In an 8-Hour Day, the Average Worker Is Productive for 2 Hours and 53 Minutes - <AUTHOR> https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/in-an-8-hour-day-the-average-worker-is-productive-for-this-many-hours.html <comment><USER3> There's a trick in this clickbait:

> According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average American works 8.8 > hours every day. Yet a study of nearly 2,000 full-time office workers > revealed that most people aren't working for most of the time they're at > work.

The plain reading is that this article is based on BLS data. The BLS makes huge amounts of data available (and is friendly about answering questions), and the 8.8 hour figure is really theirs: [https://www.bls.gov/tus/charts/chart1.pdf](https://www.bls.gov/tus/charts/chart1.pdf)

But the second sentence is about unrelated research not conducted by the BLS, even if you trust that it exists.

This data looks bizarre. 23 minutes of smoke breaks? Only 15% of Americans smoke ([https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adul...](https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/index.htm)), so if 85% of people spend 0 minutes a day smoking the other 15% spent 153 minutes per work day smoking. That can't be right, so this list must be the average time spent on an activity of all the people who reported engaging in it, which makes it pretty useless for understanding the overall situation it purports to talk about.

Assuming a study was done, this is probably self-reported data of a self- selected population. Ask 2,000 websurfers to break down their yesterday or last week of work and you're not going to get reliable data.

Without an accounting of methodology (or at least a citation), this article is an infohazard. People might read it an accidentally take it seriously, or remember these numbers but not remember they were completely unsupported.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, very bizarre. She's claiming that the average American works spends 23 minutes a day on smoke breaks, _and_ 26 minutes a day looking for a new job, _and_ 17 minutes a day "preparing hot drinks", etc. Something is completely bogus here.

<comment><USER5> > 17 minutes a day "preparing hot drinks"

This figure I can believe.

<comment><USER6> As can I. As with the smoke breaks, it becomes a water cooler moment - <USER2> socially acceptable time to talk with colleagues about personal lives and the occasional work-related meeting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Since the article doesn't specify what types of professions were studied, thus I am skeptical of its conclusion. While this ~3hr/day productivity might be true for typical corporate/office workers, but they make up only a small percentage of the total work force! What about the productivity of bus drivers, doctors, cooks, masons, mechanics? Somehow I think that the average roofer doesn't spend ~2hrs/work day reading social media and news websites.

<comment><USER8> The title should be fixed but the article implies as much.

"Yet a study of nearly 2,000 full-time office workers".

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This makes a lot of sense and explains a lot of the reactions I have berm getting since tracking my concentration meticulously with Toggl.

I work as a remote consultant and track everything down to the second.

"Filling out" timesheets and answering "how much I worked" a non issue.

I've been getting accolades for how much work I accomplish... even when I clock only 3-4 hours a day.

<comment><USER10> How much time do you spend tracking everything? (I assume this is accounted for on a second-by-second accounting.)

<comment><USER9> I do it on the fly as in when I context switch.

Takes about 10 seconds max (copy paste ticket #, type meeting name, etc)

With a context switch every 15mins or quicker... probably easily 1 minute or 1.5 minutes per hour of work.

So somewhere like 1-2% "tax" on my time.

In practice though...I feel like an athlete and training my concentration and tracking results.

Having those few seconds sometimes helps you align efforts better

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This way of tracking worker concentration raises a lot of questions, especially in an era where we are _surrounded with stuff designed to grab our concentration_.

What if access to social media is made impossible? What did the numbers look like when it didn't exist at all? What happens to the 44 minutes? Does the "productive time" get increased? Or does the "news checking time" gets increased instead to compensate?

What happens during a weeks a 2048-like / google-pacman game has just been released? Does the "productive time" goes down to the toilet? Should we consider ourselves fundamentally less productive, and reduce the official workday time to 1h during this period?

What if the underlying phenomenom actually is "1/8th of work time = news checking", instead of "1h of work time = news checking", as the article suggests?

Please let's not jump to conclusions too fast ; the reasons why we're not working 100% of our 8-hour workdays have almost nothing to do with the reasons why Ford workers weren't working 100% of their 16-hour workdays.

<comment><USER12> > What if access to social media is made impossible? What did the numbers look > like when it didn't exist at all? What happens to the 44 minutes? Does the > "productive time" get increased? Or does the "news checking time" gets > increased instead to compensate?

In the olden days, it was "newspaper time" instead of "Facebook time," so I'd guess the numbers would look similar.

<comment><USER13> I remember long ago, working on a security job to pay my studies (in France, so not for tuition but for everyday life).

I was on a semi public bus company, in charge of opening secured doors in the morning. The front hostess arrived and stated "Ah ! The newspaper ! It's the first task of the morning !"

Well, it was not, because she made her coffee first :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Maybe give everyone the last 2.5 hours off every Friday and they won't spend that time during the week looking for a new job.

</comment><comment><USER15> The original source of this appears to be a survey performed by vouchercloud ([https://www.vouchercloud.com/blog/office-worker- productivity...](https://www.vouchercloud.com/blog/office-worker- productivity/)). Interestingly, the "2h 53m" value is claimed to be the average value reported by the 1989 "UK office workers aged 18+" surveyed.

The survey also included a list of non-work activities and asked for each activity (a) whether they were guilty of spending time on that activity, and (b) if yes, how much time they spent. For example, 19% spent time searching for new jobs, and _of those who spent time searching for new jobs_ the average time spent was 26 minutes. These add up to a mere 94 minutes of "wasted time" per day, suggesting that either respondents severely underestimated the time they spent working, severely underestimated the time they wasted, or there's another 3.5 hours/day of time spent non-productively on things other than the 10 options listed in the survey.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm skeptical about these, because each time we've tracked worker productiveness they've worked around 6 hours out of the 7,5 they are paid to on average. The only way we'd get someone spending that much time on news/SoMe is when our workers are bored.

Like an IT tech waiting for a consultant to call back on a priority task or when someone simply doesn't have enough things to do.

We do lose a lot f time to things like chitchat, but I think our overall productivity and happiness require the freedom for people to do so.

I don't think the points of the article are wrong though. We have people who work less than the standard 37 work week at certain periods in their lives, typically younger parents, like 30-34 hour weeks, and they are much more productive and score much higher on employee satisfaction. But I do think the research is a tad thwarted by coming out of American workplaces and that it isn't useful for every office space.

<comment><USER17> Maybe this depends on the job. I can do tech support all day long. Programming comes with productivity traps such as difficulty getting into a zone, procrastination due to feeling overwhelmed due to deadlines or project difficulty and limits on creative productivity. My brain begins to melt after 4 hours of straight problem-solving on average. Problem-solving requires creativity, which burns out and leads to busy work.

<comment><USER16> It includes our programmers who are some of the most productive workers. A couple of them are task focused almost the entire time they are at work.

Of course we include things like getting stuck, or brainstorming solutions as productive activities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> In my experience consulting in boring offices of companies that provide business reporting and compliance services a lot of the people only have a few hours of work to do most of the time. But a lot of the processes are manual and brittle and so every so often there is a crisis and if they didn't have everyone to minimize the impact of the crisis on their customers they would lose business fast.

I bet there are a lot of companies where productivity is low because people don't make extra work for themselves, do what they need to meet low expectations but the company needs to keep people around because they can't build processes that don't need the people.

</comment><comment><USER19> If you try to work 16-18 hours to compensate the damage done to cognitive abilities can drop that number to 45 minutes. Now as s rote worker wearing a couple different hats I get the most out of 8 hours by changing tasks to keep my concentration going shifting between development, was and Dev ops tasks or writing documents.

</comment><comment><USER20> I don't know how they can 'average' the american worker. Due to the obvious attempt to make this article seem relevant to as many readers as possible, I would have found it more interesting if it were a bit more specific.

</comment><comment><USER21> Reminds me of an article I read years ago that a parent decided they could cope with homeschooling their kid after they followed them around at school and concluded they were only learning for one to two hours a day, not eight.

</comment><comment><USER22> I have 4-6 hours of hyper focus, the rest i use for emails, spreadsheets etc

<comment><USER23> I get 4-6 hours a week. All it takes is 3 meetings during the day (including the 30 minute "standup") and that pretty much writes off the day.

<comment><USER22> oh I meant a day, but I agree unnecessary meetings throw me off

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This falls to 1 hour 30 for a 10 hour day.

</comment><comment><USER25> I just want to say thanx for changing the title.

</comment><comment><USER26> Bullshit.

I'm not reading an hour Internet pages non work related. And if i would, i wouldn't count this as my working our.

Not calling my partner every day for 18 minutes at work.

What a crappy article.

<comment><USER27> Are you assuming that this article was written about you, personally? Because that is what your answer seems to imply.

<comment><USER26> You are right, the article itself says something about avg. worker.

I had other similar article in mind when i wrote my comment.</comment></comment></comment>


Revolutionary Camera Recording Propulsion Data Completes Groundbreaking Test - <AUTHOR> http://gameon.nasa.gov/2016/08/06/revolutionary-camera-recording-propulsion-data-completes-groundbreaking-test/ <comment><USER2> ELI5: How do they keep the booster stationary? Its thrust is powerful enough to lift a ship into the sky and more, so how do they keep it safely pinned to the ground without destroying itself?

</comment><comment><USER3> That is one hell of a sight to behold. I'm really impressed by the quality of that video. 10/10 NASA.</comment>


The Surface Duo.. a $1400 phone/tablet/fold? - <AUTHOR> https://youtu.be/FNvXBW8vU8w <comment><USER2> I use a Galaxy Note and would gladly use a larger phone if I could find a reliable one.

I was looking at a new Note 20 Ultra but to be able to get this for $100 more makes it a now brainer for me.

This is the phone I have been waiting a decade for.</comment>


Bait and switch - <AUTHOR> http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/07/bait-and-switch.html <comment><USER2> The best way to get the fees under control would be for the major online ticket finders to start delisting airlines that were not upfront about their fees. It's a risky choice on their part, but as it stands the travel sites have the most to lose. Any way you look at it, a lot of people are still going to fly regardless of the hidden fees, so there is little incentive there for the airlines to back down. Travel sites, on the other hand, depend on providing consumers with convenience and value. If consumers can no longer trust the ticket prices that they find there, then they simply won't bother with them anymore.

In short, consumer behavior isn't going to change, and airlines have no reason to change. Travel sites have the most to lose from these fees and the greatest ability to cause a change. If this trend is going to reverse, it has to come from them.

</comment><comment><USER3> The government is a big part of the problem. The airlines can't do much to control the ground experience in government airports. That's where the security hassles, bag delays, long lines, and uncomfortable waits occur. The airlines could better differentiate themselves if they had more control over the total travel experience.

Also, did you know that the US blocks foreign ownership of airlines? That capital and competition would help too.

<comment><USER4> Except that the example given was Air Canada, which the last time I checked was indeed a foreign-owned airline. This is a global problem right now, and it's based on fundamental economics. Airlines are selling a commodity product in a competitive market at a time where operation costs are rising steeply. You can't "compete" your way out of that. Things won't stabilize until flight pricing comes to equilibrium again.

<comment><USER5> It seems to me that, for one reason or another, airlines that fly _to_ the US have to adopt the US' draconian pre-flight policies in order to be allowed to make the trips.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was checking flights recently and found that a one-way trip to London would cost $950. For both flights of a round-trip it would cost $750. Both plus taxes of course.

It is cheaper for me to book a round trip and just not take the return flight then to fly one way. Huh?

<comment><USER7> It's an attempt at price discrimination by the airlines.

If you are moving to London for the long term, you'll pay $950 without thinking about it. If you are going on vacation, you might be price sensitive. It worked much better before the internet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I had a pretty horrible experience with an airline recently (I won't regale y'all) and it has had me thinking about ways to fix air travel in the US. I had a few ideas on how an outside company might help, but I don't think they're actually tenable. Will it take the collapse of several major airlines for someone on the "inside" to fix stuff? The article posted here a while ago about Alaskan was pretty heartening.

</comment><comment><USER9> One of the worst thing about airline fees is that online searches on travel sites don't always reflect required fees, such as international fuel surcharges. This makes price rankings suspect, is unfair to airlines which are up-front about these costs or build them into the ticket price, and adds a burden to ordinary people, who have to hunt through the conditions to make sure the price is as advertised.

</comment><comment><USER10> What I don't understand about the airlines is the completely arbitrary weight limit/fee structure.

Why is it that if I have two bags, one weighing 60 lbs. and one weighing 40 lbs. do I get charged an excess weight fee; yet if both those bags weighed 50 lbs. I would incur no penalty.

One ticket agent explained the issue was related to fuel consumption, but charging me for my bag does not make the bag weigh less (and let's not mention my above point that the total weight of the bags -- if distributed evenly -- would cost me nothing extra).

Another has explained it as being an issue with weight distribution, but I'm sure if they put one heavy bag on the left (or front) for two light bags on the right (or back) that the overall weight would distribute fairly even (not exact, but this is a jet airliner not a game of Jenga).

Truly its sad that the airlines have to resort to such penny-pinching measures.

<comment><USER11> The thing that drives me mad is that if my bag is over 50lbs, I have to pay. Yet someone who weighs 200lbs (60 more than I do) can fly for the same price. You should be charged for total weight of the stuff you put on the airplane!

<comment><USER12> The thing that drives me mad is that if I want legroom, I have to pay. Yet someone who's short (feet shorter than I am) can get legroom for the same price. You should be charged for the total amount of legroom you get!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's funny that he mentions the TSA. It's true that the negative experience with them makes you think less of the airlines, even though logically you know it isn't their fault, in the same way that you blame Windows when an app bugs out.

But it doesn't make you think any less of any particular airline relative to their competition, because they all suffer from the same thing. Unless there's some legal way for an airline to circumvent the security lines (and I have to think there isn't or we'd already have that) there's no competitive disadvantage there.

</comment><comment><USER14> Is there any research being done into electric/hybrid airplanes?

In 20 years oil costs could make flying very unpractical.

<comment><USER15> "Hybrid" is a non-starter for an airplane. It spends 99% of its time running in the "sweet spot" of the turbine performance envelope, there are no starts and stops for which regenerative braking or a switch from the turbine to some sort of electrical propulsion would help. Electrical power is problematic because batteries and other forms of electrical energy storage still suck. There are solar-electric planes being developed for long-term station-keeping tasks, but they are slow and have almost no payload capacity.

Turbine jets are basically the best thing we know of for performing this specific task. We might be able to improve the fuel they are burning, but nothing is going to replace them for the next couple of decades at least.

<comment><USER4> The first paragraph is spot on, but the second is just wrong. Turbojets fly much faster than needed, for the convenience of the passengers. Drag goes as the square of speed, so per-distance fuel economy scales as the inverse of the trip time. One certainly can do much better than a turbojet simply by swapping the fan for a larger geared propeller and flying at half the speed.

<comment><USER16> Good freaking luck trying to sell half-speed flights. Maybe as part of a national security deal - less oil used for airline fuel due to slower flights in exchange for removing some painful, slow, ineffective security screening.

<comment><USER17> You'd never buy a half-speed flight. I'd buy a half-speed flight from Tampa to NYC if it were 2/3 the price of the jet flight. My poorer friends would buy the route on a 1/4 speed airship if it were cheap enough. People have different sensitivities to time vs. money.

<comment><USER18> I might even pay more for a trip by Zeppelin...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> OP overlooks one critical counterexample: Southwest Airlines.

They are excellent. They pretty much blow everyone else away. I won't fly anyone else anymore.

Why?

\- I can buy one way tickets and get full credit back anytime

\- They are very often on time

\- Customer service is excellent, they are upbeat and positive

\- The website is excellent

\- Their prices are very competitive

\- I can choose my own seat away from the children and talkers

My advice to any other airline: Figure out what Southwest is doing and do that too. Stop complaining and looking for government bailouts. If one airline can be successful (60+ consecutive profitable quarters, growth, and raving fans), more than one can do it.

<comment><USER20> Up to now, it has not hurt them in their fuel hedging:

<http://www.247wallst.com/2007/04/southwest_airli.html>

<comment><USER21> Yep, enjoy it while it lasts. A good chunk of their profits comes from that hedging, so when they have to redo their agreements, the belt will probably tighten.

<comment><USER22> I wouldn't be so sure. Even after 9/11, Southwest had minimal layoffs. Source: <http://tinyurl.com/5mbq9y>

While I certainly agree that fuel hedging has played a large role in their current short-term profitability, there's a lot more at work than well timed utilization of financial derivatives.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: I'm starting a new job and am concerned about intellectual property - <AUTHOR> Hi HN,<p>I'm the average programmer who is able to able to make code run. I recently got a new job (retail and not directly related to software development) and I signed an intellectual property agreement. While reading through it, I pretty much summed up that the company I'm joining will be the owner of any IP that I create from here on out. Can you guys share your stories and advice? <comment><USER4> I had a similar thing a few years ago. I asked my boss to get it clarified, which they did. However, he told me that the lawyers laughed and said I was doing myself a disservice, as the original agreement was so loose that it would have never been enforceable.

<comment><USER5> Most such clauses are unenforceable at the end of the day, but it doesn't make it any more fun to fight the fight, against an organization that has far more resources and a lot less to use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Where do you live?... if in California they put it in contracts all the time but its void unless extremely blatant meaning you literally are stealing code or leveraging your employment to compete directly against your employer.

I used to have a very seasoned colleague who used to say you cant steal code but once you move on you can always rewrite it. In other words, the skills and expertise you learn on the job are always your own intellectual property (in California at least). Knowing his experience Im pretty sure he's done this, gone through the legal gamut, and come out fine.

<comment><AUTHOR> I live in California. Well I'd like to develop apps/software on the side, and I was told to list things that I made as inventions.

<comment><USER6> I wouldnt worry too much about it but if you still are, pay for an hour or two with a Lawyer. The cases where you DO NEED to talk to a Lawyer or your employer are if your current projects compete with your employers. Sometimes this is obvious, sometimes not. Employer makes accounting software and you make first person shooters - not a problem. Employer makes strategy games for the app store and you make first person shooters for the app store - <USER2> want to consult a Lawyer. As long as you are doing it on your own time, with your own equipment and it is not in your employers direct line of business - there is nothing to talk about if residing in California.

Additionally if your projects are somewhat aligned with your employers projects get them to sign something before you join - its your best time to negotiate this. Another alternative is to cross out any lines you dont like in your employee contract (although it may ruin the employment contract) - <USER3> cross out a significant amount in my employment contracts and usually dont hear much about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The quick & easy way to handle things like this is to cross out that clause on the agreement and initial next to it, then sign the document.

From that point on, if they want to make a thing of it, it's them making a thing, not you. Chances are they won't.

</comment><comment><USER8> The usual statement is that any IP you create on company time using company resources will belong to the company. Any IP you create on your own time will, likely, be outside the scope.</comment>


Nuget.org is down - <AUTHOR> http://www.nuget.org

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://twitter.com/nuget](https://twitter.com/nuget)

</comment><comment><USER2> Don't link to it from a high traffic site then. Flagged.</comment>


Who Goes Nazi? (1941) - <AUTHOR> https://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/?single=1 <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11053415](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11053415)

</comment><comment><USER3> _Nazism has nothing to do with race and nationality. It appeals to a certain type of mind._

It's not Nazism that should occupy the thoughts of intellectuals. It's the underlying psychology of the in-group/out-grouping and jingoism. There's nothing qualitatively exceptional about Nazis. They were just one point in a spectrum of behavior within the range of possible human behaviors. The challenge to society is that society itself is made out of the psychology of human group cohesion. We are immersed in such psychology, and taught almost from birth to regard such things as akin to ground truth.

As 21st century intellectuals, we need even more to be self-aware of how such group psychology distorts our perception of reality.

<comment><USER4> What you propose is inherently paradoxical and irrational.

You say people (or intellectuals, at least) should make a conscious effort to avoid the psychology and biases of in-group/out-grouping.

But what you are proposing is simply the creation of another in-group: "those of us who don't in-group," contrasted with the new out-group of "those who do in-group and out-group."

You advocate for everyone to join your in-group of "non-in-groupers," and condemn the out-groupers, those not aligned with your prescription for correct behavior -- exactly as all in-groupers have done before you, and precisely what you claim to be deploring.

It is thus a wholly and profoundly self-contradictory proposition, which cannot be admitted as logical or rational.

<comment><USER5> _But what you are proposing is simply the creation of another in-group: "those of us who don't in-group," contrasted with the new out-group of "those who do in-group and out-group."_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29)

 _You advocate for everyone to join your in-group of "non-in-groupers," and condemn the out-groupers, those not aligned with your prescription for correct behavior -- exactly as all in-groupers have done before you, and precisely what you claim to be deploring._

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

 _It is thus a wholly and profoundly self-contradictory proposition, which cannot be admitted as logical or rational._

Ironically, this conclusion rests on nothing but logical fallacies.

<comment><USER4> The parent comment proposes that Nazis as such are not the actual problem, that Nazis are merely an extreme case of typical in-group/out-group behavior, and that "21st century intellectuals" need to avoid all the badness of Nazis by being more aware of their own in-group biases.

The first proposition is then not a non sequitur at all: it is simply a restatement of the original poster's view that certain people ought to be more aware of their in-grouping bias.

Even if the proposal had not been explicitly limited to "21st century intellectuals," this explicitly calls for the differentiation of people into "those who are aware of their in-group bias" and "those who are not aware of their in-group bias." The point I made follows even more strongly from the explicit qualification of "21st century intellectuals": the original post is stating directly that 21st century intellectuals ought to act a certain desired way -- that is, forming an in-group with a certain sociall prescribed norm of belief. It indeed follows from this that not only all people who do not adhere to the "be aware of your in-group bias" proposal, but indeed all people who are not intellectuals, form an out-group.

I believe this explanation of how my reprhasing correctly restates the original proposition adequately addresses the "straw man" point, as well.

<comment><USER5> _' The first proposition is then not a non sequitur at all: it is simply a restatement of the original poster's view that certain people ought to be more aware of their in-grouping bias.'_

No, it isn't a restatement. You make the (new) claim that "being more aware of one's own bias" creates another in-group, but it _does not follow_ that this is your opponents position. You made no argument as to _why_ this would be the case, either.

 _' Even if the proposal had not been explicitly limited to "21st century intellectuals," this explicitly calls for the differentiation of people into "those who are aware of their in-group bias" and "those who are not aware of their in-group bias."'_

This is _your_ claim. Even if it was accepted (which I will do for the sake of argument), you did not make an argument on how this logically invalidates the original proposition, which merely calls for awareness and _doesn 't_ claim that in-grouping _itself_ is to be avoided, or that it is avoidable at all. Your proposed in-group that mandates awareness of (various) in-group biases would _also_ call for awareness about its own biases. This is not paradoxical, at all.

 _' I believe this explanation of how my reprhasing correctly restates the original proposition adequately addresses the "straw man" point, as well.'_

It does not. In your "straw man", you misrepresent your opponents view in quite strong terms, accusing them of "condemning" those who do not belong to an in-group that _you_ (not your opponent) defined. This accusation holds no ground whatsoever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nazism, Communism, Islamism. What makes mind viruses take control of societies and use human hosts to battle other mind viruses in an effort to build an organization to propagate the ideas?

I view it in an epidemiological context. Yes, there is a certain susceptibility in the human mind, but we have much bigger second-order effects when it comes to groups of people, and organizations. Our own ideology is Liberal Democracy, which is more tolerant of multiculturalism. But the "psychology of the masses" can be a dangerous thing. It can cause a flint (three teenagers being kidnapped in West Bank) to escalate into a flame (war in Gaza where 1500 civilians die), or via escalating reprisals where "refugees" rape women and mobs of hooligans raid peaceful refugees, and so forth.

Human life is often lost in the greatest amounts when one ideology is "completing its revolution". Whether it is the Holodomor or China's Three Terrible Years man made famines, or the persecution of Falun Gong, the rights of human beings take a backseat to ideology. That's what I find to be most dangerous politically.

Although I fear actual viruses, bacteria, overpopulation and world-ending events more, an inflexible ideology + power is a pretty terrible combination.

</comment><comment><USER7> Very interesting to hear this from a contempory standpoint. Nazis as so often portrayed as purely evil that it's difficult to think of them as real people that willingly accepted that way of thinking.

<comment><USER8> This is my biggest beef with most WWII movies/games. They most horrifying aspect of Nazis, Fascists, and tyrants is that they're made up and supported by real people. People with loved ones just trying to get by in the world.

Given the right conditions, it genuinely seems that any culture or peoples could be turned into a place where concentration camps, genocide, and oppression are just part of making the trains run on time.

<comment><USER9> The Wave, a novel[1] and film[2] explores this idea and is great reading/watching. I really wish it were part of high school English or history classes since it provides some real insight into how these kinds of movements start -- once you've seen it, you can almost recognize the signs anywhere, even in yourself, as long as you keep an open mind.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_(novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_\(novel\))

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_(2008_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_\(2008_film\))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe."

\--Tom Wolfe

</comment><comment><USER11> Who goes Trump?

</comment><comment><USER12> The anti-Nazi propaganda always reads so much like the pro-Nazi propaganda. Good, honest, beautiful, happy people think like this...

<comment><USER13> Did you actually read the article? I wouldn't call it propaganda.

<comment><USER14> It is deeply conservative, possibly even royalist. Do you think propaganda has to be unsubtle? This is just appealing to a different audience than Rosie the Riveter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Dupe: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11053415](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11053415)

TLDR: anyone that is either poor and afraid of communism or is driven by social acceptance (ie. nearly everyone) would be strongly tempted to join the nazis. Anyone poor who isn't stupid would be "purged", but would likely still join.

</comment><comment><USER16> Even when specifically attempting to refrain from doing so, it's impossible to speak of Nazi Germany without resorting to simplifying them into cartoon evil or as a moral object lesson from which to derive meaningful instruction and insight. The terrible truth is they were entirely normal people who followed an entirely normal path of self-interest. There is nothing remarkable about them and no special insight into human nature to be learned. The Nazis were a reaction against the rise of Marxist Communism, a terrifying spectre already responsible for genocide at the time of the party's founding, and with whom many party members had engaged with directly during the turmoil after WWI.

That Marxist Communism had taken hold of Russia largely through the efforts of outsiders was not lost on the Nazis and their distrust and fear of anyone not truly German was entirely sensible. That among these outsiders Jews played an inordinately large role was a commonly understood meme of the day. (And when looking at the Bolshevik leadership and financial backers, it is an unassailable fact, though it's currently heresy to say so.) German Jews during the party's rise were also an inordinately powerful group in German industry, finance, and media. Given the context, it was not irrational to seek to remove a minority group with questionable loyalties from such positions and prevent them from retaking them.

Throw in a Weimar period of social degeneracy and economic upheaval along with the rest of the world laying blame upon your people as being solely responsible for one of the greatest calamities experienced by western civilization and a nationalistic party that emphasized the inherent strength and value of the nation's ethnic stock was exactly what the German people needed to regain their dignity. The only lesson to be learned from the Nazis is that war should be avoided at all costs. The corollary being that if you are to fight a war, make sure you will prevail else your nation will be raped and split up and your people will be treated for the next century as though they were the greatest evil that has ever been visited upon the Earth. (And no one will learn anything from it.)

<comment><USER13> It's not too often I see /pol/-speak (or /pol/ usernames) on HN.

>German Jews during the party's rise were also an inordinately powerful group in German industry, finance, and media.

The German Communist Party had a very low percentage of Jewish membership. The Weimar KPD was only 0.7% Jewish in 1927. At the end of the Weimar republic, only about 1.5% of all officers were Jewish, and only one of the leaders was Jewish (Heinz Neumann). A year later, Hitler gained power, and there were no longer any Jewish leaders of the party.

Judeo-Bolshevism is a myth no matter how you look at it. There is sometimes a disproportionate amount of Jewish representation in certain movements around the world, but these can be explained by factors other than conspiracy.

You could say that Nazism was, in part, a reaction to the spread of communism. But it was an irrational overreaction, and also partly a pretext for Hitler's overall racial and societal ideals. Hitler would have still wanted to implement much of his plans even if communism never existed in the East. He just would have been likely to rise to power.

<comment><USER16> The central role Jews played in the ideological formation and implementation of Bolshevism cannot be denied. Hand-waving about a "conspiracy theory" will not change the ethnicity of Lenin, Trotsky, Kamenev, Sokolnikov, or Zinoviev (five of the seven members of the first Politburo) nor that of Sverdlov (first Communist party leader and progenitor of the Red Terror) nor of the many Jews who rushed to join the Cheka (the majority in certain regions) to carry out atrocities against the Russian and then Soviet populace. (Not to mention the significance of, oh, Marx.) The financial contribution of financiers like Jacob Schiff, likely though it seems, is the only aspect that lies in the realm of the unproven. Referring to those who point out the facts as "conspiracy theorists" is a disingenuous response solely intended to deflect attention from reality and again marginalize and dismiss the Nazis as "irrational" moustache-twirling villains. You don't have to prove a "conspiracy" among the participants every time you apprehend a trend among a given population group for the trend to be true in a heuristic sense.

<comment><USER13> I actually think it is fair to portray nearly all of the Nazi and Soviet leadership as villains. Just for somewhat different reasons.

>You don't have to prove a "conspiracy" among the participants every time you apprehend a trend among a given population group for the trend to be true in a heuristic sense.

Sure you do. Listing facts like these is only done because it comes with implicit accusations about intent and/or genetic flaws. Also, ad hominem though it may be, I am 99% certain you support Hitler and sing his praises on places like /pol/.

It is true that many of the initial leaders in the Bolshevik movement were Jewish and the Cheka had heavy Jewish representation for a while (though this was greatly reduced under Stalin). However, presenting those facts alone does not convey the full picture. For example, the fact that many Jews were killed by the Bolsheviks, sometimes by ethnic Russiand and sometimes by other ethnic Jews. Or that pretty much none of the Jewish founders identified with Judaism ethnically or religiously and refused to abide by Jewish traditions, instead favoring a secular united philosophy with the rest of the country).

The only reason to present those facts as you have is to imply either some sort of conspiracy, or some sort of inherent moral failing within all Jews which the Nazis justifiably "defended themselves" from.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Findie: Lean back and explore the world's best cinematic videos - <AUTHOR> http://www.producthunt.com/tech/findie <comment><USER2> on PH , good job</comment>


Leonard Nimoy narrates about NASA's Dawn mission (video) - <AUTHOR> http://www.openculture.com/2013/01/leonard_nimoy_narrates_short_film_about_nasas_dawn_a_voyage_to_the_origins_of_the_solar_system.html

<comment><AUTHOR> FYI, Dawn has an Ion engine.</comment>


What is the most correct way to validate an e-mail address? - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-correct-way-to-validate-an-e-mail-address

<comment><USER2> PHP makes it pretty easy:

      if (filter_var($email, FILTER_VALIDATE_EMAIL)) {
        $emailvalid = 1;
      }

<comment><USER3> <http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=43402> claims PHP is using an unmaintained regexp that gives incorrect results.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I used one of those "close" regexes last time I needed to do this in C#. I believe I went with

        ^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.(?:[A-Z]{2,4}|museum)$

<comment> mike-cardwell firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment></comment><comment> mike-cardwell Do not roll your own. Use a library. You will miss stuff.</comment>


Some defiant US churches plan Easter services, ignoring public health guidelines - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-easter-usa-idUSKCN21S10Y <comment><USER2> All: Flamewar of any flavor is off topic here. If the indignation/information ratio of your forthcoming comment is high, please self-isolate until signal/noise returns at least to normal.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Finding the worst crackpots and giving them a platform is not good journalism. Instead, Reuters should be reaching out to the >> 99% of churches that are sane and finding out what they're doing to help people being affected by the virus and recession.

... but interviewing sane people doesn't generate clicks.

<comment><USER4> South Korea's initial big spike in cases came from a single superspreader going to a religious gathering. It's not unreasonable to highlight the potential for that here.

<comment><USER5> Have you read much about the religious gathering to understand whether it is similar to a normal church service?

<comment><USER6> I'm not familiar with South Korean church practices, but there is an instance of a choir practice in the US that spread COVID-19 fairly effectively. This suggests that singing, a common practice in US churches (in my experience), spreads the disease. An article on the event reports that the choir members attempted to distance themselves from each other and use hand sanitizer.

[https://nypost.com/2020/03/30/washington-choir-rehearsal- tur...](https://nypost.com/2020/03/30/washington-choir-rehearsal-turns-deadly- after-coronavirus-kills-2/)

<comment><USER5> The members also averaged 63 years old, right in the most likely age group to catch the virus.

<comment><USER7> The South Korean cult church had tons of people in their 20s, and they got the virus all the same.

Being young just means they don't _die_ easily, but they are quite capable of catching the virus and spreading to others who may die more easily.

<comment><USER5> that was a mass, tightly packed congregation

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Maybe they should take a little wisdom from Isaiah (20:26):

> Go, my people, enter your rooms and shut the doors behind you; hide > yourselves for a little while until his wrath has passed by.

<comment><USER9> And Matthew 6:5-6

> And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray > standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. > Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you > pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is > unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

<comment><USER10> The whole point is to consume communion Easter night, you can't do this at home.

<comment><USER11> How important is communion in those churches? From what I can see none of them are Anglican, orthodox, or Roman Catholic. They're all evangelical Protestant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Can we all agree that even though the freedom of assembly is constitutionally protected right, it is a stupid idea to exercise it during a pandemic?

<comment><USER13> Personally I think it's a stupid idea to worship in general, but within the context of a believer who believes that God blesses them for good actions and loves them, perhaps they feel like God will protect them. Or if they do die, they'll be rewarded handsomely for being true believers and dying as martyrs.

<comment><USER14> They obviously haven't considered that maybe they'll be punished in the afterlife for knowingly endangering others for the sake of their own perceived salvation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "...a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;"

Ecclesiastes 3:5

The whole of Ecclesiastes is especially good in tough times. The book itself has many stoic qualities. But this part, Ecclesiastes 3:1-8, rings so true right now:

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:

a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; a time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.

Now is the time to refrain from embracing.

</comment><comment><USER16> Texas still allows churches to meet in size of 50, declaring it an essential service, while abortion clinics have been closed.

</comment><comment><USER17> Trouble is that singing in a confined space is an _excellent_ recipe for spreading coronavirus. One early hotspot in a rural area, totally unequipped to deal with the scale of the outbreak, was Albany, GA, where someone brought the virus to a funeral service. Dougherty County (~ 90000 inhabitants) is now at 1062 cases, when surrounding counties have maybe 50 or 100 cases. Chambers County (~ 30000 citizens) in Alabama has 168 cases, traceable to a church.

Permitting the God-tempters to carry on is madness. It must be permitted for physicians to say "Fuck off and die, leave civilized society alone".

</comment><comment><USER18> Entrants in this year's Darwin Awards.

</comment><comment><USER19> They can have services and still respect social distancing just like the supermarkets. Let's not get crazy here with the authoritarianism.

<comment><USER20> Then why can't all business just be open and "respect social distancing" as you claim?

I guess next you'll tell me a church is a vital business like a grocery store.

<comment><USER21> This made me laugh out loud. Early this afternoon I walked by a local church on the way to do some shopping and there was a group of 8 or 9 people kneeling in front of it praying. They were holding signs with various slogans, one of which said exactly that: Churches are vital business.

I should mention this is a Catholic church that serves the Eucharist during every mass where multiple people hand out wafers to eat, using their bare hands. [edit: grammar and additions]

<comment><USER11> Catholicism has a long storied history, so there are provisions for almost everything.

I remember in school learning that if you were on shipwrecked on a desert island, you or anyone else could perform sacraments yourself and they would count just as well as if they were done by a priest.

This is the practice of "spiritual communion". In modern times, it has most notably been used where a person is sick, or otherwise inaccessible to a priest (e.g. stuck in a mine shaft or on an oil rig or in space). This is currently what the Catholic Pope is promoting.

There is also a happy debate going on about if you can perform sacraments via the internet. There is nothing liturgical about distance to the participant. The rules regarding sacraments are more about intention and who is performing it. _Some_ priest believe that physical presence is always unimportant, but our slow moving Papacy takes a more conservative stance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> On the one hand:

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..

Through the 14th amendment, this also applies to the states.

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

On the other hand, it is not a suicide pact.

And yet, on the other hand, it seems unlikely that a state will be able to defend a blanket prohibition against all religious gatherings of any kind. What if, for example, a church were to assemble and maintain social distancing?

And yet, on the other other hand, it seems like a really bad idea for a church to make a point of exercising their rights at this time.

I Cor 8:11

But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.

<comment><USER23> I feel like we have to let the churches do what they want here. They're being totally reckless and people are going to die because of it–but I think the implications of stopping them would be even worse long-term.

<comment><USER24> What are the worse long-term implications than people dying?

<comment><USER25> Losing First Amendment rights?

<comment><USER26> There is absolutely zero long term risk of any such thing. Especially not for Christians in the United States.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> As a Pastafarian, it is interesting to me that folks are justifying their behavior based on delusional historical beliefs. I am now brainstorming how the Satanists might reply to this; they are keen to examine poor Christian behavior and satirize it [0][1][2][3].

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

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

[2] [https://protectchildrenproject.com/](https://protectchildrenproject.com/)

[3] [https://apnews.com/6addf2f0ecb646919cb1cfcfdacfc6c1](https://apnews.com/6addf2f0ecb646919cb1cfcfdacfc6c1)</comment>


Trump's cybersecurity tsar Giuliani hacked, passwords leaked - <AUTHOR> https://www.scmagazine.com/giuliani-and-top-trump-white-house-officials-hacked-passwords-leaked/article/632676/ <comment><USER2> [https://www.channel4.com/news/trump-cyber-tsar-giuliani- amon...](https://www.channel4.com/news/trump-cyber-tsar-giuliani-among- swathes-of-hacked-top-appointees)

Original investigative report that the linked article mentions. This version gives some more information, including that the leaked passwords were from mass breaches like those from LinkedIn and MySpace, not targeted attacks.

Unfortunately, it's still light on details as to which accounts may have reused passwords, whether the passwords in question were _still_ in use, etc. This would be interesting to know from a "which staffers know what they're doing and which don't" point.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the channel 4 link.

The (scarce) details are anyway enough to understand how essentially it is clickbait, in those massive hacks millions of passwords were found, it is not so improbable that they affected also some of the now appointed people.

As you pointed out without knowing if those people still use those leaked passwords for _some_ accounts they may have _somewhere_ the article is essentially non-news.

I am a bit surprised that Troy Hunt _somehow_ gave such "alarming" statements of purely speculative nature, in a nutshell:

let's say that ... and if ... and if ... potentially we have a problem ...</comment></comment>


Show HN: Online SMS (Weekend Project - Week 2) - <AUTHOR>

Having launched Online SMS last week after 8 hours of work, I enhanced the product some more this week  and released an update today. Please send me your feedback/advice. Here are the links
Online SMS Android App https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.fauzism.onlinesms
Online SMS Website http://sms.fauzism.com
App Code on Github https://github.com/spicavigo/onlinesms_android
Server Code on Github https://github.com/spicavigo/onlinesms_server
First blog post http://fauzism.com/post/37587975976/once-upon-a-saturday
Second blog post http://fauzism.com/post/38055171351/life-of-fy
I would really appreciate your feedback/advice here.
Thanks <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable Links Online SMS Android App [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.fauzism.on...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.fauzism.onlinesms)

Online SMS Website <http://sms.fauzism.com>

App Code on Github <https://github.com/spicavigo/onlinesms_android>

Server Code on Github <https://github.com/spicavigo/onlinesms_server>

First blog post <http://fauzism.com/post/37587975976/once-upon-a-saturday>

Second blog post <http://fauzism.com/post/38055171351/life-of-fy></comment>


Neurological Implications of Covid-19 Raise Concerns - <AUTHOR> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-new-brain/202004/neurological-implications-covid-19-raise-concerns <comment> _-_T_-_ Doubts have been raised about the validity of this hypothesis - [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmv.25828](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmv.25828)</comment>


B-Ber: a framework for publications as websites, EPUBs, etc. - <AUTHOR> https://www.canopycanopycanopy.com/series/did_you_get_the_l/contents/working-on-our-thoughts <comment><USER2> At the risk of appearing dense : what the fuck ? I click on the click I get a bright pink page with barely 20 words telling me nothing ? Not one link in sight or a paragraph of text ? Just an ocean of bright pink ?

<comment><USER3> I missed a tiny arrow on the bottom. This led me to wonder why they felt the need to break scrolling. Maybe it's less obvious on other platforms.

<comment><USER2> Ok. I see it. On a 27 inch screen it is _very_ easy to miss. It is positively _tiny_ and very far off any point of interest.

<comment><USER4> On mobile it also has a tiny touch area and they don't support swipe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Constructive criticism but the UI on this site is really really confusing. Took me two minutes to figure out that I have to use keyboard nav and that there is one tiny button on the bottom right to go to the next page.

You don't want to invent completely new UI paradigms when the old ones work well and users are accustomed to them.

</comment><comment><USER6> TLDR: "a method and an application for producing publications in a variety of formats—EPUB 3, Mobi/KF8, static website, PDF, and XML file, which can be imported into InDesign for print layouts—from a single source that consists of [Markdown] files and other assets." [https://github.com/triplecanopy/b-ber](https://github.com/triplecanopy/b-ber)

<comment> 52-6F-62 From the publishing industry: it sounds a little like it's trying to overwrite existing workflows. Many of the teams involved in producing a long-lived publication have built their industry around said workflows.

Many of the teams that still work in print _start_ in print/InDesign.

A major problem that needs solved is parsing that format or a related export format to a convertible raw data format that forgoes some of the noise that can exist in old, reused InDesign and InCopy templates.

A streamlined workflow is very much needed in the industry, but with reduced staffing levels and string-thin budgets you won't have much success trying to completely change their workflows—never mind flipping them end-over-end.

Print files are often designed first and the copy is often modified to fit the design—at least where appropriate. Otherwise, InCopy is already XML that can be dropped into print files or exported and walked to convert it to plain HTML/ePUB/Markdown/whatever.

I can understand the motivation, but after years in publishing this might be better suited to a digital-first pub than anybody who goes anywhere near print. Those teams have enough overhead to manage! They want solutions, not corrections, to their needs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> One issue I see, is not having customisation for pages. This is standard on book readers and I can't read books with a white background. Also find the text size frustrating.

</comment><comment> Iwan-Zotow Markup language shall be called J-stin

</comment><comment><USER8> Pandoc?

<comment><USER9> I had the same thought. I suppose one main difference is this project's focus on importability for Adobe InDesign.</comment></comment>


Sirius – Open Source Siri/Cortana Alternative for Linux - <AUTHOR> http://clarity-lab.org/claritube/introducing-sirius/

<comment><USER2> Sirius would be a cool name if Siri didn't exist.

I'm just imagining if Linux was called something like Winds. It makes the whole thing look like a cheap copy of the original.

Sorry, I can't take that sirius. Change the name!

<comment><USER3> That was my first reaction as well. It's also bad because of Sirius radio.

Seriously (pun intended), come up with your own name!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Cached version: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:siBjE2U...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:siBjE2UmVPQJ:clarity- lab.org/claritube/introducing-sirius/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk)

They also link to this paper: [http://clarity-lab.org/wp-content/papercite- data/pdf/hauswal...](http://clarity-lab.org/wp-content/papercite- data/pdf/hauswald15asplos.pdf)

It describes the system as a hidden Markov model combined with either a deep neural network or a Gaussian mixture model which compute the probability of state transitions, based on which the Viterbi algorithm computes the most likely path in the tree, a sentence.

</comment><comment><USER5> Whilst this is a great idea which I look forward to watching progress, Sirius doesn't seem like the best name for this. It's very close to an existing industry product in the same category and Apple certainly don't hold back in trademark litigation.

<comment><USER6> Also don't forget the satellite radio service that merged with XM radio. [1]

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

<comment><USER7> Well, this is more distant. If we're at it, it is also the name of a particle accelerator in Brazil: [http://www.lightsources.org/news/2015/02/21/sirius-%E2%80%93...](http://www.lightsources.org/news/2015/02/21/sirius-%E2%80%93-new- brazilian-synchrotron-light-source)

<comment><USER6> It doesn't matter in the US. A large company will take you through the ringer if there is any possibility of confusion even if they may not have a claim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> some previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9204954](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9204954)

I'm really curious how well this works. If it does, it sounds like a great starting point for building your own speech control systems -> most other open-source solutions rely on online speech recognition services (mostly google's)

<comment><USER9> Given all speech recognition systems except Google's kind of suck, I'm going to guess it doesn't work very well.

You need a huge training database and a priori information (i.e. what are people likely to be saying; think Google autocomplete) to do it really well. They have neither.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I notice an almost accidental reference to the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.

[http://hitchhikersguidetoearth.wikia.com/wiki/Sirius_Cyberne...](http://hitchhikersguidetoearth.wikia.com/wiki/Sirius_Cybernetics_Corporation)

</comment><comment><USER11> I wish they'd use a standard build system and not a bunch of home-made unportable scripts, so it would be a bit easier to give this thing a try.

[https://github.com/jhauswald/sirius](https://github.com/jhauswald/sirius)

</comment><comment><USER12> Has anyone tried this installing on their laptops and checked how it works?

I use OSX and some installation FAQ would have been nice for me. Even after reading multiple times, I can't understand whether I should install Sirius or Sirius Suite.

</comment><comment><USER13> nice name: sirius = siri + us

I like this effort a lot, and I think it would be really interesting to fork it and make a personal version that people could customize with their own information and thought processes.

This is my favorite aspect of the university system; I have no problems with innovation through free market capitalism and profit motive, but its nice that there is university infrastructure to support researchers and provide balance for the times when profit motive is not enough. It is a shame that many aspects of university have just become glorified vocational school debt machines.

</comment><comment><USER14> Any opinion on Kaldi vs RASR? (their open speech recognition technologies)

</comment><comment><USER15> Looks like they got too much traffic due to Hn :/ [http://i.imgur.com/A2K9mDr.png](http://i.imgur.com/A2K9mDr.png)

</comment><comment><USER16> Why so Sirius?

Sorry, couldn't resist.</comment>


Stamps for UX designers to create flow diagrams - <AUTHOR> https://uxstamps.com/ <comment><USER2> I recommend making it clear that the currency is HKD. Otherwise I was under impression that it costs 170 USD until I went to checkout to see "Total HKD $170.00".</comment>


Show HN: Self-destructing Tweets - <AUTHOR> http://daytweet.com I made this in about 2 hours and live-streamed it to a bunch of people on Twitch. I have a very basic 'framework' to get smaller projects like these up and running quickly:
https://github.com/mittermayr/instantpuma
Would be interested to see other ideas to add to that.
Runs on NGINX/PUMA/RUBY/SINATRA/ERB <comment><AUTHOR> I made this in about 2 hours and live-streamed it to a bunch of people on Twitch to demonstrate that not every project needs to be a week-long endeavour. I have a very basic 'framework' to get smaller projects like these up and running quickly:

[https://github.com/mittermayr/instantpuma](https://github.com/mittermayr/instantpuma)

Would be interesting to see other ideas you guys might think make sense to add to that.

Runs on NGINX/PUMA/RUBY/SINATRA/ERB</comment>


iPhone 6s is really bad news for carriers - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/iphone-6s-really-bad-news-carriers-christian-schuh <comment><USER2> It isn't as bad as this makes it seem. The carriers around here, at least have already started similar plans. Though I was shocked at first, I then noticed similar leased-like-phone deals being offered by carriers.</comment>


How Should the U.S. Fund Research and Development? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/us-research-and-development/477435/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> A lot of scientific studies (some funded by grants) are never tested through replication, even though that's a core part of the process.

Replication is the unsexy grunt work that makes science reliable, but it usually doesn't make anyone famous (or necessarily even get them tenure), because it's not bleeding edge work creating or advancing new theories.

Maybe the government should treat this like a market failure and generously fund replication studies.

Planet Money on the replication issue: [http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/01/15/463237871/episo...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/01/15/463237871/episode-677-the- experiment-experiment)

Replication crisis (wikipedia): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis)

<comment><USER3> To be fair, scientists by and large understand the need of replication, and evaluation in general. It's just in certain fields (e.g. psychology) or circumstances with human subjects, it's very expensive or even infeasible to have well controlled repeated experiments.

<comment><USER4> If you don't have well controlled, repeatable experiments (a.k.a. the scientific method) are you actually doing science? I think we should come up with another word for these types of one-off studies.

<comment><USER5> Many fields advance without solid well controlled, repeatable experiments, at least through various stages of development: cosmology, geology, most of medicine, philosophy, science of mind, etc. You don't consider those all "science"?

There's more to science than Bacon.

<comment><USER6> Those fields have scientific and non-scientific components. The non-scientific parts are not science.

<comment><USER5> Your statement is tautological. You might want to read up on epistemology and the philosophy of science -- I would start with Karl Popper. As I said, Bacon is not the definition of science.

Bizarrely, my unremarkable comment was downvoted!

<comment><USER6> > _Your statement is tautological_

You want to label fields that have both scientific components and non- scientific components (in varying proportions) as "science." The point of my statement is that some of those fields have scientific aspects, and there may be sub-fields I'd categorize as "science," but I wouldn't categorize the field as a whole as "science."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > computer networking

I've been in computing long enough to know that the first thing anyone does with 2 computers is to connect them together. The notion that nobody would have thought of it without Arpanet is absurd. People invented networking protocols ALL THE TIME before the internet. FidoNET, BIX, Prodigy, MCImail, AOL, RBBS, CompuServe, Kermit, The $25 Network, etc. Even I designed a scheme (I never got around to implementing it), even calling it "web" (!).

</comment><comment><USER3> I believe that whoever is in charge of federal funding in R&D will have to be extremely smart and balanced in his views because R&D plays a great role in the economy and future of this country. The right approach is a balanced between fundamental and applied research. And it's not just balanced but which areas to invest money into.

<comment><USER4> I think that the government would be better served to spend money researching fundamental science, that seems to me to be the great shortfall of industry.

Intel, Westinghouse, biotech in general, and Dow do a pretty good job on the applied piece IMHO.

<comment><USER3> >Intel, Westinghouse, biotech in general, and Dow do a pretty good job on the applied piece IMHO.

Private companies are in a great position to do applied research, but they are often slow or unwilling to distribute the research results for the benefit of everyone.

<comment><USER4> They actually do a good job of that as well, it's just that they do it in the form of patents which means that you have to pay to benefit from their work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think the question is bit biased. I think we should ask first if the idea of the fund itself is a good idea.

<comment><USER9> Since the times of Newton, science has always been funded by governments. Funding agencies are as much part of the real-world scientific process as The Hypothesis.

<comment><USER7> Not exclusively. Einstein wasn't.

<comment><USER9> He was a government employee in 1905 when he published special relativity, Brownian motion, and the photoelectric effect. This work was done while he was a student studying under a government-funded scientist. He was a full professor by the time he released general relativity.

<comment><USER7> He was a patent examiner. Not a government funded researcher.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> by letting free individuals decide what they want to fund?</comment>


Ask HN: Recommend me some undervalued music band - <AUTHOR> I listen to music 6 to 9 hours a day. Want to discover something new.<p>My top 3 undervalued musicians: 1. 8mm 2. HVOB 3. SPC ECO <comment><USER2> Diary of Dreams (one can start from album [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_of_18_Angels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_of_18_Angels))

</comment><comment><USER3> I always liked "tapping the vein", Heather Thompson's vocals are powerful, though I like their earlier album which isn't available, its on YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVu3Tk8QIew&list=RDEMLSpg0re...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVu3Tk8QIew&list=RDEMLSpg0repfIHS39cMM2ToNg&index=2)

Edit: WEI is another more recent artist thats nice to listen to while coding

Edit2: I like 8mm - havent tried the others yet

</comment><comment><USER4> 1) True Sounds of Liberty (Change Today is a good album) 2) Stan Rogers ("Take it from day to day" is a great song) 3) The Pharcyde ("Runnin" is a good song)

Not necisarily top, but three that come quickly to mind</comment>


Matt Brezina: No One Cares About Your Stupid Little Startup - <AUTHOR> http://www.slideshare.net/brezina/no-one-cares-about-your-stupid-little-startup <comment><USER2> This is all great stuff.

Be careful that you don't apply lessons too broadly. If you're selling high- dollar, recurring sales items into big business it might be enough to have 100 purchasing managers love you. You probably don't need a media blitz.

As an aside, not particularly related to this story, one of the drawbacks of learning from success is that every deck ends with how great things are. I wonder 1) if sometimes luck gets disguised and genius and 2) if it wouldn't be more useful to study failures than successes.

The commercial airline industry has a great safety record. They do this by meticulously taking apart every accident that happens. Too bad we don't do that in other fields.

<comment><USER3> _They do this by meticulously taking apart every accident that happens._

Well, the reason this works so well for airplanes is that the airplane used to work, and everybody knows exactly what a working airplane is supposed to look like.

In general, nobody has any idea what a working version of a failed startup would have looked like. There are too many ways to succeed, and so many chaotic events that affect the timeline in profound ways (imagine if the inventor of CP/M hadn't been out when IBM came to call...) that you can't really think about the various alternate histories without quickly running into a combinatorial explosion. So I think your metaphor is not very useful. ;)

<comment><USER4> Well, that used not to be the case, but the industry matured because they started doing that.

My uncle is an aerobatics pilot, and he says that the main reason aviation is so safe is due to the meticulous and ubiquitous use of check-lists. Every time there's an accident the intent is to analyse it so we can update the check- lists to prevent it from happening again.

You're right, we don't know what a successful startup should look like, but they didn't used to know what a safe 'plane was like. Because of the unrelenting analysis of crashes, we do now.

<comment><USER5> I think the point still stands though. Success and failure in airplane flight is very well defined, and the amount of human hours logged in designing, building, flying, and analysis of one single and clearly-defined (even if complex) task dwarfs the amount of resources available to startups (or any company for that matter).

Not only is the problem space nearly infinite in comparison to flight, but the "physics" governing business success change impossibly fast.

None of that is to say that we shouldn't study failures, but the question is which failures have widely applicable lessons? If you indulge me to abuse the analogy further, most startups are like those early flight attempts by people who jumped from high places wearing ridiculous balsa and fabric contraptions.

<comment><USER2> Let's not go immediately to extremes -- obviously some sort of things work better than some others. It's not as if there is no definition at all out there. Things like incremental releases, getting close to the customer, or wealth versus money are true no matter how your startup is configured or where it operates.

I think the analogy might best be put at the borderline between flying- chicken-man and the Sopwith. Obviously there are some folks that are flying, and flying reliably, obviously some things work and some things don't -- so now is the time to start writing it all down and sorting it out.

The problem is that we can't even see the airplanes of the folks who are flying -- we just get to hear the cool stories about how they got from point A to point B.

I look at places like DreamWorks which are able to capture "lightning in a bottle" over and over again or some of the serial entrepreneurs out there, and think that it is possible to take highly variable environments and put a _little_ bit of structure around them. Nowhere near as much as aviation, but like the other posters pointed out, the only reason we have that for aviation is that a lot of smoldering craters became somebody else's life lesson.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Enjoyed the slides for the most part. The importance of PR for startups cannot be overstated. Get out there, get to know people, go to conferences, talk to media, be personable. If you aren't this type of person, then hire one.

</comment><comment><USER7> I was on a flight so I wasn't able to respond. I actually have a much more indepth description of this preso on my blog

<http://www.mattbrezina.com/blog>

</comment><comment><USER8> A couple of lines I would change.

      slide 5 "added users from beta list when we needed lab rats"
      slide 10 "need business model to make sausage machine work."
      slide 19 "Journalists are lazy. Help them be lazy."

try

       added beta users as we could absorb their feedback
       <delete>
       journalists are busy, help them hit deadlines

<comment><USER9> Yeah, there goes all the fun.

<comment><USER8> I don't think it's useful to label journalists as lazy or beta users as lab rats. I am not trying to be politically correct: I think these terms can introduce an unconscious framing that's harmful, and these are not labels members of these groups would adopt for themselves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Really appreciated these slides, and the notes on your blog. On the charts, it'd be nice if the time scale were consistent. That 18 months of stealth looks like the same length of time as the 2 months of the 10k - 12k beta.

But the preso and notes are great. Thanks.

</comment><comment><USER11> Is there accompanying audio/video of the presentation? I always find just seeing the slides leaves a lot of gaps in my understanding of the presentation.

<comment><USER12> Agreed. Lots of things I couldn't quite connect to what they were saying? Particularly be a source of data section. But, this was a good topic.

<comment><USER13> From a PR perspective, if you're generating numbers/data that can be easily used in reports by journalists - they will be used. As the deck says, journalists are lazy. Being cited as a source because you provided the info in the most accessible fashion is great for PR and cements you as a recognizable authority.</comment></comment></comment>


Researchers find it's easy to hack traffic lights - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/08/researchers-find-its-terrifyingly-easy-to-hack-traffic-lights/ <comment><USER2> I remember seeing a talk at RSA a couple of years ago about the plausibility of the "Italian Job" type attack, where they make all the lights green and cause everyone to crash.. they said that sort of thing was impossible because there is a mechanical switch that prevents both lights from being green at the same time.

So at least an attacker couldn't cause those sorts of accidents, even if they could totally mess up the system.

<comment><USER3> This was true back in the mechanical era when a drum was used for control; you physically could not engage multiple directions as green at the same time. I do not believe this is the case now that control is done with software/firmware.

Example Controllers: [http://www.mccain- inc.com/controllers.html](http://www.mccain-inc.com/controllers.html)

<comment><USER4> The controllers may be able to order it but the lights are supposed to be wired so it's impossible. E.g. grounding the green lights thorugh the cross direction green lights so you can't illuminate green in all directions at once. Or something along those lines.

edit: s/opposite/cross/

<comment><USER5> It would make good sense to harden it against failure, which can come in any form (software, mechanical, etc)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Wireless_!? On traffic lights that presumably have to be connected to a power source anyway? It seems to me that the cost of running an additional network cable to each light (or even just sending the control through powerline networking) would be negligible, and it would prevent much of the attacks described - _physical_ "hacking" would be required, which is more difficult to do and easier to detect. This seems like yet another case of large increases in complexity (and thus attack area) for little to no benefit, as is all too common in systems these days.

<comment><USER7> Sometimes emergency vehicles need the ability to affect traffic lights.

I'm pretty sure I've seen this happen once (in NL), at an intersection with a very predictable traffic light sequence (some intersections use sensors, others simply follow a set pattern), an ambulance came by, sirens blaring, and the whole pattern pretty much skipped a "turn".

<comment><USER8> This has historically been accomplished by sensors on the lights and emergency vehicles flashing a specific pattern, not wifi.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Another method would be to setup a vehicle or box on the side of the road that emulated an emergency vehicle which instructed the light to change to green in the direction that you wanted it (could also be used to change lights to red if put in the perpendicular direction). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_signal_preemption](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_signal_preemption)

I'm not sure which method is most common. The wikipedia article says that IR, acoustic, visible lights, and GPS can be used to change the lights. It would be fun to experiment with different methods of changing them, but would undoubtedly be illegal.

Apparently it's not illegal federally to use these devices to change lights, it might be legal in some states.

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

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

<comment><USER10> In Troy MI they have infared traffic preemption. Michigan has a state law making it illegal to mess with them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> More than anything I'd love to use this to actually improve the way the lights are run downtown in my city. It's insane that they actually use them to make people spend longer in the downtown corp. (when one turns green, the next turns red, there is literally no flow to traffic and would be faster going through a number of stop signs.)

<comment><USER12> They do that to prevent speeding. If all the lights were green you might speed through the downtown core, where there are a lot of pedestrians.

<comment><USER13> Exactly. If you observe carefully, you'll notice that at night, when there's less traffic/pedestrians, most of those lights turn into green waves for anyone driving at or slightly above the speed limit.

Allowing green waves in a high traffic, high pedestrian downtown area would be lunacy.

<comment><USER14> NYC does exactly this. Green waves along the avenues to a certain point. Then 10 block chunks of green. Different approaches for different districts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm almost jealous. Back in my weekly Shadowrun cyberpunk roleplaying game, super-secure traffic light systems complicated a lot of our missions.

</comment><comment><USER16> This quote is pretty classic:

> According to the paper, the vendor responsible stated that it "has followed > the accepted industry standard and it is that standard which does not > include security."

Clearly, the 'vendor' lacks a PR team.

<comment><USER17> I bet they have one when they want to complain about the amount of red tape they have to deal with as part of the bidding process...

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The original paper is here: [https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/traffic- woot14.pdf](https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/traffic-woot14.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER19> I was under the assumption traffic signalling was so horrible because it was a simple timing based system.

Knowing they are all networked, accessible, and controllable from a central computer infuriates me, not because they are hackable, but because the software currently running them is so, so horrible. It's good ol' 'government' software.

<comment><USER20> Obligatory xkcd: [http://xkcd.com/277/](http://xkcd.com/277/).

That is, as a driver, one isn't in a position to judge whether traffic lights timing make sense, because they're optimized globally to ensure best traffic throughput in the whole city.

<comment><USER19> But as a software engineer, I can certainly say that comic is wrong.

After enough short sighted releases, mountains of technical debt, poor coding standards, and general apathy, I do not believe the engineer depicted in the comic is accurate. "Hours of simulation" and "took me a week to work out the timing sequences". No. No government paid software engineer spent a week working out the timing sequences. They hacked out something as quick as they could to meet the ridiculous deadline they were given, and then had a good laugh about fixing the process during the retrospective meeting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> As someone who works on traffic control systems in a different country, I can definitely believe a story!

We make security a priority (even with full network access you couldn't control our system) but a lot of third party systems are ridiculously rubbish and a lot of Government agencies only make token efforts at security.

</comment><comment><USER22> Probably stating the obvious, but messing with traffic signs not a good idea for a fun hacking project. I heard of someone going to prison for removing a stop sign, obviously being held responsible for the accident that ensued.

<comment><USER23> From the second paragraph of the article:

 _The exercise was conducted on actual stoplights deployed at live intersections, "with cooperation from a road agency located in Michigan."_

So this was done with permission.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Probably the only time this image will be relevant on HN: [http://oaknyc.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2013/08/Hackers3.j...](http://oaknyc.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2013/08/Hackers3.jpg)

<comment><USER25> Dammit that really needs to be available on Netflix instant. I love that movie (don't worry I feel the appropriate amount of guilt in saying that).</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Programming and Shaping Minds? - <AUTHOR>

Forgive me if this topic has been covered before. I have a friend with a young kid (age 8) who has  a fascination with computers (daddy uses OS X, mommy uses Windows).
Because I'm a friend and developer, this young kid's mom has asked me if I could recommend some programming curriculum for her child. I haven't really thought about this much but it seems like a great opportunity to get a hacker started at a good young age.
I was hopping some fellow HN fans could recommend a curriculum or just a path for this young kid to begin with.
So where would you start if this was your own kid, who has a predilection for computers (nothing forced here, the kid genuinely wants to learn)? <comment><USER3> Check out LEGO Mindstorms, it's basically LEGO with motors that you program. I think something physical attached to the (abstract) programs would be a great way to start.

It's recommended for ages 10+, but I'm sure a bright kid with an adult helping would love it.

<comment><USER4> Check out Not Quite C (NQC). It lets you write actual code to run on the Mindstorms platform. (This was my first experience coding.) <http://bricxcc.sourceforge.net/nqc/>

<comment><USER5> agreed. NQC is better than the various forms of BASIC that I and many of my friends learned calculator and basic robotics programming on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> First thing, don't underestimate kids' ability to learn new things, it is important to keep them challenged.

I would recommend,

<http://www.greenteapress.com/thinkpython/thinkpython.pdf>

Python got the turtle, so no need for logo.

Videos makes things easy.

<http://showmedo.com/videos/python>

Games are also a great motivator.

<http://www.pygame.org/>

When (s)he gets more advanched, older (think: upgrade path) I would recommend things like,

<http://www.sagemath.org/>

<http://www.scipy.org/>

<http://www.diveintopython.org/>

</comment><comment><USER7> I've had good luck with Scratch from MIT in teaching my children. <http://scratch.mit.edu/>

They seem to pick up on the basic math concepts pretty quick (i.e. to move the character up, I need to add something to this X variable...).

Its a lot like Squeak (I think a derivative), in that they can paint the objects they're going to animate and then visually construct programs to control them and implement their logic.

</comment><comment><USER8> Eight seems a little young, I think most start in their early teenage years. My own experience was to start with HTML and Javascript, and from there I moved on to Perl, C and the like.

I think HTML, Javascript, and CSS make a great starting point. Web pages are something you can show off to your friends--I got a lot of satisfaction from showing off what I had made when I first started out,

There's tons of books and resources to learn it. More importantly it's easy. You can't get HTML stuck in a loop, but it will still provide many opportunities for the kid to learn that computers will do what he says, not what he means. And all he needs is a text editor and a browser.

<comment><USER9> I completely disagree. I started programming in BASIC when I was eight. From the first lesson on, I was always after my parents to give me more - <USER2> computer, programming books, etc. If the kid is truly into it, all you will have to do is get him started with a real programming language. His natural desire will (hopefully) take over from there. Baby steps, by starting out with a markup language may also work, but it won't necessarily be better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If money isn't particularly tight, or if the family already has a licensed copy, Flash and ActionScript make a particularly good start. Like Logo, the kid can make things happen nearly immediately, but since ActionScript has a syntax that is similar to "real" languages in common use, the habits gained are more directly transferable to other projects later on. I'll refer you to Ned Batchelder's site for a better argument:

[http://nedbatchelder.com/blog/200711/best_computer_language_...](http://nedbatchelder.com/blog/200711/best_computer_language_for_a_beginner.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> Logo and Turtle-graphics might still be the best way to get started:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_(programming_language)>

The advantage is that the kid can see immediate visual effect of the code, it is easy to understand and it can introduce more advanced concepts (functions), also it might direct curiosity towards robotics.

It is very simple and intuitive and there must be some open source version for every platform.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm going to go against the grain a bit here and recommend that the parents try to pick up an old 8-bit micro for the kid.

When I was a young'un, I also had a major fascination with computers (guess it didn't wear off...) and managed to badger my mum into getting me a ZX Spectrum 128 from a car boot sale in the run up to a birthday (perhaps my 10th?). This was already old technology, then - we had a Windows 95 machine at home - but I didn't care. It was _MY_ computer and, with the help of a few yellowed books and the first two volumes of INPUT magazine, I could make it do what I wanted!

I think that this was a very powerful introduction to programming - a good few years of PEEKing and POKEing and dipping into assembly every now and again is perhaps the most natural way to develop intuitive ideas as to how computers work and, although BASIC is frowned upon, it's always good to find out _why_ the hard way! A lot of these ideas sound scary now, but on a small machine a kid can really go wild with them, and that freedom can be the best learning tool of them all.

And another plus with this plan - the kid gets a cool new gizmo. ;)

</comment><comment><USER13> At that age I had started programming BASIC on my C64 a year earlier, copying the examples from a book targeted at adults and written in a language I did not know (english). [Only slightly bragging, but here is what i want to say:]

The teaching material does not have to be all that pedagogical, but the motivation make the computer do something needs to be there.

In this day and age, I think that the absolutely best environment is to make dynamic web pages. By just outputting a few rows of text you can see a result page and imagine having it online for friends to use. One can also create dynamic pictures.

I used my knowledge of BASIC around that time to write training programs in multiplication, addition, and when English classes started, word translations. That is, I made semi-realistic solutions to problems I had, and the resulting program was used by me (and also friends once you could compete in score points).

</comment><comment><USER14> Boy or girl? I think the assumption is going to be "boy" unless you specify otherwise, but I'd recommend different things for different sexes...

For boys, I'd probably start with games. Maybe Python and PyGame? I've heard pretty good things about it. JavaScript makes a good first language as well, since all you need is a web browser to make it run.

For girls, I'd do something webby with a social component. If you could write a server, maybe set up some sort of framework where she and all her friends could send things to each other, sorta like real-time Pownce? Actually, now that I mention it, I kinda wanna try implementing this, since it could be kinda cool.

For both sexes, maybe take a look at Alice from Carnegie Mellon? <http://www.alice.org/>

<comment><AUTHOR> For clarification: the kid is a boy. I would like for him to learn from the bottom-up (start at the beginning and work up from there). I will play a big role in his learning (scary, but I am a developer so I feel sort of qualified).

<comment><USER15> I think enthusiasm is more important than structure and curriculum both for 8 and 80 year-olds. Just plant the seed - if he takes an interest, he'll start learning on his own. When he comes up with interesting questions, you can start filling in the background he lacks.

That's what I plan to do with my kid. He's 2 years old, a little young for Python. But I have an OLPC, and I sit down with him while he pokes away at it. When the time comes, I will try not to be pushy or academic about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A nice simple language like Python would be best, and no, 8 is not too young, especially if the kid shows interest. The kid should be given lots of sample code, and encouraged to modify/extend it. I think there's plenty of substance in text-based programming to hold his/her interest, but one of the robot programming toolkits could be used to help keep the kid motivated.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'd recommend Invent Your Own Computer Games with Python (<http://pythonbook.coffeeghost.net/book1/index.html>). It's free online, and it geared towards exactly that kind of age and setting. It's written for a beginner at programming, and most kids would probably love writing their own games.

</comment><comment><USER18> Microsoft put out Small Basic a little while ago. It's actually a lot of fun, and really simple (well... for me... the kid would be the real test) to pick up.

I did a quick overview here [http://www.issackelly.com/Blog/entry/Hands_on_with_Small_Bas...](http://www.issackelly.com/Blog/entry/Hands_on_with_Small_Basic/)

</comment><comment><USER19> Try Game Maker: <http://www.yoyogames.com/gamemaker>

</comment><comment><USER20> I think the kid need would know a bit more math first (than a typical 8 year old would) and then move to something like <http://pine.fm/LearnToProgram/>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> These are all great suggestions and I'm seriously looking each of them over. Thanks to the HN community.

</comment><comment><USER21> javascript. Everyone has a text editor and browser. Plus young kids can use it to screw around in school.</comment>


Book Review: Surfing Uncertainty - <AUTHOR> http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/05/book-review-surfing-uncertainty/ <comment><USER2> The original title on the website does not do much to reveal the content, but in short, the book is about a new "theory of the brain" (new as in the past 10 years), based on predictive processing.

The post itself, and the follow-up posts about predictive processing on the above blog are probably the easiest way to get into the subject, and it's an insanely interesting subject.

The core of the idea is written a bit into the blogpost: "The key insight: the brain is a multi-layer prediction machine. All neural processing consists of two streams: a bottom-up stream of sense data, and a top-down stream of predictions. These streams interface at each level of processing, comparing themselves to each other and adjusting themselves as necessary."

Deeper into the post, there's a breakdown of how this theory fits into various areas of research in novel ways (autism and schizophrenia among them), and I strongly suggest reading through at least that.</comment>


Business idea: opaque contact lenses - <AUTHOR>

I'm at a conference and the current speaker is boring. We just had lunch. I would very much like to sleep but I'm at the front row and that would be very rude to the speaker.
In an episode of "Broad City" the main character shows she's able to sleep with her eyes opened.
I can't do that (is it even possible?) but I would buy opaque contact lenses that would let me fake awareness, in a heartbeat.
I'm guessing many business people, many politicians, not to mention high school students, would be very interested in that product.
Can anyone make it? <comment><USER2> Huhwhat? Contact lenses wouldn't hide the fact that your eyes were closed (not many people can sleep with their eyes open). And sleeping while wearing contact lenses is dangerous (they limit oxygen to the eyeball).

<comment><AUTHOR> The point is to be able to sleep with your eyes opened; it's difficult but certainly feasible when no mgore light enters the eyes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Something like this?

[http://mcgarnagle.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/jur.png](http://mcgarnagle.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/jur.png)

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah yes maybe glasses with eyes painted on it would work, but it would have to be super realistic...</comment></comment>