Surgical mask brace creates a seal making standard masks comparable to N95s - <AUTHOR> https://www.fixthemask.com/ <comment><USER2> There's no way 3 rubber bands turns a surgical mask into an N95 mask. There are studies that look at the abilities of different materials, removing the seal component entirely, and the two masks have very different profiles. (I don't have them saved, but I've come across several over the last few weeks when looking into alternative to N95 masks. Here's an article I found with 5 minutes of searching that has some refs to relevant studies: [https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news- perspective/2020/04/commenta...](https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news- perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data.))

Better seal than a surgical mask without them? Even that I would contest because you are loading the area directly in front of the mouth with more moisture and higher air pressure than designed. Exhaling will puff a regular mask out slightly, which diffuses the exhaled breath across the surface. This straps a 3"x1" segment of fabric to the lips and nostrils and you lose that diffusion. I'd also imagine this would make reuse even more risky, since the rubber bands would wear the hydrophobic coating off and snare small strands of fabric. And then there's the sterilization/sanitization of the rubber bands. And the aging/failure rate of these bands. And then... you get my point.

Maybe they meant well, but this is the type of bad information that is actually dangerous. "Tell Martha in procurement that we don't need the fancy masks and put in an order for 10,000 rubber bands. Why? This MIT Apple Engineer said so."

<comment><USER3> Going by the downvotes there are a lot of very anxious people out there who desperately want to believe that they can MacGyver their way to personal safety.

Compared to chloroquine this seems like a mildly risky thing, but until they conduct a double-blind physical test, get it reviewed by experts, etc, it shouldn't be out in the public. A good engineer would know that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This whole site just feels, well, weird and honestly vaguely offensive to me. I.e. tons of marketing, "ex-Apple engineers" shouted all over the place, start-up-esque "our team" headshots (notably lackinging any real medical expertise, the closest is someone's husband is an ER doc), for a "solution" that is 3 rubber bands.

I have in no way enough expertise to comment on whether those three rubber bands would be effective, but I can say with certainty they would be horribly uncomfortable. I can't imagine anyone wearing that without constantly wanting to readjust, and hence touch their face. I could easily see this being a net _negative_ given all the face-touching it would encourage.

<comment><USER5> I dunno makes sense enough to me. Air through filter good, air not through filter bad.

How many lives you saved with 3 rubber bands lately?

<comment><USER6> Surgical masks do not filter the virus. Here's one paper: [https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2764367/effectiveness- sur...](https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2764367/effectiveness-surgical- cotton-masks-blocking-sars-cov-2-controlled-comparison)

<comment><USER5> From the paper:

"The mask's aerodynamic features may explain this finding. A turbulent jet due to air leakage around the mask edge could contaminate the outer surface."

Agreed that calling it an n95 equivalent without any evidence might be a stretch though. And yes other papers looked at it with a seal. Still would be interesting to see a surgical vs. sealed surgical comparison.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is horrendously incorrect. Surgical masks do not filter aerosolized particles at the same effiency as an N95. For an airborn virus, that's a pretty big deal, especially for HCP who are constantly exposed to high viral loads.

<comment><USER8> When worn normally, or when well sealed? Are there tests of this? If they are both melt blown fabric then it seems at least plausible that this thing could work. It should be tested of course, but it seems like they are in the process of doing that.

<comment><USER7> [http://aaqr.org/files/article/668/36_AAQR-13-06-OA-0201_991-...](http://aaqr.org/files/article/668/36_AAQR-13-06-OA-0201_991-1002.pdf)

<comment><USER8> Thanks. For those not following the link, this study shows that NaCl aerosols penetrate measured surgical masks at a much higher rate than n95 masks, even after creating a firm seal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Since this seems more like a marketing site with no illustrations, their medium post [0] has a picture that explains their idea much better: [https://miro.medium.com/max/3500/1*JAurgJijhTt58ILb4DuKdA.pn...](https://miro.medium.com/max/3500/1*JAurgJijhTt58ILb4DuKdA.png)

Basically, their claim is that certain surgical masks have sufficient filtration, but don't seal well. They propose a specially shaped elastic band that improves the seal.

[0] [https://medium.com/@fixthemask/how-to-design-a-solution- for-...](https://medium.com/@fixthemask/how-to-design-a-solution-for- the-n95-mask-shortage-bd9b163e2056)

<comment><USER10> Thanks for sharing.

While there's a fair amount of criticism on here about this not being N95 spec, I do wonder if this helps at all in scenarios where doctors are working with Aerosol Generating Procedures without any proper masks (with the combination of facemasks, shield wall setups, etc.)

There are already recommendations that surgical masks are good enough for homepatient care scenarios / room cleanup, see [https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/what-is-the-efficacy-of- standa...](https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/what-is-the-efficacy-of-standard- face-masks-compared-to-respirator-masks-in-preventing-covid-type-respiratory- illnesses-in-primary-care-staff/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Designed by ex-Apple mechanical engineers.

Are we really now in the world where having worked for Apple makes you instantly trustworthy for anything?

<comment><USER12> What kind of mechanical engineering does Apple do?

<comment><USER13> My guess it would include helping out product design looking up wear on moving parts (keyboard, kids), how products fare on drop tests, thermal design of hardware layout, etc.

But perhaps Ikea does higher level mechanical engineering than Apple, and I wouldn't want a breathing mask made by them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> N95 masks use a special fiber mesh made from "melt down" material to obstruct the passage of viral particles. Surgical masks are for droplet protection only. It is disingenuous in the extreme to make claims that a surgical mask can be "upgraded" to an N95. You can improve the airflow yes, but you should make the claim that it might be better than a standard surgical mask, not anything like an N95.

<comment><USER15> I believe you mean Melt Blown: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melt_blowing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melt_blowing)

<comment><USER14> Thank you. I've been pretty stressed lately and it's making me sloppy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I would imagine only the seal would be comparable (or even better really), but would the filtering capability be comparable?

</comment><comment><USER17> There are some questions here about filtering effectiveness of surgical masks. Here is one study showing 96% filtration of aerosolized bacteria although unfortunately it does not compare against an n95.

Figure: [https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Filtration-Efficiency- an...](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Filtration-Efficiency-and-Pressure- Drop-Across-Materials-Tested-with-Aerosols-of-Bacillus_tbl1_258525804)

Full study: [https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge- core/c...](https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge- core/content/view/0921A05A69A9419C862FA2F35F819D55/S1935789313000438a.pdf/testing_the_efficacy_of_homemade_masks_would_they_protect_in_an)

</comment><comment><USER3> If you have a large supply of ASTM Level 1-3 masks, and are young and healthy, this is what you should do: _donate them to a local critical care medical facility_. Not only do they need them more than you, you need them to stay healthy so they can treat the public (including you).

The ASTM Lvl 1-3 surgical masks use non-woven fiber (e.g. spun polypropylene) the same as N95s. So every new mask is one less N95. This is actually a zero sum game. If you are ordering these masks you are reducing the amount of material available for N95s.

Finally, the caveat that the proposed technique is untested is huge. Lots of things that you might think work don't, or have negative effects. These people should partner with a local virology group to do some testing before they scale up, and before they push this idea out into the void.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is great! Best wishes for continued development, will follow.

From a user perspective, would be nice to have a version that applies pressure around the head like N-95 or FFP-2 straps rather than additional pressure around the ears which even with a regular surgical mask can be uncomfortable after a few hours. Probably within the design plans already. Also interested in how nose height variability affects the seal near the nasal sidewall, which is sometimes variable with masks. I would imagine people with topographically smoother faces might have an easier seal for this kind of design as well as most other designs without custom (e.g. tall nose) contours.

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't think surgical masks should be purchased by non-medical staff. Doctors and nurses need this equipment and our supplies are really low. Please leave surgical masks for hospital staff and make yourselves cloth alternatives.

<comment><USER20> They're recommended for anybody who needs to be in close contact with others.

There are lots of people who aren't medical staff who are in close proximity with vulnerable people by necessity. Vulnerable people should be wearing them also.

For example, every employee at a retirement home wears a mask at the moment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I can't be the only one who hasn't been able to buy a surgical mask since covid-19 began spreading.

<comment><USER22> And that is a good thing. Surgical masks should be reserved for medical staff that needs it more than the regular John Doe.

I am all for the general public wearing facemasks to slow down the spread (slow down, not prevent) but there are plenty of clothed masks that help that while still allowing the surgical masks (and N95 masks) be worn by people that need it. (This was one of the annoyance when I was in Asia, me and about 40% were wearing reusable masks and everyone else was wearing the surgical masks)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Even presuming it does improve seal on surgical masks. But problem with this masks isn't just seal, it's the material that can't filter out small particles.

Does it help by creating better seal? It sounds that it should but nobody can confirm it without proper lab test.

</comment><comment><USER24> This is actually quite correct in its applicability to prevent inhalation of airborne particulate.

</comment><comment><USER25> come on, the way her ears bend and turn purple after she puts on those super tight rubber bands looks like they're gonna rip apart. I imagine as soon as the take was over she took it off fast, laughing about how anybody could try that thing.

</comment><comment><USER25>
      - this rubber bands make standard masks comparable to N95s!
      - and how do they compare, then?
      - mmmh, bad. Comparably bad.

</comment><comment><USER26> This looks like it might hurt or injure my nose.

</comment><comment><USER27> "It seals _so_ well, nobody dies of Covid-19. They all _suffocate_ first!"

</comment><comment><USER28> I agree with xbkingx, "There's no way 3 rubber bands turns a surgical mask into an N95 mask."

These are two different 'commercial products'. I think everyone here is a reasonably good consumer and understands the 'context' of DIY. If I have a problem with this video, it's the super-seriousness which undermines it's _DIY_, _best I can do with what I got_, context.

To the larger question some of us are asking ourselves: "Amid Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic, Governor Cuomo Issues Executive Order Requiring All People in New York to Wear Masks or Face Coverings in Public"[1]. Is a surgical mask and rubber bands going to be a better solution than a hanky?

From my ongoing research I want to share one interesting site I found: SmartAirFilters, founded by an associate professor at University of Chicago: "...Smart Air, a social enterprise that makes low-cost DIY air purifiers to help people protect themselves from air pollution." [2]

Can Masks Capture Coronavirus Particles? [3]

Can DIY Masks Protect Us from Coronavirus? [4]

Here's a quote from one of the articles written by a university student which makes my point (to be true the author is talking about particulate pollution and not coronavirus, but in the current context of needing to wear a mask it conveys the tradeoff):

"Should You Wear A Surgical Mask? Now let me be clear. I'm not recommending that everyone use surgical masks. I wear N95 and N99 masks because tests show they fit better and capture more particles. But if professional masks are unaffordable or it's a bad air day and you forgot your normal mask at home, or even if you're caught out with a wildfire, ducking into a pharmacy and spending 1RMB on a mask will significantly reduce your exposure to particulate pollution." [5]

Now, let's talk about those rubber bands around your ear... "Canadian Scout Makes 3D Printed Ear Guards That Relieve the Pain of Wearing Surgical Masks All Day"[6].

Woot! Scouts!

[1]: [https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/amid-ongoing- covid-19-pande...](https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/amid-ongoing- covid-19-pandemic-governor-cuomo-issues-executive-order-requiring-all-people- new)

[2]: [https://ceas.uchicago.edu/directory/thomas- talhelm](https://ceas.uchicago.edu/directory/thomas-talhelm)

[3]: [https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/coronavirus-pollution- ma...](https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/coronavirus-pollution- masks-n95-surgical-mask/)

[4]: [https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/diy-homemade-mask- protec...](https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/diy-homemade-mask-protect- virus-coronavirus/?rel=1)

[5]: [https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/surgical-masks- surprisin...](https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/surgical-masks-surprisingly- effective-pm2-5/)

[6]: [https://laughingsquid.com/scout-makes-3d-printed-mask-ear- gu...](https://laughingsquid.com/scout-makes-3d-printed-mask-ear-guards/)</comment>


After PRISM reports, Swiss data bank sees boost - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/after-prism-reports-swiss-data-bank-sees-boost/2013/07/08/cc8dfe14-e569-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html <comment><USER2> Swiss here. It's not really any better here. Right now they're trying to push a law that would legalize it for them to save metadata for all connections up to 12 months. And they could legaly install RAT's on phones and PC's. It's called "BÜPF" but i can't find an english page right now. You might want to use google translate on the petition site (by the local pirate party, CCC switzerland etc.): [http://buepf.ch](http://buepf.ch) (and sign it if you can be bothered)

//edit: direct gtranslate link: [http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&pre...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=buepf.ch&act=url)

<comment><USER3> The good news is, Switzerland is a democracy that works really well. So just vote against that new crap law.

<comment><USER2> I will, however, as I see it, the problem is no one seems to really care here.

Ask some random stranger here and pretty sure they have never even heard of BÜPF. So I try to educate as many people as possible but all I hear is that I should go wear my alu-hat and that we have good privacy protection laws and they don't have anything to hide anyways.

And by the way, to be even able to vote against this crap, you need something like 50'000 signatures (on paper!) within 100 days. Which might not be too easy considering that the petition website only has 8k-ish as of now and it's been on for quite a while. As I said, no one seems to care.

<comment><USER4> The indifference is a worldwide phenomenon.

And it's problematic because indifference is what gave Hitler the chance to become more powerful, indifference helped him identify minorities and it helped him build 45 concentration camps, ... the list goes on and on. You all know what happened next.

Would Hitler have been a problem if it wasn't for our indifference ? Would the technology that build the internet have been used against us if it wasn't for our indifference ?

Indifference is probably more dangerous than those who have "evil" intentions. And I don't have a solution. I don't know what we can do about it, other than educating people on it but it's clearly not working and it needs to happen now because the problem is getting bigger by the day, imo.

It's our indifference that gets us into a lot of trouble. Time and time again.

<comment><USER5> > It's our indifference that gets us into a lot of trouble. Time and time > again.

Actually, I think the inverse is true. If apathy wasn't the defining human characteristic, we'd have had WW3 through WW9 by now, and people would be killing each other in the streets with hammers.

"Fuck it" is a survival trait.

<comment><USER6> Well, then the ones doying the spying are lacking a good dose of apathy? Your logic just doesn't add up.

<comment><USER5> Sure, but who do you think signs up to be military intelligence in the first place?

Remember, NSA is less than 50k out of 300M+.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Those poor souls must not have heard of this news:

"U.S. and Switzerland Reach Deal on Sharing of Financial Account Data"

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/business/global/22iht- tax2...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/business/global/22iht-tax22.html)

This is also interesting:

> "Switzerland's cooperation comes after the Justice Department prosecuted 11 > Swiss banks on suspicion of aiding Americans in evading taxes, creating deep > uncertainty for the country's financial sector."

How many US banks has the Justice Department prosecuted yet?

<comment><USER8> > This is also interesting:

>> "Switzerland's cooperation comes after the Justice Department prosecuted 11 Swiss banks on suspicion of aiding Americans in evading taxes, creating deep uncertainty for the country's financial sector."

details in case somebody missed that:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20907359](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20907359)

[http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-01-20/news...](http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-01-20/news/36432605_1_wegelin- konrad-hummler-swiss-banks)

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/04/swiss-bank- wegel...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/04/swiss-bank-wegelin- close-tax-evasion)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> "You've probably heard of the unique benefits of Swiss banks"

Yeah, I heard that's no longer true. There's few countries that have proper banking secrecy anymore. Panama gave up their last bit of secrecy after the US helped the last president get elected by spying on his competitors.

Guatemala does have secrecy. It's built into the last constitution of the country (in the 80s). Not even the Guatemalan revenue service is allowed to review bank accounts. OTOH, it's probably not the most stable country to want to park your money in.

<comment><USER10> > Panama gave up their last bit of secrecy after the US helped the last > president get elected by spying on his competitors.

Any reference to back that up? I read some of the leaks from Bradley Manning related to Panama and the U.S. clearly stated that it didn't favor Martinelli (current president).

<comment><USER9> Apparently I'm wrong. Wikileaks had some cables talking about how Martinelli asked the US to spy for him, but they denied him[1]. He did however, end banking secrecy for Panama/US in 2011(?), with a tax treaty. I probably misunderstood after reading some expat sites and connecting lines that perhaps are not connected.

[http://www.cato.org/blog/wikileaks-cable-martinelli- threat-r...](http://www.cato.org/blog/wikileaks-cable-martinelli-threat-rule- law-panama)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The saddest part about this whole PRISM scandal to me is that the tech companies involved did not seem at all opposed to the idea - and even if they were, why not give your customers a heads up? It's so sad. Nerds need to get on the moral high ground pronto. Your technology is making the world so much better so don't ruin it. Don't be evil and don't be a dick.

<comment><USER3> People need to remember/learn this:

If democracy is not strong enough (and I know a few countries...), you (also) need to vote with your wallet. If they don't feel no pain, they won't react.

<comment><USER11> Correct.

Regarding companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Yahoo; the answer is not using their services at all since you don't pay them yourself but you do by viewing ads.

<comment><USER12> A week ago I started to migrate my Google Docs data to a git repository. Right now I use plain text files and Latex. Damn, I totally forgot how cool it is to access your data when you don't have an Internet connection.

<comment><USER3> Agree, local storage should always be the default choice, whenever you can.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Isn't this equivalent to Edward Snowden's asylum dilemma? The offer of asylum is pretty worthless if he can't get to that country. Heck, last week it was proven that he would need favorable countries to form solid continuous path of sovereign land between Moscow and the asylum granting country.

The offer of a secure location to store data in Switzerland is pretty worthless if the data has to be transferred over compromised data lines that have to run through at least one of the three surrounding countries, all complicit in tapping the lines.

<comment><USER14> Not if you encrypt. A lot of information is useful only for a short period of time. For instance, if a company is planning a new product/strategy/IPO then it doesn't matter if the data is maliciously decrypted within a month, 2 years or 5 years.

</comment></comment><comment> brown9-2 This article reminds me of [http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html) \- no concrete numbers are mentioned of the company's increased usage/customers, and the only quotes presented are from this company's CEO, who obviously have a lot to benefit from an article touting the benefits of a Swiss data center.

<comment> UVB-76 I wouldn't consider this particular instance malicious; it's just lazy journalism.

Journalist under pressure to churn out a quick, sanitized, topical piece meets pro-active CEO of a hosting company with a knack for PR and a pre-packaged story, quotes and all.

This article is from the same journalist who typo'd the headline of her previous piece [1]

[1] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/keyboard-app- givers-u...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/keyboard-app-givers-users- a-customized-feel/2013/07/06/d22cce54-df60-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Off topic, but what is the name for the grammatical concept of the difference between NY Times/Washington Post-style headlines like this one ("After PRISM reports, Swiss data bank sees boost") and British-style newspaper headlines which use a more active* voice, e.g. "Swiss data bank sees boost after PRISM reports."

*I've probably got that term wrong.

<comment><USER16> This is not a passive vs. active voice thing. The subject and object are the same in both sentences. It's just slightly different word order.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It would be interesting to compare the self reported boost in business after PRISM revelations to the boost in business after being mentioned in a WaPo article.

</comment><comment><USER18> SWIFT</comment>


The American System of Tipping Makes No Sense - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/article/600865/ <comment><USER2> "Mandatory Tipping" is the service industry equivalent of the mysterious micro-charges that appear on utility bills, airlines tickets, undercoating on your car, and unfortunately now in video games. They are simply a way for the business to make it appear on paper that the price you pay is less than what it truly is.

I once ate at a restaurant that slipped a three dollar charge on my bill for ordering via their "table top device", then suggested I add a 25% tip to my total after tax bill that included the fee for using their tablet.

I personally loath tipping and all other forms of secondary micro- translations. Please charge me whatever it truly costs including proper compensation for your staff and make me feel good about using your product. Asking me to pay via micro-translations makes me feel gross.</comment>


America Is Shaking Off Its Addiction to Oil - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2014-america-shakes-off-oil-addiction/

<comment><USER2> I think the people that use the phrase "addiction to oil" are implying that there are better, and by better I mean cheaper, sources of energy but there haven't been. Just as soon as other sources of energy become as cheap as oil and can do all the things that oil can do then everyone will start switching.</comment>


Our data suggest people keep listening to podcasts even if they're very long - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@robertwiblin/our-data-suggests-people-keep-listening-to-podcasts-even-if-theyre-very-long-483dcfc77c02 <comment><USER2> Why wouldn't they? If we come up with extra content for an episode and it runs long, I always feel like its bonus content, something special.

This is sort of an inherent feature in podcasts, though, to be paused and played later, or binged through all at once at work or whatever.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you manage your bookmarks? - <AUTHOR> Hey, I'm curious how the HN crowd manages their bookmarks. I'm thinking of links to great articles, that you find for example on HN. Articles that you are potentially interested to reread in the future. <comment><USER2> I suppose I've got three tiers:

\- Stuff that I routinely open is actual bookmarks in the bookmarks toolbar of my browser (timecard, RSS reader, team development servers like Jenkins and Git, etc)

\- I use Pocket for a "need to read this later" queue. That includes articles and libraries to add to my React/Redux links list and Redux addons catalog, Github issues to review, and random fun stuff

\- Pinboard works great for long-term tagged archival for stuff I might want to refer to down the road.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have two folders "Personal" and "Work". Each of these has a "Misc" folder where I dump items I want to look at or read sometime in the future. I try to keep it as simple as possible. About once a month I groom my bookmarks and either delete or rearrange as needed.

</comment><comment><USER4> Pinboard.in</comment>


Beyond nukes: how scientists dream of killing hurricanes - <AUTHOR> https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/beyond-nukes-how-scientists-dream-of-killing-hurricanes/ <comment><AUTHOR> The Bernard Vonnegut referred to in the article was Kurt Vonnegut's older brother.</comment>


Spider silk avoids hungry bacteria - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2019/10/10/how-spider-silk-avoids-hungry-bacteria <comment><USER2> [http://archive.is/aQDbB](http://archive.is/aQDbB)</comment>


Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992 <comment><USER2> Clever and informed people simply have better tools to defend their biases. Auto-gaslighted high-intelligence individuals are more common (in my experience) than not.

Intelligence is no defence against delusion, in fact its the other way around.

</comment><comment><USER3> I was really hoping to find a reference to Jaynes' "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science" at the end of the paper, but alas it wasn't there. Chapter 5 is probably the most relevant part (feel free to read just the text, and ignore or skim the mathematical equations):

[http://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/cc05e.pdf](http://www- biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/cc05e.pdf)

"...it might be thought (and for some it is an article of faith in democracy) that open discussion of public issues would tend to bring about a general consensus on them. On the contrary , we observe repeatedly that when some controversial issue has been discussed vigorously for a few years, society becomes polarized in to opposite extreme camps; it is almost impossible to find anyone who retains a moderate view.

New information given simultaneously to different people may cause a convergence of views; but it may equally well cause a divergence. This divergence phenomenon is observed also in relatively well controlled psychological experiments. Some have concluded that people reason in a basically irrational way; prejudices seem to be strengthened by new information which ought to have the opposite effect. Kahneman & Tversky (1972) draw the opposite conclusion from such psychological tests, and consider them an argument against Bayesian methods. But now, in view of the above ESP example, we wonder whether probability theory might also account for this divergence and indicate that people may be, after all, thinking in a reasonably rational, Bayesian way (i.e., in a way consistent with their prior information and prior beliefs)."

"...verbally, they have reasoned as follows:

A: "Mr. N is a fine fellow, doing a notable public service. I had thought the drug to be safe from other evidence, but he would not knowingly misrepresent the facts; therefore hearing his report leads me to change my mind and think that the drug is unsafe after all. My belief in safety is lowered by 20.0 db, so I will not buy any more."

B: "Mr. N is an erratic fellow, inclined to accept adverse evidence too quickly. I was already convinced that the drug is unsafe; but even if it is safe he might be carried away into saying otherwise. So hearing his claim does strengthen my opinion, but only by 5.3 db. I would never under any circumstances use the drug."

C: "Mr. N is an unscrupulous rascal, who does everything in his power to stir up trouble by sensational publicity. The drug is probably safe, but he would almost certainly claim it is unsafe whatever the facts. So hearing his claim has practically no effect (only 0.005 db) on m y confidence that the drug is safe. I will continue to buy it and use it."

The opinions of Mr. A and Mr. B converge in about the way we conjectured in (5-20) because both are willing to trust Mr. N's veracity to some extent. But Mr. A and Mr. C diverge because their prior probabilities of deception are entirely different. So one cause of divergence is, not merely that prior probabilities of deception are large, but that they are greatly different for different people."</comment>


Static Typing Where Possible, Dynamic Typing When Needed  (2011) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.ics.uci.edu/~lopes/teaching/inf212W12/readings/rdl04meijer.pdf <comment><USER3> Since that paper, there's been some convergence in this area. Explicitly typed function parameters and inferred local variables now seem to be the way things are going. Go and Rust take that route. It's been retrofitted to C++, with "auto". Python seems to be headed that way, although the proposal is to have type declarations that are not checked for backwards compatibility reasons, which creates its own problems.

<comment><USER4> >there's been some convergence in this area. Explicitly typed function parameters and inferred local variables now seem to be the way things are going. Go and Rust take that route. It's been retrofitted to C++, with "auto".

That feeling when even C++ is less verbose than Java ... another "lambda" feature.

<comment><USER5> Verbosity isn't bad in and of itself. It serves as extra documentation, for one thing. Code that is written once is read at least twice, and often many more times than that.

<comment><USER4> Except that's exactly my problem with it - you can get used to shortcuts and the IDE will generate the types so writing the code is not an issue - navigating through this pointless verbosity hurts readability because there's too much noise to filter out - Java verbosity is noise not signal.

Just the physical eye movement and scrolling is wasting time and energy on pointless things.

Python doesn't have types at all and it reads like pseudocode. This is not arguing against types - having types is valuable in the bigger picture - <USER2> interface declaration/global scope - but at local scope it's implied in the context and if you need help figuring some specific out you can just use IDE (you can't argue "that makes you depend on a IDE" \- verbosity like Java makes IDE and code generation a requirement for productivity - this just makes it a nice to have tool)

<comment><USER6> This, so much this.

I hear Java devs argue in favor of using static types because the type checking and IDE autocomplete lets them write code faster.

Dynamically typed languages are great because you don't have to write as much code to provide comparable functionality. The best quality code that's also the easiest to maintain is the code you don't have to write to begin with.

I used to contribute to an OSS library for parsing raw network frames into structured protocol data. 50%-60% of the code was type coercion and design pattern boilerplate to work around the type system.

I saw similar networking code written in JS and was in awe at how little code it took to accomplish the same. It was easily an order of magnitude less code.

Types are good for handling some edge cases. When types are required by default, it just adds a ton of unnecessary noise.

<comment><USER4> I don't agree with that either. I have written a decent chunk of production python code last year (eg. just one module has over >10k lines) because the tools required it and I can't say I'm too pleased with how it scales to complex APIs (eg. manipulating blender scene graph). Java would undoubtedly be much worse but Java is not the only statically typed language, or should we discard all dynamically typed languages because of PHP and Perl.

If it's not a script task or glue code I prefer static typing.

Java is just a very bad implementation of static typing, it's intentionally dumbed down and limited so that you don't need to learn a lot to understand code - and this results in weak type guarantees, bloated and tedious code base and silly patterns to work arround language limitations.

C# is a much better example of a productive statically typed language in the same family, F# is even better - those are just the ones I have experience with. I would have much rather done that blender project in F# over Python if I could (sadly only python API available)

Besides even dynamic language authors are seeing value in providing static typing with the recent trend of optional/gradual typing for most dynamic languages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Everything is good and fine, but you cannot have good type inference with dynamic typing and optional static typing. You cannot infer anything about untyped variables, only constants and functions/ops with return types. You can in stricter languages, where the type of a variable is not allowed to change, but in a dynamic languages type inference is limited to explicitly typed variables. You can infer a bit with function signatures and esp. with return types of your internal ops, but everything ends with your normal variable.

I also miss the argument that optional static types enable a proper FFI syntax.

<comment><USER8> Lots of uncited assertions...</comment></comment>


I Am Offered a Possible .NET Programming Job Position, Should I take it? - <AUTHOR>

I have been contacted and presented with a job opportunity from an HR rep in what looks like a good company.
The only problem is that they are a Windows shop, using .NET. Nothing wrong with this, just that most of my experience has been programming on Linux using languages such as PHP, Python, C, Java, Ruby, and using various open source technologies.
I feel like I could easily pick up programming in a windows .Net environment, but do I want to?
I like the company and the people already, but I seem to have almost no interest in programming in a Microsoft environment.
I am wondering if I have false data about Microsoft programming technology and have an erroneous opinion that it just is not very interesting.
Programming on Linux using open source languages and technologies seems great to me, and programming on .NET just seems dreadful - but I haven't done it. Just wondering why I feel this way - and if I really should feel this way - and if anyone else feels this way too. <comment><USER2> Just how good .NET is is up for debate but it's certainly not bad. I assume you'd be using C#, which as a language is essentially a better and more featureful Java. As IDEs go, Visual Studio is nice, especially with C#.

But more important than tool / OS concerns, are you excited about the actual product or service you'd be working on?

</comment><comment><USER3> > _I seem to have almost no interest in programming in a Microsoft > environment._

You've just answered your own question. Don't take the job if your heart isn't in it.</comment>


Lorentz forces and cheating at the Pinewood Derby - <AUTHOR> http://ch00ftech.com/2015/10/12/lorentz-forces-and-cheating-at-the-pinewood-derby/ <comment><USER2> Pretty cool. On a side note the Pinewood Derby was really exciting for me in Scouts until I showed up with my dinky handmade car and saw basically everyone else's car was built by their parents. What a disappointment.</comment>


Ask HN: At what point in mobile app development is QA asked to test? - <AUTHOR> What indicates to the engineers or product manager that a mobile app project, whether it be a feature or new app altogether, that the (manual testing) QA team is ready to begin?<p>I understand that some believe a QA team should work in tandem with devs, but in our small company, QA is spread amongst iOS, Android, desktop web and mobile web testing, and made up of two people. So where time is limited for QA, when do devs/PMs feel the time is appropriate for QA to begin exploratory testing builds? <comment><USER2> We do testing when a ticket is moved to "testing" column in JIRA. Then another sweep once all features is ready.

</comment><comment><USER3> Here is my opinion related to your situation: you probably already have a mindset about testing as being reactive (meaning is starts after something is built). It might help on the long term (with efforts done on short term) to change this and involve the testing team as soon as possible in your development effort. As they time will pass by this will reduce the number of bugs, the need for retesting and regression and thus in the end maybe more time for the testers.

Aside from this big change, here are more practical advices:

The Testing Team _can start_ as soon as they can execute the mobile app (either through a simulator/emulator or directly on the device).

In order to minimze the effort of the testing team here are some things that I think might help:

1\. The purpose of the testing team should be: a) _covering all functionalities_ and b) _discover as much bugs as possible_.

2\. To be able to implement the first point, then the testing team should define a series of risks they want to cover. This can be done quick and efficient if they have two types of knowledge:

       (a) about what the application does (and here I think they can maximize what they learned from other platforms)

       and

       (b) about the types of bugs specific to the platform they are testing.

With these in mind they can write a list of risks of what might go wrong in the app, even before starting the testing using the knowledge they have about the product features.

With this list and with an app ready to be installed on the device they can and should start testing.

I hould say two more things:

1) Optimising the testing effort by limiting different variables related to the testing process (ie. start as late as possible, doing it with few people ...) should be a decision always balanced by risks. I'm not saying you should not do it. But I am saying that when taking a decision one should assess what is there that one can risk in terms of probability and impact.

2) Testing is an activity that can be done also by development. So you can - and should based on many best practices - write unit testing as much as possible. Writing unit testing by development team lets the testing team focus more on exploration of functionalities and putting themselves in the shoes of the end-user and thus discovering what might go wrong from that perspective.

3) When constrained by time pressure one _strategic focus_ of the testing team should be to _cover more with less effort_. It can be they should use more tools, learn more best practices, increase some skills that buy time (example: how fast they can type) or buy faster machines or decrease the amount of documentation written.

Hope this helps in some ways.

edit: formatting

<comment><AUTHOR> Those are some very valid points. In your opinion, does the ease at which defects and/or bugs are found matter? In an environment that I'd hesitate to call agile but we try to be as hands on across the board as possible, should engineers/devs be expected to do very basic and rudimentary testing of a feature outside of a unit test before saying it's ready for QA?

<comment><USER3> > In your opinion, does the ease at which defects and/or bugs are found > matter?

I'm not sure I understood completely your question. But if you are referring to discovering a lot of bugs very quick by the two testers, then the fix for this is for the developer to do unit testing and integration testing or basic feature testing/requests testing (depending on your architecture).

> Should engineers/devs be expected to do very basic and rudimentary testing > of a feature outside of a unit test before saying it's ready for QA?

First about Unit Testing: this type of testing will usually assure a developer that the classes or modules or functions _are working as the developer expected_. This is very different than verifying that the feature _works as the client or end-user will expect_.

Here is an example: With Unit Testing you will probably verify that a Class that is exporting PDFs is exporting them and no errors are present during the export. It might also test that if a footer is defined it will include it at the bottom of the page.

But when looking at System/Acceptance Testing (or feature testing) one should look that the information that brings some value to an end-user is present or maybe that it looks accordingly with the color scheme of the branding.

So basically yes, they should do more than Unit Testing. Or if you are into an agile environment you can do some kind of "pair testing" (not sure if this concept exists) where a developer and a tester are working together to write tests.

Ref to the second part of the question I think you are looking to some kind of Definition of Ready for QA.

And here is one simple metric:

1) I finished writing code

2) I finished writing some unit testing (you can choose a level of code coverage for unit testing depending on how much time you want to invest in it).

3) I _at least once_ opened the application and followed the story to see if from the perspective of the end-user I implemented it correctly (if it has acceptance criteria then I will follow that)

Of course step 3 can also be automated by writing some kind of automated acceptance testing (or at least a basic functional scenario).</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Lepak – Chat with people based on city, county, state, country - <AUTHOR> https://lepak.herokuapp.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hello fellow HN, since my country is imposing restriction of movement, I thought I hack something that allow people to chat with other people based on location.

Most location chat are based on your radius but I prefer to chat based on the address instead.

So I created Lepak, a website that allows you to chat based on your city, county, state, country.

It is a 2 day hack so sorry if the website is buggy(especially the UI on mobile).</comment>


I Hate TypeScript - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/amcdnl/b52e9dd11850eeb8de8f <comment><USER2> Just note this is from 2016, although a lot has changed TS is transparent about their changes if your looking for them. However this is a YMMV argument, hence why most publishers in the JS community. If you understand where JS drops and TS picks up then usually it's great, but if you're trying to force JS into a strongly typed language... you get this.</comment>


Startup Visa: American by Choice, Bootstrapper by Passion - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2012/04/opinion-torrenegra-startup-visa/

<comment><USER2> Great article by an awesome entrepreneur!</comment>


Megan McArdle: The Great Stock Market Myth - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/09/the-great-stock-myth/8178/ <comment><USER2> There's a bright side in this: seriously.

If we don't live our lives with the expectation that we will _finally_ begin enjoying them when we retire, we might begin living our lives to our more short-term satisfaction.

Not that saving for retirement is stupid - it isn't - but working at a job you hate because it will provide retirement benefits is.

Take vacations now, go skiing now, spend time with your kids now...those are the takeaways. I hope the "countdown to retirement" mentality ends as a casualty of future uncertainty.

<comment><USER3> I don't know anyone who's slaving away with the expectation of retiring to a permanent vacation. If that was a pervasive mentality, it must have been a regional, industry, or generational thing, because I've never even encountered it.

In fact, when my peers/friends/colleagues do talk about retirement, that conversation usually begins and ends with a quip along the lines of "what retirement?".

There's 1. almost no expectation that any of us will be _able_ to stop working until we're physically sidelined, short of making 'fuck you' money. And 2. almost no _desire_ to stop building things, even if we _get_ 'fuck you' money.

After all, it's not like we're retiring from the factory floor. We might not be mountain biking on the weekends during retirement, but it'd take teams of orderlies to keep us from writing software.

I sometimes wonder about the first wave of digerati that hit 'retirement'. Things like a World of Warcraft for the fixed income set seem guaranteed.

But what about the code they _write_? Will the elderly coders follow tradition and dismiss new technology and just support "old school" projects to the end? Will they keep on the edge but churn out solutions more geared to their current situation (less motor control, less faculty to waste on cryptic commands, etc)? Or will their code and goals not be notably different than the new generation at all?

<comment><USER4> _I don't know anyone who's slaving away with the expectation of retiring to a permanent vacation._

No offence, this is probably because you are generation Y, well educated and surrounded by start-up mentality or in college.

Consider yourself lucky, but don't consider yourself the norm (yet at least).

<comment><USER3> I never claimed my experiences were normal. I just questioned how widespread belief in the Boomers' retirement myth could be in the rest of the populace, if I'd never so much as _met_ a believer. (I didn't mean to suggest Boomers who were 5 years out didn't believe or weren't still banking on the myth. I was talking about the younger generations.[1])

My circles do contain a disproportionate number of creatives and the self- employed/start-up types - but you're off by a generation. And maybe half have degrees; if that.

The biggest de-normative aspect is surely that my family/friends/colleagues are all in and around Detroit: where high unemployment and essentially no economic growth has been _normal_ for a decade.

[1] You know the boomers sure complain a lot about the 'attitude of entitlement' among the younger generations. But who was it that _actually_ mortgaged our future for their present?

<comment><USER4> I'm not even going to attempt to argue anything in favour of the boomers. As a gen X that's against my DNA and I fear I may spontaneously combust if I entertain such thoughts.

The point is this however: the boomers _are_ the norm. By literal definition. We (that's you and me both) are not, and we wont be for a while.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I really feel that the article missed the biggest reason why "the stock market may never recover", i.e. accounting fraud.

Today's case in point, Cisco (CSCO).

First, this early morning post from a respected financial/economic blog:

 _Reading headlines alone, one might wonder if two headlines from today on Cisco were from the same quarter. Bloomberg reports Cisco Misses Estimates on Sluggish Corporate Spending. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports Cisco Profit Jumps 79%._

Sounds like a great opportunity to go long Cisco, right? It's trading down 9% on the missed estimates news while in reality, having your profits up 79% and same-quarter sales up 20% over last year, especially in this economy, is not a bad thing.

But wait, here is a later post from another equally respected blog:

 _The book cooking continues. CISCO comes out with "great" earnings but hidden in there is the fact that they're writing their own financing - and holding it off-book. Better hope $21 holds, because if it doesn't it's a LONG way down._

Wait a second - so those supposedly realized profits are really just an I-owe- you note from Cisco to itself? Ok then.

Here is my point. _Almost every company out there is hiding assets and liabilities off balance sheet where nobody can see them._ It's fun to talk about complex economic theories but come on, the biggest reason the average investor can't get performance out of the stock market is the book cooking. Had the banking industry not held all that subprime risk off their books, the market would _not_ have seen all that volatility, and we _would_ have seen real Dow growth.

As things stand, value investors short of a team of private investigator-style analysts simply cannot afford to trust their own judgement. When the SEC stops focusing on Martha Stuart's insider trading and start going after the real issues, the stock market will recover, democratization or not.

<comment><USER6> There's all kinds of things wrong with what you said, but I'll focus on the off balance sheet asset claim.

Sure, almost every company "hides" assets and liabilities off balance sheet because it's _standard accounting practice_. There's lots of rules about it and it's perfectly reasonable to do in many situations. For instance, securitized risk is held off balance sheet because it effectively isn't an asset, liability or risk to the company that securitized it anymore. (That's the whole point of securitizing risk.) It is in general not true that "nobody can see them", since stuff like this generally has to be declared in financial reports. Yeah, you can't see it... if you're a lazy investor who just reads the quarterly financial statements and thinks that constitutes responsible investing.

There are some companies that try to cook the books and game the rules. Surprise. Whenever there are rules people will try to game them. All this tin- foil hat nonsense about "book cooking" as reported in "respected blogs" leading to the ruin of "almost every company" and the entire stock market seems too silly be true.

<comment><USER5> I think you are making some very valid arguments however I disagree with the principle of your position.

1\. Status quo.

Yes, it's standard accounting practice to move huge amounts of liabilities off the balance sheet. Yes, whenever there are rules, people will try to game them. So what? It's wrong, and the status quo doesn't make it less so. When people like me call it out, it's not because we were born yesterday and have somehow missed the big bad world in front of our collective face. It's because we recognize that complexity (as applied to this situation) is made up to maintain the above mentioned status quo. When I had my startup, I chose to book profits on a cash basis instead of an accrual basis because I felt it was the sane thing to do. Would it have been perfectly legal for me to choose the accrual basis? Of course. Would it make any sense to pretend that I've made thousands of dollars where I've made zero? I don't think so. I am not comparing myself to Cisco but I don't think it's right for Cisco to pretend that their fantom profits are real either. Lucent did that and they are now bankrupt.

2\. Lazy investor.

My apologies for the dramatic comparison, but the "lazy investor" argument is a bit like the rape victim argument. First you are going to say that the investors who do not pore over financial disclosure documents deserve being "misled" because they are lazy. Then you are going to say that the Nigerian scam victims deserve it because they are gullible. How long before you say that a young woman is "asking for it" when she goes to a bad neighborhood at night, alone? I am not saying you personally would subscribe to that argument of course, I am just pointing out that if you take that logic to its conclusion, only the strong survive, and that excludes all of us. It's no more realistic to keep up with miles and miles of financial disclosures and other assorted small print than to keep out of bad neighborhoods at all times.

3\. Tinfoil hat nonsense.

I am not the biggest authority on the stock market but is there not a clear consensus that the current devaluation was caused by the financial firms' failure to recognize mind-boggling amounts of liability on their balance sheets? Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say but it seems to me your last point was that that's just a wacky conspiracy theory. What do you attribute the devaluation to then?

<comment><USER6> Your post reads like it belongs on Seeking Alpha, with its mixture of bizarre rhetoric and utter misunderstanding of the stock market.

I won't bother with responding to your whole post, but let's address one particularly wrong statement of yours, as an exemplar of what's wrong with everything you write:

"I am not the biggest authority on the stock market but is there not a clear consensus that the current devaluation was caused by the financial firms' failure to recognize mind-boggling amounts of liability on their balance sheets"

No, this isn't true at all. First, the current "devaluation"--by which I assume you mean recession, because it's not obvious what else it could be--was caused by a number of things. Second, there is no "clear consensus". Third, in general, banks were brought down by on-balance-sheet liabilities. In particular, I recall reading dozens of news items on write-off after write-off of subprime debt, _which must be on the balance sheet to count as a loss_ , else the financial statements don't add up. Fourth, you seem to be confusing the technical accounting meaning of liability with the general meaning, but let's not get into that.

One more thing--the role of capitalism is not to provide capital owners with free money; people who expect returns must put in the time and effort ensuring the capital is going to good use, market economics dictates that this will in general be hard, and it is utterly bizarre that you compare _not getting free money_ to _rape_. I find it befuddling and sickening that you would dare to say such a thing. Put aside your e-rage and think about it for a second.

<comment><USER5> Whoa, dude. What a case of a kettle calling the pot black. You've just said that: you are befuddled and sickened by my post, everything I write is wrong, my post is bizarre, my opinions are tinfoil hat and too silly to be true, I have an utter misunderstanding of the stock market, I am confused about basic accounting concepts, and finally, how dare I express my opinion.

Add to that how you open your posts. I started my response to you with, _I think you are making some very valid arguments however I disagree with the principle of your position._ You started your 2 responses to me with, _There's all kinds of things wrong with what you said_ , and _Your post reads like it belongs on Seeking Alpha, with its mixture of bizarre rhetoric and utter misunderstanding of the stock market._

Do you see the difference? I acknowledged, even complimented, your arguments, and expressed a personal difference of opinion. You on the other hand, started both responses with a categorical judgement that I am ignorant, wrong about everything, and crazy to boot.

And you think _I_ have e-rage? For real?

Ok, on to more reasonable conversation.

First, I did not mean "recession" when I said "devaluation". Why would you take a word I actually used and say that I meant a different word? What I wrote was, _I am not the biggest authority on the stock market but is there not a clear consensus that the current devaluation was caused by..._. Which part of "stock market" was "not obvious"?

Second, of course I did not compare not getting free money to rape. Again, you've completely twisted my words (especially since I apologized for the dramatic comparison ahead of time). My point was, blaming investors who become victims of accounting fraud is similar to blaming rape victims. In both cases, the focus is shifted from the crime onto the carelessness of the victim and I think that that's wrong.

<comment><USER6> The thing is, I'm not really interested in a blow-by-blow pseudo-discussion with someone who's convinced himself of some strange alternate view of events and refuses to acknowledge any challenge to this world view. I tried to cut things short and attack the sweeping, fundamental fallacy, but you insist on sticking to surface disagreements, perhaps as a way of shielding yourself.

"Well," you say, "you make a good point, but you see my view of what constitutes 'widespread accounting fraud' is different from the standard view, but my uninformed view is right and everyone else's is wrong, so you're wrong, too. Also, I'm being _civil_." I'm not really interested in talking to someone who thinks like that, so I'm done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Assuming McArdle isn't secretly worried about Marx's declining rate of profit in capitalism, then maybe returns to capital are falling because returns to labor are increasing. That should be good news for people who work for a living -- unless the only workers capturing those gains are in the boardroom. Uh oh.

BTW, average (geometric) returns for the US have been around 6% after inflation. The global average is about 5%. No country has averaged as high as 8%.

[http://chrismealy.blogspot.com/2009/08/real-return-on- stocks...](http://chrismealy.blogspot.com/2009/08/real-return-on-stocks.html)

In the old days (before the 1970s), with expensive brokers, expensive commissions, no index funds, and taxes incurred from rebalancing, just getting the average market return easily could have eaten up 2% of your return. It shouldn't surprise people that stock returns would fall as costs fell. The after-expenses return was never as high as those historical charts suggested.

<comment><USER8> _maybe returns to capital are falling because returns to labor are increasing._

From everything I see, the opposite is the case, at least in the USA and Europe. Maybe it's the Chinese labor that's getting a bigger share of the returns.

But I suspect that most of the "missing returns" go to those that exploit weaknesses in the financial system and know how to hide their profits, i.e. investment banks, hedge funds etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It seems strange to me that the comments on this thread are so dismissive of retirement. Retirement is FU money for the average man. Planning for retirement doesn't have to mean ignoring the present, or wasting away on a beach in Boca when you hit 65. What it _does_ mean is having the ability to do or work on whatever you want. By the time you hit sixty and realize you've only got another ten or so good years left on this earth, that kind of freedom is going to seem like the most precious thing in the world.

</comment><comment><USER10> I have never believed in retirement, nor have I ever thought that I would get social security or that any magical financial system would allow me to "retire."

I would like, in my later life, to maybe step down into more scholarly pursuits. But I'm sure I'll still be doing something for revenue.

<comment><USER11> Isn't it funny? The idea that you could spend you entire professional career at, say, GM, retire at 65, and live out your years on a comfortable pension + social security, seems so amazingly quaint and outdated. I can hardly believe that that was the universal expectation in this country just a few short decades ago, but my elders insist it was true. _Nobody_ in my peer group (millenials, I think we're called) seriously thinks they are going to see any of the money we are paying into social security. Pension? What's that again?

On the other hand, the expectation that we are going to be working forever seems to have made us dwell a lot more on what job fulfillment actually means, which is probably a good thing--not too many people I know are willing to put up with the sort of "deferred happiness" model that prevailed in earlier generations.

<comment><USER12> I hope this attitude about not expecting to see any of the money you're paying into social security ends soon. You're paying money in and so you should get it back when you're older. If this young generation gives up on getting their money back then their fears will come true. It's politics. You get what you collectively ask for. Bottom line: don't lower your expectations. Demand, and you should get.

<comment><USER13> And where exactly will this money come from without making it even worse for the next generation?

<comment><USER8> In the end, money is a fiction. It's all about allocating the benefits from current production.

Social security schemes and government-guaranteed pensions mean that the government (=the voters) decides how much each currently productive worker has to give away, and how much each retiree gets.

Private retirement funds mean that for each retiree, the amount of money earned from their own former productivity which they relinquished into their retirements fund AND the amount of money they acquired otherwise and put there AND the management of the fund AND other economical factors influencing it decide how much that retiree is allowed to take away from those currently productive.

Finally, the millenia-old "retirement plan=loving children" means that how much each retiree gets depends on how many children they were able to have, how many of those survived, how productive they are, and how much they're willing to give up according to their character, how much they love their parents or how much social pressure towards supporting your parents there is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Remember back during the Bush II era when we all thought we could put all that Social Security money into the stock market? Didn't we all have fun back then?

<comment><USER15> Yes. I feel much better right now knowing that Social Security is bankrupt and its obligations will only ever be met through the federal government's printing presses. Aren't we all having fun now?

<comment><USER16> Social Security is not bankrupt. It has massive assets, and is fiscally sound until sometime in the 2040s. The problem is that the government has borrowed that money and used it for other stuff. It now needs to start paying it back, but that's no different than any other loan you make.

<comment><USER17> > [SS] has massive assets

Those "massive assets" are T-bills.

If push comes to shove, who do you think will get shafted - SS or China?

More to the point - how much are you personally willing to pay to maintain the SS benefits for folks 10-20 years older than you? How much do you think that folks who are 10-20 years younger than you are willing to pay to maintain your SS benefits?

<comment><USER18> What happens if we put it all into the stock market and the baby boomers retire?

I really don't want to see a stock market that has 3x the money coming out as is coming in.

<comment><USER17> The stock market is ownership of various kinds of assets. The demand for those assets will change. However, it is world-wide. And, there are income producing assets. Folks are saying "I'd rather have an iPad than $400 even though I know that that ipad costs only $35 to make".

T bills are a claim on future US tax revenue. That's very different.

<comment><USER18> You didn't even begin to address my question, you just threw out a bunch of hand-wavey silliness about how "ownership" and "assets" makes everything ok.

What happens to the prices of those assets when the baby boomers retire and are pulling out more money than there are young workers putting in? You have the same problems as SS. What if we had all of that SS money in the market? It'd be a disaster.

<comment><USER17> The whole world didn't have a baby boom at the same time.

WRT companies that produce stuff, the critical time is not when boomers retire, it's when they stop spending money. Fortunately, many will stop when they die, which reduces demand and the "load" on both the stock market and SS. Again, the whole world thing is relevant.

And, since boomer spending is income for later generations....

Do you really think that money invested in the stock market is like SS obligations? (Here's another difference - Congress can repeal SS whenever it feels like it.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > But regulation hasn't stopped the [pension] plans from being underfunded, in > part because the regulators, who worried that companies would use pensions > as a slush fund to smooth their earnings, kept them from overcontributing in > flusher times.

Why would this sort of smoothing need to be regulated away?

<comment><USER8> My guess: because it could be used to evade taxes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> You have to take the much longer view when you talk about the merits of investing pensions or SS in stocks. The compounding affects of a broad S&P portfolio will destroy an all bond portfolio in a 20-30 time frame.

And now that we are printing all this money and have massive unfunded liabilities, there will be serious inflation in the next 20 years - I have no idea when, but bond yields will drop or become negative at some point while equities will perform much better. And this is Charlie Munger and Warren Buffett's view as well.

<comment><USER21> > there will be serious inflation in the next 20 years - I have no idea when, > but bond yields will drop or become negative at some point.

These two statements are contradictory. Bond yields will skyrocket in the face of inflation. If you meant bond prices (which move inversely to yields) then you would be correct but your assertion, as presented, is false.

Also, please pick a 20-30 year timeframe in the last century where investment in bonds (for the entire period) would have underperformed (be destroyed, in your words) the S&P 500 for the same period.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wish this article had spent more time talking about dividends in addition to price appreciation in stocks. If the equity premium is indeed going to be lower for the next few decades, then you should start to see increasing dividends to reward stockholders.

We might have to get out of the "holy shit I gained 400% on this stock in 6 months" mentality and instead start learning that an income producing basket of dividend stocks at 6% is the way to save for retirement.

</comment><comment><USER23> Consider the gold versus dow ratio:

      http://seekingalpha.com/article/141811-the-importance-of-the-dow-gold-ratio

</comment><comment><USER24> It is a standard operating procedure for republicans after they fuck up to get philosophical and start talking about overall trends in the economy and generally treat the whole economy like some kind of force of nature that ebbs and flows on its own and that we cannot do anything about.

While there is an economic cycle its effects can be rather mild if properly managed.

The fact of the matter is that the dismal performance of the stock market in the last 10 years just matches the dismal performance of the overall economy in the last 10 years and is simply the result of terrible leadership.

Yes, it is mostly the fault of George Bush, and Alan Greenspan and Bernake and the new brand of "conservatism" that got popular in America in the later Clinton years (and that includes a lot of conservative democrats). I put conservatism in quotes because this is a type of conservatism that is foreign to many actual honest conservatives.

I do not have the time to list all the fuckups, but let me just list the important ones: rampant financial deregulation while still ensuring that the government will guarantee the banks, incredibly expensive wars all over the world without honestly taking the expense into account, a policy ensuring high oil prices for a country that is the greatest importer of oil in the world, trying to fix the effects of wars and high gas prices with low interest rates, when any economist will tell you that these are not things you can fix with low interest rates, support of outsourcing and all kinds of policies that destroy the earning potential of the middle class, refusal to invest in infrastructure, etc. etc.

So the stock market is doing badly because the economic policies we had in the last 10 years failed. That is pretty much it.

</comment><comment><USER25> Along with 8% return, the other big constant in retirement planning is retirement age of 65. Over time, this is going to be seen much more as a variable than a constant. If markets don't perform, retirement age is going to rise pretty dramatically.

</comment><comment><USER26> Don't worry! Planned War World III by the elites, who by the way were beneficiaries of this retirement scam, will solve all problems. Now when peasants are no needed, they will rid off most of them. The Iran war drums are beating.

</comment><comment><USER27> To arrive at the scary 40% required savings rate, the article assumes an accumulation period (working lifetime) of 30 years. How many people do you know who started working at 30 and retired at 60?

<comment><USER3> Accumulation period is distinct from employment period.

How many people do you know under 35 who were seriously saving 10% toward retirement?

<comment><USER13> People should be realistic, if they want to retire with a decent income then they should save. If they don't save then get angry about it later then they don't deserve much sympathy.</comment></comment></comment>


Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks?CMP=share_btn_fb <comment><USER2> _" The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities – known to users of social media as 'sock puppets' – could also encourage other governments, private companies and non-government organisations to do the same."_

I'd guess that the military is a latecomer to this game, and that corporations, political campaigns and activist groups have been doing this for years.

 _" He said none of the interventions would be in English, as it would be unlawful to 'address US audiences' with such technology, and any English- language use of social media by Centcom was always clearly attributed."_

There are plenty of people inside the U.S. who read web content in languages other than English.</comment>


Having flattr accept partial payments on items? - <AUTHOR> http://www.codefromaway.net/2012/01/would-you-flattr-my-wishlist.html

<comment><USER2> In the interest of full disclosure, I wrote that post (and not very well, I might add!).

For what it's worth I think the title here would be a little better with a question mark at the end, as it is more about "why can't we" than "how to" but still, I appreciate the post here :)

<comment><USER3> I don't understand why Flattr isn't good enough for that? Sure, it doesn't go towards a wishlist of items, but the money goes in his pocket, so it's the same thing.

<comment><USER2> I get that it's essentially the same thing, but there's part of me that likes to 'see the difference' that I'm making. If that makes sense. It's kind of like how I feel better building a Habitat for Humanity house than I do when I give money to them. Not because of trust or anything like that, it's simply a matter of seeing the outcome.

On the flipside, as a 'blogger' (if I can call myself that yet), I think it would be cool to get 'surprise deliveries' from my wishlist... basically remove me as an intermediary and just send me the stuff that I want. Especially if it's only a few dollars here and there, in which case I'll more than likely spend it at the corner store before having a chance to put it towards something I really want. But maybe that's just me.

<comment><USER4> Lincoln, it sounds like what you're looking for is some kind of Pledgie-style progress bar that would show you the effect your donation had?

A new feature for Flattr where you could set a goal and state what you're collecting the money for?

Unfortunately unrealistic that Amazon will ever mash its wishlist up with any financial service that what they already provide but perhaps there's a way to build a connecting layer between those two services. You should submit this idea to our developer challenge, perhaps someone picks it up (more info on our blog).

Teller / I work @Flattr

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the feedback. Even if my 'goal' could be "stuff on this wishlist" and not so much have a dollar value as such... just an easy way to say "you're giving me money for this stuff".

Then I guess everytime my Flattr account had enough money to buy something on the wishlist then to do it automatically would be cool. Especially if you guys got a referral fee somehow? Don't know :)

Thanks for mentioning the developer challenge, too. I'll definitely look into it. To be honest, my usage of Flattr right now is essentially zero, but I really like the idea of it and this year I'm trying to really 'support' these cool ideas.

Thanks again!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


CES Has No 'Formal Complaints' About Booth Babes. Time To Change That. - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2013/01/30/ces-has-no-formal-complaints-about-booth-babes-time-to-change-that/

<comment><USER2> ""We have a basic decency policy. People should be covered."....As for the painted women in pasties and thongs, they didn't violate the basic decency policy, says Chupka because it's "art.""

I don't care what you call it, I have no interest in going to a supposedly professional conference/trade show and coming across a group of naked women. And if CES is happy for exhibitors to set up like that, that means I have no interest in going to CES.</comment>


Ask HN: What's the best phone to write an app for for Linux C programmers? - <AUTHOR>

I don't own a mac, and I don't know or care to learn java.  What phone platform can I write code for?  I'm a Linux/C guy. <comment><USER2> Android also has a native C/C++ development kit.

[http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/06/android- goes...](http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/06/android-goes-beyond- java-gains-native-cc-dev-kit.ars)

You can also cross-compile iPhone apps on Linux, however, you won't be able to sell it at their app store.

<http://www.saurik.com/id/4>

Another alternative is the Nokia N900 which uses maemo.

<http://maemo.nokia.com/> <http://maemo.nokia.com/n900/>

<comment><USER3> I believe if you use the native C/C++ development kit you still have to write the interface in java.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm a little surprised no one mentioned WebOS; the phone runs Linux and the PDK is in C (although as pointed out in the reply below, the PDK is only available on Windows and Mac right now).

I would also look at Meego (what Maemo became after it merged with Moblin), which you can code in C, C++, or Python (or really anything, although the native graphical interface is Qt).

The only issue with either of those is that you might be writing an app that no one will use (as one platform was still-born, and the second isn't yet born). That's the price you pay to avoid learning new technology though.

<comment><USER5> The PDK is only for Mac/Windows. <http://goo.gl/MnyQf>

<comment><USER4> Oops, I thought they had already shipped the Linux version of the PDK, but it looks like you're right.

Thanks.

<comment><USER6> There isn't an official build yet, but the developers at webos-internals have a build you can use.

<http://www.webos-internals.org/wiki/WebOS_Internals_PDK>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In case you are interested in iOS, you can check out the Open Toolchain project: <http://code.google.com/p/iphonedevonlinux/wiki/Installation>

It's not seamless, and you might need to learn Objective-C (don't worry, it's not Java), and you can't submit to the App Store, but it is possible.

</comment><comment><USER8> Right now? Nokia N900, without a doubt. Maemo is a lightly hacked Debian, the official toolchain is gcc-arm (admittedly without autoconf, but that's a blessing if you're in control of your own source), and deployment is straight- up apt. Plus it's a decent Python dev platform if your tendencies veer in that direction.

If the "lightly hacked" part gets in the way, you can even debootstrap a _real_ Debian release onto the device and develop in that.

The hardware is decent as well; it certainly feels more solid than the HTC slide phones I've played with recently, and despite dropping it a few times it's barely got the shine worn off after 8 months.

All that being said, it's entirely unclear what the future of the platform is; Meego could sink without a trace in 6 months, and I don't know if Nokia are planning a successor device. In my mind they'd be insane not to, but sanity hasn't been Nokia's hallmark of late.

</comment><comment><USER5> WebOS uses HTML/CSS for it's interface and uses Javascript for it's apps. Palm also has a PDK which allows you to write apps in C. Problem is Palm hasn't released it's PDK for Linux. Luckily some hackers have been able to get it to work. <http://goo.gl/MnyQf>

</comment><comment><USER9> There really isn't one. Symbian might be the closest that's still out there. Android would be somewhat quirky at best, and Apple wants you to use their toolchain.

Having said that, take a look at Appcelerator's Titanium (appcelerator.com) or AppMakr (appmakr.com). They both provide tools that enable you to create HTML/CSS/Javascript screens and also intermingle with other scripting languages to produce a compiled app for desktop, Apple, Android, and others.

</comment><comment><USER10> You don't give enough information for a reasonable answer. What's the app for and how do you want to distribute it?

For instance, if your app is intended to go into widespread distribution and make you some money, then the answer is either Android (suck it up an learn Java) or IOS (you should be able to develop on a Hackintosh).

</comment><comment><USER11> Qt. That way you get Symbian, Maemo, Meego, and Linux tablets, like the Shogo (embedded applications, like the QooQ on that have been pretty successful.) Qt for Android, Windows, and iPhone seem to be coming along, albeit slowly.

</comment><comment><USER12> OpenMoko, which is Linux-based and uses C for all the core apps. I don't think anyone uses it anymore, though; everyone just installed Android on their handsets.

</comment><comment><USER13> That criteria pretty much rules out Android, iOS, Windows, and Blackberry. That leaves you Symbian out of the major players.

</comment><comment><USER14> <http://www.vintagephone.com/HBcradle.htm>

</comment><comment><USER15> find out what devices run Poky Linux</comment>


Twitter testing self serve ad platform - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/twitter_testing_its_self-serve_ad_platform.php

<comment><USER2> It is about time!! Was wondering how they were going to keep up! 3 months commitment is a lot.</comment>


Business Idea that can fight Covid - <AUTHOR> Take a look at this:
https://imgur.com/a/kZz6Hfw
If a proper kit like this can be designed that uses positive air pressure, can be installed in various makes/models of cars, and priced at $99, this could sell hundreds of thousands of kits to all the Uber/Lyft drivers out there. It would also go a long way in helping public health. This seems like a no brainer to fund this-- I'm thinking that a couple smart engineers could do this fairly quickly. It doesn't have to last for years or anything-- just a couple months and it would pay for itself for the drivers (and Lyft/Uber could reimburse for it potentially as a service to riders). <comment><USER2> The driver is way more likely to contact it from surface contact than communicated droplets. Assuming some horrendous person isn't actively coughing in his face, in which case they shouldn't be in the car

<comment><AUTHOR> But this is exactly what ends up happening. People who are sick want to go to the doctor, the pharmacy, the hospital. What are they going to do if they don't own their own car? Uber.

<comment><USER2> Yes true. That's a real issue.

Bearing in practically all those tested will have had symptoms of the disease

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I've wondered if a screen separating driver and passenger could work (like in London black cabs).

Curious about positive air pressure though... in which direction? Seems like it can only go two ways: toward driver space or toward passenger space.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was thinking the driver's side. This would be a product to protect the driver, since they are the customer. But you could also do it for the passenger theoretically, but this would require a bigger pump because of the increased air volume and would increase the cost a lot.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clickable link:

[https://imgur.com/a/kZz6Hfw](https://imgur.com/a/kZz6Hfw)</comment>


YC: Introduce yourself if you feel like it - gaia-forming

I have been a regular on your site lately, mostly going for the good quality comments.
Since there is a smart crowd here, I chose to create an account to be able to participate, and I just wanted to introduce myself. I chose to open this topic invite any of you readers to introduce yourself, too.
A tiny bit about me: I'm am working on a startup that's based on the principle that the whole world is made of information; I'll post more stuff about it over time.
Regarding hacker stuff, I've fallen in love with my setup:
- Old Ubuntu PC (my 2006 macbook HD died)
- VIM
- Screen
- Python
- Javascript
- AWS services: EC2, S3, SDB
I believe coding is an art form.
I also deeply believe in God. I consider that everything that exists is one reality; therefore, there is nothing outside this reality. I call this reality God, and I believe reality can never be completely known; that it is a complete mystery that can only be explored deeper and deeper.
Does anyone else feel like introducing themselves?
Also, my first name is Rob. Best, Rob <comment><AUTHOR> Hi Rob,

I've thought for about 10 minutes on how to answer you properly and to make you feel at home but your intro gives me just enough information to think that you'll fit right in here without that :)

The coke machine is in the corner on the left, please do not leave empty pizza boxes lying around. The management is out right now, they're probably golfing so it's just us chickens here.

Probably the best place for information about yourself is the 'about' box on the profile page.

I don't know how many accounts are created every day but I think that if they all posted an introduction we'd be reading introductions all day long, I guess that's why they made that 'about' box.

A good place to have a look before you do stuff here is to look at this page: <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html> and to read this: <http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html> it's interesting stuff.

best regards,

       Jacques

(who is also just a guest here, like you)

<comment><USER2> That was brilliant; unsure if the intent made it to the proper destination however.

<comment><AUTHOR> I share your concerns.

<comment> gaia-forming What are you talking about?

<comment> gaia-forming Hi Jacques,

I've read the links, I've put information in the about field.

Not exactly sure what you are referring to, do you want to keep it to yourself?

Best, Rob

<comment><AUTHOR> hi Rob,

I humbly ask you forgiveness for my inability to express myself clearly and directly in the English language.

It is not my mother tongue and it is very well possible that the confusion between us is grounded in this fact.

best regards,

      Jacques</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google reveals 'BuggyCow,' a rare macOS zero-day vulnerability - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/google-project-zero-buggycow-macos-zero-day/ <comment><USER2> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19298515](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19298515)

</comment><comment><USER3> God damn it Wired, not every security bug is a zero day. The bug was discovered 94 days ago. 0≠94

Zero-day is when a new virus exploits a previously unknown vulnerability. There is no virus, and the vulnerability has been known about for over three months. There is no justification for calling this "zero day" except to beg for clicks and sound cool.

<comment><USER4> Zero-day is most generally used in security to mean a bug that is released without a patch. This is a zero day.

<comment><USER3> Day Zero is the day that the developers learn about the vulnerability. If that day is the same as the day that the public learns of it, or the day that an attack occurs, then we call it a "zero day vulnerability". We are currently on 94 days since Apple was informed of the bug, making this a 94-day vulnerability.

<comment><USER5> There are probably three or four different definitions for "zero-day vulnerability" that many people regularly use. I'd say just roll with it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: A new marketplace for developers - <AUTHOR> https://www.producthunt.com/upcoming/dust-2 <comment><USER2> Yeah, good luck getting developers to work days on end to create a MVP for a founder at 200 or 450 bucks. My going development rate is 265 an hour. Also a MVP in 2 days is not likely or feasable, a demo with smoke and mirrors to show to vc or angels. MVP "Minimal Viable Product" means a working version ready for sale with the minimal set of features to make the product a reality.

My 2 cents is connect founders and Developers to make a match for long term projects, Match a CEO, CFO, and CTO. Work on building founder Teams, not trying to to match a wantrapanuer who doesn't value a Software engineers time and abilities is not willing to pay for that.

<comment><AUTHOR> There's a slice of the market around the world that charges $15 - $20 an hour and is just as ambitious as you are. In 20 - 30 hours of work, you can build a pretty decent MVP that is enough to test out your idea.

<comment><USER2> If it is a test of ideas, it's a demo or proof of concept and not a MVP. Again MVP is ready for sale with minimum features. also at 15-20 an hour you get what you pay for. Quality will be lacking and you won't have a good foundation to build a business on.

20-30 hours - does this include a Unit test framework, a code review process, QC front end testing, security considerations, documentation? Probably not. Again you get what you pay for.

if you cut too many corners, you will have a circle and it will eventually come back on you, which you will pay for your decisions.</comment></comment></comment>


How are humans going to become extinct? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22002530 <comment><USER2> A much better and more in-depth article along the same lines:

[http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/ross-andersen- human-...](http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/ross-andersen-human- extinction/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I find it strange that they seem to rule out asteroid impacts as a threat just because it is unlikely to happen within this century. They are unlikely to happen in any century but still do happen from time to time on a universe- scale timeline, and have been responsible for mass-extinction events in the past.

<comment> guard-of-terra It's very hard to kill every single human with an asteroid. It should be a really huge, planet-busting asteroid. A planetoid, really.

Those are rare. And even if you have 1000 humans surviving, it didn't happen.

What helps humans over dinosaurs: humans can live in extreme conditions (dinosaurs are very picky), and humans can conserve food outside of their bodies and live on it for a long time.

Humans are small and adaptable, dinosaurs are large and very fragile, as all big animals are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Everything eventually comes to an end: civilizations, stars, individuals, species.

Dinosaurs ruled the earth for a longer time than elapsed since they've been extinct. Almost double, in fact.

Humanity is extremely recent; at the most, homo sapiens sapiens is 200,000 years old -- and history goes back 10,000 years. There is no special reason why humanity would (or should!) survive indefinitely.

<comment><USER5> Disagree about the "should". Why would we not want to survive indefinitely? And when it comes to species, humans are clear outliers. I'm not sure how well one can extrapolate human future from what happened to the dinosaurs.

<comment><USER6> Perhaps OP is being a bit more philosophical. Not suggesting that it is a failure of will or a straw poll of our future direction but instead because we are/arent worthy of continuing...?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My take: Humanity will survive for a good long time, but it turns out that the laws of physics means there's no practical way to leave our solar system. We die out once the Sun extinguishes.

I'd like to be proven wrong.

<comment><USER8> If we put the financial resources behind it, we (meaning: a very few of us) could leave the solar system right now. It's just that we lack the technology to do it right, with minimal risk and a lot of comfort. This is an engineering problem which we could solve, but choose not to. Putting together a generation ship to leave the system would probably succeed, but it would also utterly consume all our resources. The reason for this is that we choose to suck at space. For all our achievements in other areas, our space program is basically still in the sixties.

The main thing that is missing which would allow for us to even colonize the solar system, and potentially other star systems, is a good way to get lots of energy, such as nuclear fusion. There is nothing physically preventing us from developing a fusion reactor, we just haven't done it yet. Leaving the solar system will get even easier once we master the process of changing the substrate our minds run on from biological matter to something more appropriate, but again, this is not strictly required.

FTL travel is not really needed for us to colonize the galaxy either. It would be nice to have, but at this point it's just beyond our means to think about it. The other stuff isn't, though.

<comment><USER7> Energy is possibly the biggest barrier towards future space colonization. It is entirely possible that we discover some new source of energy that allows us to:

1\. Send a sustainable human population out of the solar system;

2\. Travel to an inhabitable planet which may be millions of light-years away;

3\. Geo-engineer that planet to the extent that it can self-sustain a moderate human population.

None of these steps is trivial. The pessimistic side of me thinks that we may actually never overcome any of these challenges.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> shoe shops.

</comment><comment><USER10> One man lives to reach the end. One man lives to experience the change.

Everyone is so concerned with survival and living in bubble, but yet accepting seasons, sun rising and leaves falling. Yet they fail to realize that the biggest fear for them is change, nothing else.

I must fight something I do not accept and I am fine with something i am familiar with.

Not too sure if this thinking will change soon. Or changing this thinking would mean end to humanity.</comment>


Shervin Pishevar takes immediate leave of absence from Hyperloop One and Sherpa - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/05/shervin-pishevar-takes-immediate-leave-of-absence-from-hyperloop-one-and-sherpa-capital/ <comment><USER2> >Shervin Pishevar takes immediate leave of absence from Hyperloop One and Sherpa Capital

>Shervin Pishevar, co-founder of Sherpa Capital and co-founder of Hyperloop One, is taking an immediate leave of absence from both companies, as well as from his board responsibilities at Sherpa's portfolio companies.

>Pishevar, in his statement via a lawyer, said it was his idea to take a leave of absence and that the decision was not made lightly. Pishevar's hope is that his absence "will eliminate any potential distraction to the great and important work being done at these companies."

This comes about a week after multiple women accused Pishevar of sexual misconduct.

Another person accused of sexual harassment. I wonder if there are any statistics kept on number of lawsuits filed in a quarter, because I believe this quarter may take the cake.</comment>


Developers – here is the best WHY to quit your 9–5 job - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/swlh/developers-here-is-the-most-convincing-reason-for-quitting-your-9-5-job-111801b7bd8 <comment><AUTHOR> I've been thinking a lot about the compression in salaries lately. More from the stance that if senior developer salaries are incrementally higher than junior that it seems like building an all-senior team would have business value. Maybe that's all obviated by the new tech/learning, but in my experience seniors greatly outperform juniors when you're dealing with hard problems.

Not sure about the "oh it's so easy to start your thing, just do it" part of the article though.</comment>


NPR.org website – GDPR friendly, text only - <AUTHOR> https://text.npr.org/ <comment><USER2> Because the Decline button on the consent page redirects to their main [https://text.npr.org/](https://text.npr.org/) homepage instead of the compliant text version of the desired article, I've started using a bookmarklet to manually fix this:

javascript:(function (){var s=location.href.split( '/' );location.href='[https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId='+s[s.length-2]})()](https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId='+s\[s.length-2\]}\)\(\))

E.g. when invoked on [https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org...](https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org/2018/06/07/618047447/man- kills-snake-snake-tries-to-kill-him-back) it redirects to [https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=618047447](https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=618047447)

</comment><comment><USER3> Probably compatible with Mosaic ;-)

Sometimes I do the exercise of switching to older phones - my favorite Palm Pre 2 or my even older Palm Centro - as an exercise on avoiding distractions of the modern web. It's good to see websites that can easily be used with these.

</comment><comment><USER4> There's a misconception, however. It is compliant, yes, but you also only get limited access.

See the topics sections, only news, arts & life, and music are available. And only the top articles of those.

All other links redirect you to that text start page.</comment>


LA Schools demand refund for iPads - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ipad-curriculum-refund-20150415-story.html#page=1

<comment><USER2> This was posted yesterday, and variations of it have been posted regularly over the last year. (just search "schools" and "iPad" in the search box at the bottom.)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9385738](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9385738)

Seemingly always with the misleading headline implying there's something wrong with the iPad, when apparently the issue is with the publisher of content.

<comment><USER3> well right... I mean had it been a samsung tablet, there would be no problems whatsoever!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The district rushed to single source the deal so it could get curriculum and hardware for a single price, all to be paid for by your grandkids (school construction bonds), who won't be voting for a long time. The curriculum sucked. How exactly is that Apple's fault?

<comment><USER5> I don't even get the impression that the curriculum itself sucked, it sounds like buggy software and unstable infrastructure.

"Any given class typically experiences one problem or more daily. Teachers report that the students enjoy the interactive content — when it's available."

</comment></comment><comment><USER6>
      And this week, the school board took a step to replace
      some of the online materials: It authorized the purchase
      of new math textbooks.

This summarizes the problem nicely – it's not clear (at least to me) what advantage digital curriculum has over textbooks. There are a lot of pie-in- the-sky promises when it comes to the intersection of technology and education that don't really hold up in practice.

</comment><comment><USER7> The blame should be placed first and foremost on politicians and bureaucrats who made terrible decisions with taxpayer money.

That being said, Pearson is an company that exists almost entirely on rent seeking and lobbying. If they can be taken down in the aftermath of this fiasco, all the better.

</comment><comment><USER8> Dupe: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9385738](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9385738)</comment>