn't. Carriers didn't really do too much to smartphones -- there was some customization (theme, background picture, etc) but that was it. Software is (and was) sold just as it is on the desktop.

> if you wanted to sell your dumb phone game, you had to go through the > carriers.

There were tons of high quality games available for smartphones (including from big firms like EA) years before the iPhone was released. There was no on- phone store and you didn't have to go through the carrier.

The iPhone popularized the smartphone, changing the equation from the dumb phone to the smartphone. But if Apple didn't do it, someone else would have -- Android was in development (and already purchased by Google) years before the iPhone was released, for example.

<comment><USER7> You are incorrect. Carrier-provided app stores existed.

Here's a forum post from 2005 asking about the Sprint Store native app on the Treo 650, released a year earlier. As an owner of the phone, I had seen it and used it myself.

<http://www.sprintusers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63071>

<comment><USER5> That's right, I do remember the Sprint store -- but then I wasn't on sprint and it was still completely optional. I'm not sure it was ever much of a success.

<comment><USER7> Thanks for your response. Yes, but starting two posts by writing that there were absolutely no on-phone app stores, was misleading.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I doubt I'm smart enough to work for Apple, but I doubt I'd ever want to. Why?

Everything the company does is something done "single-handedly" by Steve Jobs. Steve may be the driving force of the company and have great insight into what people want/need/etc. But he has a great team to actually implement what he wants, and Apple as a company are the ones who restructured an industry.

<comment><USER6> This isn't Steve Jobs' doing. I don't know how far back it goes, but whenever Jobs does these presentations, he lets the people in charge of various projects present them. So Scott Forstall presents new platform features. The guy who redesigned iMovie presented that. Same for the iWork suite on the iPad. Jonathan Ives also gets plenty of credit for being Apple's resident industrial design genius. They're even more prominent in the videos Apple puts out, and Jobs isn't even in those.

Now all the people who work under these guys aren't getting the spotlight, but this is the norm pretty much everywhere.

I know that Jef Raskin is frequently cited as the real father of the Macintosh, and Jobs probably failed to give him his due. That was a much younger Steve Jobs, though.

<comment><USER8> Well to be fair, I never blamed it on Steve himself. And while it's normal for the lower level guys to not get recognition, usually it's while the company is being recognized ("Microsoft releases...", "Nokia develops new..."), whereas with Apple it's usually attributed to Jobs himself.

<comment><USER6> I think that's because whenever Apple releases a major new product, it's Jobs who personally announces it in a high-profile presentation. And because Jobs is well known as the CEO of Apple, the press prefers to simply state that Jobs announced or introduced the product. Partly because it's more factually accurate, and partly because Jobs is less abstract an entity than Apple while just as familiar, which is always preferred in writing for large audiences.

Other companies, in contrast, don't have well known CEOs and/or their CEOs don't bother to personally do the announcing. It seems like most tech products get announced with a press release. Maybe there's a press kit if they want to get fancy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wasn't this already happening with the Blackberry? If you needed a Blackberry for business, then you picked the carrier who let you use one.

<comment><USER10> Are there carriers in the US that didn't offer blackberries? All the carriers in Canada did, and have for years before the iPhone announcement.

</comment></comment><comment> clark-kent Before the iPhone, smartphones i used were not locked down. They were open like the desktop. You could download and install anything you want on them. But very often some app will drain your battery or crash your phone. Apple had to lock down their phone to improve user experience. Pre-iPhone you install apps at your own risk. That was my experience with Windows Mobile.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm sorry, the iPhone is a neat phone, but it is far from revolutionary.

Hello...palm pilots? I had a palm m100, then m105, then m500, then zire 71 in the early 2000s and there were thousands and thousands of apps for them. Installing them meant connecting it to my PC and transfering them (love that twee del DEE......TWEE del do sound it would make).

Putting a cell phone into a PDA was an obvious move. Apple didn't invent it, they were just the first to gain mainstream popularity.

</comment><comment><USER12> Generalizations suck, I don't think the main reason for the iPhone success was because they had a "closed system".

"The people griping about Apple's "closed system" are generally people who are new to the industry and didn't realize how bad it was before."

<comment><USER13> Not only can you not read, but completely missed the point.

Apples system is closed compared to Android, but it is open compared to what came before, for most phones. The carriers would lock down handsets so they couldn't use bluetooth, couldn't download ringtones except from the carrier, couldn't plug into your computer. They would not start selling a phone unless it conformed to what they wanted it to do.

<comment><USER14> I'll be voted down for this on HN, but unforunately Android is reversing a lot of this progress. Buy the average Android handset and it has all sorts of stupid carrier modifications that no end-user would ever have requested. It's like the crap-ware that PCs have installed with them straight from the factory, except that you have to do a lot more work to get rid of it.

The iPhone is free of this because Apple's success let them give AT&T the finger when it came to carrier modifications. As the iPhone loses ground to Android in the market, expect the pressure on Apple to mount. Would Apple ever have an AT&T splash screen on the iPhone? They sure wouldn't want to, but if that's the only way to keep the iPhone on the market, it'll happen. Who knows how much further it'll go...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _Steve Jobs single-handedly restructured the mobile industry_ as thousands of Apple employees watched in awe wondering what have they been doing all this time.

<comment><USER16> Right, Steve Jobs may have come up with an idea, but to make it work thousands of other employees had to design circuit boards, write code, and do the hard part.

Even as a fan of Mac products I think Steve Jobs gets too much credit. The idea is the easy part, making it work is the part that should be respected. Even with respect to the ideas themselves I wonder how much of the iPhone, the app store, and other innovations were envisioned by Steve Jobs personally, and how much of it was thought up by other smart engineers and technicians working for Apple?

For example the iconic Apple power adapter is credited to Steve Jobs, yet there are 12 names on the patent. ([http://www.google.com/patents?id=C-IOAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a...](http://www.google.com/patents?id=C-IOAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)) So I have to wonder which engineers came up with which aspects.

<comment><USER17> > do the hard part

Relatively speaking: any moron can design a circuit board. What I mean is that, given a set of inputs and desired outputs, there are probably tens of thousands of engineers around the world who could design the iPod's circuit board. Given a set of design principles and a vision, there are probably hundreds or even thousands of designers around the world who could have come up with something similar to the iPhone. But how many people can

\- see that vision and

\- gather together the right minds and organize them in such a way that they implement it?

Most events have compound causes, but Steve Jobs was probably the biggest member of the cause for the iPhone event.

<comment><USER18> Nobody said he didn't deserve a lot of credit. It's the 'single-handedly' they are objecting to.

<comment><USER17> In that case, I'd say it qualifies as arguing over semantics since "CEO does X" is an oft-used stand-in for "CEO leads company to do X."

<comment><USER19> Semantics perhaps, but the phrasing was particularly off-putting in this article. I know it was the first thing I noticed. I don't think I'd want to work for Chris Dixon.

<comment><USER17> I am impressed by your making that determination from a single article. That kind of decisiveness can be useful. Or maybe you have other data.

<comment><USER19> His posts appear regularly here, and I was being polite.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Android crushes iPhone, makes Google $5 billion - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505124_162-57346049/android-crushes-iphone-makes-google-$5-billion/

<comment><USER2> Even if you're an Android fan you have to admit this is a pretty uneducated analysis.

First, he's guessing on the revenue (while conveniently not mentioning how much Apple makes per phone in revenue)

Second, saying "Apple is getting beaten by a license-the-software-to-everyone strategy" is a little ignorant. History is never finished and claiming Microsoft beat Apple in the PC wars ignores the last decade of evidence that things are swinging the other way. You could just as easily make the argument that licensing works at drawing in users but users get so frustrated with incompatibilities that they eventually go to a more integrated solution. Which brings me to...

Finally, surveys have shown the true question of whether Android will crush iOS is in the buyers next phone choice. Do they stay with Android or is their satisfaction level so low that they're driven into Apple's hands? That question won't be answered for years.

I don't mean to discount Android's accomplishments which are significant. But this article about those accomplishments is just silly

</comment><comment><USER3> It's basing that number off of guessing how much ad revenue the phone generates for them? That seems strange. That's not money they're making from Android, it's money they're making from ads. The same money they get when someone sees an ad from iOS, Windows Phone, Blackberry, hell even Symbian.

It's an impressive number for sure and I think it's pretty great what Android is doing. Apple needs a nemesis I suppose.

</comment><comment><USER4> This article is preposterous. It claims the $5B Android annual revenue from $20 (GOOG ARPU from another article of $27.30) * 255 million activations. However the $27.30 number is simply Google revenues / google unique users per year. Thus that number is completely unrelated to Android revenues. My guess is that 95%+ of Android users are _already_ Google customers and the marginal revenue they see from Android search ads is a small fraction of that.

</comment><comment><USER5> The numbers look good but I wish Google did something to make the life of Android Developers a little better....As it looks right now,the experience of developing for Android is similar to the experience of making enterprise software.

</comment><comment><USER6> Android has higher market share, but iPhones are much more profitable. As of Q2 2011 iPhones took 66% of the profits in the smartphone market[1].

So it's not really fair to say that Android is "crushing" the iPhone-that's like saying Honda is crushing Lexus.

[1]: [http://www.bgr.com/2011/07/29/apples-iphone-accounted- for-66...](http://www.bgr.com/2011/07/29/apples-iphone-accounted- for-66-of-q2-smartphone-profit-among-top-vendors/)

<comment><USER7> See, the problem with arguing stats is that the person you are arguing with can claim any particular number is the most important, or is irrelevant. For instance,you get posts like this saying market share isn't important, it's all about profits. But then if talk turns to the iPad, where Apple still has a market share lead, suddenly tablet market share stats are being trotted out.

When Android becomes more profitable than the iPhone, then the new hot metric will be profit per phone, or customer satisfaction, or something else that is favorable to Apple.

<comment><USER8> this

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wonder how much Microsoft is making from their licensing schemes with the handest manufacturers? I've heard $500 million, maybe that is too low?

</comment><comment><USER10> To put that $5 billion annually into context, Apple will probably make about ~$15 billion on the iPhone this quarter.

<comment><USER11> Completely obliterating Apple! Squashing them I say! Hear, hear!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think the only real metric that matters is: Which platform generates the most revenue for developers?

<comment><USER13> How does that metric matter? There are bazillions of apps for Android and iOS.</comment></comment>


Some guy forked a framework to post it as own, don't be that guy. - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/flyphp/flyframework/pull/1

<comment><USER2> I wonder if anyone in the pull request thread read the README (which was committed a month or so ago, well prior to the pull request)

 _Hi, I 'm starting this fork of the Laravel framework to fit my needs._

While it was wrong to modify the license file, and we should always observe license fully, this isn't the blatant unattributed theft it's presented as.

<comment><USER3> I was wondering that too! He has blatantly shown that he has forked Laravel in the README. I kinda feel sorry for the guy, he just doesn't realise you aren't allowed to relicense in the way he did.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> i can't condone the behavior of flyphp but i can't really condone the behavior in the comments of the pull request either.

maybe i am too forgiving but i'd attribute this to ignorance before malice.

the pull request was an appropriate response. the berating comments that followed are immature and detract from my sympathy toward the issue.

<comment><USER5> That actually brings an interesting question to mind. As someone who hasn't forked anyone's repository, I am not familiar with the licensing expectations of doing so. Obviously the code you've forked belonged to someone else, but at what point can you say "this is now my creation," or at least, "I own modifications to my fork of this guy's work?"

How do you fork and re-license appropriately?

<comment><USER4> someone knows, but not me and probably not anyone commenting on the pull request. xD

what if you rewrite the library line for line in another language? do you own it then? what if you rewrite it line for line in the same language?

licensing is not my forte but i'm assuming these are answered questions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Would be best to wait for a commend by the author before you start having a spaz attack. Maybe the author just isn't an expert on licensing.

</comment><comment><USER7> And not a single response from him on that thread.

</comment><comment><USER8> Who cares. You know what this world needs? More overzealous, knee-jerk internet justice.</comment>


All by Itself, the Humble Sweet Potato Colonized the World: Study - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/science/sweet-potato-pacific-dna.html <comment><USER2> Some New Zealand ancient DNA experts have concerns about the analysis:

"So, the data that the whole argument is based upon is DNA from one sample that was produced without using standard ancient DNA protocols and analysed without using standard ancient DNA authentication methods. The data presented, to an ancient DNA researcher, ring alarm bells and appear very much like damaged and/or contaminated DNA."

[https://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2018/04/13/when-did- swe...](https://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2018/04/13/when-did-sweet- potatoes-arrive-in-the-pacific-expert-reaction/)

</comment><comment><USER3> This sounds like a credible alternative to me:

> _Dr. Kistler argued that it was still possible that Pacific Islanders > voyaged to South America and returned with the sweet potato._

> _A thousand years ago, they might have encountered many sweet potato > varieties on the continent. When Europeans arrived in the 1500s, they likely > wiped out much of the crop's genetic diversity._

> _As a result, Dr. Kistler said, the surviving sweet potatoes of the Pacific > only seem distantly related to the ones in the Americas. If the scientists > had done the same study in 1500, Pacific sweet potatoes would have fit right > in with other South American varieties._

I remember an issue of National Geographic that had a photo montage of about 40 different kinds of potatoes that are still being cultivated in the Andes today. They didn't have any sweet potatoes(1) but I can imagine that in 1500 there were as many different sweet potato variants being cultivated in various places in the new world.

(1) Sweet potatoes are not a variety of potato, so this isn't surprising.

</comment><comment><USER4> The linguistic similarity they mention at the end is actually even closer: in Maori (and New Zealand English), the word is "kumara".

However, there seems to be some doubt as to whether the word was historically in Quechua, or whether it was introduced later, based on a Polynesian word (e.g. [https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525...](https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/aa.1972.74.3.02a00070)).

<comment> ar-jan Most likely it was originally Quechua, see Adelaar 1998. "The Name of the Sweet Potato: A Case of Pre-Conquest Contact between South America and the Pacific." [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110806946.403](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110806946.403)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> kuumala/kumara: in Tonga where kumala is the word used, the locals don't know how old the word is. Same goes for their use of "delfin" for dolphin, a creature they have surely known since long before European presence. So I bet the kumala name is a recent loan word. They may have had another word in the past now forgotten.

</comment><comment><USER6> There's also [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16825800](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16825800), but this looks like the more substantive article.

</comment><comment><USER7> A lot more theories:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans- oceanic_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans- oceanic_contact_theories)

</comment><comment><USER8> [http://archive.is/mhGAd](http://archive.is/mhGAd)

</comment><comment><USER9> don't they float?

<comment><USER10> Are you suggesting sweet potatoes migrate?

<comment><USER11> Not at all! They could be carried.

<comment><USER12> What? A swallow carrying a sweet potato?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Response of US Govt to Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, and LinkedIn [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/motion-declaratory-judgement-131002.pdf

<comment><USER2> I'm not quite as rabid as a lot of HN commenters are about this entire issue, but the following passage is near-comical:

 _Balancing the competing interests at stake, the Government has taken a number of significant steps -- above and beyond what the law requires -- in order to promote transparency and accommodate the the legitimate interests of companies. For example, for the first time, in the winter of 2013, the Government agreed that companies may report the aggregate number of NSLs they receive, in numerical ranges and on a periodic basis._

When you're trumpeting the fact that you oh-so-graciously allowed companies to report the _number_ of gag orders they received as some sort of great leap forward in transparency, it's a bad sign.

<comment><USER3> Reminds me of the Obama speech regarding Syria:

 _I don 't need Congress' or anyone's permission to strike Syria right now. But since I'm such a nice guy, I'll just go ahead and let Congress have a vote before I do it anyway, just for kicks._

<comment><USER4> He actually saud that? Wow. Do you have a limk to video? This would certainly reveal a mindset.

<comment><USER5> I think he was paraphrasing.

<comment><USER6> I think he was paraphrasing and sensationalizing.

<comment><USER7> Especially considering, in hindsight, the entire episode seems to have been a masterful Bad Cop impression by Obama. I thought he looked like an idiot during it, but somehow we got more than we could have expected from a coercive cruise-missiling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It is troubling to see that all the arguments presented by the US government in this motion are based on the preservation of government power and the ability of its agencies to conduct surveillance, rather than the constitution and laws passed by congress.

Any and all concessions granted to plaintiffs in this motion are exercises of the discretionary power of the federal agencies, rather than acceptance of the limits which the agencies are legally obliged to comply with.

<comment><USER9> Actually, the core of the counter argument is that the executive can declare anything classified.

The argument for publishing from the companies is that this information is not classified, but it's not their decision, it's (basically) the President's.

[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS21900.pdf](http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS21900.pdf)

>The Supreme Court has never directly addressed the extent to which Congress may constrain the executive branch's power in this area. Citing the President's constitutional role as Commander-inChief,4 the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated in dicta that "[the President's] authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this Constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."5

The President decide's what's classified, the Supreme Court agrees that the President has the constitutional authority to declare things classified. End of story (at least for this case).

I think in general, it's important to note that the Courts have always ruled in degrees. Nothing is absolute (which is why people can get thrown into jail for hate speech), and the courts are the ones that decide up to where the line gets to be drawn, balancing between rule of law and freedom. The discussions about surveillance (and nat. sec. associated) are relevant.

<comment><USER8> I agree that the argument being made by the United States is based on the ability of the executive to classify things. What I wrote was that the bulk of the argument is dedicated to the preservation and extension of government power, rather than compliance with the constitution and laws. Where the constitution is mentioned in this document, the government is describing how and why its explicit protections of fundamental rights should be circumvented, in favor of the broad investment of power in the executive.

It should be noted that the government described no limiting principles which would constrict its ability to censor or otherwise coerce any person.

<comment><USER10> What purpose would it serve the government to describe its limits?

<comment><USER8> The government could acknowledge limits, which would be made permanent by a court ruling; these would serve to protect the rights of the citizenry.

Many legal doctrines require that limiting principles be attached to each power granted to the government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This makes me miss Groklaw.

</comment><comment><USER12> I love the fact that significant portions of the document itself are redacted, including the headings of the pages.

</comment><comment><USER13> _In their original motions, Google and Microsoft sought to publish on aggregate number for all the FISA process they receive. After failing to reach settlement with the Government, however, they amended their motions to see krelief that owuld present an even greater risk to nation security: the right to disclose the precise number of FISA processes they may receive under each separate provision of FISA_ page 3.

It's mirth on display in this stanzas, pure and simple, and it's immensely ugly and shameful: the Court is happy to defer from defending it's activities by instead highlighting progressiveness in the demands for accountability. Every inch more asked for is responded to by doubling the re-entrenchment of secrecy.

</comment><comment><USER14> TL;DR: Don't open your company in America. You can target Americas markets from any other part of the world.

</comment><comment><USER15> My favorite part right from the intro (and touched on elsewhere):

 _Releasing information that could induce adversaries to shift communications platforms in order to avoid surveillance would cause serious harm to national security..._

So now I wonder a few of things:

1\. The NSA will protect the companies who entered in a strong agreement with them by using the "they can't lose customers, we need to watch their customers" argument? If so, that means that companies may be encouraged to enter a strong agreement knowing it will remain secret and they don't have to spend time/resources validating requests. The only thing preventing the want to enter a strong agreement with the NSA now is morality.

2\. If some companies are given the transparency and others aren't, isn't the omission alone enough to assume it has entered in a strong agreement?

3\. Did these companies make the petition knowing there request for transparency would not be granted on the levels they want so they can save face to their customers saying "well, we tried"?

Edit: Formatting

</comment><comment><USER16> The argument that they will know which services not to use is nonsense. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain to not use things like Skype if you're doing something that might attract the attention of the NSA, DHS, etc... even terrorists would know to use open source things like mumble that support encryption.

</comment><comment><USER17> I read the motions and now this response and somehow it resembles a show for the public. Big tech picked a minor surveillance issue of FISA orders statistics and conveyed their care for user privacy. Government respectfully denied and conveyed its resolve in fighting terrorism.

But none of those PRISM companies took part in public protests and none of them supported Mozilla's initiative to reveal the NSA unlawful surveillance practices [1].

[1] [https://stopwatching.us](https://stopwatching.us)

</comment><comment><USER18> TL:DR - A very polite "No!."

<comment><USER19> More like a very polite "Fuck, no!".

<comment><USER20> Fuck no, fuck you and fuck off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> So many things in this response come across as terribly condescending and dismissive.

      The companies assert that the secrecy requirements
      apply only to particular surveillance targets.
      But that implausible reading ignores the forest
      for the trees.

</comment><comment><USER9> I wonder if the companies get to see the redacted part. If not, it's odd for them to be present

</comment><comment><USER22> Seriously what could be in the headers and footers that need redacting?! it's like 4 words.

</comment><comment><USER23> Response to what?

<comment><USER20> Requests for permission to be more transparent with users regarding the level of surveillance they are obligated to provide to the US Government.

<comment><USER23> cheers</comment></comment></comment>


Is There A Giant Life Form Lurking In Our Solar System? Possibly, Say Scientists - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/08/14/211945779/is-there-a-giant-life-form-lurking-in-our-solar-system-possibly-say-scientists

<comment><USER2> I'm still having a hard time contemplating the fact that WE exist.

Sitting in front of our flat monitors with access to nearly all information which is stored all around planet Earth.

Phones that connect us to billions of people.

Brains large enough to hypothesize the creation of the universe.

We can create rockets that send probes to other planets and even the edge of our solar system.

We regularly travel around in amazing personal vehicles that allow us to travel at over 100 mph in about 10 seconds.

The fact that each one of us had about one quadrillionth percent chance of even being born, yet here we are.

The fact that we can even talk and communicate effectively is amazing.

We can imagine future technologies and have goals to work towards such as immortality, brain-computer interfaces, teleportation, and mining asteroids.

We have so much to be thankful for. Everything is amazing.

WTF. [0]

I have a dog that can't do anything but eat, pee, poop, and play fetch. What kind of activities do other organisms do that humans can't do? Other than telepathy, and flight, and breathing without oxygen, and energy creation through sunlight.

Yet we still make fellow humans and animals suffer daily. We eat shit food and get depressed and some people even try to kill themselves. We have concepts like good and evil and actually hate other humans just because they are not exactly like our culture or have more stuff than we do. We have enough nuclear missiles in the ocean to eradicate life on earth.

Terraforming mars will be fun. I hope that I live to see the start of that adventure. The next 100 years in general will be very fun. I'm extremely glad that I get to be a part of this awesome world at this extraordinary time in human history. Please, nobody fuck it up too bad.

My point is, regarding the article, ANYTHING is possible. God is possible, ghosts are possible, flying spaghetti monsters are possible but until I see a video with convincing explanation or accredited scientists agree that something is very likely, is there really any point of just making up stuff?

Mars having a thriving self-sustaining human-like civilization underground is possible. Aliens living among us for several years is possible. No scientist will say that either of those hypothesis are absolutely impossible, but there is no point in proposing it unless you're writing a science fiction novel/movie/comic book.

<comment><USER3> > WTF. [0]

Did you forget a footnote? :)

<comment><USER4> Not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but this is probably a reference to reddit's r/trees subreddit's way of noting how high the user is. It's a 0-10 scale, 0 being entirely sober. In this context he would be saying that it's mindblowing, despite not being high.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The entire article is based on this sentence

"Thus, life on Titan could involve huge (by Earth standards) and very slowly metabolizing cells, in which case biomass densities would be higher than calculated above."

which the author interprets as

"a life form in our solar system that's not a puny, dumb little thing, but a huge dumb thing. Like dog-sized. Or maybe Volkswagen-sized."

I'm sorry.. but a "huge by (earth standards) cell" doesn't mean dog sized. It means a few times an earth sized cell. Otherwise, why compare it to a cell at all?

<comment><USER6> Yeah with "giant" and "lurking" I was hoping for hints of a planet-sized creature existing in dark matter or some interdimensional plane or extreme wavelength or something. Title is a bit link-baity.

<comment><AUTHOR> it hadn't even crossed my mind that it would be something that big... but now that you say that, I wish that it had been some gigantic solar-system sized being... now I am totally let down- damn you Robert Krulwhich... damn you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I feel like I've been trapped in the corner at a cocktail party by someone who insists on showing me bad drawings on a cocktail napkin. This guy's writing style is so annoying that I couldn't even make it to the end of the article. Attempting to parse this has left me feeling slightly dumber than 5 minutes ago.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well depending on your background, & education it may have felt dumbed down but I have a lot of respect for Robert Krulwhich his RadioLab co-host won a McArthur "genius" award, and they have done (in my opinion) an excellent job of bringing science alive for people that either don't have the aptitude or didn't cross paths with the type of people that can inspire you to learn more about the universe.

<comment><AUTHOR> This commencement speech that he gave had a major impact on me [http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab- blog/2008/jul/29/tell...](http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab- blog/2008/jul/29/tell-me-a-story/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> To be cynical, a lot of things are possible. It's possible that anaerobic bacteria still live in small pockets beneath the surface of Mars. It's possible, if unlikely, that extremophiles survive on the sweltering surface of Venus, or floating in its sulphurous clouds.

Of course, the fact that these things are possible is still incredibly cool. While this article lacks much technical substance, this is the kind of thinking that gave us Cosmos and Pale Blue Dot. I hope enough people retain this author's sense of scientific curiosity and excitement for discovery. While cold logic, expected-value calculations, and cynicism are important in a research setting, outside of the lab it's important for people to be able to get excited about little (or big!) things like this.

We _can_ have scientific progress and childish glee coexist. Thank you for posting this.

<comment><USER9> Floating in the clouds of Venus, sure. There's some semi-Earthlike zones in the cloud layer. On the surface, very probably not. It is unlikely that there is any structure that could pump entropy out of the cell faster than the horrific surface environment of Venus would be pumping it in. (More conventionally known as heat, but I find this formulation helps focus on the fact that "too hot" really is an intrinsic problem for life, not merely an incidental one that might be overcome by more chemistry.) I'm not even 100% convinced that a technological solution is possible that could work over geologic time frames, let alone adding the restrictions of abiogenesis on to the structure. (Though on the topic of abiogenesis, it's difficult to see how to apply any of the current thoughts on that to an atmospheric environment; Venusian extremophiles would also probably be immigrants from Earth.)

<comment><USER10> It has always intrigued me that we consider the possibility of other life forms in a manner that is largely relative to our understanding of life on earth and, hence, biology. But, even our understanding of DNA need not be applicable to other life forms.

I don't see why there has to be any real limitation on conditions or otherwise. As the article mentions, we have been surprised to find extremophiles near thermal vents right here on Earth (which reach temperatures roughly equivalent to the Venusian surface). There we find, for instance, bacteria that rely upon hydrogen sulfide vs sunlight for energy. This is what we consider a "harsh" environment of chemicals, heat, pressure, etc. However, when we attempt to remove organisms from that environment to study them, they usually die pretty quickly. In other words, ours is the harsh environment as far as they are concerned.

Elsewhere, we have found organisms whose DNA was thought to be composed of arsenic vs phosphorous. While this was ultimately refuted, for a period we once again thought we'd discovered something that, in an instant, completely changed our understanding of life.

So, I guess my point is that we assume life must conform to certain requirements and/or conditions until we find life forms that violate our assumptions. Given a Universe as vast and diverse as our own, I sincerely believe that anything is possible and perhaps even likely.

<comment><USER9> Information theory is a fundamental constraint on any halfway sensible theory of life. If you can't pump out entropy faster than it comes in, you will, by definition, be randomized, which pretty much by definition is not alive.

I know people think they're being sophisticated when they insist no limits can be placed on the form of life, but it's not true; it's naive. There are in fact certain very powerful and generic limits that can be placed on life with some powerful mathematics, such as the one I mentioned. It's fun to imagine a life form in science fiction that lives on the surface of the sun, but in reality they are not possible; there's no way they could retain any interesting structure in such a high entropy environment. To argue otherwise is basically to be arguing against thermodynamics. This basically puts this position firmly on the "crank" side, not the scientifically knowledgeable one.

Also, the idea that there are no limits on what life can look like is _observationally false_. The vast majority of places we look, we do not see life. Even if we manage to find a few simple life forms in a few of the slightly less hostile places in the solar system, it still won't change that fact; life is observationally not abundant everywhere, regardless of conditions. There definitely is a difference between conditions conducive to life and those not. Even what we call "extremophiles" are only surprising in purely local terms; in absolute terms in the Solar System, volcanic vents are still _incredibly_ hospitable places compared to what is out there. In its own way, trying to argue from extremophiles to the general case is its own perversively parochial argument; the idea that extremophiles are actually "extreme" is a very terra-centric viewpoint.

<comment><USER10> Wow.

> _" If you can't pump out entropy faster than it comes in, you will, by > definition, be randomized, which pretty much by definition is not alive_

You're essentially just saying "if you can't stay alive, then you're dead". It's a non-statement.

My point was that's a big _if_. There are environments in which we wouldn't have thought it possible, until it was proven otherwise.

 _" I know people think they're being sophisticated when they insist no limits can be placed on the form of life, but it's not true; it's naive"_

I don't think it particularly sophisticated to hold this view. I think it simply acknowledges the limitations of our knowledge (limitations which have been proven time and again). As a result, "naive" is actually the word I'd use to describe those who believe that their prior observations represent the full set of possibilities. The world was once flat and all of that.

So, ironically, I would say that your _entire argument_ is based on a profound naivete. It is limited to what we currently understand/have observed and it assumes that it is foolish to consider otherwise.

> _the idea that there are no limits on what life can look like is > observationally false. The vast majority of places we look, we do not see > life..._

What does that mean? I don't think that anyone's asserting that life must exist in every single place we look; rather simply that some form of life _could_ exist in virtually every single place we look, because we truly do _not_ know what the bounds are. And, at a minimum, it almost certainly exists in places that we don't expect. The more general point is that it's extraordinarily presumptive to conclude that we know definitively what life could be, based simply on our own observations to date.

> _the idea that extremophiles are actually "extreme" is a very terra-centric > viewpoint._

Well, exactly. That's my point. We've dubbed them "extremophiles" because of our own limited reference point at a particular place in time. Their existence is simply evidence of our limited observational knowledge in the past. Ironically, enough, that's a term that is still generally accepted because even in spite of them showing us that we were wrong about life at some point, we still can't quite wrap our minds around the fact that we were wrong.

Now, you are simply arguing from a slightly evolved set of observational knowledge that happens to accommodate the existence of those "extremophiles". But, you're simply saying "OK, we might have been wrong once. But, we can't be wrong again". It's really an odd argument to make. And you're adding that volcanic vents aren't such a bad place to live after all. Well, yeah. Because we now know that life exists there. You can follow that line of reasoning until we find life at the center of the Sun.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Rarely have I wished so much for a downvote button on top-level posts.

<comment><USER12> Let's at least turn this into a teachable moment by drawing attention to Nick Bostrom's "great filter" argument.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GnkAcdRgcI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GnkAcdRgcI)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Evolution.

It is why native alien life is unlikely to exist in our own solar system. You see, once life gets started, this process we call evolution takes place. Life takes on a myriad of complex forms. It covers the planet, gradually adapting to survive and thrive on nearly every patch of land. And behold, the planet is transformed.

There is only one planet in our solar system where this has happened. If life had started on some other rock in our solar system, it too would be visibly infested with lifeforms.

<comment><USER14> Not necessarily. Evolution does not mean improvement, just adaptation. Unless there's some sort of biological pressure, such as a predator or an environmental risk, change won't happen or will happen much more slowly.

The time scale is also important. In very cold environments, such as the ones described, everything happens at a much slower pace. Consider it this way: heat is a proxy for energy (technically it is energy, but it's not all the energy). Energy is required for change. Very cold environments mean less energy, which means less change over the same time period.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Why do articles like this always overlook the key scientific and historical issues?

If there's life on Europa, and if it is not based on DNA, that would mean Europan life evolved along a separate path from ours. That would lend support to the idea that life is common in the universe.

If Europa's hypothetical life was based on DNA, it would lend support to the "panspermia" idea, because it's hard to imagine how Earth's life could get to Europa, implying that Earth's life, and Europa's life, both arose somewhere else and traveled to separate destinations.

There are several other possibilities, none of which are discussed in the article.

</comment><comment><USER16> It's our biases that show in our implicit assumption that life must operate on the spatial and temporal scales of large animals on Earth. Cryogenic life might well be a lot slower than the typical animal on Earth. It's a lot colder on Titan. Energy is a lot more diffuse. Why wouldn't it be much larger and slower? (Or for that matter, smaller and slower?)

</comment><comment><USER17> ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE

I think I'll stick to Arthur C. Clarke's half tree, half animal lifeform in Europa which is better than a single-celled blob.

</comment><comment><USER18> I like the illustrations. Especially the woman pushing the alien in a shopping cart.

</comment><comment><USER19> Coincidence or clever irony that the second drawing of the woman inspecting the little life looks a lot like Felisa Wolfe-Simon (of arsenic based life fame)?

</comment><comment><USER20> "We have all been scientists at one point or another in our lives." \- Cecil Baldwin

</comment><comment><USER21> That would make me very happy.

</comment><comment><USER22> I expected this to be from The Onion with that headline.

</comment><comment><USER23> It doesn't mean we can't get sick from it, I think we need to be very careful with extra terrestrial life.

<comment><USER24> Not to mention the minus 180 degrees Celsius.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, that tends to be much more harmful than any infection.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Dirk Schultzs-Makuch and David Grinspoon said if one day methane eaters are found to exist on Titan,

.5

and if they swim around in very, very cold ethane lakes or oceans,

.5

and if those oceans don't have the pressure or weight of water,

.5

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>----

* .5 .5 .5

0.125, under stupidly generous assumptions.

Have you paid your complexity tax today?</comment>


Turning the Internet Off - <AUTHOR> http://scripting.com/stories/2011/08/02/turningTheInternetOff.html

<comment><USER2> I don't understand articles like this, they seem to be attacking some nonexistent strawman that says using Facebook and Twitter for dissent is _enough_ for a revolution. Those tools aren't revolutionary, but the people are, and the Internet acts as a catalyst. Using the tools as they do is more revolutionary than just watching CNN, because the Internet is a read/write medium.

And then the blog post ends with "So if you want to create change, in 2011 and beyond, at least some of your time is going to have to be spent off the grid.", which is obviously true, but not the same as saying we have to turn the Internet off if we want to take to the streets.

<comment><USER3> Very true.

Its quite unfortunate that Dave Winer's career has devolved into one where all he does anymore is blog like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "But also don't delude yourself into thinking that tweeting and facebooking are revolutionary acts. They're about as revolutionary as watching CNN. "

I totally disagree. Spreading knowledge is always better than simply receiving it. Actually doing something is better yet, but let's face it: Most of us can't do more than stand in traffic and get noticed. Getting other people to notice is the point, and spreading the message on the internet does that just as well.

I can't count the number of things in the past year that I've told my parents about (avid news watchers) and they had never heard a peep of it.

<comment><USER5> > I can't count the number of things in the past year that I've told my > parents about (avid news watchers) and they had never heard a peep of it.

And what were the results?

<comment><USER6> A friend from HN (whom I'll leave anonymous, simply because I don't know if he wants his part in this to be known or not) was sharing information about what was going on in Libya with another friend, and mentioned that a virus was spreading through the opposition chat rooms. The virus made its way over to me for analysis, since its first stage was .NET (which I've got a good bit of experience dealing with). I broke the protections, wrote an antivirus, and within 48 hours or so, we had a detector/removal tool spreading throughout the opposition.

 _That_ is what spreading information is for. It's connecting the right people to the right problem.

Edit: I left out one key piece of information. The virus was explicitly written not to cause damage, or join a botnet, or anything of the sort; its sole purpose was to gather usernames, real names, and as much contact information as possible for the user hit with the virus. While we don't know who created this virus, it's entirely possible that it was created with the express purpose of identifying/locating certain members of the opposition.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Who owns the infrastucture will always have the ultimate control.

No matter how revolutionary your communication service is the guys with the cables can shut you off in a snap if needed. The Egyptian case is emblematic.

When a country is in chaos and internet and everything are still online it means that the government have control on much more than the infrastucture. And that is far more scaring than a shut down.

<comment><USER8> Modern economies cannot function without the internet. Too much commerce happens through it. Shutting off the internet is suicide.

<comment><USER9> I'm not so sure of that. A quick search put the figure at just 3.4% of GDP [1]. Even if a lot of sales do happen online, many of them could shift back to phone calls relatively easily.

Obviously there would be a significant impact, but I think the Internet is still a long way away from being something that simply _can't_ be turned off.

[1] [http://www.mckinsey.com/features/sizing_the_internet_economy...](http://www.mckinsey.com/features/sizing_the_internet_economy.aspx)

<comment><USER8> I was more referring to credit card transactions at just about any store. Even if the store's processing machine uses dial-up, there's a good chance that the vendor's backend is dependent on an Internet connection.

I admit that this is biased towards the West, and it's possible that in places Egypt cash might be more popular than it is in the West.

That's just one small piece of the puzzle though. You also have to think about sales that take place through email communication. You have to think about stocks being bought/sold online. Not that some of these things can't be replaced by more primitive means, but that is an undeniable huge hit to an economy that has to suddenly adjust to do things by analog means.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Relevant: Slacktivism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism>

That's not to say that doing things on the Internet are never useful activism, but often times they are used in place of actual action. Think "change your Facebook picture for the cause!" vs spreading information about a relatively unknown story.

</comment><comment><USER11> Seems appropriate here to bring back Malcolm Gladwell's New Yorker piece from October 2010, "Small Change: why the revolution will not be tweeted":

[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all)

<comment><USER12> The revolution has been tweeted, as shown in Egypt.

But that whole statement is wrong. It's not whether the revolution will be tweeted. It's will it be tweeted, facebooked, shown on YouTube, blogs, TV news, radio, newspapers, recorded for Wikipedia, etc.... Twitter is just one part of the new global information system.

<comment><AUTHOR> Saying 'as shown in Egypt' handwaves over the real story - the preparation that went into being ready for the moment when it arose.

[http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/16/revolution_...](http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/16/revolution_u?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full)

[http://maidhcocathail.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/the-junk- bond...](http://maidhcocathail.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/the-junk- bond-%E2%80%9Cteflon-guy%E2%80%9D-behind-egypt%E2%80%99s-nonviolent- revolution/)

Social media was used but it was tool in the hands of already prepared people who were willing to risk their lives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> >> And in some cases, they are using the Internet to disorganize the organizers.

Yes. That's what they did in Tunisia and it worked out well. People are not well educated and they can be easily mislead. They unleashed thousands of Internet Militia that started working on Facebook, groups, pages, forums, blogs... spreading a plethora of wrong information.

</comment><comment><USER14> The internet is just a medium, and one of many. What I see is an arms race between "compliance professionals" (advertisers, election strategists, PR firms, et al) and the rest of us. Though the population is getting smarter and more media-savvy (good luck finding a millennial who'll fall for a political attack ad), the professionals keep getting smarter too, because they're paid immensely to get results by any means necessary. (Interestingly enough, the internet also gives them the rich data and feedback loops they need to evolve their tactics more quickly.)

Frankly, it's something that would take such a large cultural leap to change, that I'm not expecting it anytime soon.

</comment><comment><USER15> Is there a "cranky old man tag"? The OP just seems to lack vision.

This post is along the lines of the old "everything that will be invented has been invented" saw. Social activity / interconnection of the twitter/facebook type is just in its early days. To say that we somehow fully understand everything that will arise from that, just 4-5 years in, is amazingly (if not link-baitingly) shortsighted.

</comment><comment><USER16> Agreed. Using Facebook, Twitter or any service that can disseminate information quickly for the purpose of spreading knowledge is always a good thing. If done wisely or at least with enough propaganda it may even inspire others to act. However, that knowledge and/or inspiration should not be confused with the act that needs to follow that knowledge in order to effect a change.

</comment><comment><USER17> Talking, by itself, is not revolutionary. It's when you talk about revolution that things change.</comment>


Complex life may only exist because of millions of years of groundwork by fungi - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/complex-life-may-only-exist-because-of-millions-of-years-of-groundwork-by-ancient-fungi-117526 <comment><USER3> This is tangentially related:

I've had a pet theory for a while (which may not be original, idk) that a possible explanation for the Fermi Paradox Great Filter is literally the existence of huge amounts of Fossil Fuels. It took millions of years of dead biological life on our planet to build up the supplies we have, and the big ol' meteor that hit us some 60 million years ago helped not only kill off a bunch of that life to create oil but set the stage for actual intelligent life. Without lots of oil, we wouldn't have hit the industrial age, we couldn't manufacture renewable energy sources, we couldn't make plastic, we couldn't make rocket fuel, electricity wouldn't be as widespread, basically everything would be different.

If oil were substantially less common, its feasible that we'd still live in a 1800s-esque society with some form of civilization development, but would be have radio? Certainly not space travel.

Point being: M-class planets might be pretty common in the universe, maybe cellular and even multicellular life is less common, maybe intelligent/sentient live is even less common, maybe civilization is even less common. And we've only really "existed" for a few tens of thousand years in the grand scheme of billions of years, those years littered with possible extinction-like events both man-made and natural. Combine all of those probabilities together, with the reality that we may have just "missed" another species on the timeline of the universe, and it seems more likely than not that we're alone in this galaxy.

Which is actually pretty awesome if you think about it. The whole playground is our's; let's go take it.

<comment><USER4> There is another well known corollary -- if we consume the bulk of fossil fuels this time around, it's unlikely that recovery after a major civilisation collapse would be possible.

Naturally the kind of leadership that declines to consider what will happen over the next 20-30 years is even less likely to be concerned about the subsequent 200-300.

<comment><USER5> > There is another well known corollary -- if we consume the bulk of fossil > fuels this time around, it's unlikely that recovery after a major > civilisation collapse would be possible.

There will still be coal. Coal reserves are unbelievable.

Even if we consume that too, we should be fine so as long as there is wood. You can power cars and tanks with wood.

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

If we have no trees left... there are probably other, more pressing, concerns. For humans, that is.

The good thing about Earth is that there is life, not just humans. Other species may take our place if we fail, in time. Emphasis on may, since evolution doesn't guarantee this. But it seems that at least on this planet intelligence has been consistently rewarded (primates, birds, dolphins, octopuses).

If there is life, there will be an energy source. No matter what it is, that energy source can be harvested by machines too. It may take longer for a civilization to do so, depending on the difficulty of the power source. But in the end, it doesn't really matter. We are dealing with cosmological time scales after all.

Even dolphins would be able to develop an industrialized civilization. No coal needed, they can just exploit temperature gradients. Metalworking would be more difficult, but that's their problem to solve. Right after they solve fine object manipulation.

<comment><USER4> Hence I said 'bulk of fossil fuels', not 'some, but leave plenty of coal behind'.

In either case, the fossil fuels that are increasingly difficult / expensive to obtain now, in an era with comparatively abundant free energy, would be even more difficult / expensive to obtain in an energy-scarce world.

And yes, I'm aware that things can burn. As a species we've known how to burn things for a very long time, but the industrial revolution really only kicked off when we used coal to power steam engines. Wood - even charcoal - <USER2> doesn't burn hot enough for much beyond food and brass.

> Even dolphins would be able to develop an industrialized civilization.

Well you've lost me there.

<comment><USER6> Indeed, I've read a long thread on a world building site where it seemed conclusive that a sea based intelligence could never discover some key technology like metallurgy without being bootstrapped by an external civilization... and dolphins don't have hands like octopus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The role of fungi in earth's ecology is endlessly fascinating.

In addition to laying the groundwork for complex life, there's evidence they helped in the emergence of intelligence and consciousness[1] as well as helping save honeybees[2]

[1] [https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsif.2014...](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsif.2014.0873) (pdf link)

[2] [https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/10/09/446928755/co...](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/10/09/446928755/could- a-mushroom-save-the-honeybee)

<comment><USER8> See also Terence Mckenna's stoned ape theory:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#%22Stoned_ape%...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#%22Stoned_ape%22_theory_of_human_evolution)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnEKoFrx1rI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnEKoFrx1rI)

Yes it's "a little" out there, but I think it's actually quite plausible.

<comment><USER9> It's certainly interesting, but what is the explanation for how consuming Psilocybe mushrooms could have effects _across generations_? Is it that an organism having had that experience might have altered behavior leading to advantages in natural/sexual selection? Or that psilocybin literally alters something physiological or [epi]genetic? Basically how could psilocybin cause a permanent (since it has persisted long after humans stopped frequently consuming psilocybin, assuming that was ever a thing), multigenerational increase in intelligence over a very long period of time?

<comment><USER10> Well the simplest explanation is the classic nature vs. nurture, paired with selective breeding. If you are raised by hippie shroom eating chimp parents, you'll probably be attracted to a different sort of mate than if you are raised in a warrior clan. This sort of taming can happen within 3-4 generations and have permanent effects.

Dmitry Belyayev was able to produce a tame variety of the red fox within 4 generations of breeding: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Belyayev_(zoologist)#Be...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Belyayev_\(zoologist\)#Belyayev's_fox_experiment)

<comment><USER11> He was also able to anti-tame them quite quickly as well.

<comment> 52-6F-62 I have a feeling an alien human researcher would say the same about us if they had witnessed a Walmart on a black Friday.

<comment><USER11> What takes foxes a number of generations to change, corporations can change in people just by altering incentives. This is the double edged sword of intelligence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Every time studies are published, we redefine the way in which could be heading towards LUCA. Maybe life on earth existed way earlier then we expected and earth recycles everything over period of time that the traces of origin are gone.

<comment><USER13> I mean, biogeochemically, we know this to be the case. The earliest evidence of life are not fossils, but changes in atmospheric chemistry recorded in the geologic record.

There are some well reasoned arguments that life is utterly common and almost inevitable when conditions are even basically adequate.

<comment><USER12> There are also lot of theories which suggest that life started at multiple places on earth and each branch could have evolved in a very different way. More like a forest rather then single point of origin.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sci-fi plot: Fungi are actually alien artificial life. They were designed as a huge family of microorganisms designed to recreate an alien biosphere. However, when they landed on earth, they encountered something which changed these plans.

<comment><USER14> See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Against_the_Chtorr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Against_the_Chtorr)

specifically the ontology described during a "pink storm" in A Day for Damnation. A fungal-like substance (the pink fuzz, which looks suspiciously like cottonwood storms south of Seattle) is the catalyst for the rest of the ecology.

<comment><USER15> I LOVED those books in high school! After rereading them a year or so ago, they are pretty indebted to Heinlein and Starship Troopers, but still entertaining. He also goes into preachy libertarian sometimes. This was the guy who wrote the "Trouble with Tribbles" Star Trek episode, which explored some of the same ideas.

Also, be prepared that the series was never completed (IIRC he had a son with autism that took time away from writing).

<comment><USER16> Also wrote _The Flying Sorcerers_ with Larry Niven, relevant to the top comment, being about kickstarting an alien industrial revolution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Another theory is complex life exists because of viruses, and their ability survive and modify genetic material.</comment>