An old theory of quantized gravity is gaining new life - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-an-old-theory-of-everything-is-gaining-new-life-20180108/ <comment><USER2> > The theory called asymptotically (as-em-TOT-ick-lee) safe gravity was > proposed in 1978 by Steven Weinberg.

Would a person interested in an article about quantum gravity not be familiar with the term asymptotically?

<comment><USER3> Moreover knowing the pronunciation doesn't give you any help if you don't know the meaning.

<comment><USER4> That bothered me as well (pronouncing rather than defining)

<comment><USER5> Particularly as the pronunciation is strange. Strange place to break syllables, and I'm not sure the second vowel is a 'e' in most pronunciations.

/a-sim-TOT-i-klee/

<comment><USER6> This is how I pronounce it in IPA: /a.sim'to:.ti.kli:/ Why is TOT one syllable?

<comment><USER7> The weird thing about IPA is that the non-IPA pronunciation you're replying to seems easier to understand.

<comment><USER8> Only to you.

I feel exactly the opposite way.

<Rant>

I wish people would use the IPA instead of their absurd ad-hoc systems. I learned IPA at school, and it has served me well.

All the pronunciation systems based on some other language are unreliable and idiosyncratic. And English, with its near-absence of reliable pronunciation/spelling rules, is particularly ill-suited.

</Rant>

<comment><USER9> >I learned IPA at school

That's why people use their ad-hoc systems. Because many many many people don't know IPA. It's so far removed from English and uses so many letters that don't occur in English that it's close to being a completely different language.

The word "ɪn·tərˈnæʃ·ə·nəl" may make complete sense to someone who knows IPA but to to the many people who don't, it's complete gibberish.

<comment><USER8> > That's why people use their ad-hoc systems. Because many many many people > don't know IPA.

I was disagreeing with parent's claim that ad-hockery was better than IPA. Nothing more, nothing less.

However if ad-hockery is the best someone can do (I say this without snark), then fine. Certainly better than nothing.

> It's so far removed from English and uses so many letters that don't occur > in English that it's close to being a completely different language.

English is far removed from my native language, so either way I have to learn a pronunciation system (and the English one is... special).

While we're at it, do we use pseudo-American or pseudo-British pronunciation in our ad-hockery? Pseudo-US-East-coast or pseudo-Southern-US?

I think ad-hockery provides a trap in that it gives a false sense of security. You _think_ you know to pronounce something, but if you actually try, chances are your native speaker conversation partner will go ¿que?

> The word "ɪn·tərˈnæʃ·ə·nəl" may make complete sense to someone who knows IPA > but to to the many people who don't, it's complete gibberish.

I agree that it looks like gibberish to those who don't know IPA. But I'm honestly not sure "intaneshenel" (or "intönäschänäl", or whatever) is better. For me at least, it's equally confusing.

As an aside: making up pronounciation if it's of little relevance to what you're writing is one thing. What really grinds my gears is language books (or, say, the language section of guide books) that make up their funny ways of writing pronunciation. They might use that same amount of effort to teach the basics of IPA, which is about the same amount of effort, and provides the reader with something lastingly useful.

They even write multi-page explanations, complete with examples, on how to interpret funny charecters in their script. I remember the absurd contortions the Lonely Planet Germany guide went through to explain umlaut sounds to people in terms of English words, and then coming up with ways that weren't the IPA to type those sounds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > " _In other words, gravity would be asymptotically safe if the theory at > high energies remains equally well behaved as the theory at low energies. In > and of itself, this is not much of an insight. The insight comes from > realizing that this good behavior does not necessarily contradict what we > already know about the theory at low energies (from the early works of > DeWitt and Feynman)._ "

But what are the actual expected changes at high energy that would differ from what is seen at low energy?

I kept waiting for her to explain what differences would be observed if this theory is correct, but she never did.

<comment> T-A You would observe the theory not blowing up. :)

The key feature she never names is known as a "UV fixed point".

UV = UltraViolet, which in this context simply stands for "high energy".

Fixed point... for that you need to know that the effective values of coupling "constants" aren't actually constant in quantum field theory; they depend on the interaction energy (i.e. how hard you bang your particles together). So they are called "running" coupling constants. Yes, it's contradictory.

That dependence on interaction energy is described by differential equations (known as the renormalization group flow equations, which may sound impressive but is actually a misnomer), which you can integrate to see how a coupling measured in the lab at low energy will change when your descendants finally get enough funding for a larger accelerator.

One interesting behavior is the coupling going to zero when you increase the energy towards infinity. That happens in QCD: counterintuitively, the harder you bang quarks together, the less they affect each other (via QCD, that is; they also have other kinds of interactions which behave differently). So QCD is called "asymptotically free": in the limit of infinite interaction energy, as far as QCD is concerned, quarks are free particles, completely unaffected by each other's presence.

In asymptotic safety, as opposed to freedom, the coupling does not go to zero as you increase the energy; instead, the rate at which it _changes_ goes to zero, and it does so at some finite value of interaction energy. So, as you crank up the interaction energy toward that value, the coupling constant "runs" slower and slower, and once you get there, it stops "running" altogether. From there on, you can raise the interaction energy all you want, and the coupling constant stays... constant.

And that is a UV fixed point.

<comment><USER10> This helps, but doesn't say what the theory says _gravity_ will do at higher energy levels.

To me it seems to imply gravity will get weaker at higher energies? Something about that makes me feel like it violates conservation of energy, so maybe that's not it.

<comment><USER11> Also begs the question of how that reaction could even take place if gravitons are totally unreactive with anything other than their source - mass. How would you accelerate a graviton. Gravitons always move at C just like light. Do we have any idea what kind of production and annihalation products will give us gravitons?

Just a guess - dark matter/energy might be the only way to create a graviton without associated mass generating it. That is..the pair production of a virtual dark photon and a graviton.

In that case what are our options?

<comment><USER12> Are gravitons a thing - i.e.a generally accepted concept in the scientific community? I thought their very existence was highly controversial...

<comment><USER13> I've always had the naive and hand-wavey understanding that gravity _is_ spacetime, while all the other quantum fields happen _in_ spacetime.

So there may be issues trying to use a particle theory to describe something that may be more fundamental than the other fields.

But IANAP, so this could be completely wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm not sure I see any real change in the status of asymptotic safety. It's a hypothesis. Proving it directly is next to impossible. (Except in spacetime dimension <= 3, when the theory is topological, making the assertion a triviality.) Testing it experimentally is unlikely; the constraints it implies are pretty weak. Nonetheless there are some people working on it, and while their ideas have some merit, they haven't yet caused the physics world to pay drastically more attention.

Also, it's unwarranted hype to call asymptotic safety 'an old theory of everything'. It's explicitly not a theory of everything. It's only about gravity. Couple it to the Standard Model, and you still have a theory which breaks down at the hypercharge and Higgs Landau poles.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm not a particle physicists by any means, but doesn't any theory of gravity have to deal with 'real' infinities at high energies from the physics we already know?

We have some idea that black holes are a type of singularity (something that could possibly called an infinity). With E=MC2 we have an idea that if you apply enough energy to a particle it can become massive enough that it becomes a singularity itself.

<comment><USER16> A singularity popping out of the math is almost always an indication that something else is going on.

According to general relativity, at the center of a black hole there might be some kind of "singularity" \- but in reality what that means is GR is probably inadequate, when used alone, to describe the center of a BH.

"Singularity" really means "your math broke and you need to fix it" by bringing in another theory that can fill in the gaps - or, rather, extending the current theory in a way that eliminates the division by zero.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think the author completely glosses over the fact that Loop Quantum Gravity actually does make predictions, and could provide the explanation for fast radio bursts.

Also, the theory is so intuitive and follows such a straightforward logical path from Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, that I would be incredibly surprised if it wasn't the theory closest to actual reality.

<comment><USER18> By any chance, we're you ALSO in Carlo Rovelli's lecture a few days ago? ;)

<comment><USER17> I've literally watched every lecture he has out there lol :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Has anyone (sane) ever theorized that the ripples in spacetime in some cases may have existed before the masses of particles (ie. planets / stars) arrived at those locations?

</comment><comment><USER20> Gravity is measurement of the distortion of space, caused by mass. It is an emergent property. The more massive something is, the more its gravity will distort the space around it.

So, a small piece of rock that you can hold in your hand, will cause a gravitational ripple in the space surrounding it. This is similar to how the Earth causes a gravitational ripple in the space around it, and it keeps us grounded to the ground. But, the Earth causes a much bigger gravitational ripple, than a small rock.

And we as humans, are grounded to the Earth, as if we are at the bottom of this massive and invisible whirlpool. We cannot see it, but this whirlpool is rotating all around us, and we cannot get out. It is easy for us to move around horizontally, but it is very difficult for us to move vertically. Unless we can move horizontally so fast, that we can reach escape velocity, and then, we orbit the Earth.

That said. What is gravity? Why does mass cause a ripple in the space around it?

I wonder if gravity is just some type of neutral electro-magnetic force. Kind of like the magnetic field lines that you see with the North pole and South pole. But instead of being magnetically charged, it is neutrally charged, and it affects everything around it equally.

Or, instead of being magnetically charged like the North or South pole, it is gravitationally-charged, and the direction points in only one way, into the center of your massive object. And unless you are moving faster than that massive object's escape velocity, then you will always be stuck in that object's gravitational ripple.

If we can truly understand what is gravity, then I wonder if we can create a counter gravity. Like, in your spaceship, if you can create a negative mass above you, then it would cause your spaceship to act buoyant in the planet's atmosphere. And you can use thrusters to move around vertically, as easy as you can move around horizontally.

Or, maybe you can create a temporary blackhole above your spaceship, and instead of your spaceship falling into the gravitational ripple caused by the Earth, then it becomes attracted to the gravitational ripple caused by your blackhole. And this causes your spaceship to rise, and defy the Earth's gravity.

Anyways. I'm not a gravitational physicist. Maybe I should take this idea, and write a novel. There has been much worse Sci-Fi ideas created, like Time Travel, or the ridiculous many-worlds-interpretation theory of quantum mechanics.

<comment><USER21> From a physics perspective, the many-world, as ridiculous as it sounds, is a more sound theory (believed to be correct by some top physicists) than negative gravity.

The explanation of why gravity is only positive is a complex one, but physicists believe it's almost axiomatic.

This doesn't mean that you can't have repulsive type of effects, similar to one of the contributions that's believed to make the universe expand more quickly than with the simple 4 fources (often called fifth force, maybe related to dark energy, and to the rate of the universe expansion acceleration).

PS. There are a number of Sci-Fi stories that use this idea, including a famous one from Asimov, in which if I recall correctly the normal gravitational force was working negatively when traveling in FTL speed. Obviously that seemed fishy but the book was cool (Nemesis).

<comment><USER22> > The explanation of why gravity is only positive is a complex one, but > physicists believe it's almost axiomatic

Isn't that a consequence of relativity, the speed of light being constant by definition? I'm not sure that makes any sense, though, what is the physical unit of gravity N? Jf you mean classical mechanics, than there has to be a negative counterforce by the three axioms of newtonian mechanics and it's just a question of frame of reference.

BTW: Stress on _ax_ -iomatic, as in axis?!

<comment><USER10> > Isn't that a consequence of relativity, the speed of light being constant by > definition?

No, because if it was then there would not be negative electric charge, and there is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Url changed from [https://www.wired.com/story/why-an-old-theory-of- everything-...](https://www.wired.com/story/why-an-old-theory-of-everything- is-gaining-new-life/), which points to this.

</comment><comment><USER11> I think it is relevant to consider gravity from a more abstract standpoint as well by looking at Le Sage's theory and particularly Hyugens' comments. [1]

Whether gravity is mediated by a graviton, and the intricacies that QM brings to bear, one interesting idea I took from the above hundreds of years of thought on the subject -- gravity may be a pushing force mediated by constant spherical wave emission (quantized as the graviton if necessary) from all mass/energy. Since every bit of mass-energy is releasing gravitons, the whole of space is rather isometrically filled with gravitons. The reason two objects would then appear to attract via Newton's inverse-square law is one of a shadowing effect. The graviton would apply a pushing force normally to any mass-energy it interacts with, and therefore any blockage/shadowing of one object by another, would end up looking like attraction.

Le Sage's theory is more exacting and supposes gravitons are of similar substance to regular matter. I don't agree with most of these notions but what I said above is what I gained.

1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation)

<comment><USER24> Dumb question: how do you exchange gravitons with a black hole?

<comment><USER10> A graviton would have to be both massless and energyless. Thus it would be unaffected by gravity.

It also means it can not have a "frequency" like light does (because lacking any energy there is no frequency to change).

It must also always move at the speed of light, and could not exist at any slower speed. (Because to slow down, would imply a change in its energy, which it can not do.)

But that means it can't interact in a way that is detectable, other than gravity.

Because you can not give it energy, you can also never create it artificially. If you did, you would be creating gravitational force out of nothing, which is impossible because it violates conservation of energy, and you can not pay for that violation because you can not give it energy.

It's pretty much the ultimate impossible to study particle.

<comment><USER14> This comment is almost completely wrong. It muddles together classical and quantum reasoning in any incoherent way.

Gravitons are best understood as the quanta of the effective qft governed by the Einstein Hilbert action. This mathematical model is the universal low energy approximation to any quantum theory that reduces to general relativity.

Gravitons need to be massless. They need not be zero energy. They can indeed be associated with frequency. They do couple to gravitational backgrounds and to other gravitons. You can crate them just like any other field quanta. The barrier to studying gravitons the way we do photons is that they couple very weakly to other systems.

<comment><USER10> > They need not be zero energy.

How would that work exactly? First of all it means they could not escape a black hole, since they would be carrying energy out of it. It also means they would not travel in straight lines, since by carrying energy, they are subject to gravitational force, and boy of boy what a mess that would make of things if the gravity carrier was affected by its own gravity (or even the gravity of the neighbors).

Second when the graviton "landed" it would have to transfer energy. If they only act via gravity, how would you transfer energy to or from them?

And then if they carry energy, then what, energy is constantly streaming out of every particle in the universe? Or are you proposing two kinds of gravitons, those that carry energy and those that don't?

> They can indeed be associated with frequency.

Really? So how would their measured effects vary as their frequency varied?

Are you confusing gravitational waves with gravitons? The two are not the same.

> You can crate them just like any other field quanta.

No you could not because if you did you would be creating gravitational force out of nothing, which is impossible (violates a whole bunch on conservation laws).

<comment><USER14> You need to learn some quantum field theory. You're trying to reason with a popsci level understanding and failing miserably.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What do you think the future of remote work will look like post-Covid? - <AUTHOR> There's been a lot of talk about San Francisco and other tech hubs essentially becoming abandoned as their tech workers all go remote and move to better cost of living areas.
In the same light, some major tech companies and many startups are pivoting to make remote work software to help the transition.
However, most of those tech companies don't have a long term Remote policy except for very special cases like high performers and so on.
How will the future of remote work look for ICs/Managers? How do you think cities will be effected, if at all?
Is there really going to be a remote work revolution, or are we just saying that because we're all stuck in our homes until COVID is eliminated? <comment><USER2> Having a team with someone remote should force remote first communication practices. This pandemic is going to go on for a while, meaning months and months are likely. If you have the factor of someone on your team being in a high risk category, it feels like there is an obligation to let them be remote 100% until the pandemic subsides. Combine those two and I think if I were in charge of a lease on a building/space I might look at reducing the footprint if there are enough people going remote. Why pay for all that floor space?

There might be a revolution in the tech sector in the sense that remote only/first could be something to attract workers because they could live anywhere and make the going rate for their skills. There are a lot of engineers that don't really care about perks like relaxation pods, meals provided, snacks or whatever.

It might also give some companies a competitive advantage - no leasing office space.</comment>


AppFog Goes Public Beta - <AUTHOR> http://blog.appfog.com/appfog-goes-public-beta/

<comment><USER2> Hmm, I keep getting Internal Server Errors when I try to register or log in.

Edit: Chrome / Ubuntu anyway, worked fine for me in Firefox.

<comment><AUTHOR> There was a minor config problem, but should be good now. Thanks for digging into it!</comment></comment>


Checkout this app I made. It let's you make custom DIY snapchat geofilters - <AUTHOR> https://snappy.ink/shop/filters/all <comment><AUTHOR> Reddit thread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/comments/4vnxm2/i_have...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/comments/4vnxm2/i_have_been_working_on_this_project_for_2_months/)</comment>


The Third Core's Revenge - <AUTHOR> http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/08/16/the-third-cores-revenge/

<comment><USER2> I remember this story being told to me by a former Hanford engineer in the 80's. Not sure if it was even public knowledge back then.</comment>


Developers in Eastern/Central Europe - <AUTHOR>

Hi, Our fledgling company is considering outsourcing for relatively complex front-end web app development (not your regular blog). We are considering, for example, Romanian developers. We would be glad to hear insights on this issue. Thanks... <comment><USER2> Eastern Europe programmers are very good. They have strong knowledge of mathematics and algorithms. Romania,Estonia, Serbia, Croatia, same school.

<comment><AUTHOR> Our requirements include ability to communicate well in English. What is the best site for finding such developers?

</comment></comment><comment> dsq</comment>


2019 will be the year of privacy - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/2019-is-the-year-of-privacy-1cbef3746673 <comment><USER2> I wonder what the presidential campaign will do for the privacy narrative. I think people like mark warner and klobuchar will start to pit big tech as a beast only they can control and data will be at the center of it. Anyone else agree?</comment>


Arguments Against the DMCA Section 1201 Lawsuit by the EFF - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/arguments-against-the-dmca-section-1201-lawsuit-by-the-eff-b8d760de3fdf#.v29o749x3 <comment><AUTHOR> After getting dog-piled yesterday hashing out some thoughts, I was able to sleep on the subject and get some direction and clarity.

I understand this is not a sympathetic audience. Sometimes though, it helps to point out shared implications. Cheering for the demise of DRM has serious Software Industry concerns, none of which are mentioned or addressed in the lawsuit.

</comment><comment><USER2> Enjoyed reading the content creator's perspective on this.</comment>


Big Farms Are About to Get Bigger - <AUTHOR> http://www.american.com/archive/2013/december/big-farms-are-about-to-get-bigger <comment><USER2> I spent twenty years in the fertilizer business and worked with farmers big and small every day.

Here's the facts:

1\. Farming is a low margin business

2\. The only way to succeed is to be a great manager at large scale

3\. Most of the technology is used to allow farmers to successfully manage larger and larger farms

4\. Most of these with a few exceptions truly are family farms or if they were in town what we would view as small business.

5\. The biggest challenge for the farmer in software isn't collecting the data but receiving actionable information from it.

<comment><USER3> Seems some small farmers disagree with your "facts" 1&2:

Joel Salatin of polyface farms makes more than his neighbors (particularly on a per acre basis) by throwing away "big agribusiness" truisms like single purpose machinery, monocultures, and chemical stimulants for the land. He uses symbiosis instead, creates a premium product that his customers are willing to pay a premium for, all without subsidization (iirc).

<comment><USER4> There is a small market for specialization; my parents did it well. But the bulk of food comes from the farm rmason is talking about, the massive amounts of grain, vegetables, and meat that feeds America. The plural of anecdote isn't data.

<comment><USER5> The plural of snark isn't intelligence, either.

<comment><USER6> If your parent's post ruffled your snark-feathers, your sensibilities may be... overly sensitive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "What we have gained in efficiency and by avoiding the overuse of scarce and potentially environmentally damaging inputs, we may be losing in the connections of the farm family to the ancestral place."

What a stupid quote. If it's a tradeoff, call it a tradeoff--you are not losing environmental savings by losing the "connection of the farm family to the ancestral place", you are trading something sentimental for direct benefits to the environment and cheaper food.

</comment><comment><USER8> My main quibble with this article is that a lot of the "revolutionary data" is already known and used. Farmers know the yield others are getting. Elevators are reporting what they are taking in to big companies doing investing. Satellite pictures and some aircraft pictures are already used.

The image of the farmer as a simple, non-tech person is pretty pathetic. The current generation of farmers are pretty sophisticated. You cannot make it this far without being that. The amount of data a farmer wants is pretty impressive.

The JD thing in the article is the newest and I'm not sure its going to be a ongoing proposition if the farmers don't benefit financially from their data. A lot of farmers run their combines all harvest by starting them in the south and working their way north as the harvest progresses. You have to pay for a vehicle that makes most high-end sports cars look cheap. They also aren't the cheapest thing to maintain. That harvest run of data is know to the farmer and would be worth some cash.

<comment><USER6> _The image of the farmer as a simple, non-tech person is pretty pathetic. The current generation of farmers are pretty sophisticated._

Many members of the current generation of farmers even have college degrees just as serious & relevant to their field as any other science.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's amazing the insight that is uncovered about a farming operation's efficiency and potential lost revenues when one takes the time to gather all the information in a useful way.

We believe so much in the benefits of using technology to better manage a farm can have on the bottom line that we give Farm At Hand away for FREE.

www.farmathand.com</comment>


Operation Credible Sport - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Credible_Sport

<comment><AUTHOR> A C-130 modified with rocket engines for shorter landing and takeoff (inside a soccer stadium!).

There are some videos on Youtube, a silent one:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSFjhWw4DNo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSFjhWw4DNo)

and one with an overenthusiastic narrator:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKCl3lfAx1Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKCl3lfAx1Q)

A wing was blown off in a training accident.</comment>


A freed slave's most polite fuck-you to his former master - <AUTHOR> http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/01/to-my-old-master.html

<comment><USER2> $11680 in 1865 is $164391.37 in 2010 inflation adjusted dollars according to [1]. But when considering monthly wage of $25 (although it includes clothing and food and might have been even under "minimal wage") it was probably much more. The ratio is perhaps closer to 20:1

[1] www.westegg.com/inflation

</comment><comment><USER3> The grammar is wrong for the period. Snopes?

<comment><USER4> The blog linked to an img of a newspaper from the period. Here is the Library of Congress's archive of the same paper, showing the same letter. Now, that doesn't show that the Tribune wasn't duped as to the letter's source, but it does show that the grammar is from that period. Assuming you trust the LOC.

[http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030213/1865-08-22...](http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030213/1865-08-22/ed-1/seq-7/)

<comment><USER3> I stand corrected.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting but not Hacker News. Flagged.

<comment><USER6> Interesting trumps. If its interesting to people who read HN, it belongs on HN.

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html> is lax enough.

<comment><USER5> > If its interesting to people who read HN, it belongs on HN.

Completely false. If that were true, there would be no need for guidelines.

In fact it says, "Anything that good hackers would find interesting" which is not semantically equivalent to "people on HN".

If everyone on reddit signed up for an account today, by your interpretation HN would be full of pun threads and cats and that would be acceptable.</comment></comment></comment>


Perfectum Dashboard - <AUTHOR> http://wrapbootstrap.com/preview/WB0PHMG9K

<comment><USER2> Really nice to see all the bells and whistles in operation. This author understands the importance of "theme marketing." I feel like a lot of theme creators spend hours and hours building cool shit into their themes and then skimp on filling it out with demo data. IMO being able to visually play with all of the elements is just as important as creating them in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm not a fan of the "windowed" modular design that is very common in admin interfaces; it wastes a lot of space and adds clutter. I believe a flatter design (like this <http://dribbble.com/shots/564078-Minimal-Dashboard>) or at least with lighter chrome (e.g. Ducksboard) would work much better.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's incredibly annoying to have the loading screen on each page, no matter how much it takes to load. It should appear only on the content (don't cover the nav!) after a 100ms or so timeout.

Apart from that, beautiful theme

<comment><USER5> That is the first thing I noticed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Honest question here (and I hate how I feel compelled to preface with that): In what situations are the "circle stats"/circular representation of a bar graph useful? Aside from its aesthetic appeal, it doesn't seem very functional.

<comment><USER7> I read somewhere that the human brain is better wired to see changes in angles rather than in heights: this is why speedometers are circular. So having in circles some stat that changes in real time or very frequently (I think there should also be a mark for the previous measurement if it is not real time) makes sense.

<comment><USER8> I found a citation for something opposite.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pie_chart#Use.2C_effectiveness_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pie_chart#Use.2C_effectiveness_and_visual_perception)

> Further, in research performed at AT&T Bell Laboratories, it was shown that > comparison by angle was less accurate than comparison by length.

Also, my guess is that speedometers are circular because of technology available at the time first cars were built. I think I'd much rather see a bar as a speed indicator. I guess it could be tested; anyone knows any racing game which allows to switch between standard speedometer and some kind of speed bar?

<comment><USER9> Just anecdata, but most purpose-built racing dashboards use a linear tachometer (vastly more critical in a racing situation than a speedometer) instead of a circular tachometer. It may just be a packaging thing, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nice looking theme, but kinda looks like an imitation of another looking theme released 2 months ago: <http://wrapbootstrap.com/preview/WB0F35928>

<comment><USER11> I saw this released a while ago as well and absolutely love it. Almost to the point where I'm making up excuses to use it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is beautiful. Well done. This is the first comment I've made in a year - it's that cool looking.

</comment><comment><USER13> Forgive me for criticising, but I'm not all that enamoured with the design. I find it too chunky, too slow, and somewhat adolescent.

I appreciate that the designer has put a huge amount of effort into the template, and has populated it with some excellent demo data, but I would never use this theme in a business application.

I prefer a cleaner, more subtle design (some might say a tad boring?). Here is an example of what I mean: <http://envato.stammtec.de/themeforest/peach/login.html>

<comment><USER14> Do you mean the login form or something that comes after it?

<comment><USER15> I just chanced it: username 'demo' and password 'demo'.

Saying that, the theme appears to suffer from exactly the same problems the OP was complaining about

<comment><USER13> Sorry, I didn't mean to link to the login screen. You can actually enter anything you like into the username/password fields.

I agree that the elements I complained about above are still present in this template, but I find it less garish than most of the other that I have seen and it isn't as slow as the one posted in the main link.

I been through (what feels like) hundreds of these admin templates recently and the one I linked too was the one that I settled for in the end. You can see a plethora of these types of templates on Themeforest's site: [http://themeforest.net/category/site-templates/admin- templat...](http://themeforest.net/category/site-templates/admin-templates)

EDIT: I just realised that someone else posted the Themeforest link in the comments here. Apologies for the duplicate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Total noob question here

how do you use admin template like this..say for a PHP website on a VPS? How do you "connect" the templates with the data? Been googling for a while but to no avail. I would really like to have something like this as traffic monitoring and customer support interface

<comment><USER17> You include the css and make sure you render the appropriate HTML with your serverside scripts. It's fairly easy, you just need to make sure you output the right HTML and include all static assets like css, js and icons.

<comment><USER18> I don't think that that's what the OP was asking.

lousy_sysadmin: it really depends on what data you ar trying to display. You'll probably have to roll your own code that will collect the data you want, from the services that collect it. And then display it in the correct way, as risratorn said above.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Very beautiful theme but when I'm on the page my CPU starts consuming 25% (100% of one core). That's insane!

If I move to UI Features the CPU usage is 30% because the Progress Bars. When the animation stops, the CPU is on a constant 6-7%. When using the sliders from the UI Features, the CPU is 31% again. As I said: insane.

I think it's very important to understand that you (the creator of a web framework) don't own the CPU of your users. Using a 5%-10% ocasionally should be the maximum allowed, because the user will be doing other stuff at the same time, and we don't want to leave the computer unusable and a very slow browser.

(Note: I'm using Firefox 16.0.2 under Debian/Testing.)

</comment><comment><USER20> Using a template to prototype a project has always been helpful for me. Otherwise, I'm cobbling together an 'ugly' MVP or showing someone mockups. Either can work, but using a clean template early on eliminates noise. It allows your audience to think about feature/function vs. "it's kinda ugly, is it going to look like this?" I can customize and make it my own, or start from scratch later.

Here are plenty more to look at for a quick start: [http://themeforest.net/category/site-templates/admin- templat...](http://themeforest.net/category/site-templates/admin-templates)

<comment><USER21> In the same way that Foundation links spontaneously appear on Bootstrap threads, ThemeForest links spontaneously appear on WrapBootstrap threads. ;)

For more, take a look: <https://wrapbootstrap.com/tag/admin>

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Nice. I definitely like the way it has been presented as a demo; well done.

</comment><comment><USER23> Nice (not so on ie8 although).

But I am still waiting for a template that works on ie7 (some of us are targeting business users here), on tablets and on phones. On top of that, it should load fast and it should be practical (to be fair, this is rather practical, I would put an accordion on the sidebar although).

At the moment, I am designing this myself, but I would really rather buy it.

For that I would pay double the ammount of this one.

<comment><USER24> What percentages are you seeing of business users still being forced on IE7? I recently worked with a large bank and they are under almost all the way off of it having everyone on IE8-9 and FF ESR Channel. Like always I hope people are using some form of data analysis to determine if supporting the old browsers are really needed.

<comment><USER11> There are entire education systems in China and Korea still using it unfortunately. I'm currently working on an eLearning platform for schools in Asia and we are required by the Ministry of Education to support IE7.

<comment><USER25> An eLearning platform for schools in Asia? Very interesting, could we talk more in detail on email? (tianshuo_at_gmail.com)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Thin white text on light-colored backgrounds? Color and element weight/hierarchy are some of the most important aspects of a dashboard's design. If you're expecting people to spend a lot of time on these screens, you shouldn't force them to strain their eyes to get the data they need.

</comment><comment><USER27> This is honestly brilliantly designed. Incredible work to whomever did this, really.

</comment><comment><USER28> This is super nice. I love it. Sometimes feels over the top, but nicely themed.

</comment><comment><USER29> That loading screen, albeit fancy, is really jarring.

The drag & drop also seems buggy here (shuffles the div's pretty randomly).

Other than that this looks really nice.

</comment><comment><USER30> Breaks when you don't have enough content in the body, footer gets all messed up, reproduce by just removing a few rows from the content area.

</comment><comment><USER31> It looks fantastic, I'm not really sure it's phone ready though. It's very slow on my phone (3GS). And there are lots & lots of js includes. Also the 1 dial per window seems a bit excessive.

HTML's pretty good though, only a bit of div/span nesting, I've seen a lot worse. Also watch out for the custom jQuery UI include in there, I still don't get why the jQuery UI team thought that was a good idea bundling a custom package so you have to start picking apart a min file just to see what was used.

Personally I'll probably purchase this at some point for something.

</comment><comment><USER32> Impressed at how good this looks on mobile.

</comment><comment><USER33> I've been watching this guys template sales grow and grow. Congrats on another great template!

</comment><comment><USER34> This is fantastic. How did you make those circle widgets?

<comment><AUTHOR> it's jquery knob

<http://anthonyterrien.com/knob/>

<comment><USER35> Hey, don't call him a knob.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It's very slow on FF 16.0.2 but it really is so pretty.

</comment><comment><USER37> This is really fantastic. Amazing work.

</comment><comment><USER38> that would be PERFECT to have a dashboard like this on wordpress :)

</comment><comment><USER39> This is good, but Ratchet kinda stole the thunder today</comment>


Cynical? You may be hurting your brain health - <AUTHOR> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-05/aaon-cym052014.php

<comment><USER2> IT is worth noting that the average age of those studied was 71.</comment>


Particles accelerate without a push - <AUTHOR> http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/self-accelerating-particles-0120

<comment><AUTHOR> Here is the paper:

[http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys...](http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys3196.html)

[http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nphys3196?utm_campa...](http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nphys3196?utm_campaign=readcube_access&utm_source=nature.com&utm_medium=purchase_option&utm_content=thumb_version&show_checkout=1&tracking_action=preview_click)

PS: Didn't Nature decide to allow free real-only access to all papers? It appears that only the first page is freely accessible.

<comment><USER2> > Didn't Nature decide to allow free real-only access to all papers? It > appears that only the first page is freely accessible.

This is Nature Physics, not Nature. They are separate journals, albeit under the same publishing group.

Email me (my username @gmail) if you want a copy, or look at /r/scholar.

<comment><USER3> Nature physics is covered by the read-only access thing (48 journals are in total) [0]

The read only access link has to be generated by someone with access then shared, rather than them just making all the papers free to read.

0\. [http://www.nature.com/news/nature-promotes-read-only- sharing...](http://www.nature.com/news/nature-promotes-read-only-sharing-by- subscribers-1.16460)

[Disclaimer: I work for an affiliated company]

<comment><USER2> Ahh, thanks. Quite a peculiar mechanism.

EDIT: So apparently I have to sign up for an account with yet another service, Readcube? No thanks...

<comment><USER3> > EDIT: So apparently I have to sign up for an account with yet another > service, Readcube? No thanks...

I don't think so (I don't have access to nature journals so I can't check myself) but on the nature page for the article, if you click the share button it should be as a "shareable link" at the top.

This is based on the intro video here: [http://readcube.wistia.com/medias/63iom1ywdy](http://readcube.wistia.com/medias/63iom1ywdy)

It's a bit annoying that there's been a lot of talk about this being possible, but nowhere in the articles do people say _how_ to do it.

> Ahh, thanks. Quite a peculiar mechanism.

Yeah, I suppose anything other than "the articles are now free to read" is going to be a bit odd to use.

<comment><USER2> Yep, you're right. Here's the link for anyone who wants it: [http://rdcu.be/b1sE](http://rdcu.be/b1sE)

<comment><USER3> Fantastic, thanks for going through this :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you assume examination, observation, etc are forces then this satisfies Newton's Law

</comment><comment><USER5> OK, conservation of momentum; now what about conservation of energy?

<comment><USER6> Same thing, really. E = Sqrt((m*c^2)^2 + (pc)^2)</comment></comment>


Why Do We Trust Amazon? - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/amazon-2013-3/ <comment><USER2> 1\. I know I'm getting a reasonable price.

2\. With Prime I know when I'm getting my stuff and I know it will be fast.

3\. I don't have to be afraid of getting screwed over, even by third party merchants through amazon.

4\. Their no hassle return policy.

5\. Their going out of the way to make it right.

6\. Multiple ways of getting customer service. One of the best experiences you can have today. As opposed to, Netflix, for example. The worst service I have experienced.

7\. Ease of browsing and window shopping combined with good reviews and meta- reviews (comments and ratings on each review that is). Amazon reviews seem to be MUCH more unbiased than any independent reviewer for that product that you may find elsewhere.

8\. Prime freebies like Instant video etc.

They're doing everything a customer expects, right, and that is pretty much why I love Amazon.

<comment><USER3> For the record, the one time I was forced to contact Netflix for support was when my brand new Roku was not connecting to my account. The Netflix rep I spoke with was very patient, and helped me solve the issue, which turned out to be with my Roku, _not_ Netflix.

Other than that, I have never needed to call, email or otherwise contact Netflix at all, which I think is a great thing in and of itself!

<comment><USER4> The first time I had to contact Netflix support was actually while I was attempting to give them my money and sign up. For some reason their systems were rejecting all new signups and their customer support was in complete disarray. Took me 45 minutes on the phone (44 minutes and 30 seconds on hold) to confirm I wasn't the only person having a problem.

With that experience in mind, I am not terribly surprised other people have had issues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Amazon has very clever marketing which is evident in the sentiment reflected in the comments.

One comment mentions that Amazon is the "cheapest possible way" to get anything. False. Many other retailers are likely to have the item you want at a lower price, even including shipping.

Another comment mentions the customer service. Honestly, I don't think Amazon has very good customer service: every interaction is handled in the form of giving you your money back. "Hi Amazon, I really liked item X, when will it be back in stock?" "Sorry about your experience with item X. We're refunding your credit card." "What?" (My specific experience involves buying bike tires. I ordered a certain model of road bike tires, but got mountian bike tires instead. I emailed customer service, who wrote back apologizing and overnighting me two new tires. Same problem. Same email. Same result. Now I have 6 incorrect bike tires. Thanks, "great customer service". While I'm never out any money after dealing with Amazon, sometimes I'm annoyed because I know my concerns aren't being heard. And I'm never going to get that time back that I spent talking with them.)

Amazon's real assets are a huge inventory and a great order-fulfillment system. I never really wonder if my order is going to show up or not, modulo occasional randomness from the shipping companies.

<comment><USER6> More or less the entire reason I use Amazon to buy things online over any other online retailer is predictability of delivery. If I order something and it tells me it will arrive on day X after ordering it (next day or two day generally since I'm a Prime user so two day is free), it actually arrives when stated. I don't sit around waiting for two days only to be informed the item is backordered or two-day shipping means two-day shipping but that's two days after we sit on your order for a week before we ship it from the warehouse, etc, which are events that happen all too often for me on other sites.

Of course this only applies to things fulfilled by Amazon, things fulfilled by Amazon affiliates are just as much a wildcard as on any other site and thus I try to avoid them as well generally.

<comment><USER5> I think Amazon does a pretty good job vetting merchants. While they aren't _as good_ as Amazon at sending me things, they generally do a pretty good job. The only thing I dislike is how often the spam me with things like "Is everything ok? If there are problems please contact us immediately!" I know why they do this (unhappy customers = no longer able to accept Amazon payments), but it doesn't mean I have to like it. Nothing a mail filter can't solve, however :)

<comment><USER7> They're also good at vetting buyers. As a merchant, I appreciate the fact that even when the most skeezy-feeling buyers are legitimate. You can get screwed by the customer service requirements, but at least you see fewer customers with fake credit cards and the like.

The spam you'd describing is an attempt to get you to rate them. I've sold many things, and the rating rate is less than 10%, so you need to sell a lot to get out of the new vendor ghetto.

<comment><USER8> And even if you do get chargebacks as long as the reason given is fraud amazon will cover them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think people still trust amazon because they are an easy to understand company: at it's core, amazon is a business that sells _things_ for a profit. Everybody can understand how they make their money.

<comment><USER10> Until you get into the cloud stuff... AWS, EBS and all that... I'm sure you start losing people at that point.

<comment><USER11> Mmm... maybe. Most people could probably understand "they'll rent you a computer to run your website".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "It's also clear that Amazon doesn't care about what it sells; it just cares about the selling."

On the contrary. It's clear that Bezos cares very much about books. Yes, he sells lots of other stuff, and yes, he's in business to make a profit, but no one who's followed his career could seriously deny that books are very special to him.

</comment><comment><USER12> You never hear about Amazon "going to war" with other companies. Whilst other companies, e.g. Google and Apple, are constantly bickering amongst each other, Amazon just stays in the background, doing it's own thing. I personally think that's a breath of fresh air.

<comment><USER13> You must not have been listening hard enough: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com_controversies>

All major companies have their fair share of controversy. That being said, I've had nothing but good service with Amazon. And Apple/Google for that matter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I 'trust' Amazon because its a very classic buyer-seller relationship. I give them money, they give me things. They do a good job of giving me things, I give them more money. Incentives are aligned to benefit me. This is a relationship I can trust to 'do a good job of giving me things'.

I wouldn't say I trust Amazon, but I am comfortable in the relationship we have going on. :)

I _am_ the customer, and I know it. This is not so with advertising-based companies (i.e., Facebook, Google).

</comment><comment><USER15> amazon Germany just recently got under heavy fire for bad working conditions, bullying and low pay after making higher inital offers. only affects there warehouse people but it got pretty bad in the press. My mom was like "i am not buying from amazon anymore for the time being"

Just wanted to post this as it was in the news just days ago to give a counter perspective. Obv. amazon germany is a different company but its their second largest market.

[1] [http://www.dw.de/amazon-scrambles-after-damning-german- docum...](http://www.dw.de/amazon-scrambles-after-damning-german- documentary/a-16603329)

</comment><comment><USER16> I trust Amazon's Web Services division because they "eat their own dog food."

I also have to give a shout out to Jeff Barr, AWS's Chief Evangelist. He has always made it clear what AWS could and couldn't do and strives to understand what AWS customers really need.

<comment><USER17> Thanks Steve, I really appreciate that!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I want to see someone contrast this with costco, (I'm genuinely surprised that costco has a lesser reputation than amazon)

</comment><comment><USER19> Money back guarantee is an extremely powerful marketing tool to establish trust with a faceless corporation far away over the net. Trust is the basis of a long lasting business relationship. Customers simply trust Amazon won't screw up and will bend over backward to make it up if thing goes wrong. Customers just go back to Amazon because of its trusting brand.

</comment><comment><USER20> This is my favourite characterization of Amazon:

"Amazon, as best I can tell, is a charitable organization being run by elements of the investment community for the benefit of consumers. The shareholders put up the equity, and instead of owning a claim on a steady stream of fat profits, they get a claim on a mighty engine of consumer surplus. Amazon sells things to people at prices that seem impossible because it actually is impossible to make money that way. And the competitive pressure of needing to square off against Amazon cuts profit margins at other companies, thus benefiting people who don't even buy anything from Amazon."

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/01/29/amazon_q4_pro...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/01/29/amazon_q4_profits_fall_45_percent.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> NYT article on the single-word press release: [http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/09/business/media-talk- bookst...](http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/09/business/media-talk-bookstore- goliaths-fax-to-the-finish.html)

Can't find the press release on Amazon's site though.

</comment><comment><USER22> Over a decade of consistently met expectations?

</comment><comment><USER23> Amazon is such an enigma to me. There are things about Amazon I really hate. The silly patents. The absolutely non-stop ad-retargeting. The often intrusive marketing emails.

Yet if you asked, I'd rate them as my absolutely favorite online company.

There is something extremely compelling about their brand. When my wife signed us up for prime, I actually became an even _bigger_ fan (and I paid for the privilege!).

At the end of the day prime has been the thing that has made me into a internet-first consumer. I _know_ I'll get it in two days, and it turns out that is soon enough for just about everything.

<comment><USER24> I'm curious what you mean by "intrustive marketing emails". I've been a heavy Amazon customer more than 14 years (I easily spend five digits annually with them on products alone), I'm a Prime member, I use AWS, ... and I have never once received a single unsolicited email from Amazon (i.e., one not associated with the logistics of a specific purchase).

<comment><USER23> Really? The most recent:

      "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey"

      Customers who have shopped Movies & TV might like to know that "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is now available for pre-order on DVD, DVD/Blu-ray combo and 3D/DVD/Blu-ray combo. "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" will be released March 19, 2013.

      ....

I'm sure there is a setting that I can use to make these stop, but I'm far too lazy to do it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> When I saw the title of this article, I thought it referred to the fact that something like 1% of Internet sites run on Amazon Elastic Cloud. I was expecting the author to intimate that Amazon might be spying on everything done on those millions of virtual servers (data stored in their databases, access logs, etc).

It seems to actually be saying something a lot less interesting (at least to me).

</comment><comment><USER26> Well, as everywhere, trust is earned by repeated posive interactions.

Compared to small webshops (in my personal experience), Amazon doesn't screw up nearly as often; and if it does screw up, then it makes things right - since it treats me as a probably-returning-customer.

</comment><comment><USER27> Amazon AutoRip is another nice touch. Every music CD I've ever purchased with them over the years is not available to me in the cloud as if I had purchased the MP3s as well.

Now if only we could do the same with Kindle.

<comment><USER28> *is now available

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> The crux isn't a list of things they do right, but the emphasis of "doing it right" is what makes the company so reliable.

</comment><comment><USER30> I trust Amazon because their practices make me feel warm and gooey inside. The fact that (foreign) workers are actively exploited just so I can get something delivered that I could have bought for roughly the same price in an actual store for roughly the same price while simultaneously supporting the local economy aligns nicely with my worldview.

I trust Amazon because they treat their workers like cattle, allowing me to feel superior due the fact that I have not yet sunk low enough due to economic pressures that I have to leave my home (and family and/or country) in order to work for sub-standard wages in aforeign country without any actual enforcable rights. I trust Amazon because they successfully subvert union influence , hollowing out any form of social or political control in favour of laissez- faire. I trust Amazon because they fight essentially fight the fascism- socialism-communism of regulatory influence on a market.

I trust Amazon because their ideology does not just include jostling workers like livestock, rather, it also allows right-wing security contractors with Neo-Nazi affiliations to watch and exert control over a mostly foreign workforce.

I trust Amazon because it exploits present social laws if at all possible, showing us nicely that an international company really does good things for local communities.

I trust Amazon, since it is a company that can in all seriousness act surprised once its systematic and systemic abuse of people is uncovered, feigning unawareness and promising immediate consequences.

I trust Amazon because it can now hide behind the "mistake" made with a right- wing militiaesque security outfit instead of addressing the actual scandal, which is the ruthless exploitation of workers who have little choice.

I trust Amazon because it can rely on our own inactivity, complacency and convenience which will let us order things instead of realising the sick machinery that Amazon's behaviour is just a product and example of and that is far more widespread, where everyone involved can defer responsibility because they are but a cog in an overall bigger, self-perpetuating scheme.

[http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/neue-vorwuerfe-gegen- amazo...](http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/neue-vorwuerfe-gegen-amazon-als- wuerden-die-menschen-dressiert-werden-1.1614066) [german]

<https://www.taz.de/!111213/> [german]

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/amazon- used-n...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/amazon-used-neonazi- guards-to-keep-immigrant-workforce-under-control-in-germany-8495843.html)

[http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-to-investigate- german-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-to-investigate-german- factories-2013-2)

</comment><comment><USER31> As a seller, you shouldn't.

They don't have any support beyond automated email bots.

Unlike Ebay, they also sell the same items alongside your listings, which means they can and will use your sales data to find out which items are profitable (and put you out of business).

I sold on Amazon for 5 years and saw Amazon slowly cut me out of every market I was in..until they finally banned my account and would now allow me to explain anything.

Near 100% feedback with virtually no customer complaints wasn't enough.

<comment><USER8> As a seller I have been relative happy with the support. Granted they will usually follow their rules down to the letter which won't usually favor you as a seller.

The responses I have got though have often felt like someone actually took the time to understand the question.</comment></comment>