I quit my job today to make video games full time - <AUTHOR> https://imgur.com/gallery/CVq5bO8 <comment><USER2> > FTA: "I have sketched game ideas since I could draw a straight line. This is > from my childhood sketchbook."

Sounds like he's doing what must be done. Very excited for the author. We could debate professional opportunity costs or net worth deltas resulting from his decision, but it sounds like he was dying a little bit every day and always wondering "what if..." so this move is bold and beautiful and possibly necessary for mental health. GOOD LUCK, Chris Zukowski!

</comment><comment><USER3> Hey thanks for finding my post. I have always thought I wasn't cool enough for hacker news. AMA. To answer a couple questions 1) Before I joined any company I always had my personal lawyer review the contract to make sure it allowed me to make my own games on my own equipment. Wouldn't work for a place that didn't. 2) I am aware of the opportunity cost of having no to little salary for a few years. But I factored personal satisfaction and FOMO into what the actual cost was. Plus you gotta live a little.

<comment><USER4> Congratulations. You are awesome.

I wish I had done the same years ago when the games industry was less saturated. And I was younger.

Kudos for living the dream.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Good for him, I hope he finds happiness. BUT...

My ex worked for [MAJOR VIDEO GAME PUBLISHER] and if he gets a job like that: say goodbye to your friends, family, nights and weekends.

I had dinner with my ex yesterday -- even tho [MAJOR VIDEO GAME] has been released for a while now there's DLCs coming out before the holidays and it's crunch AGAIN...my ex is working 6-7 days a week, 10am-10pm. The co has offices in several timezones so work is always flooding in, 24 hours a day.

I don't want to discourage anyone from following their dreams, and maybe indie vg publishing is a different beast, but I feel like this post potentially under-represents how crushing working in vg publishing can be.

<comment><USER6> There is always that one that spews negativity. Always. And always an employee.

<comment><USER7> That one is usually right, though.

The video games industry is known for being a ruthless meat-grinder of human beings and human potential. The indie market is known for being a black hole where even good, well advertised projects vanish into without making a dime, never to be seen.

<comment><USER6> For workers, yes, and that is quite expected. A company is profitable for as long as it makes games that go viral. And interest in those games fades in time, so it's quite expected. As indie tho i know plenty of success stories out there to think otherwise.

<comment><USER7> >As indie tho i know plenty of success stories out there to think otherwise.

Survivor bias. For every success there are many hundreds or thousands of failures, not all of which are necessarily of poor quality.

<comment><USER6> yeah best not to do anything because some fail. non-survivors bias.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is so cool man! Glad you know what you value in life, as so many don't.

I left the FAANG I was working for about a month ago on my own terms, it felt weird at the time to start burning through savings to sharpen up on my own work but boy was it worth it. Not to mention the fact that last week my team was cleared out and basically ruined by a legal battle they brought on themselves (it even ended up being covered in WSJ).

Knowing what you value in life is priceless, life is simply too short to be working on things you don't at least find interesting.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Glad you know what you value in life

Just to make it clear I am the submitter but I am not Chris Zukowski / zukalous. Title was preserved per the rules.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I used to program video games for a living. It's not all unicorns and sunshine. Just because the cubicles have cool drawings of video game characters all over them and you have an Xbox in the lounge doesn't mean that work is going to be more satisfying. In video games hours are longer and wages are lower because so many people want to live the dream.

I make approximately 4 times more money in cash at my new career in a startup. And that doesn't count equity. The place I work is doing well so my equity is worth significantly more than that (but it was a lottery ticket so just consider the cash component). On top of that, the product I work on improves the lives of people more tangibly than entertainment does.

I still love video games and hang out with my friends from that industry ... but all the ones with families are trying to get out of the industry just like I did.

It's a shit career unless you are at one of the top companies like Blizzard, Riot, etc.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is the same game from the speedrunner post awhile back: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20328266](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20328266)

<comment><USER3> Hey you remember me. Sorry I wasn't here on HN back when that went viral.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I was comming in here initially to be like.... "Wait have a plan!!! _reaches out with hand to pull you back from jumping off a cliff_ "

Then I realized this dude is the maker of "1 screen platformer" he's gonna do just fine

<comment><USER3> Thanks for your vote of confidence. It is still a risk but I wanted to do one of these "I quit my job" posts that wasn't like "now all I have to do is learn how to program and I can make my open world mmo life simulator." I have been very meticulous in my planning but still aware that this is a risk.

<comment><USER12> No risk, no gain.

Having meticulous plans and preparedness means you're already ahead of they pack!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > I would sketch out game ideas and maps while pretending to take notes in the > endless deluge of meetings...

You're my hero <3

<comment><USER3> Haha.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I for one can really identify with the comment the author made about the "grey" in cubicles. My work used to have exactly those cubes and after a while it almost felt like everything looked grey and walking outside where there was color was so refreshing. It was like the difference between the Moon and Earth.

In fact I wrote a poem on my blog about this very experience of being in a cube: [http://www.actinginbalance.com/square/](http://www.actinginbalance.com/square/)

Now, they replaced our cubes with open-office. Actually, it is less grey but still does feel very limiting, we have a lot less space, and it is noisy.

</comment><comment><USER15> His blog

[https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/ChrisZukowski/842841/](https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/ChrisZukowski/842841/)

</comment><comment><USER16> XBLIG shoutout! Congrats and best of luck on your new venture.

<comment><USER3> Did you make any games for it? I still talk to many of the developers in that community.

<comment><USER16> I was an XNA MVP ... worked on a bunch of community content/articles. Was working on a game towards the end, but then the windows phone era of XNA came in and diverted my attentions, and by the time I'd made more progress on my game the community was winding down :(

Still want to revisit that game idea ... someday

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As an aspiring entrepreneur, I have also small side projects which are waiting to be discovered or better to put it trying to see what's worth before I leave my job.

I think you did well about decision time if you have some responsibilities as I do. It's better to wait for a good time.

I consider your story is a success even from the beginning because of your attitude towards accountability and desire to make more games.

</comment><comment><USER18> I have always loved video games but discouraged by the lack of work balance in that sector.

So if I ever work on a video game on my own terms, it would probably be small.

Are there are any resources for which one can accomplish a small game in a reasonable amount of time(let's say 6 months)?

</comment><comment><USER19> That's not going to be an easy life, but it's not going to be boring either.

</comment><comment><USER20> Be careful about doing side projects on work time or with company resources. Some vindictive employers may use this against you.

<comment><USER21> Comments from the author on the subject: [https://imgur.com/gallery/CVq5bO8/comment/1698922551](https://imgur.com/gallery/CVq5bO8/comment/1698922551)

> I am careful. I worked with my company's IP department to get a clear. I had > to sit with a company lawyer to explain my video game.

> Also they are COMPLETELY different industries. So they didn't care. It was > the weirdest meeting that laywer had ever had at my company.

<comment><USER22> Great to hear he did his homework!

Last I looked into this, AIUI, the default in the US is "everything the employee does the employee owns" (damn you wedding photographers!).

So naturally, virtually every tech company contract will have a "work for hire" clause which says "never mind that, everything the employee does the company owns (on or off the clock, in the shower, whatever, it's all ours)".

California adds an extra exception, which is "whatever the employee does (on their own time and equipment) that is 'unrelated to the company's business' is still the employee's." While that may safeguard my oil painting hobby, I'd always be nervous about any programming (game or otherwise) if I work for a tech company...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Good luck, so many of us have tried and failed, or punted it off for another try in the future again. I wish you all the very best success.

</comment><comment><USER24> Let's say I wanted to do the same (2D style game). Any recommendations on a tech-stack? Unity?

<comment><USER25> Godot please

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I wish this person the best of luck. I am typing from my dank cubicle.

</comment><comment><USER27> Gaming industry is one of the highly demanded industry in 21st century. best of luck on your new project

</comment><comment><USER28> You left a job that gave you a cubicle? Man, I'd kill for a job that gave me a damned cubicle instead of a cacophonous open office... but sadly there are none left except for the one you just gave up.

<comment><USER29> Hallway and cubicle just make me think that probably he works for an established defence company.

<comment><USER30> Absolutely. The building reminded me of my time at Lockheed Martin.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> TL;DR: mostly consult on shovels, but do some gold prospecting on the side.

<comment><USER32> That's gold, right there.</comment></comment>


Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes and Balwani charged by feds with wire fraud - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/15/theranos-chief-elizabeth-holmes-arrested-on-federal-criminal-charges-.html <comment><USER2> (dupe) WSJ on the same story: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17323485](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17323485)

</comment><comment><USER3> Will this be a fine or jail time. I can't find it in the article, but I think you have put jail time behind this.</comment>


'I Was There': On Kurt Vonnegut (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.thenation.com/article/i-was-there-kurt-vonnegut/ <comment><USER2> I'm kind of surprised by his dismissal of "Cat's Cradle" (or at least his demotion of it) as lighter weight and "adolescent." To this day I still think it is Vonnegut's best novel. I think that it is short and simple (at least in plotting) is a great strength because the book never digresses into distractions.

He says that the book is about scientists taking responsibility for their creations, but I think that is too narrow a reading. The book is filled with with characters (not just scientists) who think they are in control of their actions (and they are) but every action has consequences that they have no control over, and these have far more impact than the intended consequences. (Ice-9 is just one of many manifestations of this.) The sayings of Bokonon are kind of an oblique reference to this, since many of them are about other (divine?) plans that are performed by the karass, wampeters, and granfalloons. But as Bokonon says at the beginning, its a lie, there is no controlling force, are actions simply have unintended consequences.

There is also a second prevalent theme about deception and self deception, and recurs through-ought the novel.

(the author also says he can't even remember the narrator's name, but I'm pretty sure his name is never given in the novel.)

</comment><comment><USER3> From the article:"Mother Night marks the first appearance in Vonnegut's novels of a word that would become increasingly important for him: schizophrenia." I was surprised to find this passage without a mention that Kurt's son developed schizophrenia.</comment>


Task Automation in Vanilla JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/swlh/how-to-automate-clicks-using-javascript-4855f0f42b60 <comment><USER2> Here is a script that automates your automation:

[https://gist.github.com/neodigm/53bcad834a62b442dfca6694cacc...](https://gist.github.com/neodigm/53bcad834a62b442dfca6694cacc79a4)</comment>


Ask YC: Is long-tail Google search traffic a good thing? - <AUTHOR>

If your site has a lot of pages indexed by Google, its likely that a lot of your traffic is from organic SEO traffic. It's great because its free and usually grows as your site's pages grow. The negative is that the bounce rates are higher.<p>What do you guys think? Is a lot of SEO traffic a good thing or something to be concerned about? <comment><USER2> It's really important and not at all negative, it just means people are searching for something specific, and will most likely move on once they've found it.

For retailers, these are the 'gold' searches. The more detailed the search phrase, the more likely the purchase.

Think about it: 'Digital camera' is far too broad to determine the mindset of the searcher, but 'sony cybershot offer black' shows a far greater purchase intent. Add on a specific product name / number and a sale will be imminent.

For NewsCred this stuff is equally important. You can minimise bounce rates by doing more to keep these users onsite, be it related content, UGC, improved usability / navigation, etc.

Besides, traffic is traffic...

<comment><AUTHOR> Good points all around. We definately have to focus on keeping these SEO users on the site longer. More importantly, to have a good acquisition funnel to convert them to registered/regular users.

I'm not so sure all traffic is created equal, but the marginal benefit of all traffic is certainly positive.

<comment><USER2> To encourage users to sign up you just need to encourage more interaction / personalisation. Easier said than done, I know.

The news aggregation game is a bit in-and-out... traffic we receive (as a publisher) from aggregators comes in and mainly bounces. These readers often browse multiple sources to get a view on an individual story (to get a wider spectrum of views, more detail, better pics, more user insight etc).

The way NewsCred is designed doesn't lend itself so well to this... you have promote one story at a time; I'd consider adding more links to more sources on that story, Techmeme/Google News-style, to take advantage of this sort of behaviour.

Maybe users can ultimately choose their own sources, or NewsCred can choose for them, based on where other people are going. The key is in achieving a good depth of coverage, rather than just pointing people at the big media sites.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agree completely that its all about depth of content. What's your startup? Don't see it mentioned in your profile!

<comment><USER2> Ah thanks, schoolboy error. We talked by email a couple of weeks ago... now updated ; )

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> To me, that's like asking, "My customers that pay with $100 bills tend to spend more than the ones who pay with $20 bills. What do you guys think? Is a lot of $20-bill-paying customers a good thing or something to be concerned about?" It just doesn't make sense to me.

Traffic is money for you I would assume. You don't appear to sell directly to subscribers so you need traffic if you are going monetize your site.

<comment><AUTHOR> Our monetization strategy is not dependent on traffic, although ad revenue from the consumer site is definately a bonus. As for our biz model, I'll post about it separately once we can disclose more.

<comment><USER4> It must be a pretty odd monetization strategy if people checking out the product is a _bad_ thing. Even a visitor who will never be a customer might have friends or blog readers that will.

Do you work for the NSA? Have you considered deploying a login barrier and a splash screen to drive people away? ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha... I never said having traffic is a bad thing! I'm just comparing what the merits of long tail SEO traffic is vs direct or SEM traffic.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Has there been progress in philosophy? - <AUTHOR> https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/has-there-been-progress-in-philosophy.html <comment><USER2> I argue that we live in an anti-philosophy era. I'm not sure this will change in our lifetimes, but I think it will necessarily change if we survive for long enough.

To illustrate: there is common belief that metaphysics became irrelevant -- that it was replaced by science. This is, in itself, a metaphysical position, and a misunderstand about what science is and does. Of course, reasoning about what science is and does is part of philosophy. So is the discussion of knowledge itself, what is knowable and how can we trust the various methods of seeking more knowledge. A lot of stuff surrounding these topics happened in the XX century.

The acritical use of the yardstick of "progress" as the ultimate value for everything (along with its little cousin: "productivity") is, in itself, a philosophical position. One that is currently maintained by social norms and authority. Which does not mean it is "wrong". I am only claiming that it is accepted by most people without any reflection.

Some boundaries of scientific knowledge are quite visible. For example, consciousness. You might argue that consciousness emerges from matter interacting in a complex way (emergentism), and you might be right, but this is accepted as a serious scientific theory although it has zero content -- no way to falsify empirically, no explanatory mechanism proposed.

Real philosophy is a very subversive endeavor at the moment. Perhaps it always was. It's something for those who love knowledge, but not for those who expect any public recognition.

<comment><USER3> > To illustrate: there is common belief that metaphysics became irrelevant -- > that it was replaced by science. This is, in itself, a metaphysical position

That argument doesn't seem valid. The notion that fairies don't exist is, in itself, a fairyological position; still, few would accept that fairyology is a legitimate field of endeavour.

> I am only claiming that it is accepted by most people without any > reflection.

Many things are accepted by most people without much reflection. Often that's because they really are as simple as they look.

> Some boundaries of scientific knowledge are quite visible. For example, > consciousness. You might argue that consciousness emerges from matter > interacting in a complex way (emergentism), and you might be right, but this > is accepted as a serious scientific theory although it has zero content -- > no way to falsify empirically, no explanatory mechanism proposed.

What are the outstanding empirical questions about consciousness? As soon as you go down to an empirical level, you find that no mysticism is necessary: there are valid, interesting questions to be asked and answered, but they are no more outside science than questions about how, say, protein folding works.

<comment><USER4> > That argument doesn't seem valid. The notion that fairies don't exist is, in > itself, a fairyological position; still, few would accept that fairyology is > a legitimate field of endeavour.

You are using Popper's criterion for what constitutes a valid scientific theory, but I think you misunderstand me.

My claim is that saying that theoretical physics is the ultimate explanation of reality is a metaphysical position. Cosmology describes the big bang but it does not answer the question "why is it so?". Maybe there is no answer. Maybe it is not knowable. Maybe theoretical physics cannot have the total picture. These are all metaphysical questions that seem perfectly legitimate to me. If you are not allowed to ask or talk about these questions, I would say that you just accepted a religious faith. I am not trying to sell you anything except doubt and curiosity :)

> Many things are accepted by most people without much reflection. Often > that's because they really are as simple as they look

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

> What are the outstanding empirical questions about consciousness? As soon as > you go down to an empirical level, you find that no mysticism is necessary: > there are valid, interesting questions to be asked and answered, but they > are no more outside science than questions about how, say, protein folding > works.

You are implicitly making the strong claim that knowledge can only be attained through empiricism. This is clearly not the case. I know that I am conscious and I assume that you are, but I cannot use empiricism to test this hypothesis, not can you use it to verify that I am, indeed, conscious. So there is something very fundamental -- in fact the only thing I know with 100% certitude -- that cannot be empirically tested.

Your use of the word "mysticism" betrays the current bias against such questions. I am not proposing any woo. I'm just curious. Even being curious about certain topics nowadays gets you labelled and a "mystic". I think this illustrates the point that I wanted to make in the beginning.

<comment><USER5> But you were talking about the mechanism of consciousness, not verifying whether someone is conscious or not.

It may be impossible to verify if someone is conscious in the same way that I know I am, but we can associate a set of behaviors with an intelligent creature. If we empirically prove that those behaviors emerge from a collection of neural impulses, then it takes a simple assumption (almost a cognitive axiom) that the creature exhibiting those behaviors is conscious, to conclude that emergentism has been empirically verified.

I feel like your position that emergentism is empirically impossible to verify is itself a strong position, and attempts to define a boundary on science when your stated goal is to place doubts on where the boundaries are. Yes it requires a few assumptions, and yes those assumptions are impossible to verify empirically. But then so are the mathematical axioms. We don't go around saying "physics is impossible to empirically verify because mathematical axioms are impossible to prove and are incomplete"

<comment><USER6> Try imagining yourself as a system of molecules all responding to their environment. It is reasonable that your complexity might be a good indicator of your potential for intelligent responses. I don't think that holds for your consciousness though. If it did, that would imply either consciousness is a spectrum or the universe has a hard coded on/off switch for consciousness. The on/off hypothesis has problems with conservation of information, and if consciousness is defined as "having an internal experience" it isn't clear how that could be non-binary.

<comment><USER7> Did you say an on-off switch for consciousness? There may be one for humans.

[https://gwtoday.gwu.edu/gw-researchers-disrupt- consciousness...](https://gwtoday.gwu.edu/gw-researchers-disrupt- consciousness-electrical-stimulation)

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S152550501...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525505014002017)

<comment><USER6> That area may be important for higher brain functioning and memory. I don't think those are equivalent to consciousness though.

<comment><USER7> I think it's likely an emergent phenomenon. Still, being able to turn it on and off with specific components hints they're either the source of conciousness or a big part of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Calling things like Claude Shannon's work on information "progress in philosophy" is like claiming Einstein's theory of General Relativity "progress in linguistics".

It is only true in a way that makes it essentially meaningless. Unless the people doing the work considered themselves philosophers, or drew on schools of thought from philosophy, you're claiming credit to philosophy from something that philosophy had nothing to do with.

<comment><USER9> Einstein's Theory of Relativity _was_ progress in philosophy: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach#Philosophy_of_scien...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach#Philosophy_of_science)

<comment><USER8> Philosophy, yes. But not _linguistics_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Question of free will as a fundamental philosophical question is settled in a sense that it made only sense together with dualism and soul (there are still people who are dualists and believe in individual entity called soul. For them the question remains).

Albert Einstein:

>I do not believe we can have any freedom at all in the philosophical sense, for we act not only under external compulsion but also by inner necessity. Schopenhauer's saying— "A man can surely do what he wills to do, but he cannot determine what he wills"—impressed itself upon me in youth and has always consoled me when I have witnessed or suffered life's hardships. This conviction is a perpetual breeder of tolerance, for it does not allow us to take ourselves or others too seriously; it makes rather for a sense of humor.

Modern version of free will has degenerated into question of deterministic vs randomness and few other more vague branches. If human makes random decision, he is making random decision not free decision. Calling it "free will" is just a way to make the question sound more important.

<comment><USER11> >Question of free will as a fundamental philosophical question is settled in a sense that it made only sense together with dualism and soul

It might be settled from your own point of view, but it's certainly a matter of current philosophical controversy whether physicalism entails the absence of free will.

<comment><USER12> The concept is a bag of very different meanings.

Define "free will" as acting mostly based on internal reasons and we all have it. And this is the meaning of the word for the masses.

Define "free will" as a kind of supremacy of human will over physical determinism and nobody has it.

<comment><USER11> I don't think anyone has ever defined free will as a supremacy of human will over physical determinism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> In the spirit of Popper and Deutsch, I'd argue that philosophy makes progress in the same way all branches of knowledge do: filtering out bad ideas.

The Popperian notion of scientific progress as an evolutionary process of conjectures and refutations applies just as well to philosophy. Philosophy gives us the tools to stamp out bad ideas and let the better ones rise to the surface. (Better ~= survive refutation longer).

Without being able to run an experiment on a philosophical conjecture in most cases, however, it is much more difficult to refute a purely philosophical conjecture than a scientific one. But many old philosophical ideas have been refuted on the basis of logical inconsistency or bad premises. So I'd expect the kinds of philosophical ideas we debate today have a higher proportion of truth than what was debated 500+ years ago.

</comment><comment><USER14> There can be no progress in philosophy because there's no clear definition or consensus on neither the content, the objectives or the method of philosophy. The very notion of "progress" implies a kind of scientific philosophy that is a very recent (20th century) development.

In my view Analytic Philosophy (that I studied while at university) reduces philosophical thought to linguistic and logical analysis and therefore is a depleted form of philosophy.

If you accept the premise that philosophy should enrich people's lives metaphysical and speculative thoughts clearly can't be excluded. This is also what the (later) Wittgenstein thought, for instance.

With the recent return to ancient thinkers like the Stoa I see that people might get more value out of philosophy. No progress there in the eternal wisdom of humanity.

<comment><USER15> i think there is value in analytic philosophy, mostly when used as a tool to clear up otherwise muddy issues. Case in point, Jay F. Rosenberg's "Thinking Clearly About Death." In the second half he spends his time clearing up moral arguments about euthenasia, letting die, and rational suicide, using analytic philosophy. he only comes to a definite conclusion on the rational suicide argument, but his clarifications are invaluable in the other cases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> What do we mean by 'philosophy'? They don't seem to be referring to professional philosophers in university philosophy departments, but instead to patterns of thought widespread in society.

I see a comment there making much the same point - [https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/ha...](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/has- there-been-progress-in-philosophy.html#blog-comment-159821404)

<comment><USER17> That comment totally got it. When S. Hawking said, philosophy is dead, he was right, was death for him, the the gross of the world still doesn't understand what essentially philosophy is, and more important, how it can help you, therefore , when people will start questioning basic behevoirs and trying to understand basic things then , philopsohy will have reach the end , which is teaching the humans to think by themselves . At least this is what I think.

<comment><USER16> No, that doesn't sound right at all. The second paragraph of the linked comment has it right: professional philosophers are in the business of clarifying fuzzy ideas, such as for example, what is meant by 'free will'?

University philosophy departments are _not_ in the business of teaching critical-thinking skills to the masses. That is the responsibility of high- schools. (Or at least, it should be.)

Indeed, the works of proper philosophers are generally completely unknown to those who haven't formally studied philosophy. I doubt your average STEM graduate could name 3 living philosophers. (I'm of the opinion that this says bad things about what philosophy has become, but that's not the point.)

That's how we end up with articles like this, which claim to summarise the recent progress of philosophy, but make no mention at all of _any_ real philosophy, recent or not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There cannot be "progress" in a field without agreed upon mechanism to decide what's "right" or "good".

In math, we have proofs. In science - experiments. For med we use double- blinded tests. In tech - what works is king. Philosophy as a discipline is too poorly designed to assign proper meaning to the term "progress".

<comment><USER19> One of the things that philosophy is _actively working on_ is determining what "right" and "good" actually mean. There are epistemic/analytic senses ("the answer on the test was right", "all bachelors are unmarried"), practical senses ("it's good to run"), normative senses ("you _ought_ to run"), and so on. A great deal of contemporary philosophy is invested in further delineating these senses and explaining how they relate to our ontology, our metaethical views, etc.

I've heard more than one person say, too, that philosophy progresses by creating new subjects. When you consider that pretty much all of logic, political thought, and biology come from the tradition started by Aristotle, that claim sounds reasonable.

<comment><USER18> Encouraging. And how is that going so far? If I meet a fellow Philosopher now, can I prove him wrong in a way he'll accept?

<comment><USER19> It depends on what you mean by that. If someone presents a view that is inconsistent with the accepted facts, then you you can "prove them wrong" in that sense.

But that's not really the _point_ of philosophical inquiry -- the point is to flesh out each view _entirely_ , and look for the best possible explanation of the subject. Those kind of explanations don't always (or even usually) come from outright rebuttals -- they come from synthesis, refinement of the situations considered, improvements in clarity, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think the philosophy community (that was scared by behaviourism decades ago) needs to take a good hard look at reinforcement learning and representation learning. They can clarify many philosophical problems.

The hard-problem of consciousness was a detour, a wrong direction. It led to nothing in the end - just wasted decades. It was dualism in disguise.

You don't even need the notion of consciousness - just use the concept of agent, agent-environment relation and reinforcement - all being well defined, sound concepts unlike consciousness which doesn't even have an official definition.

<comment><USER20> "consciousness" has a definition: You.

It's a common misconception that there's no way to detect consciousness. It has no qualities and so cannot be measured, but consciousness can be detected by other consciousness. Since _you_ are conscious you can detect consciousness in other beings.

What's actually happening is that what we call consciousness is unitary and co-extensive with the entire Universe. When two people merge consciousness' they are just increasing the bandwidth between themselves until they are effectively a single organism, the separate self-models in each person merge into an integrated self-model. People do this spontaneously sometimes when the sex is really good.

<comment><USER12> I give you a straight forward notion that is scientific and concrete (the notion of "agent") - in other words - all that the notion of consciousness isn't, and you reply with new age hocus-pocus.

Of course you're free to think about the macrocosmic consciousness and the tantric web of relations that tie subject to object. But that isn't getting us any closer to understanding the topic. It's just a 1000 year old mostly forgotten philosophy. Even in tantra, it is considered that the subject acts through three energies or processes - iccha: will, jnana: knowledge and kriya: action - the same three aspects that define an agent.

The agent approach has game theory and reinforcement learning to back it, with real applications and results (such as Alpha Go). It does not presuppose a spirit, it has no mind-body problem, and is testable (no "first person" firewall around it). Given all that, I think the agent theory is much more parsimonious that the spiritual and philosophical treating of consciousness.

<comment><USER20> > I think the philosophy community (that was scared by behaviourism decades > ago) needs to take a good hard look at reinforcement learning and > representation learning. They can clarify many philosophical problems.

I agree with that.

> The hard-problem of consciousness was a detour, a wrong direction. It led to > nothing in the end - just wasted decades. It was dualism in disguise.

I don't agree with that.

> You don't even need the notion of consciousness - just use the concept of > agent, agent-environment relation and reinforcement - all being well > defined, sound concepts unlike consciousness which doesn't even have an > official definition.

It does have a definition: you.

What is the goal or purpose for which "You don't even need the notion of consciousness"?

> I think the agent theory is much more parsimonious that the spiritual and > philosophical treating of consciousness.

To what end?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Anyone interested in this topic should read Chalmers' paper "Why Isn't There More Progress in Philosophy?"

[http://consc.net/papers/progress.pdf](http://consc.net/papers/progress.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER22> If I'm understanding correctly, it seems similar to saying that there's been progress in math because there's been progress in physics [1] and economics, both of which are largely based on math.

I think it would be more accurate to differentiate between "progress in other fields that utilize well-known, age-old x" and "progress in x."

[1] Some progress in physics _has_ been as a result of new discoveries in math, such as the strong cosmic censorship conjecture being disproved recently

</comment><comment><USER23> What's special, from a philosophical point of view, about Singapore? It's number 12 in the list, but is not explained why, besides the subclause of "in fact most other places/polities in the world." So, specifically, what's special about the Singaporean government?

<comment><USER24> If you've been following Marginal Revolution for a while, you'll know that Tyler Cowen (who has libertarian leanings) is endlessly fascinated by Singapore. It's one of the most free-market places in the world, yet it has huge government ("a high quality bureaucracy", as Tyler terms it).

This pushes against the thinking of libertarians just slightly. The qualifier though is that for this to work the government has to be good -- and once you go beyond the size of a city-state, that becomes more difficult to achieve.

Also, Tyler may not fully grasp the liberty you have to give up to achieve such a government in Singapore because he has never lived there.

[1] [https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/08/wh...](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/08/why- singapore-is-special.html)

[2] [https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/06/my...](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/06/my- worries-about-singapore.html)

[3] [https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/ho...](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/how- to-visit-singapore.html)

<comment><USER25> Disneyland with the Death Penalty (1993) [https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/](https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/)

It's illegal to buy gum in Singapore without a prescription. You may like Singapore - here's a more positive take by Dan Sivers [https://sivers.org/sg14](https://sivers.org/sg14) \- but I've never heard it described as "free market" let alone anything that would appeal to a libertarian as such.

<comment><USER23> That was a really good read. Wired should pay Gibson to write a 25-years-later follow-up!

<comment><USER24> You should also know that that Gibson article is a one-sided view that was written on the basis of a very short stay in Singapore.

It's an entertaining opinion piece to be sure, but if you want to derive anything useful from it, I would advise reading it critically.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> maze-le I think, philosophy has not answered all the questions posed by Plato and Aristotle but it has put up quite some more interesting questions since then. Science has answered some of these questions -- Nameley in the fields of astronomy, biology and geology wich was considered natural philosophy in ancient times.

For anyone interested in this topic, I hereby plug one of my favourite podcasts: [https://historyofphilosophy.net/](https://historyofphilosophy.net/)

</comment><comment><USER26> There has been a lot of progress in the questions that have been considered philosophical but as soon as they get answered they are no longer considered philosophy. So something like how did all the animals get here or how many primes are there become biology and maths. Some of the current questions philosophers ponder like what is the nature of consciousness or what is quantum weirdness about will likely go the same way eventually.

</comment><comment><USER27> Free will has been settled though, hasn't it? The best case for it these days seem to be a language game called "compatibilism" where you redefine free will to mean something vague about acting according to motivations, and when someone accepts that definition you turn around and say "Aha! We do have free will after all!"

<comment><USER28> A more charitable way of putting it is that naive understandings of free will are incoherent but if we're going to have to make up a definition of free will we might as well do so while maintaining as much of traditional distinctions between free will and non-free will as possible.

For instance if I decide hit someone and do so that might be considered blameworthy. If someone else decides to pick me up and throw me at that person then that wouldn't be blameworthy of me. Traditionally you'd distinguish between these by invoking free will and I think that's a useful distinction to make.

<comment><USER27> Well, since we are motivated by self preservation it might make sense to talk about blameworthiness when we figure out whether to lock you up or the person who threw you, or to cut out the brain tumor that caused you to suddenly become aggressive. Invoking free will still does not make any sense though, because you cannot choose your past, and I don't think you can argue that the past doesn't have any causal influence over you.

<comment><USER28> The notion that something is only free will if it uncaused is not at all the compatibalist position. The general compatibilist position is that an action is done with free will of a person if the causal chain it is part of runs through that person's intent for the action to occur, or conventionally that person's 'will'.

If you choose to define an action as representing free will only if it is uncaused then first, you've made up a definition entirely at odds with the normal English usages and, second, your definition is useless because it only cuts actions into those actions that exist and those that don't and we already have a perfectly good word for that so the new one is redundant.

<comment><USER27> Okay I accept your compatibilist definition that actions are done with free will despite being part of a causal chain. Congratulations, you won the language game, and can proceed to claim we agreed free will is real. You now have as much free will as a rock rolling down a hill.

> If you choose to define an action as representing free will only if it is > uncaused then first, you've made up a definition entirely at odds with the > normal English usages

I was trying to be precise, and assumed you agree that something that's part of a causal chain cannot be reasonably be called "free" by any common sense definition. You can't change the past after all, can you? If not then you're a product of circumstance just like everything else in the universe.

<comment><USER28> I think that if I'm walking down the road on a hot day and get thirsty and then I decide to buy a soda then my purchase is of my free will despite being cause by the heat, cause by society teaching me about buying things, etc. And I insist that if you told a non-philospher I bought it of my own free will they would agree. So I think you're entirely wrong to say that something that is part of a causal chain cannot be called free.

Now, if you told a normal person that someone in that circumstance couldn't have done anything except buy the soda they would agree that would mean I didn't have free will but they wouldn't see why. To them the "My decisionness" and "Could have been differentness" are the same thing. But philosophically we have to choose one or the other and it's both more useful, in terms of carving reality at the joints, and in greater accordance with common usage to pick "My decisionness" as what we interpret "free will" to mean.

I'm sorry I'm not directly addressing your point about changing the past, but that's because I'm still rather confused by how it relates to free will. Certainly I'd say that nobody can change the past.

<comment><USER27> > So I think you're entirely wrong to say that something that is part of a > causal chain cannot be called free.

Yes you can call it free since you have defined free to mean acting according to your motivations, just like I predicted in my original comment. But since your behavior is caused by your motivations, and your motivations have it's own causes, and so on, I really don't see what you actually win (except the language game) by describing the process as free. It's about as free as the last cogwheel in a machine.

> I'm sorry I'm not directly addressing your point about changing the past, > but that's because I'm still rather confused by how it relates to free will.

Suppose your will is a function of your brain, and suppose that your brain is a function of gene expression and environmental stimuli. Suppose you are unable to choose your genes, and suppose that you are unable to alter the history of environmental stimuli. It follows that the causes of your will are outside your control. If you don't control your will, then your will is not free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Philosophy i think is the same question and message repeated in each era in the language of that era. (Modern lingo and memes and such)

The question is "what's the point".

Philosophies that get overly powerful turn into religions. Original questioning rooted in science (refusal to look away from reality) can become dogma. Yin becomes yang and back again.

Dogma, while safe, doesnt evolve and eventually is disconnected from modernity. (Not using the right memes and lingo anymore)

The same message can be right or wrong depending on how it is said and in which cultural era it is said.

A strong belief in having already gotten the point or belief that execution is the only thing left leaves no room for philosophy which is about the wiggle room of constant flux.

The current era is a bit strange in that science itself has become a sort of dogma. "scientism" masquerading as true science is another way of putting it. There's a belief that certain people, idiots and infidels hold back everyone. The yin blames the yang and so becomes it.

<comment><USER30> > Philosophy i think is the same question and message repeated in each era in > the language of that era. (Modern lingo and memes and such) > The question > is "what's the point".

In fact, very little of what philosophers are interested in can be fit into this reductive sort of question--and in fact, several major philosophers could be characterized as specifically trying to take that sort of question out of the realm of philosophy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> The comments here are largely what I expected to find: people throwing around the names and quotes of famous philosophers from centuries past, as though it's a pissing contest to see who has read the most books on the topic. Modern discussions around philosophy are effectively a circle jerk: person 'A' regurgitates a quote from one philosopher, and then person 'B' is expected to regurgitate another quote to counter.

While the historical works are an important piece of the puzzle, it would be nice if more folks could avoid equating "studying philosophy" with "literally studying existing books on philosophy - and nothing else".

</comment><comment><USER32> It seems what happened is that all the promising/useful areas of inquiry from ancient philosophy have since become their own fields. "Natural philosophy" became physics/biology/chemistry and so forth. Thus university philosophy departments were basically left with the dregs -- lots of debates over non- falsifiable claims, lots of debates caused by poor definitions of words. Ethics is the only subfield of modern philosophy I can think of that seems useful and interesting to me. Maybe political philosophy too, but that has mainly moved to the political science department.

<comment><USER33> doesn't it seem like hubris to assume that philosophy has stopped producing "successful" fields? Computer science broke off less than 100 years ago...

<comment><USER11> And one might add that the branching off point was some _extremely_ esoteric work in the foundations of mathematics and philosophy of language that would have struck most people at the time as entirely speculative and useless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I agree with the author that there has been progress. Oddly enough, the more important philosophy becomes, the more invisible it is to people -- even the people making the progress! The ideas are the air, the questions are being asked, and leading practitioners, many times simply from being part of the environment, pick up the conversation in a much better place than they would have, say, 50 years ago.

The interesting question is the reverse: where has the progress of philosophy failed or gone backwards? (I imagine asking and talking about such a question would be quite controversial!)

</comment><comment><USER35> I was a philosophy major. The first few sentences struck a chord with me. I had a discussion with a professor. We were discussing Plato. He questioned why I was having issues with the topics being taught. I told him "because he (Plato) is wrong".

Later I came to realize that we learn the history of philosophy not because we're stuck in the dark ages. We study it because it provides context, in one way or another, to what we believe today and why we do.

</comment><comment><USER36> Philosophers always seem to intent in discussing why philosophy has value. While every piece of science which moved onwards and away from philosophers are intent on showing why they have value.

It also seems just laughable when philosophers try to impose their field on others they know nothing about. Like philosophy in the multiverse or quantum mechanics. It boils down to "I don't understand this thing, likely others don't either so they need someone uniquely skilled like me to explain it to them!"

You never see them actually going into the concrete problems of other fields like: The philosophy of the Navier-stokes equation in light of new more efficient micro fluidics chips". Philosophers thrive on the boundary between what we know really well and what we know but not that well. And that boundary is shrinking. That's why there is a feeding frenzy in philosophers discussing recent advances in deep connected graphs of simple computing nodes for modeling and classification, from people who don't even know what a a matrix is and postulating laughable things like that's these networks will spontaneously develop their own understanding of philosophy purely based on the fact that's the space they exist in is called something to do with intelligence.

<comment><USER37> I sort of agree with you. Philosophers I knew in grad school were somewhat of dilletantes who didn't want to commit to becoming an expert within a single scientific epistemology.

But... I don't know, that feels a little uncharitable too.

I think the charitable reading is that yes, a philosopher of science doesn't know the science as well as the scientist. They are not as close to the cutting edge of what we know....

But what they can do is look closer at how the scientist knows. And what other people who are not that scientist know. And from there situate the knowledge in a wider context. Not knowledge the universe but knowledge about knowings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Well, we have progressed to philosophers like John Gray (the author of Straw Dogs, not the relationship counselor who wrote that Mars/Venus thingy), though he would presumably argue that we haven't, given his views on progress.

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

</comment><comment><USER39> The comments on that site are pretty cringey. Of course most comment sections are like an intellectual version of one of those gore sites that shows you a procession of photos of mangled bodies or grotesque carcinomas surgically removed from patients. If there has been progress it has not trickled down.

<comment><USER40> Only on that site? Most comments on this thread are quite cringey as well to my ears...

<comment><USER39> I still visit HN because its comments are above average. Some of the topical subreddits are decent too. Of course above average is not saying much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I'll take this opportunity to plug a paper of mine, "A machine that knows its own code", as a humble example of recent progress made in philosophy :)

[https://philarchive.org/archive/ALEAMT](https://philarchive.org/archive/ALEAMT)

</comment><comment><USER42> If science is statements about facts, then philosophy is statements about other statements, the only requirement being that these statements are non- contradictory.

That makes mathematics just a subdivision in philosophy, in which statements about statements must be (axiomatically) derived exclusively from a completely explicit starting point. Since math mostly took over logic and epistemology (as computability), general philosophy has indeed lost its most important subjects.

Philosophy is simply meant to shrink and downsize. Reasoning without any particular method gets naturally replaced by reasoning with one. If philosophy had grown, that would not have been a good sign. It would not have been progress.

<comment><USER43> > the only requirement being that these statements are non-contradictory.

> That makes mathematics just a subdivision in philosophy, in which statements > about statements must be (axiomatically) derived exclusively from a > completely explicit starting point.

The main problem with philosophy is exactly the reason which makes above wrong. A global definition of 'contradiction' is not possible, Nor is even something that resembles a consensus to a sufficiently strong degree to make it meaningful.

This is precisely the reason why you can have radically opposing schools of thought that are simultaneously existing. The trivial example being mathematical empiricism or coherentism, both of which directly oppose the axiomatic approach you've provided, from different angles.

A more absurd example is to say it's never the case that all philosophers would agree "P and not P" is not true (including the sentence itself), let alone it being false (i.e. negation as failure), because the value of "P and not P" is dependent upon your theory of truth and no global theory of truth exist without G.E. Moorean appeals to common-sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> In my very limited experience, the few philosophers I've known are teachers or earn their living doing something else. This tells me philosophy is not terribly practical, at least as it is being taught now. It is my impression that they love debating between themselves about the most impractical subjects, writing their thoughts in long form, and being extravagant.

I am most likely prejudiced because, as an engineer, my education has always been utilitarian. Maybe we really are in an anti-philosophy era and I am just one more ignorant.

<comment><USER40> Is ethics an impractical subject?

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Asking for progress in philosophy is the wrong way to approach it. Philosophy is a domain that lives on exploring new ideas, asking different questions, refining answers.

A more appropriate approach in my opinion would be to ask if there has been a consistent evolution in philosophy? Do ideas and areas build on its predecessors. Do they take reference?

Another approach would be asking whether philosophy has impacted mankind in any way that is understandable? Each era had its philosophers and trains of thought.

</comment><comment><USER46> > My opinion is that there is significant and ongoing progress in > philosophy...

> 16\. Much greater incorporation of the insights of women into philosophy...

How is the "incorporation of the insights of women into philosophy" a progress _in philosophy_? This is not a progress in a philosophical subject; it is not a discovery in philosophy; it is not even a philosophical topic; at best it is political correctness.

</comment><comment><USER47> In the past, philosophy had a lot of ground to cover. Today science covers all the ground on what is, what exists, what can be modeled. Philosophy only the ground of what matters.

For example, free will is entirely a science question. How to interpret what science can tell us so far, and how or if it matters, that is a philosophical question.

</comment><comment><USER48> Might depend on what you mean by progress. Culturally we are very far from even where we were in the age of my parents. In terms more like that from the sciences or academic philosophers I can't say, though I'd guess they'd argue "Yes!".

</comment><comment><USER49> On a related note, I still love this interview: Scott Aaronson on Philosophical Progress:

[https://intelligence.org/2013/12/13/aaronson/](https://intelligence.org/2013/12/13/aaronson/)

</comment><comment><USER50> Pierre Grimes and the Noetic Society - Arthur O. Lovejoy's "The Great Chain of Being" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNMWl9cky84](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNMWl9cky84)

</comment><comment><USER51> Has there been progress in art?

<comment><USER52> Interesting question. No if you mean aesthetics, yes if you mean techniques.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I was recently wondering about the same. I regularly hear about breakthroughs in math, physics, biology, chemistry, you name it. I never heard about a breakthrough or significant new ide in philosophy.

</comment><comment><USER54> Why is Tyler Cowan, an economist, trying to answer this question himself? Why doesn't he interview a philosopher or several? Would we read a philosopher talk about progress in economics? Will Cowan next address progress in software engineering? There's a real intellectual arrogance to the post.

<comment><USER55> I think people generally don't speak well on the topic of economics, but it would be fine if an informed philosopher inquired about "progress" in economics. The topic of the philosophy of economics itself often is ignored or swept under the rug, and that's a shame. Economics has a lot to offer and isn't just what the ideological conceit of the moment deems it to be.

Additionally, people should show an interest in fields that are external to their own narrow specialty, and ask meaningful questions to help them understand.

The perspectives and methods of economics could definitely provide some insight on the topic of software engineering. It's a historically recent phenomenon, and there is plenty to be studied about its impact.

<comment><USER54> > it would be fine if an informed philosopher inquired about "progress" in > economics

Inquiring is different than answering the question yourself by naming things easily accessible to economists - it implies that Cowan doesn't know anymore about philosophy than I do, and that his standard of 'progress' is 'things that I find useful'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Philosophy is great. I go a lot to a meetup.com group in my area.

Very underfunded field. Questioning the status quo or each other is not very well accepted today.

</comment><comment><USER57> Wow this post really pisses me off.

A lot of these issues are addressed in Continental Philosophy which never really caught on in America because of its association with Hegel and Marx.

I wonder why the author doesn't... oh American Economics professor... no a philosophy prof that's why.

</comment><comment><USER58> Philosophy is sophistry. I like R. Scott Bakker's take on the semantic apocalypse, and the lack of progress in philosophy. [https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/what-is-the- semant...](https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/what-is-the-semantic- apocalypse/)

<comment><USER59> Arguing about the progress in philosophy is sophistry. There's been plenty of progress that has affected lots of lives. It just doesn't happen to fit someone else's narratives or views.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> No, philosophy as a academic field has failed. It's common knowledge for those in the field to know that none of the primary problems of philosophy has been solved despite being worked on for 2000 years. What every academic tries to do now is work on the secondary problems.

<comment><USER15> could you clairify the following: what is an example of a primary problem? what is an example of a secondary problem? what is failure by your definition? what state would a problem be in if it were "solved"? is a problem solved when everybody agrees on a solution? what, then, happens when a contrarian states otherwise? e.g. parmenides was one of the first monists, and that was more or less not acknowledged for a long time after plato, but has since come back into vogue somewhat; was the problem of "is our universe one" solved, and then unsolved?

<comment><USER60> Look into every sub field of philosophy and the debates that have gone on about certain topics for thousands of years. For example, the mind-body problem in epistemology.

To clarify, no the field is not based on social consensus but logic. How do we explain certain things? For example, Kant believed that logic as a field had been "solved" in the sense there needs no more progress in the field as the techniques developed were sufficient to solve logic problems. Until Godel came along and improved on logic in the 20th century. Solving in this sense is a technical definition not the social one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Why Singapore? (no rhetorics here, simply curious)

</comment><comment><USER62> There is a general cultural malaise that started with WW1 and its massive effect on Western society. WW2 then iterated on it, remnants of that old culture escaped to the US to power Hollywood, Broadway, Universities for a while - but this is coming to an end too.

Visit European museums, look at art right up to WW1. The massive meat grinder, the fall of empires and its cultural structures gave way to capitalist societies that churn faster, which benefits technology and consumption, but is detrimental for non-profit long term projects.

The Sistine Chapel will not happen again, anytime soon.

If it happens, it will come out of Asia. Western society lit itself on fire.

</comment><comment><USER63> Not since Nietzsche. Every philosopher afterwards has merely been quibbling over semantics. It's a dead field but one whose proponents as a side effect tend to be good enough at rhetorical tricks that they still get funding. If every university philosophy department were to be abolished overnight nothing of value would be lost.

<comment><USER64> What about the pragmatists?

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Yes. Jordan Peterson is proving a framework that connects the seemingly disparate philosophies of religion and of the modern scientific.

</comment><comment><USER66> yes. ayn rand and jordan peterson.

</comment><comment><USER66> yes. Ayn Rand and Jordan Peterson.</comment>


Most Radioactive Spot in New York: A Street Corner in Queens - <AUTHOR> http://thishiddencity.blogspot.com/2016/02/irving-avenue-and-moffat-street-queens.html?m=1 <comment><USER2> >The plant processed Monazite sand, which, when treated with Sulfuric Acid, separates into the rare-earth Sodium Sulfate,

Sodium sulfate is not a rare-earth. This looks to me like a case of copying from Wikipedia without understanding. From: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monazite#Acid_cracking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monazite#Acid_cracking)

"leaving a solution of lanthanide sulfates from which the lanthanides could be easily precipitated as a double sodium sulfate"

This is an additional step that happens after the steps shown in the diagram, to separate the different lanthanides. Sodium sulfate is added to the mixed lanthanide sulfates, some of which form lanthanide-sodium double sulfates (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_salt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_salt)) which precipitate out while other lanthanides remain in solution. See [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HPyNk-cU- nQC&pg=PA402&lp...](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HPyNk-cU- nQC&pg=PA402&lpg=PA402&dq=lanthanides+double+salts+sodium+sulphate)

</comment><comment><USER3> The article is wrong about safe doses by a factor of 50-100.

"a worker at Los Primos is exposed to about 300 millirem per year (100 per year is deemed the highest "safe" dose)"

should be "5000-10000 per year is deemed the highest safe dose".

<comment><USER4> Nobody deems any amount of radiation to be a safe dose. Instead, they work under a linear no-threshold model where 50 millirems each might cause 10 cancers in N million people exposed, while 200 millirems each will cause 40 cancers in the same population - absorbed dose is supposed to be directly proportional to harm in large groups of people.

There are _suspicions_ that this is maybe too conservative, and that we have repair mechanisms for small quantities of radiation that don't exist for larger quantities, but this directly contradicts the establishment line on the matter, and would be impossible to ethically test.

Placing limits on workplace or general exposure would not represent "safety", but merely a threshold at which regulatory mechanisms kick in. Per [http://www.nrc.gov/images/about- nrc/radiation/factoid2-lrg.g...](http://www.nrc.gov/images/about- nrc/radiation/factoid2-lrg.gif) , background dose aboveground is about 310mrem/yr, and we average about twice that when taking into account human activities (medical imaging and radon mostly, I would expect).

<comment><USER5> There are populated places on earth with high, naturally occurring background radiation, one such place is in Iran, what have been the long term health effects on people in places like that? I imagine studies have been done.

<comment><USER6> Have a read up on radiation hormesis. It looks like small doses might be beneficial. The linear no threshold model is all fine and good at high doses, but low down the data is poor. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15673519](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15673519)

<comment><USER4> As effect size goes down, statistically significant data gets harder and harder to collect and control effectively. We have tiny amounts of research funding, and even if we took in seven billion people as a dataset, there is some non-negligible dose below which this ceases to be statistically significant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The actual EPA documentation[1] about this site shows that the comparative exposure is not nearly as significant as the article indicates. A handy comparative radiation dose table that they provide shows that you'd receive an additional 240 mR/year simply by moving from NYC to Denver, Colorado.[2] By comparison, the estimated annual dose received by a worker at the former Wolff-Alport site is 120 mR/year.

[1] [http://www3.epa.gov/region02/waste/wolff/docs.html#Docs](http://www3.epa.gov/region02/waste/wolff/docs.html#Docs) [2] [http://www3.epa.gov/region02/waste/wolff/pdf/NYC_DOH_May_200...](http://www3.epa.gov/region02/waste/wolff/pdf/NYC_DOH_May_2007_wolff_alport_exposure_sheet.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER8> Is not related but is a curiosity, 'Los primos' (the cousins) is often translated colloquially as 'The fools' in spanish. When you fall in a very obvious scam you are a 'primo' or did 'el primo'.

But the best part is what is not said in the article. It seems that there is a licensed grocery selling sandwiches next to this garage... if your dream is to develop superpowers after sipping a coffe this would the place.

<comment><USER9> "Irradiated" and "radioactive" are not the same thing. An irradiated sandwich poses absolutely no threat to its consumer.

<comment><USER10> But eating radioactive sandwiches and sipping radioactive coffee does cause you to develop superpowers?

<comment><USER11> Only if you count sudden cancer as a superpower.

That said, GP's point is that unless there are radioactive substances flying in the air / otherwise contaminating the store next door, things bought there should be safe. They'll be irradiated (affected by radiation), but not radioactive themselves. Contrary to popular opinion, getting irradiated doesn't cause you to become radioactive.

<comment><USER12> > getting irradiated doesn't cause you to become radioactive.

Well, actually... Neutron activation and photodisintegration via high energy gamma rays can produce radioactive isotopes via irradiation.

But this generally requires a high flux or high energy to produce noticeable secondary radioactivity. So depending on the type and energy spectrum of the radiation the sandwich is exposed to it might pick up tiny tiny amounts of radioactivity.

But yeah, that's probably going to be drowned out by any kind of radioactive dust.

<comment><USER13> What if I had put a banana in the sandwich? Then can I get superpowers? Is the form of the sandwich even relevant?

<comment><USER10> The type of sandwich determines your costume colors and decoration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There's a bit more detail in this Pulitzer Prize winning (short) article, also addressing the 100 mrem figure: [http://www.pulitzer.org/files/2014/national- reporting/wsjwas...](http://www.pulitzer.org/files/2014/national- reporting/wsjwastelands/02wsjwastelands2014.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER15> A lot in Staten Island was once used to store uranium ore for the Manhattan Project. A recent survey found very high levels of radiological contamination.

[https://fopnews.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/staten-islands- tain...](https://fopnews.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/staten-islands-tainted-edge- geologic-city-report-3/)

</comment><comment><USER16> There's an interactive piece from a couple of years ago for more background/history of the Wolff-Alport site [http://projects.newyorker.com/story/radioactive- nyc/](http://projects.newyorker.com/story/radioactive-nyc/)

</comment><comment><USER17> One of Chicago's most upscale downtown neighborhoods is built on a thorium dump from the gaslight era. This is more than a little academic as Streeterville is currently being re-developed by Northwestern Hospital and the city has to be careful not to put more thorium in the air. There are something like four or five new buildings being built right now.

[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-04-17/news/ct- thoriu...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-04-17/news/ct-thorium- radioactive-cleanup--20140417_1_chicago-river-west-chicago-radioactive-waste)

The fix? When radiation is detected, the soil is put in bags and shipped to a facility that can dispose of it. The land in the article is going to be park.

[http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2012/08/22/work-on- chicag...](http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2012/08/22/work-on-chicagos- newest-lakefront-attraction-could-start-soon/)

</comment><comment><USER18> Why the hell does this not get cleaned up?

<comment><USER19> "a sandwich of 2 inches (5 cm) of steel, 2 inches of lead, and another 2 inches of steel has been laid down under almost the entire block"

Not cleaned up, but somewhat mitigated and wow that doesn't sound like it was cheap...

<comment><USER18> The sheer volume of money and work and the technical difficulties of putting a 15cm thick sandwich of metal underneath a block make me doubt the veracity of the article.

Especially coupled with the factual error "separates into the rare-earth Sodium Sulfate". Sodium is nowhere near a rare-earth metal and Monazite is a Cerium/Lanthanium phosphate that contains lots of other elements, Uranium and Thorium among them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Obligatory XKCD chart for understanding the radiation amounts in the article

[https://xkcd.com/radiation/](https://xkcd.com/radiation/)

100 mrem == 1mSv

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert#Rem_equivalence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert#Rem_equivalence)

Thinking about the article... for those who understand the risks of increased background radiation, I bet for these businesses rent is cheap!

<comment><USER10> How many inches of lead on the ground is considered safe?

<comment><USER21> How much lead is seeping into the groundwater from this location?

<comment><USER20> That's why they wrap it in a steel sandwich -- to protect the lead, not principally for radiation protection.

<comment><USER10> I can understand why the lead on the streets of New York needs to be wrapped in 2 inches of steel for protection: otherwise it would be stolen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Why have any business there at all? Use the area for storage or parking, or something intermittent like that.

<comment><USER23> I used to live about 3 blocks from here. Within a 2 block radius, there's a children's school, a popular outdoor bar, a hipster pizza restaurant, and some "artist lofts". It's likely that the residents and workers in the area don't have/didn't have knowledge of the former monazite sand site. With the NYC real estate market as it is, there are a bunch of areas with toxic sites like the Gowanus Canal that are people are moving to. [http://gothamist.com/2015/07/30/brooklyn_hipster_havens_toxi...](http://gothamist.com/2015/07/30/brooklyn_hipster_havens_toxic.php)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are you thankful for? - <AUTHOR>

This seems appropriate today - what are you most Thankful for? <comment><USER2> Before I go to sleep, I run through what I did the whole day and be thankful for everything. That I'm alive, that I had a hot shower, that I have a heater, I have to eat. This also help me remember what I did the whole day and evaluate everything in a positive manner. The whole thing take me like 5min and it changed my life since I started doing it. It doesn't matter whether you believe in god or not, being thankful will make a difference in your life. Try it :)

</comment><comment><USER3> I am thankful to the people who make the free software that I enjoy using. Off the top of my head: NetBSD, Firefox, Mame, Vim, FLAC, Lame, MPD, Scrot/FEH, Ratpoison, and Scrypt.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> For me it's my family, a good job, and to be alive in an exciting golden age of technology.

</comment><comment><USER4> Nice friends from my hometown! I've been working abroad the past eight months, and they've been loving enough to keep in touch with me every once in a while.

</comment><comment><USER5> Of course my family, my health, and I am still alive :)

</comment><comment><USER6> Automated testing :)

</comment><comment><USER7> microprocessors, the C programming language, the government for giving me money to go to college where I otherwise wouldn't have been able to go.

</comment><comment><USER8> For having the chance to keep on trying.

</comment><comment><USER9> Unit tests so I can sleep at night.

<comment><USER7> Do you think that programmers who don't do unit tests are crappy programmers?

<comment><USER10> Due to not being able to sleep?</comment></comment></comment>


Do not weep for your dead - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/essays/do-not-weep-for-your-dead-how-to-mourn-as-the-stoics-did <comment><USER2> I can explain in a way simpler form why it is not good to weep for loved ones. Espacially it's mostly only the western community, that doesn't party at a funeral.

Imagine you are the one that died. And you are hovering with your Soul or whatever over your dead body and see all your friends in pain and tears. Would you want that?

Me not</comment>


Show HN: A clean directory of awesome startups - <AUTHOR> http://startupontop.com/ Most of the directory or listing services are worthless from a browser's point of view. Your startup(or any listed business) gets lost somewhere buried under categories and sub-categories. So, while these directories do offer a link or two, they really do not provide any value or a good user-experience to a casual browser who simply wants to check out cool startups, quickly find out a bit about them and explore further if interested.
I created StartupOnTop to address this very issue and offer a directory that presents startups in a clean, clutter-free manner. It offers a top-down view (startups first, categories later) and also shows a "quick - view" for users to quickly learn about a startup.
Most importantly, I intend to vigorously maintain it  - I would like to keep it ad-free and spam-free. That means, the site is not meant for 'every' startup and will try to prevent the site from generic dilution. After a free first month, charging a basic maintainance fee.
Here is the submission link: http://startupontop.com/submit-startup/
-Paul <comment><AUTHOR> Most of the directory or listing services are worthless from a browser's point of view. Your startup(or any listed business) gets lost somewhere buried under categories and sub-categories. So, while these directories do offer a link or two, they really do not provide any value or a good user-experience to a casual browser who simply wants to check out cool startups, quickly find out a bit about them and explore further if interested.

I created StartupOnTop to address this very issue and offer a directory that presents startups in a clean, clutter-free manner. It offers a top-down view (startups first, categories later) and also shows a "quick - view" for users to quickly learn about a startup.

Most importantly, I intend to vigorously maintain it - I would like to keep it ad-free and spam-free. That means, the site is not meant for 'every' startup and will try to prevent the site from generic dilution. After a free first month, charging a basic maintainance fee.

<comment><USER2> It is interesting to see whether users interested in new startups want a directory (links organized in a category-based model) or a blog (where new, fresh information is served periodically on an ongoing basis as it becomes available). I assumed the later when I created <http://www.DailyWebApps.com> ; I use WordPress which has built-in support for a category taxonomy so I kind of get the best of both worlds.

If you're interested it would be nice to collaborate in this area. Thanks for the useful resource.

<comment><AUTHOR> Vladd, that sounds great. I can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.com or email@example.com

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't get it. First, I can't imagine anyone would pay $10/month to be on the list (except for forgetting to cancel their trial). The fact that anyone can submit contradicts that it is a list of "awesome startups". The site itself is marginal (no SEO, one line descriptions, hidden information, no content, no freshness, etc). And it's oddly slow. Yuck.

</comment><comment><USER4> I go to the 'travel' category see the Hipmunk logo, but I can't click on it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Markkat, thanks for the heads up. There was a small jquery bug. It should be fixed now.

<comment><USER5> Fixed on the homepage but I'm still seeing it on category pages.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is like startuplist too.. but paid? I don't know why I would pay for this compared to anything else. Also, the site design leaves a ton to be desired.

</comment><comment><USER7> Haha happily filled all the form until I saw the 9.99 per month hehe. Thats steep, given that its free to be on sites like Angel.co or Crunchbase.

</comment><comment><USER8> Good idea, I hate the fact that directories force everyone into sections, What about a Games start up?

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you run a games startup? I would be happy to feature it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was really hoping this was a CrunchBase replacement.

$10 for a link to my startup (<http://bizen.com>)? No thanks!

</comment><comment><USER10> 9.99 per month ?!?! Good joke

</comment><comment><USER11> Why is it paid? What value are you providing for startups to apply for a paid listing?

You don't even have a pagerank as of yet so why do you charge?

First build up value then charge

Vow! $10/month to just get a link from a pr0 directory?

<comment><USER12> I signed up since it's on the homepage of Hacker News and perhaps getting a peak in traffic for some days. I can always cancel before getting charged.

I agree, $10/month is way too much for a service without traction.

<comment><USER11> what is the average traffic for being on the homepage of hacker news?

<comment><USER4> That totally depends on the content, I have found. We've had a couple of links and it brings a couple of hundred hits. However, we've also have had a few that brought a couple of thousands, with little difference in the rank/time.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Power of Digital Ecosystems - tomh- http://000fff.org/the-power-of-digital-ecoystems/

<comment><AUTHOR> Being in Digital Ecosystems research myself, I would say the author is missing one important point: Absence of single points of control and failure. Natural ecosystems are rarely if ever dependent on singletons (single species or single organism) to be sustained. Their adaptivity and resilience comes from that one fact. All the examples the author states are tied to a single corporate entity, often designed so, and therefore cannot exceed the lifespan of the entity that created them. A great example of that is napster. Once the central entity was shut down by way of courts, the ecosystem evaporated.

In a sense the Internet and the Web are much closer to the true Digital Ecosystem, even though purists such as myself can still find things that can be improved, single points of control/failure etc. but at least they are not as pronounced as the ones present in the star-topology twiter/amazon/apple ecosystems.

</comment><comment><USER2> To a certain extent I agree with that.

But ecosystems are not only biological they are also physical and the sun is a pretty good candidate for a singleton then isns't?

To me the defining factor is the flow and exchange of energy throughout the system. In digital ecosystems the data is what needs to flow.

The internet is obviously the mother of all digital ecosystems but it is also restrictive (firewalls etc) which keeps data from flowing.

<comment><AUTHOR> The data (and metadata) is definitely important. And yes the Sun is a singleton in our solar system. Closer to home, if anything goes wrong with the earth, (asteroid, LHC, some unknown weapons programme) we're all doomed, including all ecosystems on the planet (depending of course on the magnitude of the disaster). The field of global existential risks is devoted to asking such questions.

That being said, I would rather my work depends on the sun's or earth's continued existence, rather than on twitter's or facebook's or amazon's uptime/finances/goodwill. We should aim to remove SPOFs/SPOCs to the extent possible.</comment></comment>


Introducing 1Password individual subscription - <AUTHOR> https://blog.agilebits.com/2016/08/03/new-1password-hosted-service/ <comment><USER2> I'm heartened to see that AgileBits hasn't removed the single purchase option.

I'm viscerally averse to paying for a software subscription, especially when the essence of the app requires significant investment and/or dedication to the platform. By purchasing a software license, I can at least know that even should I choose to never again spend another cent on the product, I retain control and accessibility to the data that I've entrusted to the application.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. For anyone who missed it, this info is in the first comment on the post:

 _With that said, we know that some of you have regional or corporate restrictions that require you to use a cloud-free solution. Others prefer configuring their own sync service or are simply happy with their current setup.

This is all great and you're free to continue doing exactly what you've been doing. Our standalone license is still available for purchase and will continue to be supported, along with great updates to the apps._

<comment><USER4> Disclaimer: I work for AgileBits, makers of 1Password

Thank you for posting this so others can see it clearly. Seems a lot of people are not seeing that and are panicked that we no longer offer a standalone traditional license, which isn't the case.

Kyle

AgileBits

<comment><USER5> Kyle, you may want to edit the standalone license answer, because to me it currently implies that "automatic syncing" is being arbitrarily restricted/removed from the standalone version which already supports automatic syncing via iCloud or Dropbox.

This appears to not be the case and I think it would help people relax to have it worded more clearly.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft readying Windows 8 for "resolutionary" tablets - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2012/03/microsoft-readying-windows-8-for-resolutionary-tablets.ars <comment><USER2> Would be interesting to quantify the difference in resource requirements between an OS which addresses a few known fixed/limited display sizes & resolutions vs. an OS which must support a near-unlimited range of sizes & resolutions. Might better explain why the latter, in the practical marketplace, is usually in a response/catch-up position to the former.

</comment><comment><USER3> Can we please drop the word "resolutionary"? :| I don't think any word has made me cringe more this year than that one.

</comment><comment><USER4> Why does everything have to be re-framed to everyone reacting to or being inspired by Apple? Was everyone really blind to the idea that screen technology was improving?

It seriously destroys the credibility of a piece when a technology like this has to be framed as a "response" or "inspired by" Apple.

Microsoft, and every other competitor, have been talking about resolution independence and high density displays for a long time, the technology and manufacturing is just finally making it widely accessible. The notion that they suddenly decided to build all of this technology and infrastructure to respond to the iPad 3rd gen is simply incredible.

<comment><USER5> "Everything", of course, does not have to be re-framed to everyone reacting to Apple. And nobody suggested that things have to be framed this way.

However, when Apple is the one pushing the particular technological advance in question (which it very often is lately), then it certainly is appropriate to acknowledge fact and reality. And in this case, it's Apple pushing out the tablet screen with over 3 million pixels. Not anyone else.

You're right; Microsoft has been "talking about" higher-res screens for a while. Talking. While Apple has been getting a product out the door.

Sounds to me like you have some animus against Apple.

<comment><USER4> _However, when Apple is the one pushing the particular technological advance in question (which it very often is lately), then it certainly is appropriate to acknowledge fact and reality._

Which technology advances has Apple pushed forward?

 _Sounds to me like you have some animus against Apple._

I have an issue with people who have technological blinders on -- completely unaware of what has been happening in the industry -- who confuse Apple _success_ with Apple _innovation_. Apple may have made big media waves with the "Retina" display, but they didn't invent high density displays (and they certainly didn't invent the programming model behind it. If anything they regressed 15 years into the past). They didn't invent tablets. They didn't invent the A5 beyond putting together two A9s and a PowerVR GPU. I could go on and on.

What Apple is credited with seldom correlates with the reality.

<comment><USER5> Yeah. Definitely a lot of animus against Apple.

You have an issue with people who, unlike you, acknowledge and have respect for the engineering work necessary to take new theoretical pieces of hardware, get someone to build 30 million of them, and combine them into a useful and well-designed product that people want to buy. And you also have your own set of blinders on, which prevent you from seeing that if you can do this months or years ahead of your competition, over and over and over again, you ARE innovating.

Your blinders are so effective that you can't even see the straw men you keep setting up and knocking down. Nobody in this thread suggested that Apple "invented tablets" (which is absurd). Apple did invent one that people actually want to BUY, however. And no, Apple didn't invent 300dpi displays; they just got them into a product which still has decent battery life. And no, they didn't invent the concept of more efficient CPUs and assemblages of chips; they just make the right choices faster and smarter than everyone else. In the marketplace, that stuff counts, dude. Deal with it.

<comment><USER4> _the engineering work necessary to take new theoretical pieces of hardware_

And then you go on and actually discount all of those claims. I would say it was funny but I really think it's just sad.

HN is not a site for stupid people, so yes, I _DO_ have an issue with it. If you're reading People Magazine and they herald Apple's "invention" (I remember the breathless commentary about the revolutionary new A5. You probably drank that up), hey have at it. But to see that sort of technically ignorant _garbage_ infecting more enlightened places? Take it to the fan club and save the rest of us the tiring religious proselytizing.

<comment><USER5> "The rest of us"? Funny, I only hear you bitching, or even disagreeing. Everyone else is too busy playing with their new iPads, I guess.

You clearly just can't handle the fact that Apple has succeeded, and you have been driven into twisting others' words, inventing reactions and projecting them onto strangers ("You probably drank that up"), and similar twit behavior.

Take it back to grade school.

<comment><USER4> Humorously I am typing this on a 3rd generation iPad yet remarkably that doesn't necessitate that I be a raging idiot like so many. But whatever: proudly wave your flag. You belong, right?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>