Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html? <comment><USER2> This calls it:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkabl...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable- editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/)

 _The Wall Street Journal's editorial board has long been understood to be not only antagonistic to the facts of climate science, but hostile. But in a remarkable example of their unabashed bias, on Friday they published an opinion piece that not only repeats many of the flawed and misleading arguments about climate science, but purports to be of special significance because it was signed by 16 "scientists."_

(Note: I wish he hadn't put the word "scientists" in quotes as it, sadly, undermines a good editorial piece.)

<comment><USER3> Hell, just start Googling people from the list of contributors. The first is "Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris".

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_All%C3%A8gre>

> In 1996, Allègre opposed the removal of carcinogenic asbestos from the > Jussieu university campus in Paris, describing it as harmless and dismissing > concerns about it as a form of "psychosis created by leftists". The campus' > asbestos is deemed to have killed 22 people and caused serious health > problems in 130 others.

I think I'd pass on his endorsement, personally...

<comment><USER4> Isn't it accepted fact right now that removing asbestos creates more cases of cancer then leaving it where it is? What happened at the time was a very un- rational and unproductive response - the removal of all asbestos everywhere, with no regard to costs and side-effects.

<comment><USER3> Given that he's also arguing with a Nobel Prize winner in physics that atmospheric drag doesn't affect falling objects, I doubt his opposition was that nuanced.

Leaving asbestos where it is _can_ be better, but it'd depend on how well contained it is. If it's in a building that's showing its age, removal might be the only option.

<comment><USER5> He was also right about Kilimanjaro - changes in snow cover there likely did relate to longer-term trends and to local agricultural deforestation reducing the amount of moisture in the air and likely did not significantly relate to local or world temperature changes.

I'm willing to give him benefit of the doubt on "nuance" given the number of filters we're seeing things through here. (It's bad enough relying on wikipedia for climate-related info at all, but when it's on a relatively obscure topic based on source material in another language, that's a whole new level of indirection.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article is a bit high on polemics and low on science for my tastes (unsurprising since it's a WSJ editorial, but still). Is there a more sober whitepaper version that spends less time explaining that CO2 is colorless (true but irrelevant) and talking about the ominous drumbeats of their opponents, and more time on their thesis? Not just a rhetorical question; it seems like they might have a defensible thesis, especially about the cost/benefit profile, but it's hard to tell as presented.

<comment><USER7> You will find most arguments for and against global warming a bit high on polemics, and a bit low on science. Asking whether or not the earth will be warmer in 100 years is about as fruitless as asking whether or not it will rain in 100 days. The earth has warmed and cooled dramatically long before human existence, and will continue to in spite of us. Our CO2 output is only one of many factors in a very difficult to compute equation of thermodynamics. Keep in mind, its not just activity on earth, but the state of the sun that largely determines temperature, and both are very complex systems that are virtually impossible to model accurately.

Downvote this if you agree with me. :)

<comment><USER7> I should add that in spite of what anyone's stance might be, we should still reduce our dependence on coal and fossil fuels for a number of reasons.

<comment><USER8> Agreed.

A curious question that immediately popped in my head was: would it be ethical to use the fear of the public for disruption by global warming (whether it's true or not)? This fear could be used for good purposes, such as trying to increase funding for fusion. (I mean, good graces, it'll be at least 2033 before DEMO becomes productive!)

Understandably, I'd prefer all people to be scientifically (and 'engineerically') literate on these issues and be able to make good decisions for the good reasons. However, I'm also realistic enough to see that this probably won't be happening anytime soon.

(Also, on a more personal note: no, I would not consider this ethical.)

<comment><USER9> "I'll only use this power for good, it's ok."

The problem with that line of thinking is that there's no monopoly on such abuses. Once the "good guys" do it then what's to stop the "bad guys" from using the same power. And now that you no longer have the backing of truth on your side how do you prove to the public that you are in the right?

How is this any different from the police planting evidence on someone they KNOW, but cannot prove, is guilty?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Googling the cosignatories names revelas that several work for Exxon. I don't see how the WSJ didn't consider this relevant information to disclose, instead presenting them only as 'distinguished scientists.'

<comment><USER3> > I don't see how the WSJ didn't consider this relevant information to > disclose...

It's a WSJ editorial. They probably wouldn't consider it relevant info if the _article writer_ worked for Exxon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> it is a common tactic of climate change deniers to line up some number of scientists to convey the sense that there is some question about climate change. but this isn't how science works; it's not the case that because one or 10 or 100 scientists have questions about gravity it means that gravity doesn't exist.

the existence of climate change caused by humans is settled science. no amount of wall street journal editorializing or smears by conservative politicians is going to change that.

<comment><USER12> I'm curious what would it take to overturn "settled science," or are you saying that is impossible. I was not aware that science took that kind of a dogmatic stance.

<comment><USER13> Look at what's been going on with the "faster than light neutrinos".

That would really overturn settled science. But to do so is going to require more than 16 people writing an op/ed saying that the results were correct and the effect was real. It's going to require more than articles in newsmagazines.

The scientists behind the original results have examined their work for mistakes, and rerun the experiment controlling for possible confounding issues. The apparent effect remained.

Now other labs are going to try to produce a similar result.

If you want to overturn "settled science", you need data to clearly back up your claim. It's not enough to have a contrary interpretation of existing data. You need more data to support your interpretation as the correct one.

<comment><USER14> What world have you been living in that you think climate science is as "settled" as the speed of light limits?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Easter Island 2: Earth" is going to be so much more entertaining for the people 1000 years from now. We didn't get to read through all their "why cutting down the last tree won't be so bad - plus we need more Moai statues" hack WSJ op-eds from concerned islander scientists

What I learned from this letter: CO2 emissions are good for plants and poor people; controlling CO2 emissions is Stalin

<comment><USER16> Humans won't be around in 1,000 years. Our shelf life is nearly at expiration. We'll become some other configuration of life.

<comment><USER17> Modern humans appeared 100.000 / 200.000 years ago. We probably won't evolve into a new specie in the next 1.000 years.

<comment><USER18> However, we're fully capable of annihilating ourselves or at least obliterating a significant chunk of our population. I believe that's what shingen may have been alluding to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Flagged - this type of article doesn't really belong on HN as there isn't really anything new presented in it and will merely cause a flamewar.

<comment><USER20> It is news that the WSJ is continuing to print articles of this nature. Regardless of the truth or quality of the op-ed, the fact remains that the WSJ has a large audience and this article will be influential. Such an event warrants discussion.

<comment><USER21> By that criteria, many wsj op Ed pieces will be food for discussion.

I agree with the parent post, this is not suitable for hn and is flame bait.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Sixteen Thousand Concerned Scientists: Get These Posers Out of Our Hair and Let Us Save Your Food Crops

<comment><USER22> Two small notes.

First, this is a serious problem. People don't seem to realize that "sixteen scientists" _don't matter_. Sixteen thousand would have; just sixteen is a drop in the bucket. The problem is that headlines like that sell ad impressions. Our media has a conflict of interest, and the news is losing.

Second, this post has been bouncing back and forth between 6 and 14 karma for the last two hours, which I find amusing.

<comment><USER5> It only takes one scientist to be right about something. We don't measure scientific truth by weighing or tallying up the numbers of religious adherents on each side, we do so by evaluating the arguments and the evidence given.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> As a society, we know how to take action under uncertainty and imperfect information. It makes no sense to me when people argue we should take no action. The only rational viewpoint I understand is taking action (and realizing cost) proportionate to our confidence. Risk-based cost-benefit analysis.

The "It's took expensive to address the problem" argument doesn't hold water; it presumes the outcome is binary.

<comment><USER24> But the longer we wait the more certain we are of the exact changes, if any, and we will have better tech to deal with it.

And dealing with it does not mean cutting down on CO2 -- just because the environmental groups contains a vocal minority that feels guilty by not being a hunter/gatherer -- it means building dikes, transport water, etc, etc.

<comment><USER23> I agree, but that statement will always be true. The longer you wait, the better you'll be informed. Forever. That statement is a perpetual excuse for inaction.

The other factor that changes over time is the cost (if any) to address the problem (if any).

As an example, if burning oil does lead to global warming, then why do we as a society subsidize the price of oil to encourage its consumption?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> My #1 doubt always comes from what constitutes a statistically significant temperature change on a 100-150 yr scale (or however long we have had consistent measurements). What is the variance in 100 yr temperature differences over the last 100K to 1M years? Even if the current historical models are accurate do we really have accuracy at this resolution? 2 or 3 degrees C change over 100 yrs may be a common occurrence.

To me it like trying to judge whether a stock price movement over the course of 10 minutes is significant based on historical daily stock prices.

<comment><USER26> As far as I'm aware, there is (indirect) data on that. In fact I believe part of the concern is that the data suggests that when the planet was in fact 2 or 3 degress off, it was a rather less hospitable planet.

Regarding your stock analogy: People make real money decisions based on ten minutes of stock price movement and historical daily stock prices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I find climate projections to be very similar to financial projections of startups. A typical chart will show hockey stick like growth (temp vs revenue) over a long period of time. Since both groups need to prove that they will have an impact in order to get funding they are motivated to show the most drastic/promising future. As a statistician I tend to discount any long term projections for complex systems because I know that there are too many factors that will influence the results.

</comment><comment><USER28> BREAKING!

 _"Same group of people again proves willing to go on public record to agree on position they've already agreed with on public record in the past"_

"Astronaut, CEO, ex-US Senator, Chemist, Cardiologist, former Exxon Manager of Strategic Planning, Electrical Engineer and Rocket Scientist remain unconvinced by Climatologist Research on Climate" [1]

in other news,

\- - - - - - - -

[http://online.wsj.com/article/plumber-discovers-higgs- boson....](http://online.wsj.com/article/plumber-discovers-higgs-boson.html) \-- HONORARY PLUMBER DISCOVERS HIGGS BOSON _"When the LHC folks called me in to fix their toilets, I knew it wasn't something ordinary clogging their pipes. So I got to work, and there it was, hiding in the drains"_ , tells the plumber, honorary member of the New York-based Royal American-Italian Society for Interdimensional Drainage and Fungal Kingdoms. Recently, the Society has come under fire by animal-rights group PETA for allegedly wearing raccoon fur- suits[2]. _"These guys never give up, do they? You accidentally step on a turtle once, and they'll hound you forever."_

\- - - - - - - -

[1] As wel as 2 or 3 people who's credentials I've been completely unable to verify except for being a "honorary" or "life" member or fellow of some (always US industry funded) scientific foundation or other and having worked closely with ExxonMobile in the past.

BTW weird how it's always ExxonMobile, not other oil corporations such as Royal Dutch Shell or BP, anyone know why it's specifically Exxon being involved with all the climate research?

[2] True story: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/peta-super-mario- ta...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/peta-super-mario- tanooki_n_1096101.html)

</comment><comment><USER29> _The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle._

Ok lets play this game. The fact is that H20 is not a pollutant. It's a molecule that sustains life and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.

Bring on the ice age!!

<comment><USER4> The point they made is that more CO2 is not necessarily a bad thing. It's not my place as a non-specialist to judge how likely global warming really is (so I'm not judging) but I do wonder if it's really a bad thing. I mean, everything I know tells me making the earth a bit warmer and richer in CO2 is a good thing. And there is a distinct lack of credible apocalyptic scenarios... most I've seen say basically "there will be losers", i.e. there will be countries where the climate change will make things hotter and more arid. But for me, in central/eastern europe, warmer winters would be great...

<comment><USER29> Ok, here's the issue. We don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing.

The problem: If it's a good thing... whatever. If it's a bad thing... Mass Death. Seriously, that's not an exaggeration. Any slight imbalance and we're talking catastrophe. Unless you don't think natural disasters matter much.

We're not _saving the environment_ we're saving our goddamn selves. The environment isn't even a thing. But humans are, and we need a stable environment to get on with our lives.

<comment><USER4> I strongly subscribe to the idea that extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence. Your reasoning also suggests that LCH should be shut down and dismantled immediately, because of the prospect of destroying the Earth or ending the Universe. Also that I should be a believer, because even if the chance is slight, spending an eternity in hell is not an option.

In order to take the "Mass Death" scenario seriously I want to see some credible indication that our environment actually is that fragile. What I do know (and again, I'm not a specialist) is that most catastrophes that actually happened in the distant past would be expensive for our civilization, but not "catastrophic". Worst case scenario would be something like making a 20 degree belt around the equator a desert, while at the same time making Norther Europe/Asia/America greener (or the other way around). Bad? Depends who you ask. Definitely catastrophic for the equator countries, but not for the humanity as a whole.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless > gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of > the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that > greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of > three or four to get better growth.

Yes, and ozone is a poison, but in the high atmosphere it still protects you from skin cancer. This arguments seems calculated to appeal to the most scientifically ignorant of audiences.

> This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations > were about 10 times larger than they are today.

Yes, because evolution happened at a single point in the past, and no evolution at all happened in the many millions of years since CO2 concentrations dropped below that level.

</comment><comment><USER31> I actually have two points about this.

First of all, I still remember reading articles from the 1970's from scientists who were convinced we were headed for another ice age. That's right, another ice age. The exact opposite of the what climate experts are telling us now - less than 40 years ago.

My other point is this - let's just assume all these scientists are right. Wouldn't it be better if we just did what they suggest and reduce our impact on the planet? If they're wrong, we help the planet. If they're right, we're still ok. I would prefer this outcome to not doing anything then finding out they're right and then we're really screwed.

For reference, here's the Time Magazine 1974 article about the coming Ice Age - <http://bit.ly/zNZfI8>

<comment><USER19> Unfortunately - reducing our impact in the way many advocate has serious consequences on the poor and impoverished. In fact the best way to lower humanity's impact on the environment is to reduce third world poverty and thus reduce population growth. Many scientists advocate a mixed approach - where we work on improving crops so that they'll grow in warmer climates, improve water processing, and in general improve humanity's ability to handle climate change all the while allowing developing countries to use fossil fuels to improve their standard of living. As technology advances they'll move to other means of energy.

<comment><USER32> "In fact the best way to lower humanity's impact on the environment is to reduce third world poverty and thus reduce population growth."

False. When you reduce poverty in a third world population, they simply breed more. This has repeatedly been observed. If you want to loosely throw around words such as "fact" and "best", then I submit that the following, although potentially unpleasant to you, is closer to the correct usage: "In fact the best way to lower humanity's impact on the environment is to eliminate third world population."

<comment><USER33> Gapminder has some good data on this, and it doesn't support your claim. It shows that population growth decreases slightly as income per person increases.

Gapminder link: www.bit.ly/AiTWsG

<comment><USER32> Animated, colored bubbles aside, history supports my claim. Gapminder's data is flawed because it mixes Whites with unwhites. For example, when Whites arrived in South Africa, there were so few blacks that the place was pretty much empty. Whites proceeded to create a first world country, resulting in the best economy in sub-Saharan Africa. This drew a large number of blacks, from other countries, despite apartheid. Segregation was just fine with them because their lives were otherwise much better in SA. This led to a rampant increase in breeding, which continued in post-apartheid SA due to the momentum imparted by foreign aid (which wasn't necessary when Whites were in control). Now, the total population of SA is more than 50M, with Whites accounting for less than 5M.

Increase income per person in the third world as much as you want, but there will be no permanent, negative effect on population growth for as long as the population is mostly unwhite because income has nothing to do with character, culture, IQ, and all of the other factors at play.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The editorial is confusing. On one had, it seems to be suggesting that while human-caused global warming is happening, it is not necessary to panic and in fact it would be better to divert resources away from global warming mitigation and back to regular ole projects.

But then it also makes a number of suggestions that global warming is not happening or that if it is, it is not human-driven.

I do think scientists questioning aspects of the global warming debate should be able to have their say but they need to make sure their arguments are sound and fact-based.

</comment><comment><USER35> I wouldn't be surprised if WSJ starts promoting Intelligent Design as a real scientific opinion soon too.

</comment><comment><USER36> Well the headline at least is correct: even in a dire emergency, panic is the wrong response.

<comment><USER13> The problem is, by doing everything they can to delay any response or preparation, the WSJ is in fact making panic more likely.

The WSJ approach would insist that it would be a mistake to insure your home against fire and buy fire extinguishers and smoke detectors. That would be "panic".

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Flagged for containing deliberate falsehood:

 _Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2._

This is demonstrably false, and it is at this point impossible for those who published the article to be unaware that it is false if they made _any_ effort whatsoever to verify it. The quote given has nothing to do with the overall rate of global warming, and it has been made abundantly clear since the quote was made public that it did _not_ refer to global warming.

</comment><comment><USER38> Here is a thread on AskScience regarding this article: [http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/p04l4/how_accura...](http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/p04l4/how_accurate_is_this_article_on_global_warming/)

</comment><comment><USER39> I think the heading is wrong. Should be "Sixteen Concerned Physicists, Administrators, Politicians and a Couple of Ex-Climatologists: No Need to Blame Us For Obama Getting Re-Elected"

</comment><comment><USER14> Not all scientific fields are created equally. Some simply have access to better experimentation methods than others. Climate scientists have ridiculously poor measurement methods, historic records, and computational models to possibly be coming up with any conclusions.

An article on this topic: Err on the Side of Bologna – According to Scientists, <http://bit.ly/wYbEIB>

</comment><comment><USER40> It's quite possible that the dangers of climate change are alarmist and overstated. But to think that aren't serious side effects to over a century of industrialization is to be short-sighted and willfully ignorant. There's a reason that geologists now refer to the current era as the "Anthropocene".

</comment><comment><USER41> It would be interesting to follow the money trail on these 16 scientists.

I do somewhat buy the plausibility of the economic arguement that reacting to global warning is more efficient than trying to stop it.

The "it's not proven" crowd seem to be in the same camp as the folks claiming you can't prove smoking causes cancer.

</comment><comment><USER9> This editorial seems weak and poorly constructed. What does that say about the degree to which anthropogenic global warming exists and will be a significant hazard in the 21st century and the courses of action that are sensible to do anything about that, if any?

Absolutely nothing. One way or the other.

</comment><comment><USER42> More Global Warming denialism from a Murdoch news source? I'd pretend to be shocked, but really the only thing surprising is that the WSJ is still even vaguely respectable considering it's ownership and bizarre bias.

</comment><comment><USER7> I love how religious everyone gets about this.

What does that mean? A group of people preach one thing, and everyone takes their word for it. Your college professor told you anthropomorphic climate change is the real deal, and you took their word for it. Your conservative talk show host told you the opposite, and you took their word for it.

I do not care what f_cking side you are on. Yes, that's right, I called your "science" a religion. It is religion when you use more faith than reason or logic. Its a religion when you get emotionally involved in your belief.

Think for yourself. What does a REAL scientist try to do? Disprove their hypothesis. Look for holes in your argument, fallacies, unknown variables, false positives, etc.

<end rant>

<comment><USER16> One case where the rant should have continued.

That they don't spend as much time and effort trying to disprove their owns theories, is the prime indicator that something is wrong with the conclusions being drawn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton, <http://bit.ly/vZX5si>

</comment><comment><USER43> Seems to be the standard three-pronged argument:

1) The climate isn't warming.

2) But if it is warming, it's not due to man.

3) But if it is due to man, it might be a Good Thing.

Very tidy.

</comment><comment><USER44> It's possible to get 16 people to come forward and back any particular claim or position. So take this with skepticism.

<comment><USER45> I have 16 experts who strongly disagree with your position.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Even if the oceans were going up 10m in a week it seems counterproductive to panic -- it might be better to buy a boat or build a dike.

<comment><USER13> If you wait until oceans were going up 10m in a week, you're going to have a lot of people panicking and fighting over boats.

In order to avoid panic, you have to prepare well ahead of time. Airlines tell you what to do in an emergency when the flight starts, they don't wait until the plane hits the water.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you think about your startup idea? - <AUTHOR>

Hi all. I was just starting to make experiment, and here is my latest lesson learned http://wilbertliu.com/lesson-learned-from-bullets-passion
You know, startup is not easy (i won't say it is hard to discourage people) and i thought about ideas in the morning, in my free time, a lot, a lot, and a lot.
But you know, i am stuck right now. Would you mind if you share how do you think about your startup idea until you can say "Aha, i will do this passionately" and turn it to be the real product that people want?
Any discussion would be really appreciated! Thank you so much. <comment><USER2> If you want to get an idea to build something people want...then go ask people what they want. If that is too vague of a response, then do this. Pick a market or markets you are interested in. Ask them about their day, what they enjoy, what they dislike, what their goals are, what their challenges are. Eventually, you will come across a few things you could build. Don't build anything yet. Ask more people if they think any of these ideas you found are something they would consider buying. Ask how this would help them, how much time it would save them, how much they would be willing to pay. Ask them..."would you be willing to give me money right now as a presales?" You will likely get a response similar to "umm...I don't think so". Ask them why. You need to find the reasons behind why they want to buy versus actually putting money down...

Now, don't follow what I am saying literally. I am simply saying if you don't have an idea - ask people about their lives (business, personal, or whatever)...you'll get a constant flow of ideas.

I am sure the last thing you would want to do is go talk to people and ask them crazy questions. What sounds crazier is "thinking up an idea", spending months building something, then go try and find buyers. Find your buyers first.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Is there anyone who wants to discuss this?</comment>


Anomaly Detection with Twitter in R - <AUTHOR> https://anomaly.io/anomaly-detection-twitter-r/

<comment><USER2> I am interested in what specific anomalies they've detected recently on Twitter.</comment>


OS X is becoming fragmented - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/ad-network-os-x-is-becoming-fragmented-7000013426/ <comment><USER2> I wonder why? Maybe because there haven't been groundbreaking features and stability updates? Maybe because most of us developers look at the increasing restrictions/constrictions each successive release heralds, and think of jumping ship? In fact, I'm beginning to feel that even Windows 8 is more innovative than OS X 10.7 - 10.8.

I'm looking at Linux even more closely now than ever before.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm on 10.7 right now, with some tweaks to make it more Snow-leopardy.

I plan to stick with this OS for as long as possible. Once Apple drops support for my MacBook, I'm buying a ThinkPad and installing eOS on it.

<comment><USER2> I have 10.8 at home and 10.6 at work. At work I'm already "feeling the crunch" from folks who think that their app needs Mountain Lion features. I'm not sure what my plans are, but they definitely involve Linux at some point in the future.</comment></comment></comment>


A simple overlooked property of cryptocurrency - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/cryptocurrency-is-frictionless-8000d644dfb9 <comment><USER2> TL;DR Cryptocurrency is frictionless

This was not lost on anyone in the early days and it's not lost on anyone who has actually used it. It is definitely not lost on anyone who has had to deal with getting banks to let them use their own money or are used to waiting for 3-5 business days for a simple payment to go through.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are 100% right about the folks who use this and many of the folks in the early days.

It is a little lost today in all the bubble conversations, many of the ICO conversations, and people are generally debating what is the value of this stuff.</comment></comment>


Counterintuitive Behavior of Social Systems (1995) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://web.mit.edu/sysdyn/road-maps/D-4468-1.pdf <comment><USER2> This paper appears to be the description of the "World Model" which led to the "Limits to Growth" book series. The paper is by Jay Forrester, and another influential name in the field is Donella Meadows.

"Limits to Growth" made several forecasts for humanity that basically predicted mass negative changes, with best-case scenario being that it would settle out with humanity having an average quality of life equal to that of what eastern europe has (or perhaps had 10-20 years ago).

The forecast gets updated every ten years or so, and I've lost track of what the most recent updates said. They generally claim that the metrics are tracking what the model predicted in its worst-case scenario, which would lead to quite a lot of horrible worldwide societal changes in the 2020-2030 range.

The model has generally been ignored and criticized for being too pessimistic and not based on rigorous data.

When they talk about levers for change, one of the most powerful ones they recommend is changing the goal entirely, in this case removing the emphasis on "growth". It's interesting to think about changing the definition of GDP, since our entire definition of recession and depression is based off of that.

It sounds like some of their prescriptions to avoid the worst outcomes are pretty draconian, like limiting food production to help control population growth.

<comment><USER3> GDP is a terrible metric. It encodes all sorts of micro-regressions as growth. For instance, a hostile society induces more people to live alone; They purchase a new everything. GDP goes up but utilization goes down. If it was our own business we'd fix it. When it's our society we're too busy clawing after that newly minted GDP.

<comment><USER4> Your example doesn't really prove to me that GDP is a terrible metric for economic growth.

Not perfect, sure. But also better than any other metric I know of.

<comment><USER2> What's more interesting is to think of another metric - one that doesn't calculate economic growth differently, but measures something else entirely that isn't so built around economic growth.

Depends on what you want to maximize, though. Income equality? Planet health? Life expectancy? Some sort of happiness index? Probability of becoming an interstellar species?

<comment><USER4> Interestingly, all those other metrics you listed are very tied to GDP and economic growth, which means GDP growth is a decent measure for all those other measures.

Maximizing one is not the answer. We want to maximize all of them. And in that sense GDP is a great measure since it impacts all of them greatly.

Even sustainability is linked to GDP growth. Green technologies are typically the most expensive, and we need growth so that we can one day afford them across the board.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Can anyone here speak to the value of actually designing systems dynamics models - stocks and flows - and how that has helped you in your role?

To me it seems easier said than done as the process of surfacing all assumptions and accurately reflecting reality in your model - at least to a useful level - strikes me as extraordinarily exhaustive and time-consuming. To the point that it may only be useful if you can devote quite a lot of time and money to it.

<comment><USER5> I do not have first-hand experience, but SimCity has been used to dump real life data in it for modeling purposes and been found reasonably effective. I read this years ago. A quick Google turned up this article:

[http://chicago.curbed.com/2015/1/16/10001642/reallife- simcit...](http://chicago.curbed.com/2015/1/16/10001642/reallife-simcity- being-used-to-design-a-massive-development)

<comment><USER6> I was at a meeting just yesterday, where I said, the state borrows when rates are low. Just like SimCity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a revision of a 1971 paper based upon congressional testimony. It is an important paper to read if you are interested in social systems and modeling.

</comment><comment><USER8> "We may now be living in a "golden age" where, in spite of the world-wide feeling of malaise, the quality of life is, on the average, higher than ever before in history and higher now than the future offers."</comment>


British 5G towers are being set on fire because of Covid conspiracy theories - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/4/21207927/5g-towers-burning-uk-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory-link <comment><USER2> UK officials have not been mincing their words:

Professor Stephen Powis, national medical director of the NHS, said: "The 5G story is complete and utter rubbish, it's nonsense, it's the worst kind of fake news.

"The reality is that the mobile phone networks are absolutely critical to all of us, particularly in a time when we are asking people to stay at home and to not see relatives and friends.

"In particular, those are also the phone networks that are used by our emergency services and our health workers and I'm absolutely outraged absolutely disgusted that people would be taking action against the very infrastructure that we need to respond to this health emergency.

"It is absolute and utter rubbish, and I can't condemn it in stronger terms than that."

Source: [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/04/06/5g_coronavirus_theo...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/04/06/5g_coronavirus_theory_debunked/)

</comment><comment><USER3> duplicate: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22784747](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22784747)

</comment><comment><USER4> You've got to remember that the average IQ is 100. There are a lot of people in the UK below this, just look at Brexit and who we elected, sigh....

<comment><AUTHOR> Half of the population will have an IQ that's below average.

<comment><USER4> Actually I think it's 52% <ducks> :-)</comment></comment></comment>


The Open Home Lab Stack (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/the-open-home-lab-stack-5e5858722fee <comment><USER2> There is a whole sub reddit community around building "home labs" here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/homelab/](https://www.reddit.com/r/homelab/)

There's some great discussion on there, as well as guides

<comment><USER3> I have been subscribed for a while because it seems like something I _would_ like, but I honestly still don't get it. It seems like a hobby driven by a deep reverence toward enterprise hardware and software, especially network- related, most of which is no longer in production. Is there more to it?

<comment><USER4> You get private / self-hosted alternatives to various popular online services? Own your own data, and it's fun to setup.

List: [https://github.com/Kickball/awesome- selfhosted](https://github.com/Kickball/awesome-selfhosted)

<comment><USER3> Ok, that's what I was missing, I think--I see that stuff as "advanced home networking" and less lab-like. But I do really enjoy it.

How do you manage with all the upgrading and maintenance? It seems like a simple distro upgrade could throw various stability-oriented subsystems like "photos of my family" into compete chaos.

<comment><USER5> That's the exact reason I stopped using that stuff. Nothing is worse than the roommate complaining about being unable to watch tv while the raid 5 rebuilds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A fun hobby and also a reminder that maybe, just maybe, you don't need "the cloud".

<comment><USER7> As a third-world citizen, I'll have to wait like 15 years for the price of that hardware to come down and be rejected by the first-world before I can ever hope to run all that crap.

Till then I'll keep feeding the Google/NSA machine.

<comment><USER6> ebay or auction websites. Lots of places dump their equipment at 3-5 years.

another secret is 'you don't need the latest', in fact, almost nobody needs the latest.

<comment><USER7> Do you realize that there are more people in the world who can't afford 5 year old server equipment from eBay than those who can?

Shipping alone would cost 100USD at minimum.

<comment><USER8> ... and magically cloud services become more affordable than they are in richer countries?

<comment><USER9> No, but self-hosting has a significant initial investment overhead cost compared to the places where Amazon and eBay deliver almost for free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Maybe I missed something, but what problem is this setup the solution to?

<comment><USER4> You can self host your own replacements to various online services.

Here are some lists:

[https://github.com/Kickball/awesome- selfhosted](https://github.com/Kickball/awesome-selfhosted)

[https://reddit.com/r/selfhosted](https://reddit.com/r/selfhosted)

<comment><AUTHOR> Excellent reddit discussion of a lot of the self-hosted applications here as well:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/7n6bgh/what_sof...](https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/7n6bgh/what_software_do_you_have_running/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Very fun to read but may be too advanced to start with... is there a particular reason why I couldn't or should't run this on a regular core i7 7700k powered machine?

<comment><USER12> You won't have the fun lugging big iron into your basement and hearing it whir up.

<comment><USER8> That mini-mini tower pictured (HP Proliant Gen 8) sure doesn't look like big iron.

<comment><USER12> It's either a decoy for the girlfriend or the start of a Beowulf clusture of many more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If people don't want to run Zentyal, pfSense is a great way to keep your internal (and external?) DNS in order.

It's also got a nice certificate authority wizard.

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't know ..

"You may have heard of Docker, well this is essentially the same thing, except it's been around a bit longer."

... really?

<comment><USER15> Yes, the author is specifically refering to KVM ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel- based_Virtual_Machine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel- based_Virtual_Machine)) which was merged into the Linux kernel in 2007.

Whereas Docker ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docker_(software)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docker_\(software\))) was first released in 2013.

<comment><AUTHOR> Believe that the author was actually specifically referring to LXC (misnamed as "LXE" in the article), with his Docker reference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Have anyone tried Intel NUC for home lab setup? What are pros and cons?</comment>


Think of time as currency - <AUTHOR> http://shadyacres.tumblr.com/post/31444183000/time-debt

<comment><USER2> Ayn Rand argued that both money and time are a type of epistemological measurement, i.e., time is money!

[http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/teleological_measurement.h...](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/teleological_measurement.html)</comment>


BufferBox: We're Joining Google - <AUTHOR> http://blog.bufferbox.com/post/36890312317/were-joining-google

<comment><USER2> I'm wondering.. It sounds exactly like what the german post service offers. You order something, it get's delivered to some automated station where you can pick up the package at any time.. Is this not common in other countries?

<comment><USER3> Nope. The common option in the US and Canada is to get DHL or its equivalent to come to your door and deliver it. The problem comes when you are not home and they require a signature. In this case they usually attempt again. If none of the attempts work, they store it in their warehouses for a bit, and if no one comes and picks it up, it's returned to sender.

<comment><USER4> Speaking of which, why don't someone just sell boxes for peoples homes? You know, some reasonable size container that you can only put things into but not take out of. Wouldn't that eliminate that reason for BufferBox? I think the only use case remaining would be in urban areas where space is at a premium.

EDIT (in response to leddt since I can't reply): if you ask UPS to leave the packages without signing, will they refuse to do this even if they are placing it in a secure place?

<comment><USER5> I've been thinking that this could be an interesting idea, especially when you consider that the Webvan model now seems to be becoming a reality. A larger size delivery box for everything from dry cleaning to packages, maybe with a refrigerated portion for groceries. Maybe with some kind of access control so they couldn't be targeted by thieves, with codes that could expire?

<comment><USER4> Oh, I really like the idea of using this to launch home grocery delivery.

<comment><USER5> Patent pending... ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is this because Google suspects it will need to find a way to compete with the Amazon lockers? [http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId=...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId=200689010)

On a LOL side-note: The last line of the video on their site got awkward. "Let us handle your package". Gutter brain.

<comment><USER7> You'd think they would try to focus on a functional checkout process before worrying about delivery/pickup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> On the plus side, I can't wait to order my Nexus 4 off Amazon, and have a choice of picking it up from my closest Bufferbox vs. Locker.

I just imagined 7/11's everywhere having both Bufferbox's and Locker's right next to them. One of them should do a deal with Starbucks.

</comment><comment><USER9> Kickass idea, great execution.

Personally, I think the paint scheme had a lot to do with the success :). Great to see startups have success with tangible technology.

</comment><comment><USER10> This has been available in germany for over 10 years by DHL; <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packstation>

I'm a bit confused what their strategy is (was?). Competing with the established logistics multi-nationals, especially when at least one of them already has the exact same product, seems a rather bold plan.

</comment><comment><USER5> Just curious if anyone has heard about the acquisition price? Not sure if that sort of thing is verboten on HN for a YC co., so apologies if that's the case.

Also, is this the new launch-to-acquisition record for YC?

<comment><USER11> Depends on what you count as launch but BufferBox has been running at the University of Waterloo for a couple of years already.

<comment><USER5> Oh, I didn't know that. I saw YC S12 and assumed they had just launched.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Wow. What would Google do with this? I mean, if I understand correctly, it's just a warehouse which emails you when your package gets delivered there. Free for now(for publicity), and paid from next year.

Couldn't Google just open their own spare warehouses?

<comment><USER13> Picture this: BufferBox driverless cars - Automated mailmen. They can meet you at your house (notify your phone), or they can intercept with your driverless car while you're in transit to work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The "Locations" page looks broken somehow: it's telling me that the nearest Bufferbox to NYC is in Toronto. Is that actually the case?

<comment><USER15> I think they were only in Toronto: [http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/16/sorry-we- missed-you-yc-back...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/16/sorry-we-missed-you- yc-backed-bufferbox-solves-the-problem-of-missing-packages/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Congrats. You guys were great at Demo Day but my wiser elder angel friends did not invest so I did not pursue. Oops.

Unrelated: I can't believe Google is branching out to this kind of thing. Competing with Amazon and Apple? Nexus, Glass, etc.

Google is adding a lot of hardware to its portfolio of products and services.

<comment><USER17> Not hardware per se but bridges between real and virtual. Streetview is in that category too for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> What would happen to my package if BufferBox would happen to be full at the time of delivery? :)

<comment><USER19> The courier doesn't deliver directly to the box, they deliver to BufferBox's warehouse (where there's someone to sign for your parcel) then it's taken to the box.

If the box is full, they hold your parcel until there's space. Presumably they could offer to deliver to a nearby alternative box if it came to that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's a little bit of a shame in my eyes. They could've built out a network and been bought for a lot by Amazon, Rakuten, eBay, Best Buy, etc or have built a big company. They obviously saw value in joining Google as they were still early on.

<comment><USER21> It gives them significantly more resources to fund expansion and educate online shoppers about BufferBox. Based on some other Google acquisitions, there is likely significant upside if they execute on their vision.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Congratulations guys :-)

</comment><comment><USER23> Congrats guys!

</comment><comment><USER24> Did bufferbox have any patents or other enforceable IP?

</comment><comment><USER25> I suspect the catalyst for this acquisition was due to one thing: their blog has an easily identified link to their product site. Startups should take note of this oft overlooked detail.

<comment><USER25> WTF? Fuck "engaging in the conversation". What a crock of shit. You make a demonstrably valid point and fuck it, who cares...

<comment><USER5> I didn't downvote you, but I think whoever did assumed that you were mocking Bufferbox or being sarcastic. I'm not sure how prominently linking to your site from your blog, while generally good advice, would directly lead to an acquisition.</comment></comment></comment>


On COBOL - <AUTHOR> https://www.oreilly.com/radar/on-cobol/ <comment><USER2> If you don't know COBOL, Wikipedia has a pretty excellent overview of a lot of its basic syntax here:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL#Features](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL#Features)

It's very verbose, and includes a lot of opaque language that almost seems designed to confuse (I know it wasn't actually, but it's pretty bad). For example, an alphanumeric variable type is called a `PIC` for "PICTURE". You can store an alphanumeric as a `PIC A`, or a numeric-only using a `PIC X`. Fields in a record get a "level number" that defines their behavior, and you just have to memorize which does what. 01 is a top-level record. 05 defines a subgroup. 88 is a conditional record.

There are many parts of the language that are clearly anti-features in retrospect. A 66 level number allows you to redefine a field in a previously defined record. Convenient in some cases maybe, but something that will clearly lead to maintainability problems as the shape of a record doesn't match its original definition in code. Another example is that COBOL has a huge vocabulary, with the original idea that you could write things as much like English as possible (e.g. use a `GREATER THAN` instead of a `>`), which is one of those things that probably seemed like a good idea at one point, but which every modern language has abandoned or is abandoning (through the use of linters, etc.).

The article makes quite a few salient points, but on the other hand, if there's ever been a language that got almost everything wrong in about as objective a sense as you can get when speaking about these things, it's this one.

Instead of inspiring the next generation of COBOL programmers, IMO there's a good alternative argument to be made for getting a bunch of smart people together to write a transpiler that could transform huge legacy COBOL codebases to something more maintainable, like how the Go team transpiled from C to Go, and vanquishing this language to the history books. Obviously very difficult, but something that'd pay off in the long run.

<comment><USER3> Sorry to criticize, but as a daily maintainer/writer of COBOL, your characterization is a bit off. Besides technical inaccuracies (PIC 9 is for numerics, 88 is a conditional value in a field) you don't seem to grasp what's truly right or wrong with COBOL. Nor does the article. For example, ime no-one uses 66 levels, as the REDEFINES clause achieves the same result. While there _can_ be issues with maintaining code with overlapping definitions, _their use is deliberate_. For example, data read from a file could have two or more different record structures. It is read into one place in memory and the redefinition applies different formats/views to the same memory. The correct one is used as needed. There is no problem. You might be right that there are some anti-features, but like GOTO they simply aren't used in real codebases.

The real problem with COBOL imo, is that the language hasn't much improved since it's creation. While there have been some useful tweaks and changes, it has missed out on major items such as variable scoping/user-defined functions (all variables are global - the workaround is to use sub-programs and pass data in the call). Even "object-oriented" functionality as mentioned in the article was badly tacked on to the language and only complicates it without really adding much in terms of capability. Also, the language doesn't really have strings as in other languages, and consequently lacks the applicable functions.

Another major point that the article misses is that mainframe COBOL (most COBOL is/was mainframe and that means IBM) which does anything more than straightforward "read file,process contents,generate report" is inextricably linked to its environment. The article talks about poor form handling. COBOL doesn't do form handling. That would be CICS or IMS/DC software which the COBOL interfaces with. There is heavy integration in the code, but this is like confusing Java with Websphere or Tomcat. This is why it is so difficult to port COBOL systems to another language/environment. The COBOL code can be mechanically converted. But any complex system has calls to databases, transaction processing, and is built with batch jobs relying on JCL and system utilities. Replacing the environment while retaining the integration and reproducing the functionality is the hard part.

<comment><USER4> > COBOL doesn't do form handling. That would be CICS or IMS/DC software which > the COBOL interfaces with

The COBOL 2002 standard includes form handling ("SCREEN SECTION"). However, IBM COBOL implementations never included that, and so you are correct that on IBM mainframes stuff like CICS and IMS/DC is used instead. Some COBOL compilers on other platforms did implement "SCREEN SECTION", e.g. Micro Focus COBOL on Windows/Unix, DEC COBOL on OpenVMS, Tandem NonStop COBOL, and COBOL software developed for those platforms did use it. It is also true that non- IBM mainframe COBOL is likely a minority of all COBOL software still in use.

<comment><USER5> GNU COBOL also implements it, and I have to admit that it's kind of fun to play around with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> We always have these articles about needing to learn COBOL, - I think we see more of them since there's more pressure on old systems such as unemployment these days - but it's important to note to anyone reading this that learning COBOL is not going to lead to riches: I know several COBOL coders and while they make a respectable amount, it's nowhere near the amount they'd earn at a FANG company.

Learn COBOL if you want - I learned COBOL early in my career and it's very interesting how different it is - but if you're attempting to maximize salary you're better off spending time learning the bleeding edge tech.

<comment><USER7> I don't think any salary would be enough to compensate for the opportunity cost of not working with a modern technology and the mental strain of working with something so quirky and archaic

<comment><USER8> It also has upsides. It might be archaic, but the code is mostly self- contained, there are usually no layers of open source that might make behavior difficult to understand. (And for problems with middleware you just call the vendor.) Programs are typically designed to be algorithmically simple, the complexity mostly comes from history and changing business requirements.

Mainframes are surprisingly transparent systems, if you learn where to look, compared to Unixes. There are many logging and tracing facilities that run all the time.

For these reasons, some people actually enjoy it more to work with these systems.

<comment><USER9> > there are usually no layers of open source that might make behavior > difficult to understand

Ehhhh.... this in contrast to _closed_ systems where there are layers of _closed source_ which lead to all sorts of unexpected behaviour without the recourse of looking under the hood to find out what is going wrong. Closed systems are _harder_ to debug than open source systems.

<comment><USER8> In my experience, it depends on other factors than just whether the SW is open source or not. Documentation helps, age of software helps (which means certain stability with respect to change and less bugs), simple architecture helps.

I generally like open source, but I am skeptical when it is used as a tool to save costs by companies. (Apache foundation projects are IMHO the worst offenders.) In some sense, commercial software is the devil you know.

<comment><USER9> > In some sense, commercial software is the devil you know.

No, _older, established projects or products_ are the devils you know, whether they're free software or proprietary products. Take for example Debian Stable which is, as its name implies, stable but seen as fairly stodgy and unexciting. Stodgy and unexciting is what you want in a business environment. The mere fact that there are far newer releases with loads of new features (and bugs) does not mean that you need to use them, just wait for the next stable release.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The article mentions that COBOL was an easy programming language to learn. Personally, I disagree. As a beginner in a CS course, it was incredibly hard to comprehend why a program needs so many sections and why the various lines must start at a particular column. C seemed easy in comparison.

<comment><USER11> The column requirements are a holdover from the days of punchcards, where column 1 was reserved for JCL commands and some columns were reserved so cards could be numbered and sorted by mechanical means.

<comment><USER12> Many of IBM's early mainframes could only read 72 columns from a punch card, which is why Fortran (and I assume COBOL) only used 72 columns. Specifically, the IBM 704 was a 36-bit machine and read punch cards one row at a time, filling two 36-bit words. There was a wiring panel that let you select _any_ 72 columns to read, but obviously using the first 72 columns was most sensible.

If you punched sequence numbers in the ignored columns 73-80, you could use an electromechanical card sorter to put the cards back in order if you dropped them.

<comment><USER11> > if you dropped them.

Or if someone shuffled them (as we used to do in the computer room to people who annoyed us.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think that the problem is not that coders don't want to learn COBOL but that it's so niche language and you have almost no job mobility. If corporations would offer contracts with extra huge severance packages then IMO there would appear enough COBOL enthusiasts.

<comment> spaced-out Seriously. Every time I see one of these COBOL articles posted here, I just scroll through to see if there are salary stats, there never are.

If you want to convince people to learn COBOL, convince people you can have a great career as a COBOL developer, or at least as a developer with COBOL in your toolkit. I've yet to see anyone convincingly make that case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have written a pair of compilers (not COBOL) myself, so at one moment I've thought about that possibility: "maybe I should spend a little time improving my COBOL knowledge and move to that niche."

I wouldn't have problem working in archaic language, thought I. Or with non- trivial codebases.

But then I've got another impression: the companies don't expect a new candidate just to knew the language and work with old codebases. They expect also the people to be able to work with ancient terminals, as in: no grep for you. Even worse it's "no ASCII for you." I.e. not a single tool to which I'm used I'd be able to use. Whatever I'm used to work with, I won't be able to use.

That's where I became demotivated.

<comment><USER8> I work on the mainframes. It's straightforward to download the code to modify it locally and re-upload it. Then you can use all the tools you're comfortable with. We are moving towards using Github as a main source repository, even for mainframe code.

However, yes, knowledge of how to operate 3270 terminal is required. And it has a form of grep, actually, as well as compare tools. EBCDIC is just another encoding, not a huge problem.

<comment><USER15> EBCDIC. That's still around? Ugh.

COBOL apparently still has major problems with UNICODE. COBOL in IBM land can only do UTF-16. Some IBM products are big-endian UTF-16, and some are little- endian UTF-16. COBOL (PeopleSoft version) in Oracle land can do UTF-16 and, sometimes, UTF-8 in programs for fields not stored in the database.

It's late for the language to be in that state.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I figured that one reason COBOL and RPG IV continue to exist is that a replacement language that can check all of the boxes hasn't been developed. It is just not that cool a job to write a COBOL replacement like it is to write a C replacement. Rust and Go need a bunch of libraries to do COBOL's work. Frankly even with the libraries, both are too complicated to replace COBOL. It just isn't a cool area like most Enterprise software.

</comment><comment><USER17> COBOL was like so many 4GLs: easier for starters and vanilla tasks, but makes things increasingly difficult as you need to grow out.

<comment><USER18> > COBOL was like so many 4GLs:

COBOL was one of the original 3GLs, and appeared in 1959. The concept of 4GL wasn't even formalised until 20 years later in 1981 [0]

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth- generation_programming_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth- generation_programming_language)

<comment><USER17> I said it was _like_ 4GLs. And perhaps the creator was ahead of her time? :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The article focuses on technical skills and people who need to acquire them. Which may be a problem but I don't think it is the root cause of the COBOL problem as a whole.

There are organizations which dug themselves into the COBOL hole. What are they doing to get people to learn the skills necessary to deal with the next crisis?

<comment><USER20> Teaching them Visual Cobol or NetCobol, :)

[https://www.microfocus.com/en-us/products/visual- cobol/overv...](https://www.microfocus.com/en-us/products/visual- cobol/overview)

[https://www.fujitsu.com/global/products/software/developer-t...](https://www.fujitsu.com/global/products/software/developer- tool/netcobol/index.html)

Who knows, that cool Kubernetes microservice deployed on Amazon might have been written in Cobol,

[https://www.microfocus.com/media/success- story/trasmediterra...](https://www.microfocus.com/media/success- story/trasmediterranea-acciona_tcm6-210848.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Just pay COBOL developers an obscene salary.

You'll have tons of eager applicants claiming to have years COBOL experience at your door in no time.

<comment><USER22> Exactly, and in general - there is no shortage of programmers - there is a shortage of programmers who are willing to work for 5-figure.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why can GitHub get DDoS'd, but Google can't? - <AUTHOR>

To clarify, I'm not saying someone _should_ DDoS Google (or Facebook). I'm just curious about how Google (or Facebook) sets up their infrastructure to protect themselves, as opposed to Github.<p>Or maybe everyone's at risk! How come the anti-information people haven't targeted Google? <comment><USER2> DDOS attacks are interesting because, as of now, it's basically the only classification of cyberattack that there's no provably correct method to prevent.

Say you get a letter every few weeks from a penpal from years back. You get a few other pieces of mail each day as well, so you quickly sort through them to see if your penpal wrote to you and if so, you pull that message out and throw away the rest.

Imagine you get to your mailbox one day and there are thousands of letters in it. The mail truck comes by for a second run and puts thousands more. Before you've even gotten back to your front door, a third truck comes and does the same.

It's no longer feasible for you to find out if your penpal wrote to you. That's a DDOS.

However, the post office was clearly receiving and processing all of those pieces of mail. They have the capability because they do it every day. Sure, the attacker put some extra load on them, but it wasn't a 100,000% increase like you sustained.

Your mailbox is Github, the post office is Google. Google's infrastructure is set up in a way that there's a lot of it.

<comment><AUTHOR> So in theory, Google could DDoS anyone who has a smaller post office?

Also, wouldn't a DNS provider or hosting service be able to "beef up" to handle the traffic from a DDoS? Especially if it's a nice one, it seems like something you'd expect from them.

<comment><USER2> Correct. Which is actually how this attack is happening. It's using Baidu's servers, which are ostensibly very robust. If you were to hijack Google/Amazon/Facebook/Netflix servers, you'd probably be able to DDOS nearly anyone on the planet.

And yes, there are ways to essentially start throwing servers online and yes companies do it. The problem is it becomes obscenely expensive — if you do this and go bankrupt, again, the DDOS has succeeded. It's actually somewhat problematic to do it automatically for exactly that reason. What if you preferred to just take your service offline until you could investigate enough to stop the attack instead of pay hundreds of thousands per day in server costs?

This is why DDOSs are a bitch!

Edit: Also worth noting, it's probably for this reason that Github is still accessible: throwing servers online and eating the cost.

<comment><AUTHOR> There should be like, DDoS insurance.

<comment><AUTHOR> Startup idea? No it's miiiiiiiinneeee

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> For the same reason an ant can be squished by stomping on it and an elephant can't: because they're bigger.

<comment><USER4> To be fair, GitHub has been handling the attack VERY well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, they're kickin ass!

I wish there was a way to send that team a beer or something, they're heroes at this point.

<comment><USER5> I was just using Github an hour ago and literally felt no difference in accessibility. Insanely good job Github.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The thing about a DDoS attack, is that it's a significantly higher traffic volume that the target normally sees.

So, a "sufficiently large" site might well _not even notice_ if you tried to DDoS them.

I would assume Google and Facebook (and Twitter) to be examples of such "sufficiently large" sites.

<comment><AUTHOR> so it really is just handling traffic volume?

<comment><USER7> Technically yes. I am no expert but I understand the best approach is to divert attack traffic to a sinkhole, i.e. handle attack traffic, not block it.

<comment><USER2> Except there's no provable way to distinguish between "attack traffic" and normal traffic. You're also diverting your normal users anyhow, so the DDOS is still working as intended.

<comment><USER8> >Except there's no provable way to distinguish between "attack traffic" and normal traffic.

Depends on the DDOS method used. Stuff like the NTP abuse of a few years ago could be sinkholed without effecting any real users. HTTP DDOS has pretty low impact per node so most attackers use some form of amplification attack with other protocols.

<comment><USER2> Oh there are totally heuristics you can use. For example, limiting traffic from geolocations in which it shouldn't be showing high traffic usage (8 million hits per minute from China at 3am Beijing time?).

The key word is "provable."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm making up figures here, but the answer is going to be something along the lines of:- Because Google has somewhere between one and ten thousand times as many servers as Github, distributed across somewhere between twenty and sixty times as many distinct geographic locations.

</comment><comment><USER10> Having staff who research the topic, e.g

[https://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Flow-C...](https://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Flow- Cookies%3A+Using+Bandwidth+Amplification+to+Defend+Against+DDoS+Flooding+Attacks+Casado+cao+Akella+Provos)</comment>


A New Computer Glitch Is Rocking the Mutual Fund Industry - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/securities-pricing-problems-hit-u-s-mutual-funds-etfs-1440601913

<comment><USER2> and a link to come through from google: [https://www.google.com/#q=http:%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%...](https://www.google.com/#q=http:%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fsecurities- pricing-problems-hit-u-s-mutual-funds-etfs-1440601913)

</comment><comment><USER3> 'Microsoft and SunGard Alliance'

'As is demonstrated by the IntelliMatch Operational Control Windows 8, SunGard is innovating utilizing Microsoft technology to build mission-ciriticaal solutions for the global financial services community'

[http://www.microsoft.com/enterprise/partners/sungard.aspx](http://www.microsoft.com/enterprise/partners/sungard.aspx)</comment>


From the FT: Cheap China goods era over - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/15f4b344-5616-11e0-8de9-00144feab49a.html#axzz1HXIqTuqm

<comment><USER2> The era of Cheap China Goods may be over but the era of Cheap Goods is _not_ over.

Industries requiring lowest wages will migrate to other countries as the article states: Viet Nam, Indonesia, Bangladesh.

Eventually Africa will be the manufacturing powerhouse for lowest-wages goods.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> If true that would mean the era of low inflation/low interest rates is coming to an end as well.</comment>


Ask HN: New boss I respect, same company. Should I stay? - <AUTHOR> I joined my current employer just over four years ago, and was told that I'd be hired as a Senior Dev then promoted to a Director when the department was reorganized, within 90 days.
During my few months as a (presumed) Director, I'd tried to hire some new developers, some who were highly qualified. All were rejected by the VP for reasons I was never able to pin down exactly. It's probably my fault for not "going to bat" for the hires I wanted, but I was trying to be sensitive to the culture of the new company.
When the reorg came, I was told I was more of a "Software Architect" and not given the position of Director. Two other long-time employees were promoted to Director. I reported to one of them.
The same VP very publicly presented to the board of directors shortly after I'd arrived that we'd have a complete rewrite of our application within ten months, against my advice. In the meantime, anticipating a complete failure to deliver anything at all, I found a way to update the look and feel of the existing application while slowly replacing views. The actual delivery time was around four years (there were numerous "shiny things" distractions). Senior management didn't seem to care, and there were no repercussions for the VP.
There is much, much more.
Now a newer (one year plus) employee has been given the Director role I'd originally been slated for. I have great respect for this person, and our VP and Directors actually seem to listen to them. This Director is asking me to consider an actual role as architect, within the next few months.
My question is: Given the experience I've had so far, should I stick around? I already feel like I've "sunk costs" on this one for way to long. I have little to no trust the VP or legacy Directors, and there are no other employees who have an Architect role. While I do respect my new boss, I'm concerned that my new role will be essentially a "lame duck" position. And the job market is very hot right now. <comment><USER2> There isn't a correct answer anyone can give you, it is something only you can choose. Depending on the size of the company having a solid director you report to maybe good enough to insulate you from the VP. But if the company is mid-sized or smaller, that won't likely last long.

Let me give you a small counter view from the VP's side. Maybe s/he was challenging you during that initial period to see how you would respond and you didn't go to bat for people you believed in so they didn't feel you were ready for that type of role. Still the respectful thing would've been to have that talk with you, but it is a possibility. At which point, your counsel also probably weighed less on them and hence the ignored timeline advice. And of course, once you pulled off keeping people happy with shiny object syndrome you basically affirmed the VP's timeline. Not saying you shouldn't have done everything necessary to try and make it work, but you also have to keep raising the schedule issue.

If you like the work you are doing, the company is decent, think the Director is a stand up person and will insulate you from the VP and you are making solid income that might be enough reason to stay. I have seen cases were there is just one senior level person that takes awhile for the company to figure out their game but that the company isn't a bad place otherwise, maybe that's your situation.

That all said, if you distrust the company, that is your sign to get out, staying cause you have a good boss isn't good enough. Find another job and move on once you have it secured.

</comment><comment><USER3> Imagine somebody else had written your post on HN. What would you say to them? Would you tell them to stay?

You clearly aren't getting what you want for your career. Move to a place that is aligned to what you want.

Having a boss you respect is great, but look at it objectively. Are they going to promote you and give you the responsibility you want? Even if the answer is yes, will they do in a timeline that fits what you want and in a way that makes sense for what you want for your career? Or will that VP (or somebody just like them) create problems for you?

</comment><comment><USER4> If I were in your position, I would think either this VP has got something personal against me or may be they think I am not suitable for this position. You've been stepped over thrice now. Why not just have a heart to heart with this VP or his boss and directly ask them. Then decide what to do based on the answer.

Personally, I would have left after the company failed to keep their word the first time.

</comment><comment><USER5> What is your goal for your career?

E.g. my personal goal has been more and more "making positive impact on world", and so I've started shifting jobs based on that.

Maybe yours is "make enough money to pay for early retirement", or "work on interesting technical problems", etc..

Whatever it is, you shouldn't be thinking about this job in isolation. Start with your goals, work backwards from that.

<comment><USER5> (As per your description this company is pretty messed up, so in general you probably want to leave. Who says new boss will stick around? But there may be specific reasons tied to your goals that do make it worth staying.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> GTFO!

I mean this with respect to you, disrespect to that company of course!

</comment><comment><USER7> The place sounds like a shit show. I'm not sure why you stuck it out for 4 years.

</comment><comment><USER8> You need to get out of there, when you have found a better position.

</comment><comment><USER9> Milk it while you look for a new job.</comment>


Ask HN: How to clean Mac firmware? - <AUTHOR> Given the news release today about Mac firmware being infected, how would you go about detecting this and cleaning it up?<p>Is Apple going to do anything about it? <comment><USER2> The released documents are very old, so we don't really know what's the actual state of the art.

This is what I did (any express or implied warranty is disclaimed):

> diskutil list

/dev/disk0 (internal):

       #:                       TYPE NAME                    SIZE       IDENTIFIER

       0:      GUID_partition_scheme                         xxx.x GB   disk0

       1:                        EFI EFI                     314.6 MB   disk0s1

       2:          Apple_CoreStorage <Root_Name>             xxx.x GB   disk0s2

       3:                 Apple_Boot Recovery HD             650.0 MB   disk0s3

...

> sudo diskutil mount /dev/disk0s1

Volume EFI on /dev/disk0s1 mounted

> ls -R /Volumes/EFI/EFI/APPLE

EXTENSIONS FIRMWARE UPDATERS

/Volumes/EFI/EFI/APPLE/EXTENSIONS: Firmware.scap

/Volumes/EFI/EFI/APPLE/FIRMWARE: MBxx_xxxx_Bxx_LOCKED.fd

/Volumes/EFI/EFI/APPLE/UPDATERS: MULTIUPDATER USBCVA

...

Be sure there are no unwanted extensions.

> shasum -a 256 <MBxx_xxxx_Bxx_LOCKED.fd>

A sha hash is returned, check it against [https://github.com/gdbinit/firmware_vault](https://github.com/gdbinit/firmware_vault). If there's a mismatch, you may be affected.</comment>


Einstein was no lone genius - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/history-einstein-was-no-lone-genius-1.18793 <comment><USER2> What Einstein and others contributed towards GR in a decade is now generally taught in one semester of grad school physics. Ruling out the possibility that grad students are today >20x intelligent than Einstein, and considering that Einstein needed no more experimental results than already available to everyone in 1905, the emphasis ought not to be as simplistic as "lone genius", but on his perseverance and nose for an interesting problem, enduring all the false twists and turns that exploring one entails.

I believe this is the general trait of who we recognize as great minds.

<comment><USER3> I don't disagree with your thesis, but: understanding a solution to a problem, and coming up with the solution are two _vastly_ different things.

<comment><USER4> Yes! It takes the Universe billions of years to produce a cow. It takes that cow less than a year to produce many more cows.

<comment><USER5> Just one cow actually. If you're lucky you might get twins or three cows in two and a bit years but not many cows. Almost always just one. Sorry to be a pedant ;)

<comment><USER4> Whoops, I was thinking of puppies when I wrote cow. Need to get more sleep!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Einstein's big year was 1905, not 1915, and the four (five?) papers he produced during that year (one of which won him a Nobel) could easily be described as the work of a "lone genius."

He did most of work of that year while working, of course as we all know, as a patent clerk.

Obviously, no one lives in a vacuum, and all legendary geniuses stand on the shoulders of other giants, but I can't help but think this article somewhat misrepresents the reality of Einstein's world-changing contributions.

[edits]

<comment><USER7> It's part of a larger push toward revisionist history in general. It's no longer correct to imagine that great people moved history through inspiration and force. Now, everything is cooperative, gradual, social, and voluntary. Today's archaeologist might find the remains of a burned city littered with arrowheads and skulls and say, "There was no invasion! This was clearly just theater!" You might see an entire civilization wiped out, a language made extinct, a change in religious idols, and a sudden decrease in the sophistication and production of pottery, and the conclusion has to be "Oh! The people of this region voluntarily absorbed the language and practice of their neighbors" and not the fucking obvious conclusion "They were wiped out and replaced." And now, there are no inventory, no inspired people, just groups and systems that at some place and time happened to squirt out relativity.

<comment><USER8> I wish I could upvote this again. There is definitely this shift in the understanding of the world, and I believe it stems from an unwillingness to accept the cruelty of life. Accepting the harshness of the world and of human nature means also accepting the need to act in ways to survive and thrive in such an environment. Standards, dare I say virtues, have fallen to the wayside in pursuit of an easy, sedentary acceptance.

<comment><USER9> There is no shift. The question of whether individuals are primary influence on events or whether things are "in the air" and thus almost bound to happen (albeit caused by some individual or other) has been kicked around for at least a couple centuries. Napoleon was one of early examples often used. Was he a unique individual who exerted enormous influence on course of world events? Certainly. Were conditions in the world ripe for an individual to exert forces like Napoleon did, and would someone like Napoleon have arisen if Napoleon had never been born? Also, perhaps, yes.

Evidence for the "in the air" version clearly exists in science and mathematics, where progress leads a certain direction, then a particular individual is the one who makes big advance or discovery. Often more than one person is independently making the same advance at the same time. Think of Newton and Leibniz, who independently and at same time developed calculus. Or Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, same thing with theory of evolution. All of these guys did extremely impressive things. But do you really think nobody else would have developed calculus or discovered evolution if these guys had all died in childbirth?

I'm not saying all advancements are 100% "in the air" and that individuals basically do nothing. But, certainly, for many of these individuals -- who we (rightfully) revere -- the same advancements (or discoveries, or destruction, or whatever) would have been accomplished by someone else if they had never been born.

<comment><USER10> Right, but the conditions being ripe for a Naploean still requires Napolean. Saying that "the time was such that someone like so and so HAD to rise up" is meaningless. Nothing HAS to happen, in the realms of human behavior. People may be likely to do something, or the potential to do a great thing might be more potent at one point in time than another, but that potency still requires an efficient cause to become real. People with vision and talent and will can, and do, and have been changing the world.

If you're interested in a smarter man than me going on about this idea, I suggest you read the Foundation series by Issac Asimov.

<comment><USER11> Perhaps the conditions being ripe for Napoleon require _a Napoleank_ not _the Napolean_ , which is the crux of this individual vs circumstances debate. The interesting question is whether Napoleon (or Hitler or Stalin) was a unique individual necessary for the progression of events we call history or could that role have been fulfilled by another narcissistic, paranoid egomaniac (which Napolean, Hitler, and Stalin arguably were)? Was it fate, random chance, or is it a case of the nature of those randomly in power deciding the destiny of all? We'll probably never know.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, kind of undecidable, in similar way to nature vs. nurture debate. However, I would say that the case for scientific advancements being "in the air" and nearly inevitable is much stronger than, say, the inevitability of a paranoid egomaniac arising as a leader, rather than a more even-keeled and humane figure. Political action often seems balanced to go either way, for ill or for good, while scientific progress is in comparison mostly in a single direction, onward and upward.

<comment><USER12> I'd say that the case of scientific, as well as technological 'advancements being "in the air" and nearly inevitable' is much stronger than individuals effecting social changes. For example, Reformation happened not because of Martin Luther per se, but because of printing press that gave common people the Bible, and that spread the Luther's theses around Germany in a matter of weeks, and around the world in a matter of months (arguably, this was one of the first cases of pre-Internet outrage). If you were to remove Luther, a similar movement would likely start anyway, given that it was actually growing elsewhere in parallel! People we name and attribute changes to seem to be just puppets of the circumstances.

EDIT

Scott Alexander covers that one too:

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/07/we-wrestle-not-with- fle...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/07/we-wrestle-not-with-flesh-and- blood-but-against-powers-and-principalities/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> To some I might seem like Captain Obvious, but to me this article gave me a big insight. I mean I know social capital is important. I know it really well.

Nevertheless, I didn't know that social capital is _that_ important. Even Einstein needed it. I had no idea. I only thought he stood on the theories of others, but a lot of other people also helped him?! I never knew.

How about Stephen Hawking? Did he receive significant help from fellow physicists as well? Are all popular scientists not lone geniuses? Are they all, for lack of a better term, _group geniuses_?

<comment><USER14> The big lie sold to us is that there is such a thing as a "self-sufficient" man. The people who make it the furthest are the people with the most extensive and powerful networks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The artist Damien Hirst does not make any of his own work, he has a team that do all that for him. Nonetheless, everything out his studio is 'by Damien Hirst' as in the artist, not one of his 'artworker' collaborators or business managers.

I wonder if one could work as a scientist or an inventor like that? Which inventors, e.g.Edison, actually did?

The art movement of the 'Blair era' could be described with only the names of half a dozen Hirst type artists mentioned, yet all those names have teams of helpers. Maybe the invention scene a hundred years ago was like that to a certain extent?

<comment><USER16> Arguably, most professors run their labs in the same way Damien Hirst runs his studio, focusing on "design" and "sales".

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Einstein being a socialist and all around lover of human beings probably would agree. His letters to people like Levi-Civita make that clear. There are very few hermit geniuses. Whom we consider geniuses now were often gregarious individuals who mixed themselves up with others. An individual can only be as great as the communities that nurture them. We all rely on others to guide us towards truth and away from error.

[http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4305](http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4305)

Before developing his 1915 General Theory of Relativity, Einstein held the "Entwurf" theory. Tullio Levi-Civita from Padua, one of the founders of tensor calculus, objected to a major problematic element in this theory, which reflected its global problem: its field equations were restricted to an adapted coordinate system. Einstein proved that his gravitational tensor was a covariant tensor for adapted coordinate systems. In an exchange of letters and postcards that began in March 1915 and ended in May 1915, Levi-Civita presented his objections to Einstein's above proof. Einstein tried to find ways to save his proof, and found it hard to give it up. Finally Levi-Civita convinced Einstein about a fault in his arguments. However, only in spring 1916, long after Einstein had abandoned the 1914 theory, did he finally understand the main problem with his 1914 gravitational tensor. In autumn 1915 the G\"ottingen brilliant mathematician David Hilbert found the central flaw in Einstein's 1914 derivation. On March 30, 1916, Einstein sent to Hilbert a letter admitting, "The error you found in my paper of 1914 has now become completely clear to me".

</comment><comment><USER18> Also worth mentioning, general relativity appeared to violate the conservation of energy until Emmy Noether's contribution:

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

"Noether was brought to Göttingen in 1915 by David Hilbert and Felix Klein, who wanted her expertise in invariant theory to help them in understanding general relativity, a geometrical theory of gravitation developed mainly by Albert Einstein. Hilbert had observed that the conservation of energy seemed to be violated in general relativity, due to the fact that gravitational energy could itself gravitate. Noether provided the resolution of this paradox, and a fundamental tool of modern theoretical physics, with Noether's first theorem, which she proved in 1915, but did not publish until 1918."

<comment><USER19> Also worth mentioning is that feminists said Mileva Maric, his wife was the real credit behind his work and PBS even aired a documentary (which just shows how even documentaries are biased), until the back-lash from the scientific community dismantled this fantasized myth.

<comment><USER18> Maric story is irrelevant in relation to Noether, I don't know why it's brought up, because:

Emmy Noether really did this, it was really a big thing:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem)

Certainly not a myth.

<comment><USER19> Just stating another thing worth mentioning.. that is all :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Einstein's most genius insight was probably not to make any initial assumptions and simply to follow his thought experiments regardless of the outcome (even if they contradicted contemporary dogma). The idea that time is not constant and space can be bend was certainly genius and as far as I know rejected by others who thought the maths must be wrong. He certainly relied on others for the mathematical foundation but he always mentioned that. Science even today is strongly ego-driven and he surely had the personality to take on the other scientists of his time.

</comment><comment><USER21> Reminds of me the series Connections, where, no one man invented/created/discovered something all by himself. It was more of like, the thing of one man lead to this other thing of this other man, while this third man over here is also doing this other thing, and then bam! Something new and revolutionary that changed mankind for ever. Pete and repeats.

</comment><comment><USER22> I don't know much about physics but I always thought that he was popular ONLY because he was a "Jewish German".

</comment><comment><USER23> in 1881:

m=E/c^2

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hasen%C3%B6hrl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hasen%C3%B6hrl)

Einstein: E=m x c^2

<comment> saiya-jin quoting your own link:

... However, Max von Laue quickly rebutted those claims by saying that the inertia of electromagnetic energy was long known before Hasenöhrl, especially by the works of Henri Poincaré (1900) and Max Abraham (1902), while Hasenöhrl only used their results for his calculation on cavity radiation. Laue continued by saying that credit for establishing the inertia of all forms of energy (the real mass-energy equivalence) goes to Einstein, who was also the first to understand the deep implications of that equivalence in relation to relativity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I wonder how many geniuses there have been in the world that never had the opportunity to expand their natural skills because they were to busy just surviving.

<comment><USER25> Billions. IQ is normally distributed, so it's easy math. Lots of cynics think people are dumb or we don't have enough smart ones, but the truth is that we quite literally have more brains than we know what to do with. We are a species of bored underachievers trapped in a gravity well with nothing much to do and no future, so we spend our time fighting and drugging and making pointless doodads as townies trapped in some nowheresville often do.

<comment><USER26> Humanity is ~7B, and "billons" implies >= 2B which is >= 30% of humanity.

I'd define "great" to be the top 1% of minds, which is ~70 million people. So, yes, _tens of millions_ of great minds are certainly wasted, but not _billions_. (Not that that's much consolation).

<comment><USER27> Apparently 107 billion humans have ever lived. 1% of that is greater than a billion.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16870579](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16870579)

> here are currently seven billion people alive today and the Population > Reference Bureau estimates that about 107 billion people have ever lived.

That said, merely being in the top 1% of intelligence doesn't seem to be worthy of the genius title.

<comment><USER25> If you are in the top 1% or even 5% you are probably capable of genius things if given the opportunity. The majority never are.

Genius is much more common than opportunity.

<comment><USER28> How do i up vote this. I have the genius but lacking the opportunity i think</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Awwwards.com - Inspiring Web Designers to Create Crap - <AUTHOR>

I can't believe this site. I just heard of it today. The usable designs that are simple, attractive, and load fast get bad scores. The sites with annoying loading screens, annoying animations, and distracting parallax scrolling receive much higher scores, even in the usability rating. What the hell is going on? <comment><USER2> Design trends my friend. Parallax scrolling, large HTML5 looping video and imagery, unnecessary loading screens, horizontal scrolling and my favourite of this whole unusable design trend of late: parallax layer slideshows (where pieces fly in independently to form a slides contents).

As a developer I completely agree with you. Making a site useful versus making a site that crams as much design fodder in as possible shouldn't be a hard decision to choose between, but here we are. The theme marketplace Themeforest are BIG perpetrators of these aforementioned trends, you won't get a theme approved for sale if you don't incorporate these, "features"

<comment><AUTHOR> It's horrible. I think they should actually watch the normal user use their site. Once they see a loading screen, they're likely going to x out of the site.</comment></comment>