Want an Amazon Investment? How about $25k Cash? Amazon Launches Web Startup Contest - <AUTHOR> http://www.centernetworks.com/amazon-aws-challenge <comment><USER2> I don't think I'd want to seek funding from any source described as a contest.

<comment><USER3> Isn't Summer Founders Program a glorified contest?

<comment><USER4> No; there are not a fixed number of winners.

<comment><USER5> To be frank though, it would be likely that if Amazon saw something in more than one startup, they would at least pursue them using other means.

They're only committing to funding one, which is basically one more than YC does.

<comment><USER2> Imagine if you had to go to the weekly YC dinners and you knew that the guys to your left were ranked higher than you, and the guys on your right were ranked lower than you. How much would that suck. Good luck giving and receiving objective advice in a situation like that. If you're not trying to form a community it doesn't matter. But if you are, ranking and judging people is a serious barrier to collaboration, teamwork, and innovation.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN:  Office share in NYC - <AUTHOR>

I'm moving to NYC in two weeks and would like to find an office share or other place to go and work because it kills me to be in one place all day.  I will be living in South Harlem and the nearby libraries either open late (NYPL on 115) or are private (Columbia, Barnard, CUNY).  Places like Sunshine Suites and We Work NYC look nice and affordable, but I'd rather not trek all the way downtown everyday.  Does anyone know of a library or office share that is uptown?  How about a startup that would consider leasing a desk to a not-to-smelly code monkey? <comment><USER2> First off, congratulations on moving to one of the city's famously non- existent "neighborhoods" (in that nobody, save for real estate brokers and the glossy lifestyle rags refers to the genearal area to the east of Morningside Park as "South Harlem", not with capital letters in any case).

That said, since you seem to like moving around during the day -- and since you'll get used to jumping into the subway or otherwise traveling considerable distances throughout all hours of the day and night, far more frequently that you would in most other large cities -- you might want to take advantage of the strategic B and D lines, which will put you within 20 minutes shooting distance of the NYPL branch at 5th and 42nd (after a nice stroll through Bryant Park, from where you'll be getting off). Quiet and comparatively decent surroundings, if you don't mind going through bag checks everytime you step out for coffee, and having a security guard come by to rap his knuckles on your desk should you find yourself dozing off. And now open 7 days a week (having sold its soul and naming rights to some zillionaire benefactor or another).

If you can work in coffeeshops (and have a strong battery in your laptop or netbook), there's the Hungarian Pasty Shop (behind Columbia, at Amsterdam and 110th; a nice uphill stroll through Morningside Park); many find it oddly conducive to work (and hacking) despite the cacophanous chatter, and despite (or perhaps because, depending on your point of view) the lack of wifi (or outlets). The espresso is sub-par, but the baked goods are decent and decently priced, and the staff are quite tolerant and permissive.

Those same trains, along with the A and C will also take you down to the Greenwich Village / NYU area, which has a plethora of options on the wifi/coffeeshop front (Think Coffee, Tea Shop, Reggio, and Grounded are all quite reliable).

Outside the coffeeshop mold, there are a lot of other de-facto "study halls" embedded in strategic throughout manhattan: the atria of many larger office builings (basically, open spaces the developers were forced to provide in exchange for air rights and such) have been converted into public lounges essentially; many now have wifi and cheap espresso bars.

And if you're still blowing through your cash, there are even more scenic options, like the courtyard at the MOMA (if you felt like dropping a bit more than the usual coffee bill to visit the museum proper later in the afternoon).

May or may not make up for the near-impossibility of finding decent-size living and work quarters, sans roommates, anywhere near the center proper, but these options do provide a break from the usual office or work-at-home tedium, at least.

"Poverty with a view", we call it here.</comment>


To make the perfect mirror, physicists confront the mystery of glass - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/to-make-the-perfect-mirror-physicists-confront-the-mystery-of-glass-20200402/ <comment><USER2> > _...Ediger and his team dropped molecules one by one onto a surface as if > they were Tetris pieces, allowing them to find snug fits._

Let's assume a 40kg super mirror was made from the same base silica[1]/tantala[2] substrate as the legacy mirror. Let's also assume 50% distribution by mass.

That's a (20kg/60.08g/mol)+(20kg/441.893g/mol) ~= 378.1mol tetris endgame.

So if we took this analogy quite literally and wanted to build 1 mirror in 10 years, you'd have to play precision atomic tetris a mere 17 orders of magnitude faster than this guy[3].

Not going to lie...sure does make watching grass grow sound a lot more pragmatic.

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

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

[3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3TJXSFnVS4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3TJXSFnVS4)

<comment> lachlan-sneff Totally possible through convergent assembly.

<comment><USER2> Ahh, so that's the scalable magic trick they're playing. Thanks for the insight!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I have often thought that technologically advanced civilizations would not have FTL travel or transporters or the like, rather, they would be masters of specced-out materials engineering, producing items by placing just the right atom _here_ and a different one over _there_ to uniquely suit the purpose of whatever it was.

<comment><USER4> Technically we already do that. Molecular beam epitaxy is layer by layer growth of crystals, some of which like superlattices can only be engineered from the ground up.

Source: My PhD is in Materials Science

<comment><USER5> I do this in my sleep. But then, so does everyone else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was wondering whether a design using total internal reflection within 90-degree prisms at each end of the arms would be feasible for an instrument of this precision. I assume it is not, and I have a few guesses as to why not: 1) the Fabry-Perot resonator arrangement of mirrors in each arm creates a much higher intensity between the mirrors, and this is important for getting a measurable signal out; 2) the resonator rejects a lot of noise; 3) there's no good way to get power into, and a signal out of, an arrangement of prisms; 4) an arrangement of prisms puts too much glass in the path. I would be interested in hearing what the actual answer is.

Update: there's a lot more information here (though it is about the Advanced LIGO concept), but I don't think it addresses the failings of a prism arrangement directly:

[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/34/1/01...](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/34/1/015001/ampdf)

<comment><USER7> AR coatings are not perfect at the interface boundary (kind of the same problem as a perfect mirror in reverse), plus glass has attenuation.

<comment><USER6> I get the point about glass attenuation, but with regard to AR (anti- reflection?) coatings, are you referring to the surface through which light enters the prisms? If those surfaces are normal to the laser beam, would the reflected light not still be contained within the beam path, just as it is in the case of a Fabry-Perot resonator?

<comment><USER7> Yes, but at the wrong path length (and offset by some vector, if you had a TIR cube)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Reminds of me the Three Body Problem series. The "droplet" was a perfect mirror because a mystery reflective material was tied together using the strong force.

So I guess that means the "perfect" mirror must be bound by strong forces.

</comment><comment><USER9> For some cool stuff about mirror development, I recommend reading up on the Hale telescope. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hale_Telescope](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hale_Telescope)

Some massive improvements to mirror making techniques were derived from the construction.

</comment><comment><USER10> If the ideal state is perfectly flat and the proposed mechanism is to place individual atoms one at a time, why are they still talking about glass and not crystal lattice sheets?

> _ideal glass are theoretically packed together in the densest possible > random arrangement_

Why would you want it to be random at all?

<comment><USER11> You would like it to have a lot of entropy. It's not about being random in the sense if being up to chance, it's about making the interactions between the electrons so complicated that any passing photon does not get absorbed or does not produce stimulated emission.

When there is enough entropy/complexity/randomness the electrons have no state that they can jump to of a similar range of energy to the frequencies of light that you would like the glass to be transparent to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> That was pretty interesting -- although a bit short. Happen to know of something that's a bit more in-depth about the two-level motion of glass?

<comment><USER13> Turns out that this was my PhD thesis subject.

To put it simply two-level systems (TLS) are groups of atoms in a disordered solid that present two stable configurations, that is two physical states of similar potential energy separated by a small energy barrier. The barriers need to be small for it to be overcome by thermal fluctuation alone and thus for the TLS to resonate at a frequency close to the frequency of interest.

If you are interested by what exactly are these TLSs at the atomic level, have a look at this paper: [https://journals.aps.org/prb/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.014201](https://journals.aps.org/prb/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.014201)</comment></comment>


Downtown Manhattan Is the New Frontier of the Car-Free City - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/2016/08/downtown-manhattan-new-frontier-car-free-city/ <comment><AUTHOR> I live in the New York's Financial District and it always irritates me how much the area is dominated by pedestrians, yet cars (especially parked cars) dominate the streets. The tiny sidewalks are usually so packed that I have to step into (slow moving) oncoming car traffic just to get around the logjam of people.

I'm going to be out today supporting this as much as I can. If anyone in Lower Manhattan wants to join me, please let me know.</comment>


Working Though Questions in EFF's "Spying on Students" Report - <AUTHOR> https://k12cloudlearning.wordpress.com/2017/04/24/working-though-questions-in-effs-spying-on-students-report/ <comment><AUTHOR> It is important that we address the need for changes to student data privacy/security policy and practice based on rigorous, replicable analysis and methods. The analysis underlying EFF's latest report, however, may not meet that standard. Important that the question has been called by EFF; more work clearly needs to be done to sort out the school technology ecosystem.</comment>


Quadsort: a stable non-recursive merge sort - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/scandum/quadsort <comment><USER2> C's qsort() is notoriously bad because the comparison function isn't inlined, meaning the majority of time is spent in call overhead.

Zhangxp1998 ported quadsort to C++ and compared with std::sort and found it to be slower: [https://gist.github.com/zhangxp1998/0e2fa30656c894017d183e0d...](https://gist.github.com/zhangxp1998/0e2fa30656c894017d183e0dbf2d862a)

Shameless self promotion, if you want a faster sorting implementation, check out pdqsort ([https://github.com/orlp/pdqsort](https://github.com/orlp/pdqsort)) which is almost twice as fast as libstdc++'s std::sort for randomly shuffled integers, and has all sorts of tricks for input distributions with patterns (like pre- sorted, reverse sorted, single out-of-order element appended, etc).

<comment><USER3> Comparing a stable sort to a normal sort is unfair. Compare it with std::stable_sort.

<comment><USER4> I agree is unfair. The point of my benchmark was that the OP's claim "quad sort is faster than quicksort" is false.

<comment><USER5> libstdc++'s std::sort doesn't implement quicksort per se. It implements introsort[1]. I'm curious how a pure C implementation of introsort would fare against std::sort.

[1]: <[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introsort>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introsort>)

<comment><USER4> It's just quick sort with insertion sort for small base cases.

<comment><USER5> You forgot about heapsort. It's a combination of three sorting algorithms, not two. However trivial the difference may seem, I'd still prefer to look at a "C introsort vs C++ introsort" benchmark than a "C quicksort vs C++ often quicksort, but not really" benchmark.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> How does this fare against Python's famous Timsort (used by several languages and systems)? How about the dual-pivot quicksort used by Java for primitive arrays?

Someone has to have put together a nice benchmark for comparing many sorting algorithms. I wish that the author had done some benchmarking first, so that the proposed algorithm can properly be positioned w.r.t. state-of-the-art techniques.

<comment><USER7> I'd like to see this too but benchmarking sort algorithms is a pain in the ass due to the wide array of sorting shapes and sizes, I wouldn't expect a well maintained benchmark suite for language X.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Summary: this is a non-recursive merge sort with improvements.

Benchmark of quadsort() versus C qsort():

* ~10x faster on forward-order items

* ~2x faster on reverse-order items

* ~equivalent on random-order items

Improvements:

* Ordering: when blocks of items are in order, or in reverse-order, then do special case handling, which gives quadsort O(n + log n) instead of qsort O(n * log n).

* Boundaries: compare data rather than traditional merge sort wasteful boundary checks.

<comment><USER9> Good summary. Quibble: O(n + log n) = O(n).

<comment><USER10> I think OP made the distinction intentional to "show their working", so to speak.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Quick sort is not the fastest sorting algorithm. It would be nice if there is a benchmark comparing with other state of the art algorithms like Timsort.

<comment><USER12> It depends on the implementation but Quicksort typically beats Timsort with random data. Quicksort is unstable though, so that's not a fair comparison.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interesting, but I'm surprised if this is the first time we have sorting algorithm that is swapping more than two elements at a time. I would have guessed every possible iteration of sorting algorithms has been already explored, proven and tested.

<comment><USER14> It isn't. Sorting networks ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorting_network](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorting_network)) provide the best possible in-place sorting combinations for N elements, where N is currently < about 11. If somebody could find a way to generalize the sorting network algorithm for any number of input elements, they'd be settling the issue of sorting things pretty much forever.

At lazy glance, it looks kind of like Quadsort has re-derived a variation of the 4-element sorting network.

<comment><USER15> > If somebody could find a way to generalize the sorting network algorithm for > any number of input elements

In section 2 in that Wikipedia article, it links to many constructions that do exactly that.

A couple are O(n log(n)), but complicated and impractical. The algorithms people use are O(n log^2(n)) ones.

FWIW, sorting networks are _data-independent_. I.e. for any input, you always compare-and-swap the same elements.

<comment><USER14> I was imprecise. I was talking about the construction of optimal sorting networks. You're correct to point out that there are several approaches now for constructing sorting networks for arbitrary numbers of inputs, but as noted in that section, they all have some very important tradeoffs. I said, "...provide the _best_ possible in-place sorting combinations for N elements, where N is currently < about 11"; the 11 there was a reference to this part from the second section of that article:

"For one to eleven inputs, minimal (i.e. size-optimal) sorting networks are known, and for higher values, lower bounds on their sizes S(n) can be derived inductively using a lemma due to Van Voorhis: S(n + 1) ≥ S(n) + ⌈log2(n)⌉. The first ten optimal networks have been known since 1969, with the first eight again being known as optimal since the work of Floyd and Knuth, but optimality of the cases n = 9 and n = 10 took until 2014 to be resolved.[11] An optimal network for size 11 was found in December of 2019 by Jannis Harder..."

Clearly I also should've said < ~12.

<comment><USER15> The point I was trying to make is that sorting networks restrict your algorithm to a data-independent memory access pattern.

For some particular N, you might be able to find the smallest sorting network that sorts N elements. And then you might be able to find an _even faster_ algorithm that sorts N elements using some strategy that's not equivalent to a sorting network (e.g., if your strategy does data-dependent memory access).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This reminds me of a programming exercise I was asked to write when I first learned programming: write a sorting program generator that given N, generates a program that sorts an array of N elements optimally: the generated code has N! branches, one for each possible permutation. With some CSE help from the compiler, it can be really quite fast at the expense of code size.

The author's explanation isn't entirely clear, but it seems similar to the above construction with a fixed N and then a merge sort afterwards.

<comment><USER17> A truly optimal sorting for a given N is a nontrivial problem. By truly optimal I mean the actual absolute minimum in the number of comparisons, no O(...) approximation.

For five elements the lower bound from counting the permutations is ceil(log2(5!)) which says you cannot sort 5 elements in less than 7 comparisons.

An actual 7 comparison algorithm exists but it is not very easy to write it. For greater numbers it gets much much trickier - in general the log(#permutations) lower bound cannot be met.

<comment><USER16> Agreed. My use of the word "optimal" in the original comment was a bit careless.

<comment><USER17> Hope my comment did not got across as a disagreement. Just wanted to add some relevant detail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> In his benchmark, the author is assuming that qsort() is implemented using quicksort, but that's not necessarily true. For example, glibc is using mergesort (although it falls back to quicksort if the system is short on memory).

<comment><USER19> I can't imagine the sort of bugs you get when your code relies on stable sort but calls qsort and everything works great until the machine is under heavy load.

<comment><USER20> The most annoying part of development, your users can and _will_ rely on any observable behaviours of your software.

<comment><USER19> Someone recently did something very stupid/clever with an API that I wrote.

In the code review I initially complained, but then I couldn't think of any other way to interpret the design. So I guess that's a feature now. 'Course later we found a performance problem, but, you know…

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> qsort has to invoke your comparison function repeatedly, which incurs a lot of overhead. Try C++'s std::sort

<comment><USER4> See [https://gist.github.com/zhangxp1998/0e2fa30656c894017d183e0d...](https://gist.github.com/zhangxp1998/0e2fa30656c894017d183e0dbf2d862a) for a comparison of quadsort with C++'s std::sort. The compare functions are inlined.

<comment><USER21> Thanks for saving us the time. The punch line:

      Summarize: Slower than std::sort except on random tail.

Also a very important tidbit that std::sort is 10x faster than c's qsort for ordered inputs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Since we're already using O(N) space, it would be interesting to see how this compares to Radix sort[0], which is O(N) space but O(N) time ( due to just hashing everything ).

Like others have said, it would be cool to see quadsort stacked up to other current state-of-the-art sorting algorithms.

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

<comment><USER23> Small nitpick: radix sort has nothing to do with hashing.

<comment><USER24> A radix sort is a type of hashing, no? You're bucketing the items based on a reduced form projection of them onto some smaller subspace.

<comment><USER23> Radix sort (similar to bucket sort) groups items based on individual digits of the non-hashed values. If you hash the values before, you will end up with the data being sorted according to their hash, but they will appear almost random in their unhashed form.

<comment><USER25> A hash function is any function that maps arbitrary data to fixed-size values. A radix is a type of hash. Hashes are not defined as random or required to sort differently than the unhashed values. If you define a hash function that returns the first 32 bits of it's input, then you have a hash that sorts almost the same as the unhashed values, as long as the first 32 bits are changing frequently, and you also have a hash function that you can call a radix.

<comment><USER23> I have never heard about hash function in the context of radix sort or anything similar as you describe. Wikipedia says about hash functions, that they "[S]cramble the bits of the key so that the resulting values are uniformly distributed over the key space". I would say that isn't the case for the function in radix sort that is used to 'pick' a digit.

<comment><USER25> Well, good you were here, now you have heard about radixes as hashes. ;) It's good to see and understand the connections and relationships between these things.

You're right that a radix doesn't scramble the key, but the quote you've picked is a qualified subset of hash functions. That paragraph is attempting to define a practical/good hash function that is used in specific ways. Not all hash functions scramble the bits, and the Wikipedia article is very clear about this if you read the whole thing.

You skipped over two important sentences that came before it, and a whole sub- section on radix hashes after it:

"A hash function is _any_ function that can be used to map data of arbitrary size to fixed-size values." (very first sentence, emphasis mine.)

"In some cases, the key is the datum itself." (Right before the 'scramble' quote)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_function#Radix_conversion...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_function#Radix_conversion_hashing)

String hashing is sometimes similar to radix as well: "Simplistic hash functions may add the first and last n characters of a string along with the length" and I've seen string hashes in production that do only the first n characters and stop. That kind of hashing is frequently useful in small, embedded systems, video games, etc. where you have a limited set of strings and a good idea of how well distributed the keys are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've never seen a sorting algorithm that uses a non-binary comparison function to order values. Is that a novel technique?

It seems really obvious in hindsight, so I'm sure there's just prior art I don't know about.

<comment><USER27> This is still binary comparison.

There are, in general, a number of different sorting algorithms which are optimized for a specific number of elements. In this case, four. It uses five binary comparisons to sort four elements.

You can find other algorithms like this, such as an algorithm that uses seven comparisons to sort five items, or one that uses ten comparisons to sort six items.

<comment><USER26> Ah, I completely misunderstood what was going on with the quad swap at the start. Rereading it makes more sense. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Seems it's mergesort but with a slightly more complicated comparison primitive.

<comment><USER13> Or it's like mergesort without the wasted steps that are proportionally less needed as data becomes less random.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This Quicksort is almost twice as fast

[https://rextester.com/XHCGA23293](https://rextester.com/XHCGA23293)

<comment><USER30> Only in the random case. Already sorted in either direction and it's ~10x slower.

<comment><USER29> Who wants to sort sorted data. If the input data is more often sorted, you can test this before sorting.

<comment><USER31> Sorting sorted or mostly-sorted arrays is not uncommon in many use cases.

<comment><USER29> "Mostly-sorted" is a very vague definition.

<comment><USER32> Usually what people mean by mostly sorted in CS is that there is some small K such that each element in the input is no more than K places from the position it would be in if the input was sorted.

<comment><USER29> According to this definition, the "random tail" test data is not "mostly sorted".

<comment><USER32> Well you could extend the definition to allow a small number of items which are entirely out of place. The point is that the right sort algorithm depends a lot on tthe distribution of input data and how much you care about worst- case vs average case trade offs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm a bit sceptical because I don't see any mathematical proof. Only benchmarks which do not prove a lot. It may be faster only by a constant factor on a particular machine but for sufficiently large n it would be as fast as mergesort.

1000000 is peanuts. We need to see convergence for about billions+ of numbers.

<comment><USER34> No one is claiming that this sort algorithm (or any other) is asymptotically faster than O(n log(n)). It can be mathematically proved that no sort algorithm can improve on this. The object with sort algorithms is to find one with good constant-factor performance on typical inputs.

Frankly, I am more persuaded by the arguments in favor of an algorithm like "Tim-sort", which doesn't claim to micro-optimize hardware more efficiently (that's basically what "better swapping" is claiming), but instead claims that the algorithm is particularly efficient on some commonly-seen patterns (like "partially-sorted", or "pieces of the list are reverse-sorted"). Of course, any kind of argument about why one sort is better than another are inferior to actual benchmarks.

<comment><USER35> I'm quite a noob, and this is a bit off-topic, but if it's mathematically proven that no sorting algorithm can be faster then O(n*log(n)), but we know for sure that checking if an array is sorted is O(n), then doesn't that prove that P ≠ NP?

<comment><USER36> No it doesn't, since O(n*log(n)) is in P too. P = NP doesn't imply that the complexity of finding the solution has the exact same complexity than verifying it, just that both are polynomial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Man, that's a good gif

<comment><USER38> You may enjoy this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPRA0W1kECg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPRA0W1kECg)

There are several similar videos on YouTube demonstrating sorts. If that's a bit sterile for you, you can get a more human touch via the playlist [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdIKIf9mHk0&list=PLOmdoKois7...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdIKIf9mHk0&list=PLOmdoKois7_FK- ySGwHBkltzB11snW7KQ)

<comment><USER39> In the 1990's, NeXT had a demo of their threading capabilities, and you could select a bunch of different sorts to run in parallel. Doesn't seem to be much still "live" on the net about it though: [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22SortingInAction%22](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22SortingInAction%22)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Oh lord it's almost 1k long

<comment><USER41> quad_swap64 and quad_sort64 are only about 350 lines combined.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I'll read the article when I get the chance, but would this be in-place?

<comment><USER43> From the article:

"These operations do require doubling the memory overhead for the swap space."

It seems it is not in-place.

<comment><USER44> I'm pretty sure it's in-place, thus the need for "swap space" to hold the values that are being moved.

<comment><USER45> The term "in-place" almost always means O(1) additional space, whereas this uses O(n) additional space.

<comment><USER46> technically quick sort needs O(log N) additional space and it is still considered in-place. I guess the threshold for in-place-ness would be less than linear additional space?

<comment><USER47> quicksort is not stable. the disadvantage of classic mergesort is that it needs to copy elements out of the input array, although there exist (slower) in-place variations.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Comedy Clubs Are Using Facial Recognition Software So They Can Charge per Laugh - <AUTHOR> http://time.com/3490653/comedy-clubs-facial-recognition-software-for-pay-per-laugh-system/

<comment><USER2> Good luck getting me to perform there. It's already hard enough to get people (paying customers) to laugh. And as a customer, I'd avoid that place too. Wouldn't want to enjoy myself too much.

</comment><comment><USER3> > The pay-per-laugh system was adopted to fight fledgling audience numbers

Offtopic, but is "fledgling" the right word here?</comment>


Good Entrepreneurs Always Accept NO For An Answer  - <AUTHOR> http://www.ideatagging.com/good-entrepreneurs-always-accept-no-for-an-answer/ <comment><USER2> So many companies out there seem to have really crappy products, therefore I am convinced that you can be successful with anything. It just takes the right kind of sticking to it.</comment>


Real Time Programming (1998) - <AUTHOR> http://www.ganssle.com/articles/realtime.htm

<comment><USER2> > A hard real time task or system is one where an activity simply must be > completed - always - by a specified deadline.

It should be noted that completing a task too early can be a failure as well.

<comment><USER3> There is some of that, some of the trends in language development and also some stuff about hardware+ makes my eye twitch a bit. Of late it's made to consider that language designers seem to be really focused on batch calculation speeds. Where real time code is 50% about producing side effects with the correct timing and sequence.

\+ Friend of mine that works on high end video processors mentioned getting into a pissing match with the hardware guys because the particular processor they were designing had back ground machinery that would run and 'stop the world' for a ~ms. He say 'you can't do that' and they respond with 'the benchmarks run fine, go away'</comment></comment>


Show HN: Insight Data PM – 7 Week Program for Product Managers Going into ML/AI - <AUTHOR> https://www.insightdatapm.com <comment><AUTHOR> Founder of Insight here (YC W11). Since 2012 we've been running free fellowships to help PhDs transition to roles in data science [1] and more recently health data [2]. Similarly, since 2014, we have been helping professional software engineers learn and move into data engineering roles [3]. Finally, since 2016, we have been helping researchers and engineers move into top applied AI teams working on cutting edge products [4]. Over 1200 Insight alums now work on data teams at 300+ companies.

For the past year, due to the growth in applied AI / deep learning teams in industry, many top teams are now hiring product people to lead teams of data scientists, AI engineers, etc. We're also increasingly receiving applications from product managers who have experience building data-driven products and want to build sophisticated products during their time at Insight. The new Insight Data PM [5] will take an existing PMs experience and help layer on the AI / ML / analytics piece needed, with Fellows interviewing for Data PM roles at top companies immediately after the fellowship.

[1] Data Science: [http://insightdatascience.com](http://insightdatascience.com) [2] Health Data: [http://insighthealthdata.com](http://insighthealthdata.com) [3] Data Engineering: [http://insightdataengineering.com](http://insightdataengineering.com) [4] Artificial Intelligence: [http://insightdata.ai](http://insightdata.ai) [5] Data Product Management: [http://insightdatapm.com](http://insightdatapm.com)</comment>


A take on Tornado and "modern" web servers - <AUTHOR> http://audidude.com/blog/?p=329#content

<comment><USER2> He seems to recognize (correctly) that Apache's mpm idiom is crap, but he still seems to think that its model of loading multiple language runtimes into one monolithic process is a good idea.

Why does it matter if you use 4 or 8 event-handling processes on one machine, each with their own database connection? If that's your scaling bottleneck, you'd be running on many machines anyway, so a small constant multiplier doesn't change the story. Besides, you could use crap like ODBC to have one persistent DB connection per machine.

<comment><USER3> I'm with you on the multiple language runtimes into one process, I find it hard to envision a situation where that would be a benefit, the only situations I can think of have nothing to do with scaling issues (multiple smaller websites for some reason bound to legacy versions of an interpreter).

The other issue (a small number of processes accepting work) is a good idea though I think, to get the number of processes doing actual work closer to the number of cores.

After all, even if it is a 'small multiple' it is a divider when it comes to how much hardware you need and less hardware=better.

The DB may be a bottleneck, it may not be, that very much depends on the workload of the server.

<comment><USER2> But he's arguing _against_ the idea of having a small number of processes -- he seems to want a single monolithic process per machine, with a native threadpool and multiple interpreters to get around GILs.

The idea of rolling multiple interpreters into a single process is especially bad for python, as it has a real garbage collector and os.fork()-ed processes will share a lot of memory. It makes some sense for Ruby, since its assy mark- and-sweep will invalidate every single page on the next collection after a fork().

<comment><USER4> I tried to argue that was an implementation detail with sacrifices no matter which direction you go. One could also argue that its problematic to deal with run-away runtimes with memory issues. The GC does provide an interesting problem I didn't consider. Especially those that over-utilize OS signals. Perhaps the choice of Python was poor for this.

You can still separate it into two fundamental shifts. The first being making a fully asynchronous/event driven module/handler API. This should be done regardless of the runtime module.

The massively-scaled websites I've seen would tip with 4-8 times the sql connections. SQL Server is especially bad at this. It also makes it hard to simply throw additional hardware at the problem.

I guess you could yield on resources from a master process if you have the logic to know their status.

<comment><USER5> @audidude: FYI - your server (www.audidude.com) is either being hit really hard right now or is completely down.

Without access to the original post there, this noob can only assume(hope) the discussion is about the Tornado Web Server (<http://www.tornadoweb.org/>). I'm interested in alternatives to Apache, so am looking forward to you being back online. Gracias.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> ... or you could use Erlang and it takes care of a lot of that crap for you.

That said, I think the big pain point is really the data store in any case. Yeah, it's nice to handle more with less, but in the end, adding django/rails/php/whatever machines is easy and a known quantity. It's tougher to scale up the data store.

</comment><comment><USER4> Copying my comment from my comment page.

Well like I mentioned I believe that is an implementation detail. For example, if you have the subprocess you have two fundamental designs. The first being where the master process still manages the client socket (so data is transfered from the worker back to the master). The second being where you pass the client socket (over a UNIX message with send_msg) and allow the worker to flush the buffers and close the socket. The problem with the first is that you increase the amount of wake-ups your event loop needs to do by 2x (since it needs to handle data in and out for the worker) which could increase your handling latency. This is a no-go in some applications. The problem with the second model is you lose the ability to have connections live longer their request (otherwise they are restricted to that workers affinity which will not be evenly balanced).

ODBC is an option (or SQL Relay) but it adds an increased latency without providing the ability to yield on the resource being ready. For example, even with the models I described above to reduce over subscription of resources, your container may not be correct in its assumption that the connection has little contention. So you effectively add latency and reduce correctness in your ability to run efficiently.

<comment><USER2> But why do the otherwise-independent app server processes need to be sharing 'the' socket at all? If you're already going to be running the same app on more than one machine, there's no reasons left to stick to port 80.

It seems like you're stuck on the idioms of Apache and 'real web-servers' (as you put it).

<comment><USER4> If you don't share the client sockets at a level that can distribute work to all of the processes you will get an unbalanced number of connection:keep- alives amongst the workers.

<comment><USER2> But we have this nice little abstraction called HTTP! The app servers don't have to know anything about load balancing.

You're persistently parochial in how you're approaching these things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm surprised there has been no discussion around NT's IO Completion Ports on this topic. IOCPs have this magic where the scheduler makes sure the number of threads running from a worker pool are the optimum for the number of cores on the system. It lends itself well to writing hi-perf networking apps where you're waiting on a bunch of objects using MsgWaitForMultiple or some equivalent.

<comment><USER4> That and IIS7's integrated pipeline.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Sorry to kungfudoi for posting this half an hour after he/she posted it:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=820962></comment>


Iran blocks Tor; Tor releases same-day fix  - <AUTHOR> https://blog.torproject.org/blog/iran-blocks-tor-tor-releases-same-day-fix

<comment><USER2> I thought one of the more dangerous threats in Tor was the possibility of someone running compromised exit (or entry) nodes? Why didn't they do that instead of blocking it?

<comment><USER3> If someone runs an entry node, they get to see the IP addresses of 1/N of Tor users, how much data the users send and receive, and when. But they don't get to see _what_ data the users are sending and receiving, or even what exit node they're using. If someone runs an exit node, they get to see (and filter) what data 1/N of Tor users are sending and receiving, and when, but they don't get to see who those users are, or even what entry node they're using. And the data they see can still be encrypted; e.g. connections to Gmail will use TLS/SSL, so even the exit node doesn't get to steal your mail.

So that may be why.

<comment> mike-cardwell FWIW, during the recent DigiNotar SSL shambles, there was evidence that some Tor exit nodes were using forged Google certificates to MITM "secure" connections to Googles services.

<https://twitter.com/#!/moxie__/status/110863647693221888>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can someone please explain Tor? Ive never heard of it and their blog doesn't say much about what it physically does? Is it access to the internet or just an internal Iran Internet for the underground?

<comment><USER5> Tor is an anonymizer. It exists to prevent authorities, isps, or other snoops from being able to see what web-sites you visit. Its VPN-like qualities also make it good for circumventing blocklists that work via banned destination site lists.

It does this by routing all(1) of your traffic through a series of constantly shifting peers that don't keep records or logs and don't use standard http ports.

Instead of YOU->ISP->Yahoo your traffic looks like YOU(encryption)->BOB->ALICE->STEVE(decryption)->Yahoo. Your ISP (and therefore your rotten government) only sees you make an encrypted connection to Bob, not a web request to yahoo. The chain is long enough that its really tough for anyone in the chain to figure out who you are and what your final destination is.

(1) Tor can be tricky to set up and know its working properly for the uninitiated. It can... _leak_ if set up wrong, and certain protocols (like all UDP) are not well supported.

<comment><USER6> Is there any precedent for legal prosecution against STEVE in case the originator is browsing something more nefarious than Yahoo?

I know the "unsecured wireless AP" defense has been used with varying success but I'm wondering if any Tor peers have ever been prosecuted...

<comment><USER7> The Tor Project website has a pretty good legal FAQ.

<https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en>

They say they're not aware of anyone being prosecuted for running a TOR relay, but can't make any guarantees about the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Well, the main hurdle isn't technology, it's always politics.

Tor might have fixed the block, but an Iranian using the system could still be imprisoned by the government for using it...</comment>


LSD: The Geek's Wonder Drug? (2006) - <AUTHOR> http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70015 <comment><USER2> I actually tried LSD a couple of times because of this article, back when it was written. It was a pretty enjoyable experience, and I'd recommend it to anyone who is interested in trying it, with a few caveats.

First, you need to have an experienced sitter with you. You're in for the full 8-10 hours, and on the off chance you start having a bad trip (things getting really dark and scary), you need someone to ground you to reality (and change the music or location, which can often instantly snap you out of a mood).

Second, if you're generally comfortable with your own thoughts and have a positive outlook you're much less likely to have a bad trip. This is why I think it's better to do it when you're older and more mature, rather than in your late teens/early twenties. I think you have more of an ability to process what's going on. Many people have the thought at some point during the trip, "What if I get stuck like this?" which can probably lead to a slight panic if you're not good at thinking about your own thoughts and realizing the feeling for what it is.

Third, go out into nature if you can. Preferably with just your friends and not a lot of people around. It's pretty cool.

Finally, the day after you'll feel somewhat drained and probably just want to stay inside and read. The day after, you're totally fine. I think the real long-term effects are kind of just a "tweaking of the dials". I don't feel like it was some super transformative experience, but it was really interesting in a way that's hard to describe, and you learn a lot about your own mind and how it works. I also feel like it kind of cleaned the windows on the way I see the world, in that I feel more positive and open to ideas, and in some ways I feel like I might be more creative now. It might sound hard to believe, but I understand now why they're researching using hallucinogens to treat depression, PTSD, etc.

Anyway, I'm not encouraging anyone to do it, but I will say that emotionally mature people should not be afraid to do it. Also, I never got any kind of signs that it was addictive. I pretty much just did it once, did it a few months later, and that was it for me.

<comment><USER3> _Third, go out into nature if you can. Preferably with just your friends and not a lot of people around. It 's pretty cool._

LSD impairs your ability to feel cold. People have died by taking drugs and then going out into snow. I sadly can't find the proof to back up my claim, but I read about a case of a girl taking ketamine and then going outside and succumbing to hypothermia.

Here's another case of someone dying from drugs: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._M._Turner](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._M._Turner)

 _Turner died after injecting an unknown quantity of ketamine while in a bathtub, presumably drowning while incapacitated by the effects of the drug._

Before jumping down my throat that ketamine isn't related to LSD in any way, I know. It's true. But when you get into a mindset where taking LSD seems like a good idea, taking other drugs starts to seem like maybe-okay. It's no coincidence that the psychonaut I linked to was taking a ton of different drugs including LSD.

I know people are going to be upset with me sweeping LSD under the classification of "drugs." People die from heroin and other hard drugs, but nobody has ever died from an LSD overdose. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the mindset that you're tempted to get once you delve into this scene.

Let's talk about psychedelics. Here's a video of someone jumping out a window after taking a hit of salvia: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v26zC-1eCo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v26zC-1eCo)

People have near-religious experiences after taking LSD, and they'll espouse the wonders of psychedelics while downplaying the risks. But there _are_ risks.

Before taking LSD, ask yourself: Are you sure you want to be a different person afterwards? People everywhere talk about the transformative nature of LSD, so that's what you'll be doing: transforming into a different person. Exploring land is fun because you get to go places you've never seen before. Exploring how chemicals affect your brain is fun if becoming a different person is fun. So don't do it unless you're sure you dislike yourself.

People have often credited significant breakthroughs to taking LSD, but your chances of getting rich from bitcoin are significantly higher than making a huge impact on the world by consuming LSD. It'll certainly have a huge impact on your personal life, though, for better or worse.

<comment><USER4> > LSD impairs your ability to feel cold. People have died by taking drugs and > then going out into snow. I sadly can't find the proof to back up my claim, > but I did read about a case of a girl taking ketamine and then going outside > and succumbing to hypothermia.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the idea of a "sitter" is someone that is _not_ under the influence, so this could negate such effects if one fully follows the advice of the parent post.

> Before taking LSD, ask yourself: Are you sure you want to be a different > person afterwards? People everywhere talk about the transformative nature of > LSD, so that's what you'll be doing: transforming into a different person. > Exploring land is fun because you get to go places you've never seen before. > Exploring how chemicals affect your brain is fun for some because they > become different. So don't do it unless you're sure you dislike yourself.

You could make the same philosophical arguments against "downloading your mind into a computer" or "using a Star Trek transporter." How do you know that the consciousness on the other end is still "you?"

<comment><USER5> > So don't do it unless you're sure you dislike yourself.

This is, in my opinion, a terrible reason to stay away from LSD. You're effectively saying avoid anything that may have bad results. Not liking yourself has never been a prerequisite for being curious. I've seen people have panic attacks on roller coaster rides that almost certainly altered their chemical balance for a significant period of time with permanent fear of heights tagging along, but once you start staying away from things that are on that scale of 'danger', at what point does it become relative to now say, "Stay away from playing sports, unless you don't like the way you function". I realize this is a slippery slope fallacy, so I'm not asking you to consider that exact scenario seriously, I'm just asking you to consider there could potentially be worse consequences to having that mindset than taking LSD.

I'm not advocating taking LSD, at all, mind you. I ignorantly (having never taken LSD) presume the social consequences of taking 'real drugs' outweigh the potential benefits.

<comment><USER4> You pull an excerpt from a quote that I included from the parent comment to my post. I'm not sure if the "you" is generic or directed at me, but I didn't say "don't do it unless you're sure you dislike yourself."

<comment><USER5> No, I've actually just clicked the wrong reply button. My apologies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Reminds me of Richard Feyman taking LSD. He said he had an incredible breakthrough and a moment of pure clarity on a problem he had been working on mid-trip, only to come down and realize his breakthrough was really jibberish and not insightful at all.

<comment><USER7> Reminds me of my first experience. The trip involved getting something huge, like a big sense of "oh, I finally get it" but now, 3 years later, I'm still trying to figure out what I actually got.

<comment><USER8> What I got from LSD upon reflection was that my mental pre-processor (what assigns learned categorical and pattern information to incoming data) limits my perception, leading me to overlook important details about the new data, and causing me to lazily follow the same old thought patterns as if on rails. It's often necessary to ignore everything we think we know and look at our current situation with fresh eyes in order to progress.

<comment><USER9> Interestingly, this was the same reaction Aldous Huxley had to taking psychedelics. He wrote about the experience in "The Doors Of Perception", the book from which "The Doors" (band) got their name. I believe the quote originally comes from William Blake.

> "If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as > it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things > thro' narrow chinks of his cavern."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A few important things are missing:

Before trying it, get yourself some diazepam, like e.g. xanax or valium, this is a very good treatment if the trip is getting too wild and it will take you down in less than 30-45 minutes, at least to a level where you can relax. This is your "life jacket" and will strongly reduce the danger of your experience becoming a bad trip, just because you will know that you can easily get out if you want to.

Do not buy from strangers, ask an experienced person you can trust. There is a lot of much more dangerous stuff on the black market sold as LSD that can seriously harm your liver or other organs. Having a good trusted source is extremely important. If you can allow, try to get clean, professionally produced substance from switzerland (ask psychologists or other doctors who are open to this).

Do not take it if you are in trouble, emotional stress, despair or feel overwhelmed by your personal situation. This substance will not solve any problems for you. Clean your life up as much as possible before doing it. Yes, LSD is still used to overcome heavy depressions and other serious problems, like e.g. alcoholism, but such a treatment will most likely only succeed with professional psychological care and is a long term process.

Have a nice trip!

<comment><USER11> Good advice. Just wanted to make a small correction: Valium is diazepam and Xanax is alprazolam, both are benzodiazepines. Most benzodiazepines (and "nonbenzodiazepines"[1]) are effective for the use mentioned.

[1]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonbenzodiazepine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonbenzodiazepine)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is it the same six people that keep posting this every 6 to 12 weeks on here?

The usual caveats apply:

1\. lsd is illegal, so no quality control and no certainty that that is what you are ingesting.

2\. lsd was and is a mythological drug in every sense of the word. Nothing you know about it is true either to the good or to the bad.

3\. Just because there are 5 decades of propaganda about the evils of lsd does not mean that there is nothing bad about it.

4\. Be skeptical, read the literature; understand the risks you are taking.

<comment><USER13> This bit of fear, uncertainty, and doubt was brought to you by the Institute For Armchair Psychonauts Who Never Use Drugs.

<comment><USER14> I'd say the first point is kind of important, considering it's a synthetic drug and not a plant. I have no anecdotes for LSD, but a few people died in my city after only a normal dose of ecstasy (no alcohol).

<comment><USER15> Ecstacy is known to cause the body temperature to rise. People write it off as just being the club, alcohol, etc. For some people, the temperature becomes high enough to cause death.

This doesn't have anything to do with drug purity and has everything to do with the effects of the drug itself.

<comment><USER16> Millions of people take MDMA every weekend. Deaths from pure MDMA have happened, but they are extremely rare. It's important to think about risk from a statistical point of view. Everything has risks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Some people assume that taking LSD gives you some kind of super abilities which would make one more competitive in this world, but it's not what the experience is about. Yes, while tripping, your mind can handle infinity or galactic-sized data sets, visualise abstract concepts and zoom in and out of matter or numbers, but I don't think that's the true power of this substance.

The real power comes from the realisation of who you really are and always have been, it's like you finally 'remember' that this life is just one in an infinity of previous and future 'lives' and that everyone and everything is you. It's the realisation of the fact that you (and everyone else) are in fact God who came into this body to feel separated from himself, that the Universe is some kind of cosmic simulation which you've created since the beginning of time.

This realisation is what frees people from the mundane reality of existence and gives one courage to embark on the craziest of endeavours, which sometimes have the side effect of changing the entire world.

<comment><USER18> Hm, it is too well articulated (people on LSD have trouble to explain even approximately their state of mind), and too precise match to Vedanta philosophy, that I have suspicion that you inherit this formulation either directly from Vedanta / Yoga / Sankhya or from people interested in eastern culture (as hippies and enthusiasts of "mind-expansion" in 60-ies), and then decided their drug experience was exactly this.

<comment><USER17> I've never practiced eastern philosophy, but it's not surprising that people arrive at the same conclusions on psychedelics. See, psychedelic plants/fungi have been around since before humans and people who took them, say, 3000 years ago had the same trips and the same realisations that we have today. Then they came back and wrote about their conclusions, which has sometimes led to the creations of new philosophies or religions.

This is one other realisation that you have while tripping - "I have been in this state before, many times before, but not in this body, I was a yogi in India or a shaman in South America or a philosopher in ancient Greece and I've always remembered: I am. It's always been me."

<comment><USER18> I thought maybe you was influenced by people accompanying you. But I also did some reading and see that loss of self-identity is an often symptom caused by psychedelics, so I don't know.

BTW, eastern practitioners explicitly advice against drug use, they employ other methods to achieve and retain this state of mind: bhakti (love), jnana (knowledge - means analysing the difference between thoughts and thinking process and Atman - the Self who perceives them), karma yoga, raja yoga, etc.

Some people fall into this state spontaneously, Ramana Maharishi ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi)) got this "enlightenment" at 16, and didn't speak several years after that.

I enjoy reading eastern texts, as artifacts of brilliant thought, also interesting in context of our development towards AI, where we still don't have satisfying theory for consciousness (that Vedanta calls atman). They have also accumulated interesting theories and terminology about mind mechanics. But I think it's worth to remain skeptical. After all, those strange states of mind may be just dysfunctions. For example, anoxaemia, inhaling vapors of glues and varnishes, sensory and motor deprivation induce "special effects" on cognition and mind too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I did some LSD about 35 years ago. More than once.

For a few days afterward it utterly knackered my ability to write good code, or do anything that required concentrated, logical thinking. Also, I felt like crap (think "bad mental hangover" without the horrible side-effects caused by alcohol).

That said, it was a pretty interesting experience. I highly recommend it, just not habitually. Someone (Timothy Leary?) said that the best way to do LSD would be in a sunny English meadow with the Archbishop of Canterbury as your companion.

<comment><USER20> In what form was it? If it was a pill or liquid, it could have been cut.

<comment><USER21> A pill? I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

<comment><USER22> Some of the largest manufacturers of LSD made it in pills.

<comment><USER21> Well TIL, I actually never knew that. I've always thought it was only made liquid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> That was 2006, DMT is the Geek's drug in 2015. The businessman's trip is a lot shorter and cleaner than this shit. You take 1 tab of LSD and you will be going for 10+ hours solid. DMT however - you just throw up some fractals on the external monitors, sprinkle it on some ganja, and then get transported to another universe for 15 minutes that may feel like hours actually. It's great for creative design as it is more a "symmetrical" experience than LSD. It occurs naturally in the brain and is hypothesized to be released by the pineal gland during birth, death, mental illness, falling in love, having children etc.

Some people have reported "aliens" or "mechanical elves" in their experiences with DMT. (I never had anything like this though oddly) This could explain a lot of those area 51 alien reports though - the CIA could have very well have tested this substance alongside LSD in the MKULTRA experiments of the 50's and 60's and had a few test subjects genuinely think they saw aliens due to the fact they unknowingly ingested a psychedelic chemical. Wow, that theory is worthy of a conspiracy Keanu meme....

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> An example of LSD's effect on art: [1] More details here [2]

Then there's the visionary art[3] of Alex Gray.[4]

There's a great book that documents studies done on LSD's effect on creativity.[5]

On the subject of music, LSD famously influenced the Beatles,[6] and many other 60's bands... and which, in turn influenced many others. In fact, there's a very good chance that most if not all of the contemporary music you like to was directly or indirectly influenced by drugs of one sort or another.

[1] - [http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzp00sBETe1qa88x9.jpg](http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzp00sBETe1qa88x9.jpg)

[2] - [http://www.openculture.com/2013/10/artist-draws-nine- portrai...](http://www.openculture.com/2013/10/artist-draws-nine-portraits-on- lsd-during-1950s-research-experiment.html)

[3] - [https://encrypted.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=alex%20grey&t...](https://encrypted.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=alex%20grey&tbs=imgo:1)

[4] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Grey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Grey)

[5] - [http://www.amazon.com/LSD-Spirituality-Creative-Process- Grou...](http://www.amazon.com/LSD-Spirituality-Creative-Process- Groundbreaking-ebook/dp/B007EDCXJM/)

[6] - [http://beatles.wikia.com/wiki/LSD](http://beatles.wikia.com/wiki/LSD)

<comment><USER24> The Beatles heavily used alcohol and tobacco too. But really, they were three of the century's most talented and most _hardworking_ musicians with incredible managers and producers and almost unlimited resources.

I can't prove it, but I don't believe there is a causative link between tripping on LSD and writing great music. I _do_ believe there is a causative link between working hard and practicing a lot and writing great music.

For the record, Bob Dylan was baptised in the 70:ties. And if you believe LSD influenced the Beatles, then by the same logic, Jesus influenced Bob Dylan.

<comment><USER25> On the other hand, there is substantial evidence that LSD changed the Beatles' music qualitatively. They first took the drug in summer 1965. Their next album, Rubber Soul, written and recorded in fall and winter 1965 was a major stylistic shift.

<comment><USER26> Any interview with John Lennon will tell you as much, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> For those who don't know: Albert Hofmann has passed away since this article was written. He lived to the ripe old age of 102. RIP.

<comment><USER28> Another brilliant mind tragically cut down in the prime of his life by the scourge of illegal drugs :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Well, I'm still waiting for the fellowship of LSD-fueled Übermenschen to emerge. Until then I'll just try to eat well, exercise more and get enough sleep. That seems to be the key for most elite developers I've encountered.

<comment><USER30> If you read "What the Dormouse Said" by John Markoff you could reach the conclusion that a fellowship of LSD-fueled Übermenschen existed during the 60's and 70's and we had the personal computer revolution as a result. And no, I'm not talking just about Steve Jobs and Apple, there were many people involved with the nascent computer industry who turned on, tuned in and dropped out at that time.

<comment><USER31> Unless you can link other eras of technological advance to LSD use this seems like a poor argument.

<comment><USER30> The article mentions Kary Mullis' use of LSD helped him develop the polymerase chain reaction, which revolutionized genetics and for which he won a Nobel Prize.

But I suspect from your tone that I could give a thousand examples and you wouldn't change your mind. C'est la vie.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> _Participants eager to describe their modern-day spiritual LSD experiences were encouraged to contribute to a library of drug experiences on the Erowid website_

Reminded me of a paper I've been meaning to read where machine learning was applied to erowid reports of different substances:

[http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.0312](http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.0312)

</comment><comment><USER33> I am just sad that this article would be illegal in my country, France.

<comment><USER34> Really? What is the law?

<comment><USER35> Article L.3421-4 of the "Code de la Santé Publique" (law concerning public health) forbids incitation/encouragement of the usage or traffic of classified narcotics, even if it does not lead to anyone actually using them. The sentence is heaviest if it's done near schools. Isn't there something vaguely equivalent in US law?

The interesting part is that the act of presenting classified narcotics under a favorable light (in press for example) is punishable under the same article.

In some regards this is pretty vague, and I've seen government-funded studies that end up presenting cannabis "in a favorable light", so I'm not sure how much this is enforced.

<comment><USER36> "Isn't there something vaguely equivalent in US law?"

Nope. The closest would probably be plans to make nuclear bombs. Oh, and the stupid thing about crypto. If I was bored enough right now I'd paste some long crypto key, but it would just make this thread look shitty.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> In the same vein, Freakonomics just did an interview with Wired and WELL co- founder Kevin Kelly, talking about the hippie origins of SV and the personal computer:

[http://freakonomics.com/2015/01/22/someone-elses-acid- trip-a...](http://freakonomics.com/2015/01/22/someone-elses-acid-trip-a-new- freakonomics-radio-podcast/)

</comment><comment><USER38> From 2006. Interesting article, not really much about it being a "Geek Drug" apart from the first couple of paragraphs about one programmer's use of it, and a little bit about the late Steve Jobs experience but it has plenty of background information.

</comment><comment><USER39> I don't see any connection between LSD and geek culture, except for the one programmer who happened to be at that conference.

I'd go further and say that I don't see a strong connection between geek culture and the countercultural movement in general. I see it as a carrot and stick approach by the left. On the one hand, the stick is attacking geek culture as a bunch of sexist racist losers. The carrot is allowing geek culture to be co-opted (recuperated, to use a long out of fashion term) by the countercultural movement. We are allowed to celebrate "hacking" as long as it is considered as part of the grand tradition of countercultural rebellion.

</comment><comment><USER40> Human biology is an extreme hurdle on our way to achieve the unachievable: having to sleep, eat, excrete etc. Are there any tech and drugs being developed to deal with these things? For now I'd be contempt to at least control my sexuality :D

<comment><USER41> Going a few days w/o much food is quite easy for some of us, -I would skip meals after 1800 in the evening and then skip breakfast and then I could go a few days w/o more than a couple of glasses of orange juice a day. I only did this for less than a week. My uncle said most of the good effects started kicking in after a 3-5 days.

As usual, be careful, I'd say have sugar around.

As for the last point you mentioned there are drugs for this, I just have a feeling you'd rather try without but I'm no expert.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I've always wanted to experiment with taking small doses of LSD (~10-20ug) reguarly.

I thought it would be an interesting experience, since I tend to feel more personable on LSD, especially during the come up/come down from it.

<comment><USER43> I've actually been doing that on and off since I think around last August. I've found it tremendously beneficial to overall feeling of well being, as well as my work ethic. Especially for programming, I feel much more involved and interested in my work so am usually able to work at a much faster pace. I also share the feeling of being more personable on LSD, as the days when I do microdose, I tend to have far better and deeper conversations with many of my friends.

<comment><USER44> I'd be very interested in experimenting with low doses of certain psychedelics, but the unknown quality, unknown provenance, full dose approach just doesn't appeal to me anymore. I wonder where you could find good quality crystal (or somehow measurable) LSD unless you pal around with very cool chemists. That's the big problem with interesting sounding illegal dugs.

<comment><USER45> Darknet markets are one way of ensuring you get a pure product. Each vendor will often have hundreds of reviews.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I've been interested in trying LSD since my friend offered but am hesitant because I don't know how it will interact with my medication (SSRIs).

On a side note, I do like to smoke weed while I'm studying/coding. Things that were not so easily apparent to me before being high often become a given and understanding concepts comes more naturally. It's easier for me to picture in my head how data is being manipulated and where it's going in memory. My skills are only at an intermediate level so this is really helpful when I'm trying to learn more advanced stuff.

<comment><USER47> SSRIs are known to reduce the effects of hallucinogens.

LSD, and hallucinogens in general are extremely useful in personal growth. The novelty of 'reality' literally breaking down can be quite a thrill; and for many people it will be the first time it has ever happened to them; though it can be incredibly frightening as well.

I have been around several people on various SSRIs while they have taken mushrooms or lsd (and one on DMT); it seemed to always be a non-issue.

This is probably a great place to start if you are truly interested and want to understand the risks: [https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_health3.shtml](https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_health3.shtml)

<comment><USER46> Thank you for the link, I think this will help a good deal.

<comment><USER48> It's not exactly a neutral source. I would neither trust drug proponents for the advice or take the risk, for that matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> The title of that article seems irresponsible IMO. If someone seeks out LSD on their own I don't see a problem with it, but I wouldn't want to be the one who encouraged them.

<comment><USER50> Why not?

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> So we have Lsd, amphetamine, mescaline, ritalin, provigil as mind drugs. Anyone tried Ritalin or provigil long term?

The army uses amphetamine & provigil during long term flying missing during critical operations. So what is illegal for ordinary citizens is legal for the state.

Side not Steve Jobs tried a lot of drugs in India probably a door opener for his mind as have a lot of brilliant rock artists danger being not over using or wasting your talent.

I do not use drugs personally but I find it an interesting subject.

<comment><USER52> I've been taking adderall(similar to Ritalin) since I was about 12, I'm 22 now. I have actual ADHD and cannot function at work without it, I cannot focus on one thing for more than a few minutes tops. I'm a software developer so this is a huge problem. I had hoped I would grow out of this so I didn't have to take it but I don't see that happening anymore.

AFAIK it hasn't had any negative long term effects on me, short term it kills my appetite so I have to force myself to eat. It was a problem when I was younger, I was severely underweight during highschool but I've been able to manage my weight well for the past few years.

<comment><USER53> There was an attempt to put me on Ritalin in school. This was quickly aborted because my mother was told about it and almost defenestrated the vice principal over it (third story window, so that counts for something).

Giving continued-used psychotropics to developing brains is an excellent recipe for fostering lifelong addiction.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zidiWe9yq88](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zidiWe9yq88)

<comment><USER52> I've been taking it 5 times a week for the past 10 years and I'm not addicted to it in the slightest. Whenever I go on vacation or have longer periods off of work or school I stop and I never feel the urge to take it.

<comment><USER45> My understanding is that it's nearly always only addictive if it's taken in recreational doses. If prescribed medically, the dose is usually too low for addiction to occur.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Dihexa probably has more potential for this generation as a "geek wonder drug." There are people at Longecity who had the compound synthesized and are taking mega doses.

[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121011090653.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121011090653.htm)

</comment><comment><USER55> My theory is that there is NO direct correlation between drugs like cannabis or LSD and creativity.

I know some talented people, experiences when I was young was watching friends "stoned"/"high" but talking utter crap! The next day after the trip (without fail) these already smart people "think" they have said or done something profound, but they never did!

Days later, their own creative genius is pushed on a search to find out what they said or did that was so profound/creative. Sometimes they do something amazing, but most of the time they don't!

When I was 20 at university (I'm in my 30s now) a friend of mine took cannabis and LSD for the first time. It was not something I did, not because of any moral high ground, but because it also kinda scared me. During the nightout he started to act really strange, bad trip everyone assumed. That weekend (the day after) his mum called asking us all what he had taken, he had been sectioned under the mental health act. It turned out his family had a history of mental health problems. He was sectioned for almost 2 years and never finished Uni.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not to discount your observations of a couple of your friends, but if you look at actual scientific studies of LSD's effect on creativity,[1] there is a very clear link.

That said, it's not a panacea or a magic pill. You are not guaranteed to become more creative when you take LSD. You most likely will not become Mozart or Picasso by taking it. It is even possible to misuse or abuse LSD, as you can misuse and abuse alcohol, food, water, and sex.

My own observations of people having unproductive experiences from psychedelics is that they take them in ignorance, without much if any education about what they're taking, without proper respect (ie. to just "party" or "have fun" or as attempted distractions or escapes from lives that are miserable in various ways), in an unsupportive or even actively hostile context, without planning, and without a goal.

They often believe in all sorts of urban myths about LSD and other psychedelics (like that taking LSD seven times makes you "clinically insane", or that LSD damages your chromosomes or makes you stare in to the sun until you go blind, etc), they often mix drugs (which can be very dangerous -- especially when one of those drugs is alcohol), and do really stupid things like driving under the influence.

Is it any wonder that such situations and attitudes lead to bad outcomes? Should drugs be blamed for what happens? Or could some responsiblity for what happens be laid on the shoulders of the people who choose to use them in stupid ways, or on the society that keeps them ignorant or tries to lie about the effects of these drugs or actively tries to harm drug users, or at least make constructive, safe use of these substances very difficult and dangerous?

About your friend who was "sectioned" (I presume this refers to involuntary confinement to a mental institution), it sounds like you know very little of what actually happened to him or his psychological state before or after the incident. I would not be surprised if his family (who you admit have had mental problems of their own) or the authorities overreacted, and that his confinement to the mental institution might have been a much worse experience than his LSD trip.

Finally, an LSD trip can be a very emotionally intense experience. Emotionally intense experiences of any kind could trigger psychotic episodes in succeptable individuals. Such people could have a psychotic episode without any being drugs involved. People with family history of mental illness would do well to be extra cautious before engaging in any activity that might result in an emotionally intense experience.

[1] - [http://www.amazon.com/LSD-Spirituality-Creative-Process- Grou...](http://www.amazon.com/LSD-Spirituality-Creative-Process- Groundbreaking-ebook/dp/B007EDCXJM/)

<comment><USER55> I agree, my few experiences don't prove anything. He mixed LSD, cannabis and alcohol on that night. I also agree, I knew very little about his mental health before that day. His section (involuntary confinement to a mental institution) was not taken lightly. What I do know is Doctors said the drugs (cannabis and LSD) had triggered an underlining mental illness. He developed severe paranoid personality disorder (PPD).

The other point you made is incredibly important, taking such drugs does not guaranteed you will become more creative. It is important you research, why you want to take it and your current/past health problems.

After a lot of research I have personally have taken nootropics on and off for many years. As a programmer I often work long hours, I need to function and problem solve. I found them to aid in learning and memory. Nasty ADHD drugs give me side effects and are just legalised amphetamines. Nootropics like Aniracetam seem to have the same effect with little to no side effects (for me).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> My friend and university classmate - a kind of wounderkind.

He was accepted to university without exams, because he had great results on programming olympics.

Turned out he was also good at chemistry. When he was around 8 his mother arranged him to take chemistry classes with elder schoolchildren. But he dropped the classes because he was borred - he already knew everything taught there.

In university he tried drugs (marijuana, mushrooms). He also bought Hofmann's book with all the formulas and started cooking himslef.

One day he jumped off the roof of their apartment building. His mother found him. She said at first sight she thought it was some garbadge on the street, and then recognized her son.

On his computer he left open Richard Bach's book, with selection active on the phrase "you can fly, Jonathan". He left a note between pages of the Exupéry's book (I don't know exactly on what place, his relatives hadn't pay to that at the moment). The note said to dispel the ashes over the ocean.

The guy doesn't care - he is dead and feels nothing. But it was horrible to see his mother, and father too. He was the only child.

This case makes me doubt LSD and drugs in general are harmless.

I also have evidence the "inspiration" when you're on drugs is false, and actually it's more like a delirium.

Please, don't promote drugs.

UPDATE:

Surprisingly, some people even down-vote this comment, and convince me in telling false story. If so, what are my motives?

If you care, you can find plenty of documented evidence of drugs danger.

BTW, he jumped not because he "convinced himself he can fly", as many commenters suggested. His note said to dispel the ashes over the ocean.

If you heard something similar before - it doesn't make the story false, other way around, looks like such things happened more than once. In my case I am describing a real person I knew for years, and was present on his funeral.

This thread, and many comments here suggest a conspiracy theory -like idea, that anti drug laws and information is a malicious and false propaganda, imposed by state and society. Sorry, but it's just stupid.

It is irresponsible and inappropriate to promote drugs (LSD or whatever). And off-topic for Hacker News. There are people who unstable, who have internal emotional conflicts, etc. For them drug use may be a catastrophe.

<comment><USER56> I first heard a variant of this story about 30 years ago, either a lot of kids killed themselves jumping out of windows on acid or it's an urban legend.

<comment><USER57> Wikipedia and snopes seem to both think it's an urban legend.

[http://www.snopes.com/horrors/drugs/linkletter.asp](http://www.snopes.com/horrors/drugs/linkletter.asp)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misconceptions_about_drugs#Thou...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misconceptions_about_drugs#Thought_they_could_fly_and_jumped_out_window.2Ffell_off_cliff)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Recommended: [http://www.amazon.com/Then-Thought-Was- Fish/dp/0985318139](http://www.amazon.com/Then-Thought-Was-Fish/dp/0985318139)

</comment><comment><USER59> to respond the question in the title: no.

<comment><USER60> Care to elaborate?

<comment><USER61> Whenever there's a question mark in the title, the answer is usually no, and the article is linkbait.

I don't know if this rule of thumb applies to this article.

<comment> k-mcgrady Betteridge's law of headlines [0]. The answer to the question is generally no - that doesn't make the article useless link bait though.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines)

<comment><USER14> You guys know scientists are supposed to ask questions, right?

<comment><USER62> Scientists are supposed to ask GOOD questions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> _Very_ interesting, thanks for bringing this to my attention!

</comment><comment><USER64> LSD Effect : The deadly accident killed four people, including a policeman, and caused serious injuries to four others.

[http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/01/22/police- confirm...](http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/01/22/police-confirm- death-driver-under-influence-lsd.html)

<comment><USER65> Over 10,000 people died in drink driving incidents in the US along last year. Distraction from mobile phones also led to thousands of accidents, should they be illegal too?

Let's now throw the baby out with the bathwater.

<comment><USER66> > Distraction from mobile phones also led to thousands of accidents, should > they be illegal too?

When using any type of vehicle in public areas: Absolutely. And they already are in many places [1] (at least under certain conditions).

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safet...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#List_of_countries_with_bans)

<comment><USER67> His point (I assume) isn't that these things aren't or shouldn't be illegal while driving, it's that you can make it illegal to drive under the influence without banning being under the influence.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Collaborate, but only intermittently, says new study - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180813160528.htm <comment><USER2> Collaboration is another aspect of working life subject to diminishing returns. As bad as a full day of meetings/calls/chats can be, recurring isolation also creates a sense of boredom and job apathy. Most jobs don't understand this and tend to take the side of over-collaborating.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yesterday's discussion on the paper itself is here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17753614](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17753614)

I've got a more detailed comment on that page, but, in a nutshell, I don't think one can reasonably extrapolate these results to a business setting.

I'll go a step further here and say that I see this Science Daily article as a great example of questionable science journalism. Critical details left unmentioned, wild extrapolations, all that fun stuff.

<comment><USER4> I've soured on these sorts of behavioral study generally. They're so rife with statistical problems and publication bias that I think they pretty much amount to throwing darts at the truth, and as a result, whatever opinion you happen to hold about the right way to do $X, you can find a "study" to back you up. For or against pair programming? For or against open offices? For or against Agile? Oh boy, the literature has a study for you! (Or, if you're into nutrition, you can find studies for and against keto! Or for and against eggs! :Eyeroll:)

This kind of nonsense is what I like to call anti-knowledge. It tangles our decision making and it'd be better if it didn't exist at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think this is especially true for SW engineering. You can't just constantly discuss things but you also need uninterrupted time to try out things and see how they work out. Then you can discuss the results again.

</comment><comment><USER6> Full study: [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/08/09/1802407115](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/08/09/1802407115)

</comment><comment><USER7> Except in a winner take all environment were the best solution is most important wouldn't it be better to have a large set of isolated individuals?

<comment><USER3> There was a third group where all members acted independently with no communication. The difference in likelihood of finding the optimal solution between that group and the one with intermittent communication was not found to be statistically significant in the paper, which is probably why they don't talk about it much. I think that knowing about it really does color the paper's interpretation, though.

It makes the cynic in me want to say that the real take-away here is that greedy search is more likely to get caught in a local optimum in a problem where the search space is not convex.

It's also worth pointing out that, to achieve P<0.05 on their main result, they had to run a LASSO regression with cross-validation. IMO, that counts as P-hacking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The biggest problem for our team has been getting people to discuss more.

On befriending everyone and getting drunk one day, i asked them why don't you talk more at work?

They said, it's due to bad previous experience where they opened up and got attacked. Now, they only plan to speak when absolutely necessary otherwise, just solve the tickets assigned to me and i go home.

</comment><comment><USER9> You don't say. Great insight, guys.

<comment><USER10> Some people, even in tech, are so afraid of being alone (often subconsciously) that they lean heavily toward group collaboration as a sort of security blanket. Outside-point-of-reference studies like this are really useful as aids in getting them to loosen up and let the people they e.g. supervise have some quiet time.

<comment><USER11> We kind of have the opposite problem on my team... all the devs tend to work mostly alone (98+% of the time). Most of the dev communication is with the product owner and the product engineers (non-devs).

We talk about doing pair programming or something in the next release, then we all go back to our respective stacks of work and don't feel like we have the time to collaborate on anything, unless it's a question for someone who knows a part of the codebase better.

<comment><USER12> If the results in this study generalize, neither constant collaboration nor constant isolation are good. You want people to be able to crib ideas from you in a professional setting. You also want them to have enough time to think up their own ideas.

I know you didn't ask for advice, but perhaps code-review and design-review is actually all your team needs? i.e. instead of the constant collaboration of pair programming, you work on slightly lighter weight interaction by having pairs of people work on closely related projects code-reviewing each other and having times where they bounce ideas off each other, but who ultimately work alone till they produce something the other can see. A half-day boundary of interaction (non-formalized of course) may be sufficient to allow for the degree of collaboration to be fruitful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Dupe from 22h ago

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17753614](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17753614)</comment>


Amazon's empire rests on its low-key approach to AI - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/business/2019/04/13/amazons-empire-rests-on-its-low-key-approach-to-ai <comment><USER2> _> AMAZON'S SIX-PAGE memos are famous. Executives must write one every year, laying out their business plan. Less well known is that these missives must always answer one question in particular: how are you planning to use machine learning? Responses like "not much" are, according to Amazon managers, discouraged._

I think company culture & talent make a big difference here. At most companies this would run the risk of poorly shoe-horning ML into a bunch of applications and making everything needlessly complex & expensive without seeing improved results (same goes for blockchain).

<comment><USER3> There is also the story of Amazon mandating that all internal systems communicate with each other through APIs. I think leadership at Amazon has good technical knowledge so they can develop these strategies and see them through.

In my company nobody with a "C*O" title (including CIO and CTO) has any clue about tech so they are very susceptible to snake oil salesmen telling them things like "we must do ML". So they tell some random person to "implement AI" but nobody has any clear objectives or can make a judgement whether things go in the right direction. In most cases these things end up as expensive disasters. I am waiting for the "Blockchain Excellence Initiative" with a lot of presentations and shiny newsletters.

<comment><USER4> How can someone become a CTO without having any clue about tech?

<comment><USER5> In a big enough company where software isn't the product that just means they know the tech that applies to that company. The CIO is probably a fearful late career IT politician and the CTO could have spent 40 years progressively learning more about washing machines or planes.

<comment><USER3> That's pretty much it. There is also a widespread belief that software development is "IT" which means that an initiative to implement cloud systems gets led by people who have experience with desktop deployments or firewall setup. There is a lot of politics around budgets so the IT department won't let go of that power.

<comment><USER6> I read in Werners Vogels blog (amazon CTO), that there are four types of CTOs [1] based on Berray and Sampath paper. [2]

* Infrastructure Manager

* Technology Visionary and Operations Manager

* External Facing Technologist

* Big Thinker

[1] [https://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2007/07/the_different_c...](https://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2007/07/the_different_cto_roles.html)

[2] [http://www.brixtonspa.com/Career/The_Role_of_the_CTO_4Models...](http://www.brixtonspa.com/Career/The_Role_of_the_CTO_4Models.pdf)

<comment><USER7> That list is not exhaustive. One might also encounter "Peter Principle Beneficiary".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think a lot of people just don't realize that Machine Learning can be as simple as a linear regression with 2 variables. The hype and myth around ML are such that some employers just assume that they need to hire rockstar data scientists to do ML but in reality, a junior level data analyst or even a non- technical employee can do simple ML model in Excel spreadsheet assuming he/she has some background in Stats 101.

<comment><USER9> Yes but that is the easy part. The hard part is knowing what can be solved with ML, gathering the training data, validating the model and then explaining what the model does.

Acually fitting the model is not the hard part.

But yes, not all ML is deep learning and most ML problems should NOT use deep learning.

<comment><USER10> > Acually fitting the model is not the hard part.

Ideally you shouldn't be fitting the model yourself. The idea behind ML is to use brute force computation.

If you're fitting the model by hand, you're a Statistician.

<comment><USER11> Statisticians do not fit models by hand, they "fit" models in the same way machine learning pratictioners "train" models. "Fitting" in statistics lingo is completely synonymous with "training" in ML lingo. Statisticians were the original ML practitioners.

<comment><USER9> I will second this. I use the two words interchangeably. I would probably use the word fit when talking about liner regression and train when talking about a more complex ML model that requires more computation. I really don't remember the last time I fitted a regression model by hand, it would have probably been in a college exam.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> And yet I still get emails from Amazon trying to sell me products I just bought.

Bought a hygrometer earlier in the week, delivered yesterday, email today about hygrometers.

Maybe they have data showing that converts well.

<comment><USER13> Actually, they do! This is a frequent misunderstanding, but buyer's remorse is a common thing and a lot of folks return the items that they've bought because they're unsatisfied with it. Even if it is 5% of all customers, the numbers will add up really fast for Amazon.

It's quite clever if you look at it from an aggregate perspective. They're casting a wider, second net to catch the fish who slip through.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This year, our internal ML conference ran out of tickets within 90 minutes of opening registration. There is a whole helluva lot of ML research and applications going on.

<comment><USER15> Tell me about it!

\- sincerely, someone that didn't register in time

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> [https://outline.com/34PN5W](https://outline.com/34PN5W)

</comment><comment><USER17> I ran Kindle software Product Management for 3 years. Left in 2014

AMA about the memo process or OP1/OP2 process.

<comment><USER18> Did you ever feel like it was a waste of time or do you feel it genuinely added value to the company to engage in that exercise?

<comment><USER18> Sorry for the double post, accidentally hit reply twice on mobile client.

<comment><USER19> You can delete the comment within the first two hours, I think. Certainly can be edited.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Amazon is also pushing hard on gathering data. They've offered free photo storage for prime users for some time; earlier this week, they offered me a $15 gift card just to install and setup auto-upload of pictures from my cell phone.

</comment><comment><USER21> I thought Amazon's empire rests on AWS which actually funds the company allowing them to make a sustained loss on their retail business despite attempts to automate with robotics and ML.

<comment><USER22> It's basically the opposite? The retail business funds all the other projects. That's starting to shift, but only recently.

<comment><USER21> [https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/04/07/how-amazon- costco-...](https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/04/07/how-amazon-costco-and- alphabet-really-make-their-m.aspx)

[https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-web-services-cloud- on...](https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-web-services-cloud-online- shopping-profits-chart-2017-5)

AWS makes all the money, everything else is marginal.

> Amazon Web Services, which accounted for about 89% of Amazon's $1 billion > total operating profit this past quarter. That's despite AWS accounting for > just 10% of the company's overall revenue during the same time frame.

> But despite all of this, Amazon generates just a fraction of its net > earnings from e-commerce. Instead, Amazon's bread and butter is its cloud > computing segment, Amazon Web Services (AWS).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Anyone has a link to the full article?

<comment><USER24> [https://outline.com/34PN5W](https://outline.com/34PN5W)

<comment><USER25> "Screw ad supported services, if only they provided a way to pay for their content, then I would totally just do that"

\-- HN

<comment><USER26> It adds up fast. I spend 100 euro on all my news subscriptions (and i still don't have the NYT or the WP). I can totally appreciate that others may not subscribe as much, or to the same set of services.

Spotify for news would be super good, though.

<comment><USER27> > Spotify for news would be super good, though.

Apple News+ [0]

[0]: [https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT209513](https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT209513)

<comment><USER26> Yeah, I appreciate the thought, but I have no intention of getting invested in the Apple ecosystem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I guess this is making a virtue out of necessity. Amazon is clearly behind other tech companies in deep learning, so they are calling it "low-key." I used to work on the retail side, and their prediction process is pretty bland. They use an off-the-shelf neural networks, but they don't know how to do modeling, so forecasts are inconsistent. I am sure they will try to incrementally solve the problem, but proper modeling is foundational to predictions so I think it will be a long time before it is resolved. Like I said, it is about average in industry.</comment>


Tennis, Chess and War (and Startups) - <AUTHOR> http://continuations.wenger.us/post/47797160/tennis-chess-and-war-and-startups# <comment><USER2> Another similarity between chess and startups is that the game can be lost long before checkmate, without you even knowing it, especially if you don't know what you're doing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Very well said! The reality is: be agile, stay focused and keep your eye on the prize...success.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Wars are generally lost for economic reasons, many of which predate the war. But Tennis and Chess maybe.</comment>