Biology needs more staff scientists - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/biology-needs-more-staff-scientists-1.21991 <comment><USER3> My career goal is to be a staff scientist (in biology/bioinformatics). I hate writing grants and the related political bullshit. All I want is to do actual science, even if it means a marginal pay cut and some degree of decrease in autonomy -- although in practice, I'm not sure how much autonomy there actually in being a PI, where you are "autonomous" in that small portion of your time that doesn't involve raising money.

I made a simple proposition to my PI: I'm skilled. I'm at least 3x as productive as a grad student (and I could make 10x in industry). You pay me 3x, and I'll work on your projects some of the time and mine some of the time. Give me (a realistic and workable level of) freedom, a living wage, and treat me right, and I'll stay here as long as I can. He agreed.

It takes an experienced PI to understand just how much more value a staff scientist gives over a early-stage postdoc or grad student, which are cheaper. You get stability, expertise, and experience for what is ultimately not that high a price tag. I myself have watched my PI undergo this evolution. I have been with him 10 years, and in the early days, he was all about summer students etc. Now he knows that you simply cannot get real work done with cheap, temporary labor.

I could get higher-paying or more prestigious jobs elsewhere. And I do believe I could cut it as a PI if I wanted. But I really, really value this arrangement.

<comment><USER4> I am likewise a staff scientist by choice. I'm confident that I have abilities and track record that would allow me to start my own lab if I wanted to, but I value being able to do science instead of writing grants full time. Our current system excels at taking bright scientific minds and turning them into middle managers.

<comment><USER5> I think it's also important to recognize that _hiring_ a staff scientist means that that the PI is further entrenching themselves in middle management. You need to write _more_ grants in order to fund a staff scientist and give them the job security they expect.

Most PIs I know would prefer to spend more time in their lab.

"Hire me to do the things you wish you were doing, and in the process damn yourself not to be able to do them" is a steep ask for a lot of labs, especially small ones.

<comment><USER6> I thought the same thing -- given the choice, most PIs would just as soon hire a full-time "staff grant writer" and return to science themselves. Of course, you can't actually pay for such a position using government grants, and therein lies the rub.

<comment><USER3> If we're talking about unicorns, a competent "staff grant writer" has to be the rarest of them all. To write a grant well, you have to deeply understand the specific science at hand and be a good writer. Someone who would voluntarily choose such a job would also be someone who enjoys the process of writing.

So, in other words, someone perfectly suited to be a PI, a more prestigious and better-paying position with more freedom.

Our institution has one you can ask to help write/review/correct grants. They are pretty useless because they cannot possibly understand the science each individual lab is engaged in at an adequate level. Usually they just offer superficial suggestions/corrections.

<comment><USER5> I think I've met _one_ person with a dedicated lab grant writer and yeah, I'm pretty sure the PI would take a bullet for them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Science in general needs more staff scientists. Currently the system is based mostly on "cheap" labor by students and postdocs who often work long hours for minimal pay in the hope of one day getting a real position. This is not only demotivating and unfair but also very inefficient, since labs will often tend to solve problems using manual labor instead of seeking more innovative solutions.

Personally, I think a well-run lab needs a combination of staff scientists, very good engineers and salespeople, with one or more visionaries at the top who define the direction of work. OpenAI is a great example of how this can work (IMHO),as they have both excellent scientists but also brilliant engineers and people that are very good at selling their vision to the world.

<comment><USER8> I completely agree with this. I believe that staff scientists should be treated as independent researchers. In my experience, they tend to be used as lab support, for example, ordering reagents, managing the annoying aspects of big projects, etc. etc.

As a post-doctoral fellow who would rather not be a principle investigator, I would love a job where I can work independently on my own research projects with a reasonable wage.

<comment><USER9> Federal research (i.e. civil servants at NASA, NOAA, DOE, etc.) tends to work closer to that model, but not 100%.

<comment><USER10> Twenty years ago when I worked for a FFRDC (Mitre), the number of staff were preallocated for the entire year, and the only decisions were how to allocate personnel onto the pool of candidate projects. As long as you could interest a gov't project manager, you got approval to go ahead with your (their) work. However, our capital expenditures were generally pretty minimal. This model allocated labor almost exclusively.

That's about as liberal an R&D policy as I've seen anywhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nothing is going to change until the people making the rules and awarding the grants stop getting all the money. The whole science funding process is rigged to favour senior scientists running a feudal hierarchy with themselves at the top.

Actually what would be nice to try is a system like the way the polio vaccine was created. At the beginning there were a whole lot of technical and scientific questions that needed to be answered and the march of dimes organisation handed out grants to the various scientists to answer all these questions. One of the biggest problems with the current system is the knowledge gathered often has large gaps that make it impossible to use - <USER2> one wants to work on all the boring, gap-filling work that is critical to using a breakthrough.

<comment><USER12> One of my mentors told me, holding my grant application in his hand: "This (the funding org) is a mafia. Do you know how you fight the mafia? You build your own mafia." Project is going like gangbusters, no government money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> You can't pay a staff scientist $20k a year like you can a graduate student. The article mentions that. I don't see the situation changing unless the supply of graduate student labor dries up.

Hell, if I could hire grad-school quality new cs grads for 20k, I'd put up with the necessary mentoring and supervision they'd need.

<comment><USER14> A staff scientist at a National Lab is going to make $100K or more (cost- adjusted for the region; Berkeley likely pays more than Argonne, since the former is near SV, while the latter is an hour+ outside Chicago).

A grad student is never a replacement for a staff scientist. Grad students aren't particularly useful until 4-5 years into a 7 year program, and then they're out in a couple years, so they can't do complex, long-running research.

<comment><USER15> The labs don't employ many life scientists compared to physics and engineering doctorates. The article is focused on biology.

Not that we don't generally need more staff scientists, but the national labs are probably the best gig along those lines available, and due to their mission, they are very focused on CS/Engineering /Physics

In my limited experience, the life sciences are much more depressed in terms of wages.

<comment><USER14> I was a staff scientists at a national lab (titled "Computer Scientist", but at the time, I was a biologist that used computers). We had plenty of people in LS (there are several divisions dedicated to biology). It grew a ton over the past few decades (true for all the labs). There is a modest difference in pay between a Staff Scientist in the Life Sciences Division and a Computer Scientist (doing life sciences) in the Computational division, but that's mainly explained by the fact that we had to compete with Silicon Valley to hire. Also, both CS and life sciences aren't hard funded like physics is (at least at LBL, dunno about others).

I suppose what I'm saying supports you, in that I had to specifically be titled CS to get the higher salary. I would agree that in general, life sciences wages are depressed, but then, there are far more people in life sciences than CS, but much more demand for CS, and CS people bring in more dollars/hour (in terms of company revenue in the case of a biotech vs. a SV computer company). You can't fix that without making structural changes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Research organizations hate to admit it, but much of what they do would be considered "plant engineering" in heavy industry. Installing equipment, building tooling, connecting things up, and running the equipment are skilled work, but not research work. The physics community in their big-money "nuclear future" days was organized that way.

I once worked in a large R&D facility for hydraulic equipment. The place was about 75% blue collar workers - good ones, because this was all one-off stuff, not production. Only about 20% of the work force had engineering degrees.

<comment><USER17> Right, but most academic institutions would hire lab technicians to do those jobs.

Actually, you probably wouldn't even trust a PhD student or junior postdoc to setup lab equipment...

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Um as someone with a Ph.D. in the life sciences:

I can make close to 7-figures (amortized over a decade or so) pushing/enabling the AI/Cloud Computing agenda...

or...

I can make close to 6-figures (and stably so) working as a staff scientist...

Gonna have to split the difference there IMO to grow the ranks. I am somehow reminded of the article complaining that retirees are hoarding cash instead of spending because they fear the future.

How about constructing a society where I feel I should work for those 6-figures because it will bring a better future rather than compelled to chase 7-figures because the future is @#$%ing scary right now? Because that's what it's going to take for someone like me. And of course, I only speak for myself, but the data in that article about retirees makes me think I'm not the only one.

<comment><USER19> Close to 7 figures? How are you doing that math? (Genuinely curious)

<comment><USER18> Over ~2 decades...

Join a lot of startups that ultimately fail, but which were doing the right sort of things... Some of them didn't fail... Repeat with ever-increasing ability to detect bozos...

<comment><USER20> I guess I still don't see it. I know a lot of life sciences and CS PhDs and only one made 7 figures amortized over 15 yrs.

Mostly you make very low 6 figures.

<comment><USER21> Are you talking about gross? At 75k/yr you'll easily clear $1M after 15 years. Staff scientists at national labs easily make that.

<comment><USER20> I am assuming we're talking about annual amortized income. Otherwise, why bring up the word amortized?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The academic market is distorted because of the withholding of final credentials (and for foreign students, the papers to be in the country). That alone suppresses wages and disincentivizes the hiring of staff scientists who demand the higher natural wage for the work performed.

It is further distorted by lacing what would be a better collaborative allocation of resources with instead strong flavors of formalized individual protectionism, whether student or PI. So now your limited funding gets spread to 10 groups secretly doing the same thing and they have to take a lot of shortcuts to "win."

</comment><comment><USER23> I know some unemployed PhDs in their late 30s that are always low-balled when looking for a job, looked down upon because they didn't manage to become successful titans of industry earlier... PhD is either a ticket to the highest echelon of the society or a life-long poverty.

<comment><USER18> I remember when one of Craig Venter's startups offered me little more than post-doc money. When I turned them down, most of the people I interviewed with emailed me privately to ask for a referral to my new employer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> One issue:

> All institutions should be like Broad (paraphrasing)

> The Broad Institute attracts world-class scientists, as both faculty members > and staff.

HHMI's Janelia, the Salk Institute, and others that function like Broad can all attract world-class scientists. I'm skeptical that they're producing better/more interesting science because of their staff-scientist heavy model. A simpler explanation is that they attract better scientists and have almost unlimited funding.

<comment><USER25> Money and talent certainly help, but the grad student/postdoc model also locks people into a certain kind of project where most of the work is done by 1-3 people over 1-3 years, with some extra bits done here and there by collaborators. This gets you a lot of underpowered experiments, bad analysis code, and tons of reduplicated effort as people scramble to finish up, publish, and move on.

<comment><USER4> Indeed. The lack of continuity is killer, not just for the people working in that lab, but for science as a whole. That model is how we get shitty unsupported bioinformatics packages, experiments that no one can replicate, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Just as a point of reference:. I got hired 'through the backdoor' at a research institute once. I applied for a ba/bs biologist position and got a substantial pay raise over the postdoc position I had prior. Eventually they converted me over to postdoc and with a pay raise with the promotion, I became the highest paid postdoc.

</comment><comment><USER27> A few years back I was kinda in this role: I was contacted by an old professor of mine who didn't know I moved out of academia and into software. He had recently won a grant and wanted to hire me as a post doc.

In the end we arranged things so I would work 1-2 day a week for them, while keeping my day job. I ended up helping a few other postdocs with their code. I do have a PhD in physics, but in that position I was free to ignore the deeper part of the science (like reading literature, figuring out hypotheses) and I would mostly concerned in helping them set up their numerical experiments, or symbolic computations.

</comment><comment><USER28> We are ready to be hired; but the trend currently is to fill jobs with unpaid volunteers, ask for stupid requisites like Phd <30 Yo just because, and recruit retired professors to teach again for free. Therefore... thanks, but not thanks

</comment><comment><USER29> Well, duh. It's a great job. I have a small lab. I have some limited funding to pursue my own research projects. I don't have to teach classes except for an occasional guest lecture. I don't have to serve on committees, or manage graduate students. It only took two years to get the staff equivalent of tenure. I have job security. Most importantly, I get to help a lot of people and collaborate on interesting projects.

The downside is that the pay is rather poor, at least for me in the life sciences. Also don't expect to be treated with the same respect as tenured faculty.

</comment><comment><USER30> _Why haven 't more research institutions expanded the roles of staff scientists? One reason is that they can be hard to pay for, especially by conventional means. Some funding agencies look askance at supporting this class of professionals; after all, graduate students and postdocs are paid much less._

It's refreshing, in an article about needing more technical workers, to see at least some glimmer of a nod to the realities of supply and demand. I can't say this article quite recognizes this reality, but in its defense, we are talking about science, were people openly state they are motivated by the opportunity to do good work rather than salary alone.

So, this is different from a startup founder looking to get rich complaining about a lack of engineers to hire, without mentioning pay. But not completely different, only a little different.

"Biology needs more staff scientists." You sure you don't mean more programmers at low pay? Much of the work requires increasingly sophisticated programming ability, a skillset that is not really taught in or rewarded in an academic career path. It sounds like biology needs more people who will work for half of what they could make in industry, in a field structured to ensure they will never rise to leadership positions.

I might as well say that biology needs more disposable young programmers who are willing to work for $5 an hour. I might as well say there is high unemployment among biology staff scientists who won't work for less than $250k a year.

At a low salary, the market will demand a lot of a service, but there is little incentive to supply it. At a very high salary, the market will demand much less, but there will be. much higher incentive to supply it.

There's also an elephant in the room here - university positions are often exempt from H1B caps, which means they can bring in programmers who aren't free to participate in free labor markets. As long as that is the case, don't expect supply and demand curves to meet. Markets only work if people are broadly free (not just to take another programmer position at a similar institution, but to leave the field, start a business, become an artist, install dry wall, sell real estate... you know, _free_ , as in, well... _free_. I'm not sure there's any other way to put this).

This is a strange thing, but here it goes - if you ever read an article about a "shortage" of workers in a field, be very careful about going into that field. It may mean that employers are looking for ways to gain coercive control over their workers lives, and to create a captive workforce that is not free to go into other fields. And that sort of control often spreads into abusive work relationships, poor working conditions, and other very ugly situations.

</comment><comment><USER31> Women are doing pretty amazing at biology these days!

<comment><USER31> Is there a discipline of science they're excelling at further? I truly love progress, particularly medical, and the more hands on deck the better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> No they don't. They don't want or need them. It is one of the female dominated fields, and the pay is horrible. Economics 101, if you actually wanted it, you would pay for it. I cannot accept a field where it is reasonable to pay someone with a solid Bachelor of Science, recent grad, $12/hr. That is a joke, not a profession.</comment>


Advice for recent grad interested in one day starting a tech company? - <AUTHOR> I recently graduated from undergrad and am starting my first full-time job as a management consultant. I thought I wanted to go into investment banking then maybe tech later down the line so I did all my internships in finance. Meanwhile, I worked on a start up for 2 years in undergrad and loved it. I realized I loved wearing many hats, learning new things, and all the thrills that come with working in a growth / start up environment. I taught myself how to program to be able to build web apps.
I stopped working on my start up but I know I want to take a stab at starting a tech company again. I want to work for maybe a year or two, gain some professional experience, save money and try again.
I don't want to join a start up unless I was one of the first 10 people and really believed in it. I'd rather start my own thing and think I have it in me to succeed. Also, the work that excites me the most is Product Management, which has been hard to break into. Most startups pay really shitty for the roles that college grads might be qualified for bar SWE or PM.
I'd love to hear any and all advice that anyone on HN might have for someone like me. What do you wish you have known when you were 22 about starting a company? <comment><USER2> Management consultancy gives you exposure into many other industries that might be ripe for disruption or have specific needs that your future startup could fill. If you grow in that business you might get to take on a higher level leadership role in a future startup. That's important. If you find one you like you can likely deep dive into it. And you learn how to talk to business people and solve their problems. You learn to speak the language of business which can be useful. Otherwise you have to focus on tech and raising capital from tech oriented people vs businesses oriented people. Again not necessarily bad, just different.

Are you a programmer? The programming part is important but only in that you can quantify how long something will take etc... build an MVP and evaluate hires etc... But you can hire programmers. Their is more value in understanding the business problems/needs and then solving them.

You can choose to make programming a core competency and then you will have a couple of super powers. But identifying the business need and building that is the most important piece. A lot of tech/programmers get overly concerned with building the best product or using the best technologies vs building to the customer need.

So take the time to continue learning. If you want to jump into a startup you will learn a lot but as you said pick carefully. A lot of it is luck. If you stay in management consulting you will also find value if you seek it.

I think management consultants are disparaged unnecessarily in tech but I think that is more of a industry wide recruiting scheme than actual reality.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's great working at a start-up. Don't let peanuts salary demoralize you</comment>


The DSP Behind Bat Echolocation - <AUTHOR> http://www.hscott.net/the-dsp-behind-bat-echolocation/

<comment><USER2> > In each chirp, there is one fundamental frequency at about 100 kHz, then > another one at about 50 kHz, and two more above it at 150 kHz and 182 kHz.

Or a 50kHz fundamental frequency with overtones at 100, 150 and 200 (which looks like 384-200=184 because of aliasing, notice how the shape is reflected).</comment>


Reasons to Use HTML5 - <AUTHOR> http://tympanus.net/codrops/2011/11/24/top-10-reasons-to-use-html5-right-now/

<comment><USER2> Of course I embraced HTML5, but since this was written as a top 10 of why I _should_ use HTML5 now, I'll try to refute that top 10 for reasons of why you _shouldn't_ use HTML5 right now:

      10. Accessibility.

HTML5 sure has the potential to improve accessibility, but.WAI-ARIA guidelines are in draft mode. It will be several more years before assistive technologies fully support HTML5 to the degree they now support HTML4 and all your users will run on browsers that support HTML5.

"Upgrade to the latest version of Chrome to view this HTML5 demo" isn't any more accessible than prompting a user to download the latest version of Flash 5.

WAI-ARIA was needed to combat the accessibility problems that ajax-rich/click- rich web applications introduced. Part of this HTML5 and forward thinking is responsible for accessibility problems, not a cure.

Requiring javascript support (shiv) or a web-kit browser from a user, for laying out a web page isn't all that accessible.

      9. Video and Audio Support

The author called flash video implementation a hassle. So what does the author call a flash video fall-back, with a <video> tag, and your video encoded in .ogv, .webm, and .mp4?

And javascript feature detection to decide which to show? And a way to implement custom controls for both flash-video and html5-video?

And since you want accessibility how about flash and html5 captions? Descriptive Audio?

And Yahoo searchmonkey RDFa that you already used for your flash video and schema.org for your html5 video? Incompatible.

How long did it took for Flash to support webcam video and what is the current support state of <webcam> for html5? Video and audio support is what Flash did/does best.

      8. Doctype

It is short and simple, right? Why not <doctype>, or why not leave it out all together, if you can't be bothered as a HTML web developer to remember, store or copy-paste a doctype?

And RDFa with a html5 doctype?

      7. Cleaner code

Faulty example.

Why not

..

How is that less clean than

..

  ?

      6. Smarter Storage

Only works for local storage capable browsers, so off limits for app critical functionality, unless you don't care about that. If it was so smart, why can't I store a 15MB movie on Safari mobile?

Do you want to bother your users with a pop-up that says: "This website wants to store stuff in your local cache" while storing stuff like preferences in cookies is much more silent.

And how secure (for your privacy) is local cache and ETags when it can be abused for tracking?

      5. Better Interactions

"Better" Interactions. Better how? "It can do everything Flash was able to do in 2001, but better". Also better than Papervision3D from 2008?

      4. Game development

I don't need to switch from Flash to HTML5 to get Game development. I wouldn't switch from Flash to HTML5, because better game development.

"If you've built Flash games before, you'll love building HTML5 games."

If you were to poll game developers, this would likely be a very unpopular statement. I know it certainly doesn't apply to me.

      3. Legacy/Cross Browser Support

Again, no reason to switch to HTML5 from HTML4. It would be a reason _not_ to switch, if it didn't had legacy browser support, but that doesn't make it a game changer all of a sudden.

And a browser conditional statement ("if lt IE9" or "if Windows XP general user"), followed by a javascript hack, isn't native legacy support. It is just what it is.

      2. Mobile, Mobile, Mobile

HTML5 for mobile will be great, and this is a good reason to switch and fully familiarize yourself with HTML5 as a webdeveloper. Responsive design et al was already possible with HTML4 though, but the author is correct in saying html5 is important for mobile.

I am not really waiting to get "apple-touch-icon" approved as a HTML5 standard, but there is no denying that the future of HTML is in the hands of the big companies now.

      1. It's the Future, Get With It!

Sure, that is why I am already implementing HTML6 on most of my clients websites. The specs are a little rough around the edges, but at least I made my clients websites future proof. ;)

It seems you are advocating more of a switch to dynamic HTML5 web apps.

</comment><comment><USER3> I do find it a bit ironic that the article is published on a site with the XHTML Transitional DOCTYPE.

"It's the Future, Get With It!" ;-)

<comment><USER4> It is not ironic, it's humanity: <http://www.zeldman.com/2011/11/18/it-is-not- ironic/>

<comment><USER5> Humanity can be pretty ironic in its behavior, at times.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One of the better HTML5 walkthroughs. I like that he emphasizes almost seamless transition from XHTML. That's the key point, not all the new features!

I did not know about the Javascript shiv to make old browsers support HTML5. Very neat! Will play around with it right away.

</comment><comment><USER7> The very first thing I see in the article? An ad about creating free flash websites. They could not have chosen a worse article to put that on :)

</comment><comment><USER8> You'd be surprised at just how many people are still using table based layouts, inline styles and JavaScript, they keyword meta tag, and a ton of techniques that were cutting edge in 1997! And I'm talking about professional design firms!

I love HTML5 and I see no reason not to use it today. I know that there are still people using browsers that won't support the majority of features but we can still at least use the new tags and doctype with the JS shiv. For everything else there are well known ways to serve up new hotness to modern browsers and old lameness to old browsers. For example we can use the video tag with the last line before the closing tag being an embed for a YouTube or other video player as a fallback for older browsers.

I think there are 2 and a half reasons why HTML5 isn't being widely adopted yet. First, newbies are being fed old techniques from online tutorials and old books. Secondly, many of the cooler new features of html5 require JavaScript to work (Local Storage and Canvas for example). A lot of people still haven't gotten on the JavaScript bandwagon (including me, I admit. I can use jQuery plugins and get how they work but god help me if I had to write a single line of JS from scratch!). And then reason 2.5 is that people are just set in their ways. There are a ton of people who had been fed the rhetoric about semantics, divitis, and how to "properly" write HTML while learning XHTML and waiting for the I,agin any XHTML2 spec to arrive. Some of those people are set in their ways or have sour grapes about XHTML not being the new hotness after all the hype.

I have a question though. Why is it that in the HTML5 Boilerplate the doctype tag is in all lowercase? My text editor highlights it like its wrong. I usually capitalize the word DOCTYPE and leave html in all Lowe case. Does it make a difference?

<comment><USER3> Nope, HTML(5) is flexible. You could use <!dOcTyPe HtMl> if you feel like getting funky :-)

<comment><USER8> Cool, thank you! So was it just a personal choice in HTML5 BP or was there a reason behind it?

<comment><USER9> Uppercase DOCTYPE is for XHTML5 (HTML5 XML serialization). Basically XML requires to have DOCTYPE in uppercase and html in lowercase. By writing it this way you will conform to both cases. See also <http://www.w3.org/TR/html- polyglot/#doctype>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The only benefits of HTML are that it's supported by all vendors. But that's where it's advantages end. HTML and CSS are just a joke, and were never meant and designed to be used for application development. Javascript is a shit language, not geared towards writing performant code and projects like V8 try to workaround it, but that's just a workaround. Of course you can use hacks to achieve performance in JS too, but that wouldn't be idiomatic javascript. So, sad but true, there is lots of hype going on about crap technologies lately and it seems like we are going to deal with them in the foreseeable future, if even so experienced guys like Microsoft had to surrender and start using it.

<comment><USER8> Okay, so if HTML and CSS are so horrible then how do you propose we create websites? We're talking about the web, man! You've got to use HTML if you're going to work on the web no matter what. I see nothing bad about HTML or CSS. Every language has its shortcomings but that's because it can't be all things to all people.

The really awesome and a,axing thing about HTML and CSS is that we as web developers are innovating the way things are done online so much that the specs can barely keep up! I think it's great that we're outgrowing each new version of the spec so quickly. That means things are getting better, faster, more powerful.

We've taken these tools and bent the rules to create things that the languages weren't intended for. The languages haven't failed because they were never meant to do things that people have found a way to make them do. And now that these possibilities are out there it only means that the languages will evolve to accommodate the things we're doing with them just like html5 and css3 which I think are amazing leaps forward!

JavaScript isn't perfect but it works and it can get better. I don't get what your problem really is with these things. You say JavaScript is bad and slow but the rest just sounds like uninformed hating.

What's your solution? Replacement languages for HTML, CSS, and JavaScript so that not only do we all have to start from scratch with new languages but then wait even longer for browser support? You certainly do have balls barging in here like a troll with a half assed argument that states the obvious but misses the entire point of the new technology. These things are awesome for the same reason you say they suck.

<comment><USER10> I'm not a troll, I'm familiar with these tools. I've even written a prototype of a web application(IDE). And I know very well how much it is pain in the ass to develop using web technologies, compared to proper frameworks(.NET, Qt, Cocoa, you name it). Web technologies are the least common denominator, something that is more or less supported by everyone, but sucks compared to good tools. Of course if you really try - you can build something great with it(Google Docs, GMail, Cloud9 and many other amazing apps). But it requires 10 times more effort compared to good tools.

The advantages of the web are not the technologies it's implemented with, but very founding things like URL, instant delivery of content and applications. All of that is completely unrelated to the current technology stack. Google is a good example for you. They are probably the most experienced people out there in creating complex web applications. And yet they are the ones who try to bring technologies to replace them - Native Client, Dart programming language.

And you not even contradicting me, by saying "What's your solution? Replacement languages for HTML, CSS, and JavaScript so that not only do we all have to start from scratch with new languages but then wait even longer for browser support?" Yes, web stack is the current state of affairs. And it will take some strong man with balls to get rid of it and build a better new world. And yes, there are better technologies than that - a good example is QML for example. And I am by far not the only one who isn't satisfied.

<comment><USER11> QML? That'll be the JavaScript influenced modelling language from the Qt project, right?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


.info is the 4th most popular root domain in the US - <AUTHOR> http://natereport.com/2013/10/info-is-the-4th-most-popular-root-domain-in-the-us/

<comment><USER2> Here's the list I think: [https://www.quantcast.com/top- sites](https://www.quantcast.com/top-sites)

<comment><USER3> The first .info domain on that list is terere.info at position #1833, and which doesn't appear to even have anything on it. (Possibly it's an ad server or analytics domain.) Next one past that is helprx.info at #1926.

Point is, .info is a _very distant_ fourth to .com, .net, and .org.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Surely this just speaks to the productivity of spammers.

<comment> vezzy-fnord Or perhaps also because the .info TLD is frequently purchased as an alternative to the major three because of its relatively lower price and its rather generic purpose?

I don't know about the USA in particular, but this holds true for Europe.

<comment><AUTHOR> I also looked at Alexa's ranking which has global scope and the prevalence of .info was pretty much the same as US (see [http://natereport.com/2013/10/top-20-global- tlds/](http://natereport.com/2013/10/top-20-global-tlds/)). Global prevalence 1.17% vs 1.18% in the US.</comment></comment></comment>


Opening a US Corporation: an Incorporation Guide for Foreigners – Part 2 - <AUTHOR> http://myeverwrite.com/opening-a-us-corporation-an-incorporation-guide-for-foreigners-part-2/

<comment><USER2> Diego, that's really nice. Thanks a ton for sharing these step-by-step process. Doing this stuff may seem easy to americans, but when we are down here in Brazil trying to figure out all this things can be extremely time consuming. This will definitely help many of us save a huge amount of time.

</comment><comment><USER3> For those who want to check part 1, here it goes:

[http://myeverwrite.com/opening-a-delaware-corporation-an- inc...](http://myeverwrite.com/opening-a-delaware-corporation-an- incorporation-guide-for-foreigners/)

It's about incorporation and 83(b) election.

</comment><comment><USER4> Diego, it would be nice to know about the fiscal impact in Brazil. How hard is to 'get paid', and what is the size of the lion's (symbol of one Brazilian tax) bite?

<comment><USER3> Sure, we'll cover it in more detail over the next post. We'll talk more about what we're learning about accounting and taxes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It seems "simple" when you read it, but it must have taken a lot of time and effort to gather and do all this. Thanks for sharing! I`m waiting for the next post.

</comment><comment><USER6> Valuable tips for foreign business. Keep the good job on this post series. Waiting for Part 3 ;)

</comment><comment><USER7> Great guide! The Skype number is a great tip. Can't wait for the next one.

</comment><comment><USER8> That's great! Thanks for sharing this precious and concise information!

</comment><comment><USER9> Great guide! Thanks for sharing!</comment>


Ask HN: What are some great projects to gain experience in InfoSec? - <AUTHOR> I am taking a course in security, privacy, and distributed systems, and am wondering in case y'all have any suggestions for a research or programing project.<p>Some options I am considering:
 * Exploring something with Project Atlas,
 * Developing with Solidity,
 * Working on something with the Go Crypto library,
 * Implementing the Double Ratching Protocol, or
 * Developing with Monero/Litecoin <comment><USER2> When you say crypto do you mean cryptography or cryptocurrencies?

As of today, I'm not sure focusing exclusively on cryptocurrencies will give you much knowledge in security... the majority of the day-to-day security work I've seen related to cryptocurrencies is detecting and turning down crypto miners.

If you're interested in security, I'd personally start with either web/application security, or infrastructure by picking your favorite cloud (AWS, Google, Azure, ...) and learn their security offerings.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's good to know, thank you! I am looking for something to work on for the entire semester, so the latter may be better suited :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> What is your goal here? Are you looking to just tinker and learn? Or are you looking for something to slap your name on and give to prospective employers to say "See I worked on this project"?

If you are just tinkering/learning then I would suggest cracking some of the vulnerable vm's over at vulnhub.com

<comment><AUTHOR> My goal is to produce a project that I can work on for the entire semester. Vulnhub is great, but i think it may be too many tiny pieces... If that makes sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Check out the Kali distro</comment>


There will be blood - Photo Analysis - <AUTHOR> http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/580-There-Will-Be-Blood.html <comment><USER2> Aside from speculation, the first question one might ask is simply, are there additional photos?

In fact there are: [http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Syrian-warplanes- bomb...](http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Syrian-warplanes-bomb-rebel- held-town-20-killed-3791667.php#photo-3334011)

Now the "staging" looks a lot more complicated.

Also note that, the photographer won a Pulitzer(which means he's be vetted more thoroughly then most), while this reviewer has a history of making strongly worded claims that are disproved.

If interested look at this post which was soundly rebuked, and proved to be misleading.

[http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/549-Unb...](http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/549-Unbelievable.html)

Note this response: [http://petapixel.com/2013/05/14/forensics-expert-claims- worl...](http://petapixel.com/2013/05/14/forensics-expert-claims-world-press- photo-winner-a-fake-photographer-responds/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Can we stop the negativity toward the forensic expert here? He's doing his job. Trying to find out fake pictures. If you disagree, just give a counter point. Stop the Ad-hominem.

Here are my counter-arguments:

1\. Blood gets very dry: Not necessarily. Blood requires a sufficient level of platelets to get dry quickly. This can be the case, and it's not a rare condition. (I have it and my nose bleed frequently).

2\. Blood color: Same argument. Depend on the constituents of the blood; and whether it's oxygenated or not.

3\. Look at her right eye-brow. It looks like she was hit there and blood was bleeding from that place all over her right face. It can be the source of fresh, red blood.

<comment><USER4> Without casting any aspersions on the veracity of the photo, being talked about, it has to be said that there was plenty of amateur footage making the rounds in the early stages of the conflict, right about the time the UK parliament put the commitment of British forces in a potential military involvement, to vote.

The integrity of photos and video evidence (filmed mostly by amateurs in the early stages of the military strikes by Syrian security forces) was disputed.

[http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/videos-claim-to- sh...](http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/videos-claim-to-show-jabhat- al-nusra.html)

 _BBC News uses 'Iraq photo to illustrate Syrian massacre'_

 _The BBC is facing criticism after it accidentally used a picture taken in Iraq in 2003 to illustrate the senseless massacre of children in Syria._

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9293620/BB...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9293620/BBC- News-uses-Iraq-photo-to-illustrate-Syrian-massacre.html)

 _Photos of Syria Chemical Attack Appear to Have Been STAGED_

[http://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/09/13/analysis- photos-o...](http://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/09/13/analysis-photos-of- syria-chemical-attack-appear-to-have-been-staged/)

<comment><USER3> You are still missing the point. It's not a discussion about media legitimacy, it's a discussion if a photo is fake or not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Regardless of all the criticism of the analysis, or whether the analysis is "worth it": this post is a really interesting look into how someone that does photographic forensics professionally operates. I thought it was pretty nifty :)

<comment><USER2> Might be slow to trust this as professional forensic analysis.

Previous claims, which were more extensive, were refuted by independent review of professionals.

From the following article on other case: "The results of the expert analysis are in, and it looks like Hansen's photo does indeed stand up to serious forensic scrutiny."

[http://petapixel.com/2013/05/14/forensics-expert-claims- worl...](http://petapixel.com/2013/05/14/forensics-expert-claims-world-press- photo-winner-a-fake-photographer-responds/)

<comment><USER6> Posting the same link and comment five different times in the same thread isn't all that helpful.

<comment><USER7> If you only check replies to your comments, it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wasn't there. But I'm unconvinced and a little offended by some of this "reasoning."

 _As far as I can tell, there is no consistent angle that matches all of the blood drips._

Why must she have stood (or lain) still while the blood finished dripping?

 _Her eyes show no sign of pain._

Have you ever been bombed, or shot, or in a car accident, or fallen down stairs? The pain often doesn't kick in immediately. The pop explanation for that is "adrenalin" \- I don't know the scientific reasoning. But it's a very real effect.

While I realize you intend your tone to be scientific and dispassionate, it is a little too reminiscent of those you use "rational analysis" to deny, well, just about anything.

<comment><USER9> Cut the "offended" bit. It's either a fake or it isn't. This is a factual question. To claim to be offended is to say that you consider certain areas of thought morally off limits.

<comment><USER10> It's mostly about the fact that the author makes somewhat serious accusations while his proof is rather underwhelming.

<comment><USER2> Also he has a history of making strong claims that are disproved by other experts.

See: [http://petapixel.com/2013/05/14/forensics-expert-claims- worl...](http://petapixel.com/2013/05/14/forensics-expert-claims-world-press- photo-winner-a-fake-photographer-responds/)

<comment><USER10> Wow. He seems like an all-around shithead especially considering the fact that he's been proven wrong before yet that does not prevent him prevent him from doing the same thing again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> 100000 people killed, 2200000 refugees (1000000 of them children) and we are talking about a photo instead of taking action to end the war NOW.

<comment><USER12> And excuse me fake photo can push a war too. Look at the whole Iraq war. Any hard evidences have been disproved after the war. If you think a photo can't kill more people, think about cyberbullying. A single comment can trigger a death. Fake media has a larger effect. And you know the word "propaganda".

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So his whole argument boils down to him thinking it looks fake? It seems irresponsible to publish accusations like this without any hard evidence and without considering the consequences of being wrong.

Studies have shown that people are likely to remember accusations of wrong doing and forget retractions or corrections. His insinuation that either the subject or photographer is "faking it" is damaging their credibility just so this guy can get his kicks playing PhotoShop detective.

<comment><USER14> Sounds like you didn't read past the first couple of paragraphs.. while he isn't offering any conclusive proof, his argument consists a lot more than "I think it looks fake".

<comment><USER13> That's my point. He hasn't offered any conclusive proof yet the existence of the article is structured in a way that suggests there is something untoward to be discovered. Are we to assume that he wrote the article with the hope we'd read it and come away without any bias whatsoever?

The inclusion of the filters, despite them showing no significant manipulation, sets up the narrative that we are on our way to discovering how the pictures were faked.

If this were someone's Instagram pictures of their lunch that would be fine but we're talking about a respected photographer documenting a major news event. If there is something fake about the pictures then, yes, that needs to be uncovered. But not by amateur internet sleuths Googling pictures of blood to compare splatter patterns.

<comment><USER15> > we're talking about a respected photographer documenting a major news event.

Respected photographers have been duped before, and the post addresses this. I think jontas' assertion may be accurate.

> But not by amateur internet sleuths Googling pictures of blood to compare > splatter patterns.

I'm sure there are valid criticisms of his analysis, but I'm not quite sure calling Dr. Krawetz an "amateur internet sleuth" is fair if his biographical posting is in fact true [1]. On the other hand, if his qualifications are exaggerated, then his findings are assuredly suspect.

[1] [http://www.hackerfactor.com/about.php](http://www.hackerfactor.com/about.php)

<comment><USER13> My comment about sleuths was directed at other commenters in this thread.

I don't know much about Neal Krawetz, but his bio seems awfully inflated. Two of the books he's authored are about Ubuntu customization. It appears as though he's a relentless self-promoter. That kind of fits with the original article; he levels some vauge accusations while asserting that he's an expert all in the name of promoting his personal brand.

<comment><USER15> > It appears as though he's a relentless self-promoter.

That's true. The (linked) article is almost as much about analyzing an image on a hunch as it is about his giving talks and to whom those talks have been delivered.

On the other hand, there is a lesson in this: It's important to be critical of all media we consume.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I know of allegations that Palestinians frequently make stuff up about their war zone (which does not take away from the real harm that they endure at the hands of the Israelis, but does make it hard to evaluate the extent of that harm). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awYMPzSrh5o](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awYMPzSrh5o) Maybe that is simply common to all war zones? People want to draw arms and money to their side of the war, so it makes sense to do whatever you can to engender empathy in the viewer. It's just another form of propaganda. But props for doing this breakdown and helping us recognize it for what it is.

<comment><USER17> The term "Pallywood" would also be a form of propaganda, possibly a stronger one given the high budget production like the video you linked to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Keep in mind there has already been precedent for faking photos and videos in the Syria conflict, as well as other conflicts around the world.

It's very much in the interest of militants, and other actors ( _cough_ Saudis) to topple the Assad regime, and of course the only way to do that is to get the West involved...

In Iraq you have Sunni-Shia conflict, and that's pretty much what's going on in Syria right now too (with the same actors funding the conflict behind the scenes...).

</comment><comment><USER19> What would the motive be to fake an injury when we all appear to agree there really were injured people there? True or not, this reasoning based on things that cannot be objectively tested smacks of conspiracy theory.

</comment><comment><USER20> Is it really just me who thinks it's obvious as day that this is red paint?

The blood is way too red. And it starts on her forehead... where? Nowhere.

<comment><USER21> Blood can be very red. But from what I see, blood from facial cuts should be more watery in consistency.

[http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/11/09/article-0-026890B8...](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/11/09/article-0-026890B8000005DC-888_468x392.jpg)

[http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zOUSe8DKLjk/S0ebhT- SvXI/AAAAAAAAAA...](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zOUSe8DKLjk/S0ebhT- SvXI/AAAAAAAAAAw/PUIeXHmTdu0/s1600-h/pacquiao.jpg)

[http://english.ahram.org.eg/Media/News/2011/2/3/2011-6343233...](http://english.ahram.org.eg/Media/News/2011/2/3/2011-634323337911015008-101.jpg)

<comment><USER22> You have to take into account sweat as well. A boxer's face is probably going to be sweaty as they exert themselves quite a bit during a fight. As a result, the blood is going to get watered down.

I tried to find pictures to verify my idea, but every head injury picture I found was of an athlete.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I enjoyed the analysis, and lots of good points were made, and now has me believing it was faked. But I'll be honest, when I clicked the link, I was kinda hoping for some sort of image processing/hyperspectral article.

</comment><comment><USER24> ``Believing Is Seeing'' by Errol Morris is a great read for those who are torn here... A great read.

<comment><USER24> photo six: is she wearing braces? If so... is that common over there? I spent the better part of my 2011 paycheck to get Invisalign in my mouth and find that a little odd if that's the case. Maybe Morris' book has officially corrupted me!

<comment><USER25> Getting medical/dental work done in a "3rd world country" is ironically so much cheaper and more accessible than it is here in the USA. The quality isn't as great, but you can't have everything in life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> While the author seems to know something about photo analysis (he believes the photo was not tampered with) he know jack shit about blood or wound analysis. And neither do the "professional photographers and artists" he knows.

I find it rather disturbing that someone would suggest that it was staged based on such flimsy evidence. And the subtitle "Just A Flesh Wound" is a reference to an extremely bloody but hilarious scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail - nice.

The Syrian Civil War is a tragedy and the civilians are not the villains.

</comment><comment><USER27> Re: wiping, isn't it possible that she wiped it herself initially (as author suggest she would, consciously or not) and then eventually left it alone and it streamed down past where she had wiped?</comment>


Crowded Out of Ivory Tower, Adjuncts See a Life Less Lofty - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/nyregion/crowded-out-of-ivory-tower-adjuncts-see-a-life-less-lofty.html?hpw&rref=education <comment><USER2> It sounds crass but modern academia is becoming like most other professions, i.e. simply getting credentialed (i.e. getting your Ph.D.) does not mean you can count on a tenure track academic faculty position. These positions are highly competitive.

Listen. At least it's not like many places in Europe (Italy? Germany?) where it's basically an old boys club and someone senior has to literally die before another position is available. At least in north america things are (mostly) still based on merit. You compete for jobs, the cream rises to the top.

Again not to be crass but another pattern I see in modern academia is an unwillingness to move, to take on a job. "I grew up in NYC, my family is here, and goddamnit I want a faculty position here too, not in Ohio or Nebraska or Arizona". I'm sorry but again, wha??

Maybe this sense of entitlement is not adequately dismantled as young graduate students come up through the ranks, that's certainly an issue we can discuss.

Anyway I'm empathetic with the guy in the article, he loves to do X, he is highly educated to do X, and he can't get a top-tier job to do X and so he has to do X-light. Join the club, man. You think everyone who gets an accounting degree expects to work at the top firms? You think everyone who gets a law degree automatically expects to get the top jobs? Of course not. It's competitive. It's a jungle out there.

There's the issue of how long it takes to get credentialed as a PhD, and how it's an extra burden for a 40-something with a young family to not have job security. Sure that's true... but am I missing something? Did someone promise this guy 15 yrs ago when he started on this journey that he would land in a tenure track job? Did someone tell him that it's not competitive? I don't think so.

In fact I'm a bit on the peeved side about this guy, if he does have a young family, what the crap is he doing, why isn't he ensuring a more stable life for his family? For god's sake, get a stable job, do poetry on the side as a hobby like the rest of the world.

Anyway enough ranting, I'm sick of the elite class bellyaching about how they didn't win the lottery even though they bought a ticket.

<comment><USER3> _Did someone promise this guy 15 yrs ago when he started on this journey that he would land in a tenure track job? Did someone tell him that it 's not competitive? I don't think so._

I don't know about the humanities, but up to about 2009 with a PhD in the sciences from a second-tier institution you could get a tenure-track job at another second-tier university or four-year college. That was the typical career track, because industry recruits only from top institutions at PhD level.

Then the funding crisis struck, and while universities are increasing enrollment (with the students shooting mostly for pre-med at my state school) they are no longer hiring for tenure-track positions, it's now untenured lecturers or part-time adjuncts.

Universities have found out that they can hire at lower salary levels because of plentiful supply, and they do not mind that quality of instruction is suffering. It is suffering because as a lecturer you are moving around every three years looking for a better deal and the first year is spent getting used to the syllabus at the new place, and if you are teaching three sections at three different places to make ends meet as an adjunct you just can't be good.

It's strange that the students don't mind that they are getting less of an education, but they really don't mind.

<comment><USER4> Students aren't, for the most part, paying for the instruction. They're paying for the certification.

Unbundling these two things would solve all kinds of problems. That's a pretty big challenge though.

<comment><USER5> Forget being a challenge, is it even possible? Isn't the certification's only value that it certifies that you've received the instruction?

<comment><USER4> Unbundling doesn't mean that you haven't gotten the instruction. It just means that the institution that does the instructing doesn't have to be the same institution that grants the certification.

If somehow Harvard could start certifying extra 22 year olds as "just as good as any other Harvard grad" even if they never took a single class there then lots of interesting things might happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't see why there isn't a bigger push to move all these jobless PhDs to high school teaching positions. They'll make more money and get better benefits than what they get as an adjunct. They won't necessarily get much time to "research," but with their own knowledge and experience, lesson planning should be a breeze.

More importantly, they'll be bringing something vitally important to high school education: instructors who are passionate about their subject, and well-equipped to improve students' skills. They'll still get exposure to their beloved subject, but also spread that exposure to those who need it.

<comment><USER7> Many PhD's would probably teach high school, except for the ridiculous credentialing programs / teacher licensing requirements. Basically you have to get a 1.5 year education degree to "qualify" to teach a subject; yes, you can have a PhD in math from Princeton and be unqualified to teach 9th grade math in Trenton. Makes me want to vomit.

<comment><USER8> In terms of math skills, sure. But a senior in high school should have enough mastery of the material to explain things to a 9th grader, so that's a bad argument. As anyone who's taken an undergraduate class in the hard sciences knows, a PhD does not indicate anything about teaching ability (in my experience, it's anti-correlated with it if anything).

I'm sure the credentialing process has its own unique failings, but it is trying to act as a real value add.

<comment><USER7> It is trying to act as a value add, but it failing consistently and pointlessly. The data, I think, are in. It is a waste of time and limits the number of possible good teachers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What do you call a 42 year old, with a wife, a toddler and mounting credit card debt who got an English PhD 18 months ago?

Either someone who completely failed to plan ahead, or someone who wanted to knowingly gamble everything to "follow his dream."

Either is fine---just don't ask society to bail you out.

A growing gap between 0 and the top is not inherently a problem---in fact it is necessary in a free market that is progressing. There is no problem here, move on folks. It is an intellectually bankrupt argument. Seriously, this guy is the best they can dig up to advance their agenda?

And the ironic thing is that in trying to promote its egalitarian agenda, the NYT has acidentally provided additional evidence that the government-education axis is fundamentally broken.

We need separation of government and education just as we need separation of government and religion.

<comment><USER10> Your username matches your comment - harsh, unempathetic, and blind to a larger, kinder view of society as you pursue a simplistic, black and white ethical code.

Your willingness to throw people to the wolves because they've pursued their dreams without strict pragmatism about their career prospects is disturbing, to say the least. Do you really think society will be better off without any English professors? Artists? Dreamers? Of course not. So this guy's problem is indirectly everyone's problem.

<comment><USER9> Absolutely wrong. My viewpoint is the MOST empathetic, loving and kind. Here is why.

What is better for a person at the bottom of the economic ladder who wants to pursue actual values---happiness and prosperity---instead of simply languishing?

The answer is a free market and a booming, robust economy.

What about the ones who languish? You literally can't help them anyway. Somebody who just lives on the dole and stays there is NOT going to have a happy life, no matter how hard you try to help them.

Therefore, as a society, we should always choose freedom and the concommitant prosperity over egalitarianism, which just sacrifices those pursuing values to those who are helplessly languishing.

Also I'm all for artists, dreamers and English professors--that's why I disjuncted "willing to gamble." Which is quite reasonable if you're young and possibly even reasonable when you're 42, poor, and have a family---which is why I didn't pass judgement on this specific man.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There's an interesting discontinuity here:

\- he's got a full workload (not a universal amongst adjuncts) and so the guy's skills are clearly in demand

\- he's taking home peanuts

\- students are paying a lot more in tuition than they ever did

In this, as in so many areas of business, the consumer (the student in this case) might wonder where all the money is going.

<comment><USER12> Different markets.

Demand for the jobs is high, and supply is low. This keeps pay low.

Compare to tuition. Demand has been increasing over the last decade, and supply has remained relatively fixed or grown slowly. As more students seek to acquire trash art history degrees, price has risen to match the demand.

<comment><USER4> I understand and agree with you here, but that still leaves the question: where does all the money go?

Most universities aren't for profit institutions churning out dividends for shareholders, so it's gotta be going somewhere internal to the schools.

I'm honestly a bit mystified.

<comment><USER13> I personally think it's university administration and large recurring service contracts.

<comment><USER4> Administration makes sense. I saw something else in this thread indicating that the administrators :: student ratio has exploded in the last 30 years.

What do you mean by "large recurring service contracts" ?

<comment><USER13> To take two examples, Blackboard costs at least in the hundreds of thousands (maybe a few orders of magnitude more) while an individual license of matlab is 3000, so perhaps with a group purchase it's more like 1000 per student? Schools also tend to spend a great deal on their course registration systems and perhaps hire external consultants to develop and maintain them. Those are just two examples, the list goes on for all the services the university provides.

I also want to note that often the administrators have to ok so many contracts (which they have no expertise in) and there are so many options, that inevitably the university ends up paying for stuff that nobody uses. At least in my last school, it was apparent that there were many sources of waste.

<comment><USER4> Ya, that all makes sense. My wife is in the academy and she's got some stories too.

No competition -> bad management -> all kinds of waste. It's sad. I don't know how to fix it though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's an unfortunate predicament, and one for which I don't see any particularly simple solutions.

First of all, this is hardly a problem that's exclusive to "liberal arts" PhDs. However, it's probably exacerbated in their case due to the often limited market demand for their skills.

What solution, other than some form of guaranteed job, is viable? Subsidizing PhDs lifetime employment with public funds would be messy and unpopular (although not completely without merit, IMHO).

The second option would be to limit supply. For instance, Universities only admitting as many PhDs as they could possibly absorb (or, providing a guaranteed-employment PhD track for a select few).

This would drastically lower the number of PhD recipients, with uncertain effects on society as a whole. While this might negatively effect our net research output, it might also funnel talented and hard working individuals into potentially productive lines of work. I'm basing this on the assumption that anyone who is capable of completing a PhD (in anything), has the potential to contribute very meaningfully in a variety of other professions or even fields.

<comment><USER15> "Universities only admitting as many PhDs as they could possibly absorb"

This is an excellent idea, and I've also been a proponent of pushing liberal arts minors in combination with other degrees that provide a much more employability. Neither of these ideas will be embraced because each college department _honestly believes_ their area of focus is the most important topic on earth. Add the desire of the college administrators to build a little kingdom of their own, and you won't even be heard.

<comment><USER16> No it's not... there are many more job-types available for PhDs than academia, so tying it directly to how many that particular school could support isn't a good strategy.

Is a school only to admit a graduate student when one of their tenured faculty is ready to retire?

Sure there are more graduate students than jobs available, especially in academia, but it's not necessarily a good idea to tie admissions directly to something like that.

It makes less sense in the sciences where graduate students are typically the ones that do the experiments that the PI is interested in and keep a lab running and funded (Post-docs usually have a little more independence in their projects). But, one thing that naturally limits the number of graduate students in the sciences is that those positions are usually funded. So, if a department wants to admit a student, they had better make sure that there is some way to pay for them. That naturally limits the number of graduate students that a program can handle at any one time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm genuinely curious how universities are allocating their money such that these adjunct professors who are teaching more classes with more students, who are paying ever growing tuition themselves, are still living below the poverty line. Is there just enormous waste in the system or is there some complication between the supply and demand of people and PhD-level academic positions?

<comment><USER18> > Is there just enormous waste in the system

That depends on your point of view. If you are a part of the metastisizing university bureaucracy, then you might think replacing full-time faculty with more administrators and staff is a great use of resources.

"In the two decades from 1985 to 2005, student enrolment in the US rose by 56 per cent, faculty numbers increased by 50 per cent, degree-granting institutions expanded by 50 per cent, degrees granted grew by 47 per cent, administrators rocketed by 85 per cent and their attendant staff by a whopping 240 per cent." \- [http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/books/the-fall-of- the-...](http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/books/the-fall-of-the-faculty- the-rise-of-the-all-administrative-university-and-why-it- matters/418285.article)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Academic institutions used to have most of their teaching done by tenured faculty, now they don't, and there is such an oversupply of PhD's (myself included) that they don't have to have to offer shit to get someone to take a class.

I think it is time for tenure to go -- give teachers and professors a three year contract, good pay, and the same basic working protections as everybody else. Fire the losers, promote the achievers, and (probably) eliminate a bunch of the imbalance.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'd be curious to know whether he's willing to move out of the city ... and whether his prospects of finding a job elsewhere are better.

<comment><USER9> There are tons of high-paying jobs in the oil fields in Canada and the northern-middle US.

But many people (not necessarily this guy, I don't know his whole story) would rather bitch and leech off society than go work.

<comment><USER19> There are tons of high-paying jobs for qualified engineers and tradesmen with relevant experience. Let's not pretend a guy with an English PhD can get a well-paying job in Fort McMurray without years of costly retraining.

Even engineers without relevant experience (SAGD or at least site exp) will have a tough time getting O&G industry jobs.

When the industry says "skill shortage" it means that engineers are starting to ask for 1/50th of the CEO's pay, not that they'll actually hire any comers.

<comment><USER9> Are you saying there are not plenty of jobs in the oil fields for people without highly specialized training? That was not my understanding but what I heard was just secondhand.

Anyway, it's just an example---there are still plenty of jobs out there for people who are willing to work hard, especially intelligent people, even if they don't have specialized training.

<comment><USER3> The population of the Dakotas is 1.5 millions. The number of unemployed people in the US stands at 12 millions. The Bakken oil patch couldn't make a dent in the national unemployment rate, even if it wanted to. I have no clue where this pernicious "there's jobs in the Dakotas" meme comes from, but it needs to die right quick.

<comment><USER9> That is just one example, but the point is that there are a LOT of people in this country that could work but simply don't want to. So the egalitarian whining is just that, whining.

> I have no clue where this pernicious "there's jobs in the Dakotas" meme > comes from, but it needs to die right quick.

This is an attempt to replace a rational debate with intimidation. I often see people try to replace it with emotion, but intimidation? Really? I can only assume it wasn't intentional.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


A tiny forest tribe built a DIY drone from YouTube to fight off illegal loggers - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/662530/a-tiny-forest-tribe-built-a-diy-drone-from-youtube-to-fight-off-illegal-loggers/ <comment><USER2> Here's hoping that the government actually does something about the logging."You can't prove it's happening" sounds like more of an excuse than a reason.

I'm sure the tribe has their doubts too, but I wish them luck.

</comment><comment><USER3> TLDR: They're using a drone to take video of the illegal logging.

I'd guess a couple of questions come to mind. The first is, wouldn't satellite imagery identify illegal logging? I guess that might be too expensive?

If those images are not detailed enough, what kind of information do they need, other than where/when logging is taking place.

<comment><USER4> Registration plates of vehicles involved would be useful, and generally this needs to be taken from an angle rather than above and requires high resolution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is really cool.

I guess it's sort of obvious, but surveilling large areas of land in order to cultivate or manage seems like such a great use case for drones.

</comment><comment> at-fates-hands Wow, it's been a while since I've seen ethnocentrism displayed in such an obvious manner.

The article seems to equate indigenous people with a lack of intelligence for some reason - yet in many of the photos in the article, you clearly see technology they have is current and are able to use it effectively (they have a FB page?).

This really comes across as, "Look at the these rain forest people, isn't it cute they built something with "our" technology?"

</comment><comment><USER6> Am I the only one who thought this article took a condescending tone by referring to this as "incredible?"

If a 15 year old white kid in Nebraska built a drone following directions on YouTube to monitor land use around him, I don't think this would be seen as incredible.

The difference is a lot of people have very demeaning views of indigenous peoples - they believe they are frozen in time (usually at the time of first contact with white people) and therefore they are surprised to hear that, no, this nation (like any other) is in fact able to use technology.

<comment><USER7> I think you're looking for something to take offense to without any reason. A tribe from a poor country building these things from videos they saw on internet is certainly more impressive than a 15 year old american kid doing the same. The reason is not that they can't be that capable, the difference is that these people have not been exposed to education, environment, schools, infrastructure, computers etc like a kid from the most developed country in the world. That is what is impressive here. You can't compare the two because of the background they come from, not because they are inferior.

<comment><USER8> True; but this isn't some "stone age" tribe from the Amazon that shoots arrows at passing helicopters.

They are exposed to the modern world; even if they don't have access to its amenities all the time.

They understand the concepts of flight, electricity, the internet and modern techonology at large.

The village in question has a facebook page, if you google it you'll see that there are enough results like this one [http://www.gy.undp.org/content/guyana/en/home/presscenter/ar...](http://www.gy.undp.org/content/guyana/en/home/presscenter/articles/2016/04/22/-south- central-people-s-development-association-awarded-equator-prize-in-shulinab- village-region-9-guyana.html) to show that whilst it's fairly undeveloped it's not exactly "backwater".

People in that village seem to have cell phones, internet access, and are not really cut off from the world, the article seem to frame it like they went from sharpening wooden arrows on stones to building drones which they clearly haven't.

So yeah, I don't really see what is so amazing about a few people in a remote village constructing an over the counter drone[0] I would actually be insulted by the fact that I'm expected to be "amazed" by that and I find the entire notion very condescending towards those people.

If you strip down the fluff of the article it almost boils down to "How quaint, look at these savages constructing RC aircraft"....

[0][http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/phantom-fx-61-flying- win...](http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/phantom-fx-61-flying-wing-110-km- flight)

<comment><USER9> Counterpoint: they are operating a drone in the jungle around illegal loggers who probably aren't happy about it.

I can't seem to keep my drone in one piece without constant deliveries of new parts to my doorstep, and I'm just dinking around in empty parks and parking lots.

Theirs sounds more impressive ("incredible" if you will). I would even be impressed if it was a big official government program.

<comment><USER8> "impressive" at the end this is a case where an NGO got them a few RC foam aircraft with cameras that the fly and maintain.

These aren't some stone age people, they can keep the foam parts together with duct tape; they aren't manufacturing electronics.

The article made it sound like they are doing something super special beyond their natural ability which is condescending, i really loved the part about the "bowstring" and the "lollipop stick" as a drill, I've built a similar airframe and it actually comes with lollipop sticks to fit the holes and to be inserted into the foam for support, and the bowstring well they tell you to tie somethings with a lightweight string in the manual ;)

Yes I know it's not easy to get these things all over the world, but these aren't stupid people; they are aware of modern technology and clearly can use it and they have the same ingenuity as anyone else.

<comment><USER9> Someone calls their accomplishment "incredible" and you immediately jump to the conclusion that the author finds it "incredible, because these backwards folks are from the stone age"? You don't think: Maybe, just maybe, the author finds it incredible because it's an inspiring story & technical accomplishment? That, given their own experiences as an average joe, the author (like me) can't keep their own drones together with duct tape... and it is "incredible" that in 2016 individuals and small communities can band together using insanely-awesome technology to solve problems like this? (The "stone age" argument seems like a strawman to me.)

Using a drone to successfully solve any real, practical problem is an accomplishment in my book. I don't care who they are or where they do it. Add extra challenges and it makes it even more awesome -- eg. Geography: unlike me, they don't have Amazon Prime 2-day shipping on replacement parts. I think their accomplishment is incredible. But maybe I'm easy to impress...?

FYI, to use GP's analogy: If a 15 year old from Nebraska (Go Huskers!) used a drone to stop illegal logging or pollution, I'd call it incredible too! We are capable of some serious SciFi "magic" these days!

 _EDIT_ : Or to put this another way... have you done anything half as incredible as stopping illegal loggers with your drones...?

<comment><USER6> Calling something "incredible" means you are saying it's difficult or impossible to believe. That is very easily not a compliment, depending on context.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> We changed the url from [http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/how-a-tribe-is- fighting...](http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/how-a-tribe-is-fighting-off- loggers-with-a-drone-they-built-watching-youtube), which points to this.

Submitters: Please follow the HN guideline that asks you to submit the original when one story points to another. Besides giving credit where due or at least further upstream to the source, the articles tend to get fluffier the further downstream you are.

</comment><comment><USER11> > built a DIY drone from YouTube

No, they just assembled a chinese kit by watching an instruction video, like every other amateur UAV owner out there.

</comment><comment><USER12> Very cool!

</comment><comment><USER13> Amazing. If most of the human race were wiped out by a meteorite then we need more of such engineering minds to get us back to the advanced civilisation we are :)

<comment><USER14> Ironically it's also precisely those engineering minds who have built weapons capable of wiping out the human race.

<comment><USER15> I don't think that's ironic. I, inspired by Kardashev [1], believe a civilisation's level of technological advancement can be measured by how much energy it controls.

Thus, a civilisation that can control an energy source at a low-power level ( _e.g._ boiling water reactors) can presumably also deploy it at a high-power level ( _e.g._ atomic bombs). If anything, especially as sources become more energetic, control capabilities will be preceded by deployment capability.

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale)</comment></comment></comment>


My Side Project: Mr Goal. Goal reminders via email and SMS. - <AUTHOR> http://mrgoal.net

<comment><AUTHOR> oh and as a side note: to sign up free, enter the a credit card # 4, followed by 15 1's. Thanks!</comment>


Intel Power Gadget - <AUTHOR> https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-power-gadget-20 <comment><USER2> I'm going to predict that they release a new version for macOS that includes a bug fix for the latest generation of processors. It will fix inaccurate readings. The new version will "correctly" show the flat line instead of the spikes.

Then again it could also just be related to reports of it causing some macs not to be able to reboot after install. The only fix was booting safe mode and manually removing the kernel extension.

<comment><USER3> I believe that was fixed in the most recent Mac version already - see the devs comments on the page. I have it installed on my MBP and have had no issues.

<comment><USER3> bizarrely though they have pulled it for some reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There are reports in the comments of the kernel extension causing boot failures that require going into recovery mode and deleting the file. I would guess that when the freezer video came out and this gadget became more popular than ever before, somebody disabled the link while the one developer figures out what's going on.

</comment><comment><USER5> Luckily it's still available via homebrew:

      brew cask install intel-power-gadget

<comment><USER6> Or actually from Intel too, they just removed the link

[https://software.intel.com/file/641033/download](https://software.intel.com/file/641033/download)

<comment><USER7> The regular link seems to be back now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> LTT stream relevant part [https://youtu.be/jtHhvcdjNWw?t=19m52s](https://youtu.be/jtHhvcdjNWw?t=19m52s)

Actually you can still download the app

[https://software.intel.com/file/641033/download](https://software.intel.com/file/641033/download) (direct link)

</comment><comment><USER8> Is this related to the i9 Macbook Pro overheating?

<comment><USER9> If it is, maybe related to LTT's live stream yesterday that used it? [https://youtu.be/jtHhvcdjNWw](https://youtu.be/jtHhvcdjNWw)

<comment><USER10> Counter argument is the suite of tests he used were optimised for the i7 and not the i9 [1].

[1] [https://www.computerworld.com/article/3291760/apple- mac/abou...](https://www.computerworld.com/article/3291760/apple-mac/about- that-macbook-pro-core-i9-throttling-story.html)

<comment><USER11> While it's true optimizing the software could increase render times, the fact that the CPU does run regularly below the base clock with heavy workloads (ie: throttles) remains true.

I know everyone likes to bash Apple at every opportunity but stating the fact that the i9 model throttles is _not_ inflammatory.

The better question is, how much does it matter? The machine still has 6-cores. MKBHD was still noticing a 15% performance increase (vs. last gen) without new, updated builds of Final cut etc.

<comment><USER9> Exactly, and that's why the freezer test mentioned in the article the grandparent linked to was done. To try to get an idea of how much the throttling was affecting.

<comment><USER12> It doesn't matter if it is faster until it starts throttling. i9 is intended for pros who need that CPU power for longer periods of time. And if the issue appears after a minute of usage and performance becomes worse than i7 (as shown in initial Dave's video), then it's a bad product (Macbook, because of not being able to cool it, not the i9 itself).

And benchmarks should be changed to run for longer time periods or else it's not showing actual performance indication.

<comment><USER13> _It doesn 't matter if it is faster until it starts throttling. i9 is intended for pros who need that CPU power for longer periods of time_

What's the evidence for this? I'd love a faster multi-core processor, but only to accelerate tasks which complete in a relatively small amount of time already.

<comment><USER9> Intel's own marketing talks about it being used by these kinds of people [https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-core-i9-processor- come...](https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-core-i9-processor-comes-mobile- best-gaming-creation-laptop-processor-intel-ever-built/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> ltt did a stream yesterday where they used power gadget to show it throttling... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtHhvcdjNWw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtHhvcdjNWw)

</comment><comment><USER15> Or, on Linux:

        $ perf stat -e 'power/energy-cores/' sleep 1

More examples here: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Mozilla/Performance...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Mozilla/Performance/perf)

</comment><comment><USER16> There is a link to version 3.5.3 on the web page now

[https://software.intel.com/file/655065/download](https://software.intel.com/file/655065/download)

</comment><comment><USER17> We've updated the title from "Intel Pulls MacOS Version of Power Gadget". It's fine to mention what might be of interest to other readers, but in the comments please.

<comment><USER18> I'd say the previous title was good since it's probably what the submitter wanted to show and not the existence of the tool itself. I didn't even click the link because I knew about it, but if I saw the previous title it'd have piqued my interest.

Edit: typo

<comment><USER19> Maybe a typo, the word you want is _piqued_ :

pique - verb (piques, piquing, piqued) 1 [ with obj. ] arouse (interest or curiosity).

<comment><USER18> Fixed, thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I wonder why.

</comment><comment><USER21> You guys can still find it on reddit. If you guys still want it to do tests.</comment>


Don't Panic: The comprehensive Ars Technica guide to the coronavirus - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/dont-panic-the-comprehensive-ars-technica-guide-to-the-coronavirus/ <comment><USER2> I hear panic all around me about the coronavirus (covid-19). However I think this epidemic/pandemic is something that the USA can easily handle. There is no _cure_ and none is imminent, but good people are working on that, so let's forget about cures for now. A definitive test is a nicety but not a requirement.

Hospitalization should be symptom-based rather than disease-specific. It matters not if disease is a consequence of Covid-19, SARS or bacterial infection - in all cases the individual needs hospitalization and observation.

We should focus on what remains: managing the outbreak. People fall into two categories:

\- Those who can easily die from this flu (or some other flu, e.g., SARS): the elderly, the immune-compromised, those with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory diseases, and cancer.

\- Everyone else.

The hospital care gatekeepers' protocol:

Those patients who exhibit signs of the terminal phase of flu/pneumonia should be quarantined: hospitalized, observed and treated until they are out of danger (or die). This is the phase where specialized drugs: antivirals, antiinflammatories et al are used.

Those patients who do not exhibit signs of the later phase of flu/pneumonia should be sent home with instructions.

It seems that this is well within our capabilities: we have the knowledge to manage the outbreak, we have the skills and we have the hospital beds. If we need more hospital beds it should be easy to turn various facilities into temporary hospitals in short order. We have organizations that do this for other disasters: tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, etc.

Passengers on cruise ships should be examined by gatekeepers and either released or hospitalized.

I've got friends calling and panicking over this unnecessarily. I see people on TV saying "We don't even have tests!" when tests IMO are not necessary.

We have all we need to handle this - let's do it.

</comment><comment><USER3> I find the guidance for buying a face mask somewhat contradictory. Don't buy one if you are not sick, but if you think your sick the CDC recommends wearing a mask in to see the doctor... When do you buy one then?</comment>


Help Nepal by donating to Earthquake relief fund - <AUTHOR> https://www.gofundme.com/earthquakerelief

<comment><USER2> _" The charity that this will be donated is yet TBD - we will keep you posted throughout the entire fundraising process and will be given to the organization that has shown the most effectiveness in disaster response to this earthquake in the upcoming days."_

Why shouldn't people just contribute directly to the charity of their choice instead of going through an unknown middleman? If you contribute directly to a certified charity (Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders; pick your favorite), you can even afford to contribute more, since you can take a tax deduction. (I don't think the IRS will honor a receipt for "charity TBD" if you get audited.) And, of course, you can also personally contribute to whatever charity you think has had the best response.

Also, GoFundMe.com takes a hefty cut of your donation, so donating directly to your charity gives them more:

 _" While it's free to create and share your online fundraising campaign, GoFundMe will deduct a 5% fee from each donation that you receive. Since our fee is deducted automatically, you'll never need to worry about being billed or owing us any money. A small processing fee of about 3% will also be deducted from each donation."_[1]

Finally, we really have no idea who the people who are running this fundraiser are. Unfortunately, lots of scams arise whenever there's a natural disaster.

[1] [https://www.gofundme.com/questions](https://www.gofundme.com/questions) (See "Does it cost anything?")

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, its good to directly donate but crowdfunding just makes it easier for people abroad to donate.</comment>


Food waste is the world's dumbest problem [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RlxySFrkIM&feature=youtu.be <comment><USER2> It's not a problem. It's a feature.

If we consumed all the food we produced, we'd be at an incredible risk for famine when tides turn and yields unexpectedly decrease.

Skirting the line with famine is not something you want to fuck around with, and its _far_ worth wasting food just to make it less likely. For a good read on how terrible famine is and how important excess food production capacity is, start here: Holomodor,

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

<comment><USER3> Are you saying that food demand is so unpredictable from year to year that we need to produce and extra 40% as a buffer to avoid famine?

And that all of that buffer produce has to be harvested, processed, distributed, and sold to end consumers?

<comment><USER4> > Are you saying that food demand is so unpredictable from year to year that > we need to produce and extra 40% as a buffer to avoid famine?

I think GP is saying that food supply is so unpredictable (climate, pests, etc.) that suppliers need to target a large excess of production to avoid famine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Didn't watch the video but Feeding America is a great charity that collects food about to waste from retailers and gives it to people and families suffering from food insecurity. [https://www.feedingamerica.org](https://www.feedingamerica.org)</comment>