OpenAI at the Dota 2 World Championships - <AUTHOR> https://openai.com/the-international/ <comment><USER2> Really was quite interesting to watch ([https://www.twitch.tv/videos/166172514?t=7h3m10s](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/166172514?t=7h3m10s)). Honestly, the bot played _extremely_ well, but I think the biggest advantage was how much faster it's reaction time was and it's movements were likely much more precise than a human is with a mouse.

I'm pretty interested in seeing their 5v5 results as well. It seems like that will have similar results as the bots can coordinate, but it's still a bit up in the air.

I'm really not sure how well a bot like this would do with 4 human teammates though. I would guess the bot would be a strong laner, but fairly weak overall due to it's inability to communicate, though if it's really good at learning how it's current teammates are playing as it goes, it may do alright.

I'm also pretty curious about the match limitations: no shrines (regen), no soul ring (mana regen at expense of some health), no raindrops (fixed amount of magic damage block)

<comment><USER3> It would be a fantastic side project to teach bots to learn to speak "Dota". Learning to communicate efficiently is likely much easier as the vocabulary and intentions behind them are constrained.

<comment><USER4> Side question: if we consider a team of 5 bots, would they need to communicate?

<comment><USER5> If you wanted them to play "within the rules", they would need some way to communicate via the game.. Text chat would make the most sense since adding in TTS / STT would seem unnecessary.. They could even communicate in some kind of shorthand language that only the bots understand..

<comment><USER6> I think the grandparent is asking whether the bots would need to communicate at all, as opposed to just "knowing" what the other bots are "thinking".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Saw this live and as someone that's played Dota for many years, it's not as impressive as people make it out to be. A Shadowfiend 1v1 is primarily a test of mechanical skill and _not_ judgment.

A similar comparison is if a Counter-Strike or Quake bot would instantly snap to your head getting a headshot. Like, yeah, cool I guess, and it would beat 100% of human players 100% of the time, but it's not even remotely as impressive as Chess or Go. The razes in particular are "skill shots" that are sometimes hard for humans to estimate whereas for a robot it's just simple math.

I will say that the one impressive aspect of the bot was raze faking, but I think that it was one of those cases where it was "coached" (same as the creep blocking).

<comment><USER8> > but I think that it was one of those cases where it was "coached" (same as > the creep blocking).

What makes you think that? In the interview, they explicitly disclaim this.

<comment><USER7> In the interview, they literally said they coached it to have certain behaviors.

<comment><USER9> They said "yes, it does that"/"it's been known to do that", not "it was coached to do that". Just as a "We've seen it do that before."

<comment><USER7> Yeah, just re-watched the clip, I think you're right. My mistake (the word "coached" confused me).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The developer interviewed claimed that there was no domain-specific knowledge and implied (though didn't explicitly state) there wasn't any training against non-OpenAI bots or players. (I'd love to know the reward function they used for whatever Q-learning variation they ran with.)

If this is accurate, one of the things I'm most impressed with is that the bot figured out creep-blocking. (I can't find a good GIF, but this is walking in a wiggly path in front of the first wave of neutrals on your side, delaying their progress and pushing the lane towards you, which is good for ~reasons.)

Creep blocking isn't all that hard in dexterity--I am a terrible dota player and I can more or less do it. And it's one of the most common pieces of dota knowledge; every pro player does it and since it's relatively easy compared to a lot of pro micro, everyone else rapidly learns they should.

But nevertheless--the bot had enough games that it could randomly jump in front of the wave enough times that it _noticed_ a win rate improvement for that slight wave push, and begin to do it intentionally? (And then get good at it?) Damn.

One thing I don't really know about Q-learning and the typical nets used for it: I am guessing it is likely that internally to the bot's evaluation functions, there is some learned feature whose activation correlates well to the location of the wave equilibrium (since that's a feature that correlates well with winning!) At that point, is it likely that the bot can learn in smaller increments--that is, it knows that pushing equilibrium towards itself is good, and thus randomly creep blocking a little becomes reinforced (rather than having to notice the creep block's effect on _game_ wins?)

<comment><USER11> I don't know that they specifically said there was no domain-specific knowledge. iirc they said they didn't "teach it the rules of dota" but they also said the training involved "coaching". I interpret that to include showing the bot useful techniques (like creep blocking) which the AI then learned leads to higher win rates, etc.

<comment><USER12> They also mentioned that in the beginning the bot figured out that the best way to win was to not play the game (aka hiding in it's own base). Then it started running around wildly, dying to enemy towers in the wrong lanes at the map. So it definitely took some nudging getting it to do something more than being AFK in base.

<comment><USER13> How did it figure that? There's pretty much no way to win if you're just staying in base.

<comment><USER14> Barring faction imbalance, there's a 50% chance to win by staying in base. However, I'm not sure how running around and dying could negatively impact your win percentage unless the other bot is also outside of the base.

<comment><USER13> I don't understand what you mean. If you stay in base, the opponent won't, and will quickly win the game.

<comment><USER15> This is during the training phase, the opponent will be a similarily trained AI.

<comment><USER13> Ah, I see, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> So an interesting thing you could do as a game company with an "unbeatable" bot is to use it to balance a metagame. Let the bots all play each other and tweak character stats etc until they win a proportional amount of the time. (This presupposes that the bot learns the game the way OpenAI claims it is, without needing to learn from player replays or from playing in a very different way than human players do with tree search etc)

<comment><USER17> I think balance is a bigger problem than people realize. It's much harder than you'd think, and the most common way of balancing things is to simply make them more "samey".

I was part of the Warcraft 3 beta. When it started all the races felt so unique. It's a bit foggy now but I think, for example, all the elves buildings - which appeared tree like - would automatically regenerate. Once they started balancing the game, all these special traits fell away. All the races were homogenized and despite still being different, all played much more similarly. Honestly, it ruined the game for me. I feel if I had just picked it up upon release I would have enjoyed it, but watching all these unique traits and play styles fade away made me realize what could have been.

<comment><USER12> This is luckily a problem Dota2 doesn't suffer from, we've been incredibly lucky to have Icefrog be the main force behind it for over a decade. It's an incredibly well balanced game, at this International (World Championships for Dota2) 112 of 113 heroes has been picked and/or banned. The amount of diversity you have in strategy is amazing, there is a meta obviously, but teams have very individual styles and heroes they prioritize.

As far as I'm concerned Dota2 is probably the most well balanced competitive video game out there.

<comment><USER18> It's also interesting to note that icefrogs balance strategy revolves around strengthening strengths, and making initial weaknesses more pronounced. I think this helps a lot with diversity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> These types of MOBA games are a good precursor of military unit management. To be honest, I'm not totally sure whether to be happy or sad about this sort of thing. The strategic control of drone units on a combat field, without the loss of personel (on the countries with this technology, anyways) should make me happy, and does, to a point. BUT the potential for abuse (and, no, I haven't even begun to extrapolate towards the Terminator, nightmare scenarios) is rampant. Fewer people with a conscience on the battlefield or controlling the apparatuses of war may or may not be worth the cost of the lives of young men and women..... but I think wars should be fought by old men and women with swords, anyway. If you're old and can look i to the face of your enemy while you kill them, there's a better chance it's worth killing and dying for (by the numbers, anyways).... plus, the President, Congress and the Senate have to serve in combat positions, in my little fantasy scenerio =)

<comment><USER20> DotA is not a MOBA and it's not a very good precursor for military unit management. I'd say Starcraft is a better comparison, and they are working on applying DeepMind to that right now [0].

[0] [https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/09/blizzard-and-deepmind- turn...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/09/blizzard-and-deepmind-turn- starcraft-ii-into-an-ai-research-lab/)

<comment><USER21> Dota definitely is a MOBA. Dota is _the_ MOBA from which all the others are devised [0].

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer_online_battle_aren...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer_online_battle_arena)

<comment><USER22> Some people dislike that term. Many people in the dota community prefer ARTS over MOBA. Though yes, technically it's a MOBA; many other games could be MOBAs because it's fairly vague.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think one of the biggest challenges in moving from 1v1 to 5v5 is the substantially increased possibility of creative strategies. In a 1v1, there isn't that much room for innovation, making it a perfect target for existing AI techniques, which are good at learning what is "in the data" but have not yet been shown to be capable of thinking outside the box. In contrast, in a 5v5 matchup, a much wider range of strategies is available. I'd imagine that in this more flexible setting, AIs would be highly vulnerable to cheese strategies, or in general strategies they have never seen before. Furthermore, if there are any exploitable quirks in the AI (which seems quite likely, given the established lack of robustness of neural nets), I have no doubt that clever human players will be quick to exploit them. On the flip side, I think that makes 5v5 a far more challenging and interesting goal that would be very exciting if achieved!

As a side note: I think the most impressive aspect of this AI is that it was trained without watching _any_ human games. In contrast, AlphaGo was bootstrapped from a bunch of existing human games, which I imagine was crucial to its training. Being able to learn how to fake out the human player without having seen this action before is quite impressive.

<comment><USER24> Without even getting into misconceptions and inaccuracies here, the following quotes illustrate "the moving goalposts of AI": The almost-metaphysical "mystique" that many attribute (perhaps subconsciously) to human intelligence vs machine intelligence:

      > AI techniques, which are good at learning what is "in the data"
      but have not yet been shown to be capable of thinking outside the box

      > AIs would be highly vulnerable

      > exploitable quirks in the AI

      > established lack of robustness of neural nets

      > clever human players will be quick to exploit them

Of course, it is important to identify pitfalls, so as to address them. But it is sad that no matter how good AI gets, there will always be pessimistic reasoning downplaying its success. With every step forward, there are the predictions of impassible future failures -- "just around the corner"!

Due to this mystical "cleverness" attributed exclusively to humans, I'm not convinced a majority of humans will ever allow machines to be considered 'intelligent', no matter how far the technology advances. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

<comment><USER25> I will consider an A.I. truly _intelligent_ when it passes the Turing test with flying colors. And as a native English speaker, too (not just barely passing by posing as a 13 year old Ukrainian boy with a poor grasp of English, which is what happened last time).

As far I know, no A.I. developed has ever met this bar. It seems that the nuances, inconsistencies, and total freedom of language make it a totally different kind of problem to solve than a simple game-playing algorithm.

Or maybe I'm wrong and getting an A.I. to pass the Turing test is just another kind of game-playing algorithm with different parameters. At any rate, we're quite a way off.

<comment><USER24> Again, _you 're moving the goalposts forward whenever AI surpasses them_. This time you move the goalposts forward by requiring a proof of native English proficiency. Next time it will be something else; that goalpost will be achieved, and when it is, you will move the goalpost forward yet again.

Perhaps you'll require the Turing+++ test be conducted with audio rather than text. Then it will be video. Then a physical android. Then it will need to prove itself better than the human in an IQ test. Then it will need to pass various real world success tests, because IQ tests are too synthetic. But those won't be good enough either, so it will have to live 80+ years as a human in the real world without being discovered. But that's not enough, because maybe its life was too easy -- the real human experience is characterized by pain and suffering as well as joy, so we'll also need it to somehow prove its experience is more real. And on and on and on. It's always something else -- with every step forward, the success will be dismissed and the goalpost will move forward.

I should say this isn't intrinsically a bad thing, since it pushes us to advance the field of AI more and more. But IMO this is too often promoted as a pessimistic criticism of the AI field, rather than an encouraging push of optimism.

Why must this notion of binary "true intelligence" exist, anyway? Can't we see that intelligence is a spectrum (most likely with multiple dimensions of proficiency), and AI is continuously advancing upwards?

<comment><USER25> The Turing test is hardly a new measure - it's been around for ~70 years and hasn't been passed yet. But otherwise I agree with what you said - this is just my personal measure of when we'll be in society-shaking territory.

<comment><USER26> It _has_ been passed, but the definition of passed changes to make the test tougher each time. I think that is what the other poster is talking about.

<comment><USER27> Has it been passed? Turings original paper assumes adults conversing intelligently. That is the spirit of the test. Not a clever hack of the rules, like posing as a child which doesn't speak english.

This is the $20000 long bet from 2002 between Kapor and Kurzweil:

[http://longbets.org/1/#terms](http://longbets.org/1/#terms)

> Ray Kurzweil maintains that a computer (i.e., a machine intelligence) will > pass the Turing test by 2029. Mitchell Kapor believes this will not happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> In the interest of a "fairer" comparison, I wonder how much of a difference it would make to force the AI to simulate mouse/keyboard input and interpret the raw screen buffer output, rather than using direct APIs into the game's guts, to more faithfully emulate its human opponent. I'm guessing the peripheral inputs wouldn't be much of a hurdle, but the image processing step could be very interesting.

<comment><USER29> How do you know it's not doing that already? I was under the assumption that open ai agents interacted with the environments through vnc.

<comment><USER30> DOTA has a bot API ([https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Dota_Bot_Scripting](https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Dota_Bot_Scripting))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> To be clear 1v1 mid lane is harder than 1 unit v 1 unit in sc. But it is at least 3 levels behind 5v5 human play.

So first it's laining, which is showing in the game.

Then is the ganking basically 2-3 player working together.

Above that that's 5 men team fight.

Then you have the strategy planning in the band pick phase, and in game movement coordination.

There are other things like item choices, in game communication etc.

I guess bots never tilt...

This 1v1 match is definitely a proof of the strength and maturity of modern AI.

It will be extremely interesting to see if they can train a bot to achieve the above intelligence. If so, I guess the game is pretty much losing a lot of its appeal.

<comment><USER32> I'm not sure about DOTA, but in LOL there is also champion select which happens before the game starts, where you try to pick/ban/steal champions to get a good team comp and get the other team to have a bad team comp. It's lots of know overall strategy, what your enemy likes, and some game theory.

You can lose the game before your summoner even hits the field.

<comment><USER33> Main difference is all Dota heroes are viable in competitive. Also, there's no mirror match

<comment><USER34> Only 3 heroes not picked in TI, iirc. It hasn't always been this diverse though. This patch is particularly well balanced.

<comment><USER33> Picked heroes have been >80% since TI3. Compare that to LoL's ~50%

[https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/4n5og5/com...](https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/4n5og5/comparing_professional_lol_champion_pick/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This will be HUGE for competitive Dota, even if they never take it further.

In much the same ways top chess players have learned from engines, I have to think top Dota players will practice against and study the hell out of this bot if OpenAI makes it available.

Not everything is replicable by humans... for instance I noticed it constantly animation-canceling razes and only finishing it if it was going to hit; a human will definitely mess this up. But other things can definitely be used. It was positioning somewhat strangely, for example.

</comment><comment><USER36> It was streaming and it's over, so here's the VOD: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac1getNs2P8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac1getNs2P8)

</comment><comment><USER12> Wow, that was not even close either. And it only takes it two weeks to reach that level of play? OpenAI should create a team of five (as they said they would) and let it play in the qualifiers next year.

<comment><USER37> 5v5 is much more complex than 1v1 gameplay, it's not as simple as taking the current AI and making 5 of it.

<comment><USER32> I don't want to be "that guy", but I used to play a lot of LOL, and I feel like 5v5 is in a different ballpark in terms of difficulty than a 1v1. Even champion select is strategically intensive. TSM (one of the best US teams), lost to an amateur team because they got out done in team selection.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7l30-4A6WQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7l30-4A6WQ)

<comment><USER37> It is extremely difficult. 1v1 is like beating humans at chess. 5v5 is like beating humans at Go. That's the kind of jump it is.

<comment><USER38> I would even bring that to one more level of difficulty. There are so many choices can be made in-game to gain advantages over enemy: item build, gank/farm distribution, resource sharing, vision fight, choose to defense or let go/trade of tower/objectives...

If we can have AI that beat Pro at 5v5 in Dota, it would very likely be an AGI.

<comment><USER39> No. The value function for the AI will be way too specialized to look anything like AGI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I wonder if this a good move for Valve. How many people will be loose interest from the game if next year OpenAI manages to pull off the 5v5 challenge, thus bringing DotA 2 to the same level as GO and chess for AI, i.e. beating the best human(s). Has there been any study on the popularity of chess after AI moved in? How about prize pools, as a large driving force of DotA 2 is the competitive scene? I suppose Valve will find out soon enough and it may be a significant event to study of the impact of AI, if only by the scale (> 10 millions players [1]) and the traceability of the metrics. What if the numbers do indeed plunge? Maybe such public display of AI might be given second thoughts. And what of outside the gaming industry?

[1] [http://www.criticalhit.net/gaming/dota-2-vs-league- legends-u...](http://www.criticalhit.net/gaming/dota-2-vs-league-legends- updating-numbers/)

<comment><USER37> Of course it's a good move. Millions watched AlphaGo, many of whom have never played Go before. Millions, almost every single gamer will watch AI vs Dota that will be amazing marketing for Valve.

<comment><USER40> I'm talking mid to long term here. To rephrase, is there a sizeable amount of players who will stop playing, knowing that they cannot ever be the best? Because when AI beats one, I don't believe there is a coming back. For the concrete AlphaGo example, of course it was hugely popular but I would be interested in the evolution on the number of players, how many of those viewers started playing balanced by how many existing players lost interest following the matches (excluding GO researchers :) ).

<comment><USER41> I don't think it will matter at all. Literally, zero impact.

Chess computers crush the world's best humans, yet here we are in meatspace, still vying to win the human world chess championship.

Also, 99.99999% of players realize they'll never ever be close to being the best in the world, yet they still play the game because it is inherently fun.

<comment><USER42> the problem is that players will use those bots against other players, just like they do in online chess. The burden of reporting them will be too much for online play probably. It's the ultimate cheat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> It is so weird reading all these comments. Almost half of them start out as "it's impressive.. but". Is it human nature or are HN commenters just so sceptical/negative of all the new tech?

One of the OpenAI guys mentioned that they could potentially use the same technique in real life applications like surgery. Surgery is not "just" run on a computer it has a physical component too. Is that really the next step or was he just throwing out a random example people could understand?

<comment><USER44> Why not ask them directly, if you actually want to _ask_ rather than make up?

For me it makes as much sense as comparing someone sewing pieces of clothes together with someone pulling a zipper. Did people also have races against cars all the time? Is anyone getting excited over some plastic not changing texture when submerged in water for days or even years, while humans get elephant skin rather quickly? I _do_ find all of that highly interesting, but it's more a morbid curiosity than being amazed.

> One of the OpenAI guys mentioned that they could potentially use the same > technique in real life applications like surgery.

Oh yeah, it will _all_ be for benefiting the elderly and the poor, I'm sure. At some point, ever around the corner. It won't benefit the people who need to have surgery in the first place because the so called civilized world can't even deal with warmongers and power mad cops, can't reign in sheer greed and sociopathy -- but nobody who has excuses today will still have them when faced with fully automatic enforcement systems.

Generally, at least allow for the possibility that someone who is not utterly fascinated by something you like might not be _less_ curious and progressive than you, but the opposite, and that what you think is the bigger picture being a fraction of what they see. At least until you actually asked the people whose comments you don't like.

<comment><USER45> > Why not ask them directly, if you actually want to ask rather than make up?

It would be annoying to ask the same question 10 different times in a thread, I think a top level comment is better. Also, I didn't see any made up explanation in the parent comment, it looks like a straightforward question to me.

> the so called civilized world can't even deal with warmongers and power mad > cops, can't reign in sheer greed and sociopathy

Can't this be used to shut down literally any conversation? It's obviously not possible for any one innovation or idea to solve all these problems, so it's not really that useful to point out. Would you dismiss any story that doesn't say "war solved"?

> allow for the possibility that someone who is not utterly fascinated by > something you like might not be less curious and progressive than you, but > the opposite, and that what you think is the bigger picture being a fraction > of what they see

Where are you getting this from? Nobody said this, who are you attacking? This comment is so absurdly negative, and it seems completely unprovoked.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> As a longtime DotA player and someone who's following the pro scene, this is very impressive. Especially considering how it's beaten Sumail, widely regarded as one of the best 1v1 players in the world. Can't wait to see what OpenAI have in store a year from now for 5v5.

<comment><USER47> Sumail won once until they gave the bot insane creep blocking skills.

[https://twitter.com/Phillip_Aram/status/896162260455800832](https://twitter.com/Phillip_Aram/status/896162260455800832)

<comment><USER48> >The bot didn't recognize items on ground so he expended Mana picked up mango then killed. So yes, he won, but it was more gimping the bot.

That's insane that he figured out how to beat it so quickly. I feel there are other ways to cheese it too. Like maybe survive until 6 -> rush shadow amulet -> smoke -> activate and walk into lane during fade time -> ult when the wave/bot is on top of you. I bet the bot has never seen invisibility and wouldn't know what to do

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Not that this isn't very cool, but 1v1 Dota isn't anything like the full game, it's mostly a competition of who has better micro. If it can beat a team of pros at 5v5– which is where the imperfect information, short-vs-long term strategy and inter-agent communication challenges come into play— then I'll be impressed.

<comment><USER50> Honestly, you don't even have to make all the AI heroes separate. We automatically assume that each would be controlled by a separate virtual player, but one virtual player could very well control all controllable units on a team. That'd be interesting to watch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Is the "two weeks" of time in the Dota environment, or two weeks of training time running in parallel as with A3C or something?

<comment><USER52> From what the devs indicated on stream it sounded like processing hours (with a ratio of around 300 in-game hours to 1 processing hour).

<comment><USER53> Interesting. That means it accumulates the equivalent of 24 * 14 * 300 = 100,800 hours of experience. That's about double the amount of practice one gets for playing 10 hours a day for 14 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Is it taking in raw pixels or reading from game memory? How did they gather data to train for this? (Did Valve give them an API?)

<comment><USER55> [https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Dota_Bot_Scripting](https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Dota_Bot_Scripting)

> Bot scripting in Dota is done via lua scripting. This is done at the server > level, so there's no need to do things like examine screen pixels or > simulate mouse clicks; instead scripts can query the game state and issue > orders directly to units. Scripts have full access to all the entity > locations, cooldowns, mana values, etc that a player on that team would > expect to. The API is restricted such that scripts can't cheat -- units in > FoW can't be queried, commands can't be issued to units the script doesn't > control, etc.

<comment><USER52> I wouldn't be surprised if they had access to a less restricted AI. Until we see more concrete information I remain sceptical that they are only using the official API.

<comment><USER56> Why? Everything it needed for that 1v1 was available. There was nothing in the FoW that needed to be known, it can keep timers about enemy cooldowns, gold and xp (approximations at least since it's somewhat random).

<comment><USER52> I'm not suggesting they had information that a human player wouldn't (i.e. cheating), I just suspect that they may have access to a richer api.

<comment><USER57> Which would give them what? The second clause of your sentence contradicts the first.

<comment><USER52> The statements are not contradictory - they can have a superior api which doesn't permit 'cheating'. For example they could expose c++ api rather than a lua api for performance concerns. Furthermore some of the api calls (e.g. GetNearbyCreeps) have arbitrary restrictions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Looks like its also being hosted on Twitch.tv in addition to Youtube:

[https://www.twitch.tv/dota2ti](https://www.twitch.tv/dota2ti)

<comment><USER31> Twitch is the official streaming partner for 7 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> This was fun. It's our intern's last day on the ML infra team here. And he happens to be a competitive collegiate DOTA player. We were all crowded around watching the screen, shouting. Couldn't have planned a better send off. Nice job, OpenAI!

<comment><USER60> As a ML researcher and an avid dota fan, I'm jealous! And it must have been great with Dendi the legend there too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> If I remember correctly, Deep Mind recently releasead a kit to train bots to play Starcraft 2. Would anyone be able to compare the differences and difficulty of playing dota and starcraft for a bot?

</comment><comment><USER62> Elon posted these AI fear/regulation tweets right after he retweeted the opeanai dota 2 blog post:

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/896166762361704450](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/896166762361704450)

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/896169801277517824](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/896169801277517824)

</comment><comment><USER63> All these fancy stuff and valve still can't detect people feeding chicken...

</comment><comment><USER64> I wonder if some of the things the guy says are misleading.

In the video, we see the bot "creep blocking." For those unfamiliar with dota, players can use the model of the unit they control to obstruct the movement of allied computer controlled units in order to gain a favorable position.

I suppose it's possible that over millions and millions of matches played against itself, the OpenAI bot "invented" this behavior for itself. But it seems more likely to me that the programmers "built that behavior in."

<comment><USER60> It would be pretty much impossible for the programmers to "build the behavior in" to the neural network, unless you mean training on supervised data or something.

<comment><USER65> It's not impossible, it's called inverse reinforcement learning, where they learn a value function from an external demonstration. Then they use this value function for teaching the bot an action policy. Intuitively, the idea is to learn first what are a good state and a bad state, based on external demonstrations, then use that to teach the bot how to act.

This kind of learning is similar to GANs, where the discriminator learns from real data and the generator learns from the discriminator.

<comment><USER60> Very interesting! Thanks for sharing -- I'll look more into this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> MEH. I am not impressed. Restricting the number of parameters and variables in order to produce a bot that can do 1 sub-set of tasks really well is nothing special imo.

Complexity and simulations of what you have not yet encountered is something humans can do with ease. This is not something a bot can do in a complex environment like DOTA.

I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong and that AI is truly a thing once I see a bot like this one beat a pro-team in a 5v5. Until then, meh...

<comment><USER67> is an improvement against the other bots, it can be really good for training players, I would love to test it my self, but yeah dota is biggest that this, not only 5 v5, also 100+ heroes, and professional player can play a variety of heroes on mid with different matchups and its nuisances, the bot still need it a lot to even dominate 1v1.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Even with a lot of restrictions, I can't imagine how much variables this bot has to take into account; and then generate the output within a sub- millisecond time period. The most interesting part was aggressive positioning of the bot, and faking the spells to scare the shit out of Dendi (the pro player competing against it). Will definitely follow the progress of this project.

</comment><comment><USER69> I really don't think this is a big accomplishment. Dota 2 is a team game where 5 players all work together. I went in thinking I would see a 5v5 against bots. They promised a 5v5 against bots next year so we'll see how that plays out.

</comment><comment><USER70> I wonder what the input for the bot was. Just a screengrab like in other reinforcement learning examples (like Pong or GTA etc.) or did they use some Dota API to make their lives a bit more easy?

Impressive nonetheless, like others said, knowing the reward function would be interesting.

</comment><comment><USER71> How do things like reaction time, and actions per second work with something like this? Is it just an assumed advantage the ai gets, or does it simulate the limitations of a human? If it doesn't, how big of an advantage is it in an ai versus human competition?

<comment><USER56> That was pretty much the entire reason it won. It did some standard high-level 1v1 laning techniques, but if human "conditions"[1] were implemented it would look a lot different.

Just the blocking of the lane creeps at the start is already super-human and gives the bot a huge advantage.

[1] like lower actions per minute, latency, occasionally missclicking and not being 100% certain about distances

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Seems like the AI was beaten at least 50 times.

[https://twitter.com/riningear/status/896297256550252545](https://twitter.com/riningear/status/896297256550252545)

</comment><comment><USER73> This is really cool outreach on OpenAI's part. So many young people watch The International and I'm guessing that at least a few of them are more interested in CS and STEM from seeing this.

</comment><comment><USER74> Where's the paper describing the exact methods used?

</comment><comment><USER75> I love both Dota and ML, this is awesome. I would love to know whether they release the source code for us to play around.

<comment><USER60> It is _Open_ AI, after all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> OT: Is backdooring prevented by the game engine yet? Annoyed me that a useful tactic was "against the rules"

<comment><USER77> It's always been prevented in Dota 2. Buildings have backdoor protection, which makes them regenerate lost HP from recent attacks unless there are creeps nearby.

<comment><USER78> Not really "prevented", backdoor protection only provides 90HP/s.

<comment><USER79> Backdoor protection also gives a substantial damage reduction - 25%, and much more against illusions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> this whole emphasis that openai and deepmind put on human/robot collaboration is a paper thin pr move in my opinion. the robots will be better than any human, humans will not be able to contribute a single thing soon. but they try to make us all feel safe by making it look like they benefit from our brains.

<comment><USER81> I know it's not the same type of AI, but in chess there's a whole scene for computer + human play. A chess engine on its own can have trouble seeing strategic ideas that humans can recognize (e.g. opposite-colored bishop endgames, certain closed positions, and fortresses) so an engine on its own will lose to that engine being assisted by a skilled human player. In other words, humans are still capable for contributing at least a little. That said, it's not much - I think a chess GM paired with an engine will probably only be able to beat an engine rated ~100 or so points higher than their own.

It will be interesting for deep learning, though, where the ideas are a bit more abstract. Perhaps humans will be useful for a while longer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> Very impressive, even if there are some limitations. I look forward to more progress for a team of bots.

</comment><comment><USER83> Well the presentation was a little meh but very impressive tech they built, excited to see the 5v5.

</comment><comment><USER84> To OpenAI folks: are you planning to publish a paper with implementation details?

</comment><comment><USER31> When will the match happen or did it already happen? I did not find any vods.

<comment><USER31> OK it's happening right now, I saw machine the host's announcement

<comment><USER85> Weird website... No indication that a match is happening/happened/ or going to happen or with times or not.

I guess I missed it and the stream link is now just a general link to the TI stream, which confused me for a bit.

<comment><USER31> They probably dont expect the dota tournament to have such a large influence scope...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> It looks like it's over…? Someone has a replay of the relevant part(s)?

<comment><USER86> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac1getNs2P8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac1getNs2P8)

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> As a long time dota2 player, it was simply absurd just how good it was.

</comment><comment><USER88> Is this the start of the end of online gaming? If bots outperform humans, what to prevent someone from a running bots for online games (even Poker and Chess) and being sure that everyone loses?

<comment><USER89> Or, quite the opposite.

I played DotA a few dozen hours, mostly against the computer, to learn. Then I played only a few matches against people, but I generally didn't like them.

Why? Because there were expectations that I would know certain things, or that I would perform at a certain level, and the other players were, on average, a bunch of young kids with tons of time to play DotA and their own weird jargon and acronyms for me.

I would strongly prefer to play against bots only, and be able to adjust the difficulty, to make the game always challenging and interesting as I progress in skill level. It could also make the "competitor" in me happy by knowing what my (objective) ranking would be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> Is there a research paper on this?

</comment><comment><USER91> this is pretty awesome, hopefully they'll release some more details about how it was implemented

</comment><comment><USER92> Figuring teamplay out is going to be a lot more complicated but a strong 1v1 bot is already very impressive. Props to openAI, that universe didn't take off was a bummer, it was a pretty cool project as well.

</comment><comment><USER93> Anyone else interested in seeing this bot Vs itself?

</comment><comment><USER94> No!</comment>


How to Build a Sleep Habit Like Arianna Huffington - <AUTHOR> http://evolution2.co/evolutionaries/arianna-huffington-sleep-habits <comment><USER2> I guess I expected the sleep habits to be more revolutionary, but after reading them, they're very practical and simple, and that makes sense. I've recently been implementing about the same, and it's so refreshing. As for falling asleep, instead of reading I fall asleep chanting mantra on a mala.</comment>


Four New Elements Added to the Periodic Table - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/04/461904077/4-new-elements-are-added-to-the-periodic-table <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10822013](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10822013)

</comment><comment><USER3> Fun fact: _Japonium_ [0] is a suggested name for Element 113. If accepted, the letter J will finally appear on the periodic table.

0.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununtrium#Naming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununtrium#Naming)</comment>


$699 Apple Pro Wheels - <AUTHOR> https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MX572ZM/A/apple-mac-pro-wheels-kit <comment><USER2> The Apple apologists are going to call this a marketing stunt, but functionally it's just the inevitable conclusion of a platform monopoly that's extremely hard to leave. All it really does for me is send a very strong message about what Apple thinks about its customers, but I'm not really the type that enjoys spending $5000 on a $1000 computer for it's Veblen good aesthetics and the joys of trying to get my linux production software to run on their tortured unix.

If Apple's profit margins are coming from extremely expensive business computers and high end phones, there could be some brutal earnings reports in their future. Will be interesting to see, but given their current war chest I suppose they could just buy their way into the current valuation for a while with dividends and buybacks.

</comment><comment><USER3> Note that they don't have brakes. There are reports of Mac Pros wandering around on floors that are not completely level [1].

[1] [https://twitter.com/MKBHD/status/1232708514625310721](https://twitter.com/MKBHD/status/1232708514625310721)

Edit: it looks like they are mounted with pins that are almost the same size as normal wheels. So I guess you can also go for $2 wheels available at your local hardware store.

<comment><USER4> Perhaps there will be a $2000 version with brakes?

<comment><USER5> Apple Pro Wheels 2

Revolutionize your office flexibility by using the brand new wheel brakes.

Keep your Mac Pro near you, apply the breaks. Never stop imagining.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> How many people are talking about these wheels?

It's like "have you seen how much Apple are charging for their Mac Pro wheels?!?!"

And people are becoming aware that the Mac Pro exists.

<comment><USER7> Yep. Like the monitor arm but better.

Especially because they are released with time in between for maximum effectiveness. I bet they will release another useless $1000 option next in a few months. Idk, a $1200 black case or a $600 mouse or something.

Oh! An external wireless keyboard with touchbar and touch ID for $400! That would be a great move. I bet people will actually buy it as well.

<comment><USER8> I paid close to $400 for my current keyboard, and it's just a ordinary mechanical keyboard, no fancy features. I'm very happy with it, and how much I paid for it.

<comment><USER9> Was it a custom or semi custom job? You can get amazing keyboards for 200, just wondering what it is.

Anyhow even if not custom/limited run product, you paid x2 not x10 of the cost.

<comment><USER8> I wanted a very specific Filco model. It was out of production, and I had to order it from overseas, which drove up the cost a fair bit. I probably did pay about 2x the original price for it, but I'm not really sure because it was never sold in the US as far as I know. Filco make high quality keyboard in any case, and they're not exactly cheap under normal circumstances.

My point being that I knew what I wanted to get, and I was happy to pay that price for it, even if some (or a lot of) other people would think that's ridiculous. I think I've gotten more value out of it than I paid for it in $$$. If charging high prices is what it takes to convince people to produce high quality products, then (for certain products) I'm happy to pay them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> its a marketing move. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TfLVL5GeE4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TfLVL5GeE4)

<comment><USER11> Aghh Linus... Now my feed will be full of him again!

<comment><USER12> What's the deal with him?

<comment><USER11> Ah he's not bad to be fair, but everytime I watch even just 1 video, YouTube seems to think I want to binge every min of his videos.

There are a few YouTube personalities that have that effect.. And it takes a while to clear out that feedback bubble.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Innovation still taking place.. They said don't reinvent the wheel.. Well Apple proves once again.. To think different.

<comment><USER13> It takes the courage to use a revolutionary design.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The wheels for my car are cheaper.

<comment><USER15> That's because wheels for your car have breaks. Those, don't.

<comment><USER16> car wheels do not have brakes.

<comment><USER17> So why then they are so cheap?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If you don't have a cool $699 for the wheels, you could just go with the $299 feet [0], and load the whole thing onto a kid's steel wagon [1].

[0]. [https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MXNM2ZM/A/apple-mac- pro-f...](https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MXNM2ZM/A/apple-mac-pro-feet-kit)

[1]. [https://www.mocka.com.au/kids-steel- wagon.html](https://www.mocka.com.au/kids-steel-wagon.html)

</comment><comment><USER19> I have an old imac. I was trying to change the batteries in the track pad. The batteries must have leaked and I could not get it open, even with massive force.

I learned my lesson on paying a premium for expensive accessories. So here is what I did.

I just ordered the basic ipad yesterday for my kid's distance learning.

They were pushing the pencil and keyboard hard. I did a quick search and found off brand pencils and keyboards that would work for a fraction of the cost. That is the route I went.

</comment><comment><USER20> I love macOS & iOS. I've been happy to be an Apple customer because the support for hardware has been excellent as well.

The icing on the cake was the era of belief that Apple had the goal of making consumer products that people could afford and cherish a good portion of their life. The company is sadly drifting from the past brand status for everyone can change the world to just another luxury brand that not everyone can afford for participating.

Why the company prefers making these beyond expensive products and instead of improving user experience & enticing new customers is beyond me. I guess people just work for waking up to a higher paycheck than last year nowadays.

</comment><comment><USER21> Interesting. Did not realize people moved their towers that much. Perhaps it's a thing people do in art studios or wherever Mac Pros are used.

<comment><USER7> It's not about moving the tower. It's about brand awareness, like this post.

"Look how stupid these expensive wheels are." While you look at their fancy mac pro. It's free advertising, and since nobody needs the wheels, no customer feels ripped off.

Win-win.

It's like the $1000 Monitor arm but better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> earlier discussion [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23086254](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23086254)

<comment><USER23> Comment from there: "The guy was a 10x engineer. He was looking into medical tourism to have a feeding tube put in so he could fuel w/ Soylent."

That was a joke right?

<comment><USER24> The real joke is that there are so many people in the industry who devote their lives to work to the point that people question whether this is really a joke.

<comment><USER25> It wouldn't work as humour if there wasn't an element of truth in there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> What a bargain! They're €849 ($919) in NL, tax included.

</comment><comment><USER27> Mac Pro Weight: 39.7 pounds (18.0 kg)

</comment><comment><USER28> How do these work, i.e. there doesn't seem to be anything in the center of the wheel. How do they work?

<comment><USER29> Its two separate wheels that rotate independently, probably using ball- bearings.

<comment><USER30> So it's technically only $87.50 per wheel. By Grabthar's hammer, what a savings.</comment></comment></comment>


Ongoing · Concur.next — Hard-Core Clojure - <AUTHOR> http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2009/12/15/Osborne-WF2-Clojure <comment><USER2> Just finished reading Osborne's actual write up, and it's one of the better tutorials I've read on how to optimize code. Write things in the simplest way, measure, then optimize the bottle necks. We've all heard that, but here is a very concrete example of how to do it in practice. He puts in type annotations and fiddles with the underlying Java bits only where necessary, and wraps it in a way that the code calling the optimized code is mostly idiomatic Clojure.

It also reflects well on the pragmatism behind Clojure's design. The type annotations and dropping into Java, while not as pretty as pure Clojure, are still prettier than regular Java and can be isolated to the performance hot spots.

I appreciated this little bit of editorializing:

"The -> and doto macros save us from having to name each intermediate step and from the unreadable nesting you'd get if you tried to do the same thing in a typical curly-brace language.

        BufferedReader reader = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(new BufferedInputStream(
                              new FileInputStream(filename).skip(startByte), 131072), "US-ASCII"));

Oops, FileInputStream.skip() returns a long, so that doesn't even work. Now who was complaining about Lisp syntax (looking (like (this)))?"

Nicely done. An informative, enjoyable read. Two thumbs up.

</comment><comment><USER2> "OK, but a Clojure purist would probably see those occasions as maybe highlighting gaps in that language's coverage."

A Clojure "purist" is probably still programming Scheme. In other words, "purist" and "Clojure" do not go well together. As Rich Hickey often says, he is a "practitioner." He wants to Get Things Done, and Clojure reflects that. Dropping down into Java is not "cheating," it's one of the reasons Clojure was implemented on the JVM in the first place, and I've seen Rich recommend calling Java code to solve a problem multiple times on the Clojure group.

<comment><USER3> This is a great way to describe "The Clojure Way". I think I'm going to co-opt this explanation for future use (I hope you don't mind).

<comment><USER2> Don't mind at all. Go right ahead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I find it fascinating that this Clojure implementation is faster than the current best Java one. I wonder how much faster a Java implementation could be.

</comment><comment><USER5> Any experienced Clojure people care to comment on why atoms were used instead of agents? You don't care when the counter is incremented, just that it gets incremented, so I'd assume that an agent would model the problem more closely. Is it an overhead thing or what?

<comment><USER6> Agents launch the update function in a separate thread, which seems a bit much for incrementing a counter.

<comment><USER5> One of these days I'll remember that agents aren't actors, just not today.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: ClearPrice.co – Glassdoor for SaaS Pricing - <AUTHOR> https://clearprice.co <comment><AUTHOR> I spent a few years running my own startup and helping get another startup going as one of the first employees (we went from 3 employees to almost 40). A lot of my time went into finding pricing for various services, which is a huge waste when there's so much to do at an early stage or growing startup. I didn't want to spend time on demos and phone calls just to find out it was out of my budget.

ClearPrice will let you know right way whether or not it's worth using that time talking to a salesperson or going through a demo. You'll also know if you're paying a fair price for the service you're getting by letting you see what other companies your size are paying.</comment>


TokuDB claims to speed up MySQL by an order of magnitude - <AUTHOR> http://tokutek.com/

<comment><USER2> I see one graduate thesis, extended into a sparse handful of conference papers, then somehow converted into the holy grail of database technology: an index algorithm which can be used as a drop-in replacement for B-trees, offering a 2-order-of-magnitude increase in performance with _no_ downsides.

What's that, you say? There must be _some_ trade-offs involved? Well, sure, maybe...but you'll never be able to find out, because you can't look at anything other than said early research results without waiting for a sales representative to contact you. No downloads, real-world benchmarks, or testimonials from users == a pretty dubious set of claims, at least to these cynical eyes.

I'm not disputing the fact that these guys may have an honest improvement over the state of the art for certain search tasks. If they do have anything _close_ to the 50x speedups they claim for general MySQL workloads, though, why hasn't Google simply written them a check and stuffed their great discovery away with all of the their IP portfolio?

</comment><comment><USER3> Fractal tree described in this paper: <http://supertech.csail.mit.edu/cacheObliviousBTree.html>

<comment><USER4> How did you make that connection? "Fractal tree" doesn't naturally lead me to "cache-oblivious tree".

(Looking at the descriptions it is at least plausible, I'm just curious how you are so certain.)

<comment><USER3> I left out the part where I skimmed the blogs that mentioned Toku's software. =)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Percona recently released benchmark results comparing innodb to TokuDB: [http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/04/28/detailed- revi...](http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/04/28/detailed-review-of- tokutek-storage-engine/)

The take-away is that TokuDB has a lot of promise but on CPU bound workloads a lot of work still needs to be done.

<comment><USER3> Apparently it's not ACID compliant at this point in time.

<comment><USER3> My first impression: Compressed Indexes, New Index structure that allows sequential I/O read/write to disk of indexes, making indexes cheap. Cheap indexes = many indexes = improved query performance.

<comment><USER6> If that's the case, then this would be a much smaller improvement for DB's that can be stored entirely in-memory or on SSD, right?

I think that most small db's are mostly in memory, and most large ones will be on SSD soon, so do you think that this will have a smaller impact on those use cases?

<comment><USER3> For really large databases, SSDs aren't cost effective (think multi-terabyte). For the smaller sized databases, most will prefer a hybrid SSD-RAID solution(like Sun's storage appliances) for cost again.

Toku is targeting the niche of people who 1. Don't give a damm about ACID. 2. Can't afford hybrid SSD solutions.

Toku's indexing technology would be worthwhile at the higher end also, and people with multi-terabytes of information at that end usually use a database as a persistence backend rather than a ACID RDBMS. (think FACEBOOK or your- next-large-startup). Those with a need for ACID, are already running Oracle (which lacks this technology AFAIK). I sense an Oracle-buy-me exit strategy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> While it's important to try to squeeze out as much performance out of a single box as possible, it seems to me that the future lies in scaling horizontally by adding more servers.

CouchDB is an obvious contender here, but as far as i know they still don't have partition of data across multiple servers (yet.., i saw a GSoC project about it).

ScimoreDB is also interesting (disclaimer; i know them personally); a full RDBMS with ACID properties and all that jazz that can partition data over a set of servers. (www.scimore.com if you are interrested)

I'm a bit tired of using SQL/Tables/Columns for storage; the perfect solution for me is CouchDB w/ partitioning where you "just add more servers". It would be cool to get to the point where we can eliminate memcached and the likes from our infrastructure because the database itself scales just as well.

just some random thoughts.

<comment><USER8> does `lisper` ~wrk for tokuDb

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The site claims a 10-50x improvement in performance, which is pretty amazing, if true. I guess the big question is how much does it cost?

<comment><USER10> Sounds like my my reaction. Until their improvements can actually be tested and used outside the lab, why should I care? This announcement is very, very close to being vaporware.

<comment><AUTHOR> Kayak is running TokuDB. They're even paying for it :-)

<comment><USER11> Link please...

<comment><AUTHOR> None yet AFAIK, this is inside information. But there will be a press release. That's part of the deal.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Sexism & Tech from Pax Dickinson's biz partner - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/why-im-finished-defending-sexism-in-tech-2013-9

<comment><USER2> This is very important: women founders and leaders are stepping up and speaking up. The OP is spot on that sexism is worth dismantling. Kudos.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I was reluctant to post the link on HN (because it's a less warm audience than feminists on Twitter) but I think it's important that we talk about this. - Elissa (author)</comment></comment>


OMG QIP=PSPACE - <AUTHOR> http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/2009/07/omg_qippspace.php

<comment><USER2> They will call this... year zero!

Even after reading TFA I have no idea how important this is.

</comment><comment><USER3> Article author hasn't read the proof yet, but explains what it means if it's correct.

<comment><AUTHOR> Theoreticians look at the authors to decide how likely a paper is to be correct.

In this case, the authors seem to have good credentials.

The author of the blog post probably thought this has a good chance of being correct.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So, from my completely layman's reading of this article, here's my take:

All that can be calculated on a Classic Turing-complete Computer can also be calculated on a Quantum Turing-complete Computer, and vice-versa. It will just take longer on a Classic Computer (sometimes a LOT longer).

Is this correct?

<comment><USER5> What you say is correct, but has been known for some time and has nothing to do with the thing proved being here. This new result is quite theoretical, and I fear that I can't explain all the relevant definitions in a few sentences. QIP = IP basically means that quantum computers are not much better than classical computers -- if both are attached to an implausible theorem prover.

Since those theorem provers don't exist, I'm not sure if there's any practical insight to be gained from this, but nevertheless it is a surprising result.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> neaterrific</comment>


Microsoft issues emergency patch for critical vulnerability in Windows - chris-at http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/07/microsoft-issues-emergency-patch-for-critical-vulnerability-in-windows/ <comment><AUTHOR> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9917595](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9917595)</comment>


Metals in your smartphone have no substitutes - <AUTHOR> http://theconversation.com/metals-in-your-smartphone-have-no-substitutes-21142

<comment><USER2> It'd be nice if the article went into detail about the particulars of what might be so indispensible about certain elements.

Why are rhenium, rhodium, lanthanum, europium, dysprosium, thulium, ytterbium, yttrium, strontium, thallium, magnesium and manganese so irreplacable?

Is it catalytic reactivity, phase transition tempratures, crystal formation tendencies, quirks in solid state semiconductor chemistry?

Is the article light on details so that people don't develop cute ideas about cornering markets? What's the deal here?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I was kinda hoping people would touch on those questions here. I haven't managed to read the actual paper, but it's just 5 pages longs so I doubt it speaks much about these questions. But a piece discussing these particulars would be awesome.

<comment><USER2> Alright, so here are some of the most common applications, although I'm not sure about the chemistry behind them...

Rhenium: High performance super alloys, particularly when mixed with tungsten, mostly useful in turbine jet engines and heat exchangers. Also used as a catalyst in petroleum cracking when distilling crude oil. Isotopes are used as radiation sources.

Rhodium: A non-reactive metal with characteristic shine, mostly used as beads in automotive catalytic converters. Also used for jewelry and decorative purposes. Also as an good electrical conductor included in alloys for niche wiring applications and as a fiberglass additive.

Lanthanum: Commonly used as gas lamp mantles, but many other uses include acting as a cathode ray source, neutron and gamma ray detector, glass additive, alloy additive, all rare earths in the lanthanide series are useful as catalysts for petroleum cracking when distilling crude oil, and finally potential use in hydrogen fuel cells to sequester hydrogen.

Europium: Flourescent lamps, red phosphors in cathode ray tubes, anti- counterfeiting agent due to unique flourescent properties.

Dysprosium: Mostly magnetic applications. Can be used as a neodymium substitute with unique magnetic properties for niche applications, such as improving conductivity is solenoids for high performance electric motors, and in magnetic media such as hard disk platters.

Thulium: Very rare and expensive, but useful as a safe low-intensity x-ray source, also used in solid state lasers, and due to rarity as an anti- counterfeiting substance with unique flourescant properties.

Ytterbium: Miniscule vitrified sampled are bombarded by lasers as the time keeping component in high quality atomic clocks. Radioactive isotopes can be bombarded with neutrons to produce gamma rays.

Yttrium: Red phosphors in CRT monitors, emits white light from LEDs, semicondoctor doping agent, and lots more.

Strontium: Mostly mixed into glass to shield against x-ray emissions from cathode ray tubes.

Thallium: Mixed with glass to provide special properties, regarding hardness, optical effects and infrared effects. Also used as semiconductor doping agent.

Magnesium: Mostly used as a component of alloys, mixed with other metals to fabricate durable lightweight parts. Comparable to aluminum.

Manganese: An important metallurgical component in steel production, both when refining raw iron ore, and as a component of high quality steel alloys.

I guess it's a pretty wide mix, since many of the elements come from all across the board, on the periodic table. Recurring themes are alloys, glass additives, semiconductors, and chemical catalysts.

<comment><USER3> How come Rhenium is in the list of metals without substitutes, but also given as an example of a metal that was successfully substituted by General Electric? Is it just that it serves a different purpose in smartphones that nothing else can be adequately used for?

<comment><USER2> Wikipedia's article seems to point to the idea that recently, super alloy applications are placing high demand on a supply chain that was not prepared for such a change in market trends.

I think rhenium diboride seems to be a useful substitute for tungsten carbide in places where tungsten carbide is useful for its hardness. Apparently rhenium is used heavily in the production of tungsten alloys, so there's an association, in that industrial pipelines involving tungsten tend to have a lot of rhenium on hand too.

Meanwhile the super alloys which involve high use of rhenium are nickel- rhenium alloys. Apparently GE has produced a series of super alloys named Rene alloys, and the compositions vary among each memeber of the series, some don't involve rhenium. Given that they seem to be proprietary products with military applications (mostly high temperature rocket engine nozzles) details are somewhat scarce.

Maybe the demand directly relates to how many rockets are being launched, and how many fighter jets are serviced for replacement parts or lost in crashes?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What is Rh used for that is so specialised that it cannot be substituted by another PGE?

It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that Mg and Mn are at all critical since they are major rock-forming elements without geographically restricted supply.

Similarly, Sr is sufficiently abundant that we need not worry about running out, only the cost of extraction/recycling old CRTs.</comment>


Ask HN: What PHP E-Shop software you use or recommend? - <AUTHOR>

I am upto to starting a small web development company so I need suggestions on what E-shop software we should build on.<p>Thanks <comment><USER2> I'm only slightly familiar with prestashop, but I can recommend Magento. Check it out.

</comment><comment><USER3> prestashop</comment>


Show HN: Craft Your Own Tapestry – The Historic Tale Construction Kit Lives On - LeonardA-L http://htck.github.io/bayeux/ <comment><AUTHOR> Wow, really nice :D

Small remark about the item title menu bar (on top left) which seems a bit small according to me. One has to press left or right arrows several time in order to find relevant items !

Great job guys !

</comment><comment> LeonardA-L Have fun making tapestry art ! Any remark is welcome.

What we are mostly proud of that may gratify your intellectual curiosity, is that everything is client-side, there is no back-end. Even when exporting. So you can download a zip of the application, run index.html and you're good to go.

</comment><comment><USER2> Fun !</comment>


Why can't all cities have bike bridges like Copenhagen's Cycle Snake? (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/jul/14/bike-lanes-bridge-copenhagen-new-cycle-snake-cykelslangen <comment><USER2> I personally avoid the bike bridge and take the long way around. It's a gimmicky solution. There are always pedestrians on the bridge, mainly due to bad integration in the preexisting infrastructure. Busy rush hour bike commuters and clueless tourist on a narrow, fenced off, bike lane is not a good combination.

The article even hints at the real interesting story about bike infrastructure in copenhagen - the super bike lanes. But I guess that the bright red snake brings in more clicks.

<comment><USER3> Even in the short video you can see someone walk across it pushing a stroller/buggy. While I was watching I was actually thinking that it needed a pedestrian sidewalk.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, lack of a sidewalk is asking for trouble.

A comparable bridge in Amsterdam, the Nescio Bridge[1] across a major canal does have a sidewalk. Only at some point the pedestrian and cycle paths split and pedestrians are supposed to take the stairs, but some people still walk on the bike path. I guess the lesson is that you really do need sidewalk everywhere.

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

<comment><USER5> To be fair, I often see tourists in amsterdam managing to walk themselves onto highways, ignoring the various no entry signs. At some point you'll have to educate road users instead of trying to make the roads more fool-proof.

<comment><USER4> On highways?! I've never seen that in Amsterdam. Tourists straying onto bike paths are sadly way too common, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Doing my driving lessons and my instructor is always ranting about cyclists. That they don't pay for all this infrastructure that is being built for them.

Mate, roads and bridges are being built from tax money and everyone pays for it.

<comment><USER7> Indeed. In the US, infrastructure like roads is heavily subsidized.

This is my go-to article to share:

[https://momentummag.com/free-rider-myth/](https://momentummag.com/free-rider- myth/)

From TFA: _What if I told you that by driving a car you become a freeloader, a drain on the economy? That people who bicycle instead are subsidizing a road system that they are largely not welcome on? In order to break even on the cost of roads and pay for every driver who uses them each year, we would need 54% of commuters using a bicycle as their sole means of transportation._

<comment><USER8> Nice article, thanks for sharing that! I also liked this tidbit from the linked paper ([http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf](http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf)):

> Critics sometimes argue that walking and cycling primarily provide > recreational travel [...] "Why should I— either as a highway user-tax payer > or a general taxpayer—have to pay for someone else's hobby?"

> Travel surveys indicate that about half of all [cycling/walking] is > "recreational," including travel for exercise, sport and cultural events, > and socializing (Kuzmyak and Dill 2012; Litman 2012), but _so is more than > half of all motor vehicle travel (BTS 2002). [emphasis mine]_

<comment><USER7> That's very interesting. I'm somewhat in the outdoor industry, so the whole, ride-to-destination element of outdoor hobbies is a curious thing, in as much as the hobbies themselves - say, hiking, backpacking, mountain biking, are in National Forest (or similar) which have Leave No Trace Principles.

The companies in these industries really tout these eco/enviro-friendly activities as perhaps a alternative to four-wheel-drivin' or whatever. Preservation of these nature resources is another big topic these companies talk about.

But if one was to just zooms out, a significant amount of time/money is spent just getting to the place the hobby is done in, and there's certainly a lot of environmentally detrimental overhead associated with driving for hours in a car. It always leaves me scratching my head, really. Although we've done a good job with saying that some areas are important and need to be protected, we're also happy enough to put in vast ribbons of concrete roadway to get to them.

A bit of an aside, I apologize.

<comment><USER9> It's a great aside. And as the debate about over-crowding of the last remaining wildernesses is bound to develop, I wonder whether some "price/cost" which involves the effort expended to get to those places is appropriate.

<comment><USER7> It's going to be an interesting conversation, and I fear: a bit messy. One of the ways that you illustrate value in say, a Wilderness area or a National Park is by allowing visitation, so people can see first hand how unique an area is. If merely getting to the area is hard to do, these places won't be seen as so valuable to the general population (higher classes will have no problem getting to them, so it because a class issue all of a sudden).

At least in the States, what we desperately need is a lower impact mass transportation system. I've heard all the arguments against railways (etc), and I don't disagree there's good points in those arguments. But it's not something I see pro-environment special interest groups that are around the outdoor industry really push. One such is,

[https://protectourwinters.org/](https://protectourwinters.org/)

I actually don't know what these people do - they seem like they want to be lobbyists, but I think it's just grass-roots call of action type stuff to get people out to vote. Which I think is a fine idea, but there's so much more we can do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Geography. They have a placid waterway in the middle of the city. It's only 220m long. It's not like there's a whole elevated bikeway system.

It's like Tokyo's Haneda monorail, built out over a waterway because it was empty space.

<comment><USER11> You're focusing too much on the particular spatial circumstances of this bridge (extended linear structure along a waterway).

The article is clearly calling for appealing, well-designed, grade-separated cycling infrastructure, not a literally identical solution in every city.

<comment><USER10> But where to put it? Access ramps have to be shallow and thus take up considerable street space. Ramps are as long as those for an elevated road; they're just narrower. Long spirals and zig-zags are a pain; few people use those things unless there's no alternative, such as a freeway overcrossing.

China has a 7km elevated bikeway.[1] But they already had an elevated busway on that route; the bikeway just hangs underneath. Los Angeles had a 9 mile elevated bicycle tollway in 1900, but it was unprofitable and was torn down.

Market St. in SF has an "elevated bikeway" test, but they mean elevation to curb height, not a few meters up.

[1] [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/china-has-just- built-...](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/china-has-just-built-the- world-s-longest-elevated-cycle-path/)

<comment><USER11> There are context-specific problems to be solved in every city, but the idea is that an innovative design process can help, or should at least be considered. It's not reasonable to expect an instant universal solution (that kind of universal modular solution, by the way, is what "infrastructure" often does end up looking like). This article is arguing for a cultural change; it's about fresh thinking and working with the particularity of local spatial conditions in a creative way. It takes a lot of determination.

Here are some examples of comparable projects:

In North America:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Pfluger_Pedestrian_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Pfluger_Pedestrian_and_Bicycle_Bridge) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_Street_Pedestrian_Bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_Street_Pedestrian_Bridge) [https://www.oregonlive.com/expo/erry-2018/05/378c21c6dc8756/...](https://www.oregonlive.com/expo/erry-2018/05/378c21c6dc8756/check_out_portlands_next_carfr.html) [https://www.ggnltd.com/lower-rainier-vista-and-pedestrian- la...](https://www.ggnltd.com/lower-rainier-vista-and-pedestrian-land-bridge/)

In Europe:

[https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/the-dafne- schi...](https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/the-dafne-schippers- bridge-is-open/) . [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoge_Brug](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoge_Brug) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nescio_Bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nescio_Bridge) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovenring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovenring) [https://www.duic.nl/algemeen/officiele-naam-rabobrug- bekend-...](https://www.duic.nl/algemeen/officiele-naam-rabobrug-bekend- moreelsebrug/) [https://www.archdaily.com/295646/melkwegbrug-next- architects](https://www.archdaily.com/295646/melkwegbrug-next-architects) [http://www.inzynierbudownictwa.pl/biznes,inwestycje,artykul,...](http://www.inzynierbudownictwa.pl/biznes,inwestycje,artykul,pierwsza_w_polsce_okragla_kladka_dla_pieszych_otwarta,6068) [https://www.fastcompany.com/3056028/from-the-dutch-a- pedestr...](https://www.fastcompany.com/3056028/from-the-dutch-a-pedestrian- underpass-youll-actually-want-to-walk-through)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Surprised that this article didn't mention that Copenhagen used to be a car- clogged city with lots of pollution. Over 30 years ago a decision was made to focus on bicycles as a way to improve quality of life. There was even a government organization dedicated to improving quality of life. So policy and government matter, and really do impact our lives.

I read an entire book about this topic, but I've forgotten the name.

<comment><USER13> Do you have any reference for that? I've been to Copenhagen many times and it is hard to image that the city ever had congestion problems.

<comment><USER12> I've read about it several times now - from several sources, so it seems to be common knowledge is some circles. There is a famous architect who was in charge of the "quality of life" government organization which was established in response, and he wrote a book which was translated into English. I've tried to remember his name - I know he had an entire Wiki page dedicated to him, but it's just been too many years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Failure of imagination.

You may scoff but imagination has a huge part of it.

If you commute by bike then it doesn't take that long before you wish there was some magic pathway that just carried you over those congested, road- blocked areas.

In my dreams of such magic pathways I usually imagine something a little wider than this orange route with a more definite median and more substantial fences at the side to keep the wind at bay, plus a surface that reduces rolling resistance.

The thing is that I keep these thoughts to myself as I struggle along making it alive over and around really oppressive multi-lane highways. I feel as if I am the lone crazy idiot on some of these commutes. And I am. 99% of my fellow road users are in cars, genuinely too scared to ride a bike - and I don't blame them. From that stuck-in-a-box, sitting-in-traffic viewpoint the dreams are different (more lanes, setting off earlier, less traffic) and there just isn't that imagination going on to have a super bike highway when getting on a bike is unimaginable.

<comment><USER15> You don't share space with road traffic in Copenhagen anyway, as the bike lanes are completely separate.

<comment><USER14> The article asks why _other_ cities can't have bike bridges.

My point is that if people can't imagine getting out of their tin box and onto a bike then they are not going to imagine having amazing bike highways as per the article.

In London a few years ago a footbridge across the Thames opened that had resonance problems that made it unsuitable for the task intended. The simple solution would have been to make it bicycles only and spend money on a new footbridge. Instead they spent a fortune upgrading a perfectly good bridge (for bikes) to make it a pedestrian bridge. The imagination was not there to just give it over to the cyclists and make it part of the cycle highway network that Ken Livingstone started (for Boris Johnston to take credit for).

In Copenhagen they do have the critical mass of cyclists for imaginative cycle highways to happen, other cities where people are stuck in tin boxes lack that because people can't even imagine cycling.

<comment><USER15> London has more than enough cyclists to support a cycle bridge, but unfortunately you'd have to cycle along the South Bank to get to the millennium bridge, which is a non starter in any case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Auckland has one too, over one of the country's busiest motorway junctions:

[https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/86702560/Aucklands-hot- pink...](https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/86702560/Aucklands-hot-pink- cycleway-the-Lightpath-picks-up-international-award)

However we are also looking forward to a new cycleway alongside the harbour bridge (skypath) and eventually around the harbour (seapath), but these wheels are turning very slowly:

[http://www.skypath.org.nz/the-seapath/](http://www.skypath.org.nz/the- seapath/)

</comment><comment><USER17> Lots of factors, but I suspect at root it's just a matter of political will. Does a high enough proportion of all cities want bike bridges and do they have a responsive and resourced enough government to build them? I live in Boston, where commuting by bike is unfortunately still very dangerous in a lot of the city. Bike advocates are a small but vocal minority and the city has sort of responded to them, but is not moving very quickly to build out our bike infrastructure. It would take a lot more to make this happen anywhere in the ~five year frame.

There's a real chicken-and-egg problem, too. Safe, pleasant bike lanes would likely do a lot to boost bike ridership while at the same time, higher rates of bike ridership are needed to "justify" their construction.

</comment><comment><USER18> Portland, OR, opened the Tilikum Crossing in 2015: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilikum_Crossing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilikum_Crossing)

It's much bigger than this Cycle Snake but it carries pedestrians, personal vehicles like bikes, public transit, and emergency vehicles. The city is still adapting things to use it but it already carries 2000+ bikes per day, the new light rail line uses it, it completed the East-West streetcar loop, and various bus routes have moved or are being moved to it from the crowded regular bridges.

I can't speak for everyone but I think it has really benefited the city.

</comment><comment><USER19> Because in most places the people planning new cycle ways drive cars and don't cycle.

<comment><USER20> I think it should be mandatory that everyone rides a bike for some amount of time before getting a driver's license, and everyone in city planning should be required to use various forms of transit throughout the year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The bicycle super highways connecting rural areas with Copenhagen are much more interesting because they aim to lower pollution of car commuters going into Copenhagen instead of those moving inside Copenhagen.

</comment><comment><USER22> The space below the bridge will end up rather dark and ugly. Take a walk under a highway bridge to get a taste of it. If you think I exaggerate the effect due to larger size of the highway, take a walk under the monorail in Seattle. The monorail is roughly the size of the bike bridge and the space below is a place where no one wants to be.

A splendid idea otherwise though, so long as both minimal and maximum speeds are enforced.

<comment><USER23> The monorail corridor is developed with plenty of shops and apartments. The main issue is that the road under it is so wide and unpleasant to cross, as well as slightly dangerous due to the fact that it divides a one-way road in half. But this isn't really that bad: [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-122.3406401,3a,60y,1...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-122.3406401,3a,60y,134.28h,81.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOWmiRJ6wPkK2MAwcEkTKyQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

If Fifth were two-way I would have a lot less of an issue with the monorail, though it would be nice if they added a stop in the vicinity of Denny Way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Maybe the Scooter Revolution will result in new and better cycle/scooter infrastructure everywhere.

</comment><comment><USER25> Well, because Utrecht has something like that as well: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPFgFoxeLCY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPFgFoxeLCY)

<comment><USER26> And Chicago's is almost complete. It's more than three times as long as the one in Copenhagen, and completes a nearly 19-mile-long bicycle path along Lake Michigan.

[http://www.navypierflyover.com](http://www.navypierflyover.com)

Construction pictures:

[https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2017/03/08/navy-pier- byp...](https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2017/03/08/navy-pier-bypass-looks- ready-for-next-phase/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Why can't all cities have waterways clean enough for swimming like Copenhagen's Harbor Baths?

</comment><comment><USER28> The short and simple answer is, Denmark is its own culture bubble and has a large amount of money in the treasury to throw at projects like this.

Articles like this really make me wonder if the the Guardian is becoming out of touch with the general public. With writing like this that fails to comprehend that every city is unique and nuanced in its problems and how it solves them.

I love Copenhagen and its culture, but its cycling concepts and other road rules wouldn't translate well in the UK.

Is this just clickbait trash?

<comment><USER15> Can you explain why you think this is the case? I've lived in Copenhagen and London, and it isn't apparent to me why the ideas applied in Copenhagen wouldn't work here.

<comment><USER11> The people to talk to about this are architects and town planners. They tend to be acutely aware of cultural differences between different countries, to the point that it starts to be a problem (because cultural stereotyping comes into play).

When I studied architecture in London, there was a lot of envy expressed toward continental urbanism (Copenhagen, but also Barcelona, Vienna, Zurich). In general, continental European cities are a bit more regimented in their design, compared to the traditionally liberal culture of the UK. Planning can be feel a bit more heavy-handed on the continent, and in the UK it tends to be more laissez-faire.

There is long-standing suspicion of continental European norms in the UK, as I'm sure you are aware. This is part and parcel of Brexit.

Somewhere extreme like Singapore manages to be extremely well organised and liveable at the price of being a bit paternalistic. I think that's the extreme "high organization" end of the spectrum, where the state can really make very large interventions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Commenting on cycling is always fraught but here are a couple of observations. The population of NYC is 10x that of the city of Copenhagen. The population density of Manhattan is approximately 6x that of Copenhagen (corrected from earlier mistake). Solutions that work in small European cities do not necessarily scale in a manner that would be useful in other international metropolitan cities. Cycling advocates often point to successes in Northern European cities that represent entire different transportation landscapes from other larger cities around the world.

<comment><USER30> Not sure why the overall population matters here. Bicycle trips typically do not cover large distances in cities, that's what public transport is for. And when it comes to density, Paris has twice the density of NYC and still has cycling infrastructure that is in a whole different league than that of NYC. NYC could in fact do much much better.

<comment><USER29> Population size matters as does density because there are more people that need to fit in a smaller footprint. The original post states that other cities should employ Copenhagen like solutions but the room simply does not exist in NYC no matter how much we would wish it so.</comment></comment></comment>


Fast String Matching for Analytics Pipelines - <AUTHOR> http://www.jwplayer.com/blog/fast-string-matching/ <comment><USER2> Article doesn't seem to clarify all the details. Isn't compressed-trie or DAWG a better approach here? if you want to match substrings, wouldn't suffix tree be an obvious choice (it can be made to take O(n) space).

<comment><AUTHOR> The difference between a DAWG and the minimized deterministic dictionary automaton is the way they are constructed. Otherwise, the resulting automata should be very similar in size, and of course their running times will be the same. Note that, we build the automata offline.

The main advantage of using general purpose automata becomes clear when we are able to reuse the codebase and the pipelines we built for a dictionary automaton to both build and execute a search automaton. Otherwise, a generalized suffix tree would have done the job at least as well.

In addition, when we have general purpose automata combined with a powerful tool like OpenFST, we can compose the automata with transducers, and the resulting automata will transform the input strings as we are matching them.</comment></comment>


Here is the new free gems puzzle iOS game Cross Crush Gems - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cross-crush-gems/id1095178000?mt=8 <comment><AUTHOR> Simple but addictive puzzle game!!! just click the space tile that at the cross line of two identical gems.

First several levels are easy, then it becomes harder. See how many levels can you finish!!!

There are four different game mode: 1): Classic mode. In a given time limit, erase as many gems as possible! you win a full-star when erase all the gems on board. 2): Perfectionism mode. You have to erase all gems to win. No time limit. be cautious and always think twice before you click any site! 3): Survival mode. Wait for you to explore what it is! 4): Endless mode. wait for you too.

Please have fun with this game! :)</comment>


1700 PS3s turned into an Air Force supercomputer - <AUTHOR> http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/rome_labs_supercomputer_is_mad.html

<comment><USER2> While the article doesn't mention it, this installation and smaller-scale uses of Linux on a PS3 are the reason behind Sony's current legal messes regarding the PS3: Sony sells the PS3 at a loss, and tries to recoup the cost on software sales, but people buying a PS3 to run Linux never buy enough games to make up for Sony's initial loss.

Sony issued a firmware update to disable the ability to install a different OS, and that led to a class-action suit against them. In the meantime, George Hotz wrote a hack to restore the OtherOS feature, and Sony is now trying to nail him with DMCA and other copyright violations.

Somewhat complicating the legal situation are Sony's attempts to bring piracy in to the equation: they've argued that removing the ability to run Linux was necessary to prevent piracy, and that Hotz's hack facilitates piracy. Neither claim withstands much scrutiny, as piracy did not become feasible until a Sony employee tweeted their root key, well after they removed the OtherOS feature, and not too long after Sony told the court that Hotz's hack had caused irreparable harm, Sony patched the hole Hotz exploited.

It has also been noted that the PS3 is _much_ cheaper than IBM's Cell blades, and that for certain kinds of supercomputing tasks, that more than makes up for the lack of low-latency high-bandwidth interconnects.

<comment><USER3> Sony selling at a loss was 2 years ago. I can't imagine that Sony is still taking a loss on the hardware considering how long it has been around and with the refresh to the new slimmer version.

I would be curious to know if they are still losing money from them but I highly doubt this is the case anymore. Anyone actually know about this for sure?

<comment><USER2> The removal of PS2 compatibility, economies of scale on BluRay lasers, and newer fabrication processes for the Cell have helped Sony a lot, but the most recent report I can find is from iSuppli at the end of 2009, saying that the 120GB PS3 was losing just under $40 when sold for $299, so the current $299 160GB is probably profitable by now, and the models with larger hard drives should be making a good amount of profit.

Still, it's hard to say whether the hardware profits from the past year or two would cover Sony's share of the Cell fab upgrade costs (the Cell has been through two process shrinks), let alone make up for the steep losses incurred early in the product cycle. I suspect that the overall long-term profitability of the PS3 platform still depends heavily on their video game sales.

<comment><USER4> You realize whether or not games are the main source of profit, if the console itself is profitable now they should be thanking the Air Force. Profit is profit, whether or not it's the kind you wanted.

<comment><USER2> The first 336 PS3s in this installation were bought well before Sony reached the break-even point, and the PS3 Slim model that is now profitable has never officially allowed the use of Linux or other operating systems. (Sony didn't want to update the OtherOS hypervisor to support the new hardware in the Slim.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This part of the article blew me away:

"The Air Force is also using the Condor to process ground-based radar images of space objects, again with extraordinary clarity. Barnell shows images of a space shuttle orbiting Earth at 5 miles a second. Without Condor processing, the shuttle image is a blurry black triangle. With Condor processing, it is sharp and distinct. It's clear that its payload doors are open."

I really had no idea that you could process radar to this clarity with off the shelf 2006 technology.

<comment><USER2> That depends more on the wavelength of the radar than on the post-processing. As far as I know, radar post-processing is far more important for trajectory tracking than capturing a single clear image.

A Ka band radar, for example, uses centimeter wavelengths, and W band radars are 3mm waves. I've heard that the radars used for tracking objects in orbit can image clearly enough to allow you to estimate the capabilities of an enemy's spy satellite based on the sizes of its antennas and cameras.

<comment><USER6> Heh. Nice thing about airforce: REALLY BIG radar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Did anyone else think they were referring to Rome, Italy for the first half of this story?

<comment><USER8> Not really, since the Italian air force is made of only 551 air craft.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Doesn't Sony sell those at a loss? Ouch.

</comment><comment><USER10> > To custom-build a supercomputer without using commercial off-the-shelf > PlayStation 3s would likely have cost 10 times as much, Barnell said. In > addition, the Condor uses a fraction of the energy that comparably sized > supercomputers use. Portions of it — say 300 machines — can be turned on > while the rest are off, depending on a job's needs.

I bet this was true at the time, but today you can buy blade servers with later generations of the same processors[1].

edit: nope. Just look at the per-blade price, yowza.

[1] [http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/bladecenter/hardware/servers/q...](http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/bladecenter/hardware/servers/qs22/)

<comment><USER11> This wasn't true at the time, and it is definitely not true today. You could get similar performance at comparable price (then), and much better price/performance ratio today -- you just have to buy reasonably cheap stuff, not IBMs or HPs.

It's possible that by going to Sony, the airforce was able to ditch the tender requirement (no one else is supplying PS3s ...) thus making it possible for them to get things going, rather than waiting for 2 years until all the paperwork is done (and then getting 2 year old technology, because that's what has been bid on and approved).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> oh I hope SONY sues them for modding their PlayStation(S).</comment>


Facebook gives you controls over your newsfeed - <AUTHOR> http://www.weijieworld.com/facebook-gives-you-controls-over-your-newsfeed/

<comment><USER2> When will they give us the option to see all posts from all connections, or all followed connections, in reverse chronological order? I would also like the option to remove videos from my feed altogether.

</comment><comment><USER3> Very welcome. I have some friends and relatives that only get on Facebook once in a great while, but that doesn't mean I want to miss their posts when they do. Quite the contrary.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think I prefer the old algorithm based feed display.

Though this new feature should come in handy, the old way allows me to see some posts I otherwise wouldn't think of displaying on my feed.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I agree, I actually like the current algorithm. I see some pretty interesting things</comment>


A way to increase your mental capabilities (AKA Onion Layer Abstraction Theory) - <AUTHOR> http://dev.swippet.com/?p=58 My own little theory that I think can allow for better reasoning and creativity.. <comment><USER2> You know, not everybody likes onions. But everybody _loves_ cakes! Cakes have layers. You know what people really like? Parfaits. I could just as easily say "our thinking is based on a theory of parfait layers of abstraction, and come on, who don't like no parfaits? Parfaits is delicious!" You know, I think parfaits are the tastiest thing on the whole damn planet.</comment>


Elon Musk's 6 productivity rules from a letter he sent to Tesla employees - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@StartupJourney/elon-musks-6-productivity-rules-from-a-letter-he-sent-to-tesla-employees-b10e3b899da0 <comment><USER2> Excerpt:

"5\. Communicate directly, irrespective of hierarchy "Communication should travel via the shortest path necessary to get the job done, not through the 'chain of command'. Any manager who attempts to enforce chain of command communication will soon find themselves working elsewhere.

"A major source of issues is poor communication between depts. The way to solve this is allow free flow of information between all levels. If, in order to get something done between depts, an individual contributor has to talk to their manager, who talks to a director, who talks to a VP, who talks to another VP, who talks to a director, who talks to a manager, who talks to someone doing the actual work, then super dumb things will happen. It must be ok for people to talk directly and just make the right thing happen.""

</comment><comment><USER3> > "In general, always pick common sense as your guide. If following a 'company > rule' is obviously ridiculous in a particular situation, such that it would > make for a great Dilbert cartoon, then the rule should change."

It's surreal when Dilbert becomes a way of life in a company.</comment>