Don't listen productivity gurus: why waking up at 6am won't make you successful - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/swlh/dont-listen-to-those-productivity-gurus-why-waking-up-at-6am-won-t-make-you-successful-b3c77921d9fd <comment><USER2> Author says don't follow a morning routine, but then mentions they have a morning routine (breakfast/trainer).

Author says don't focus on the morning being your peak time, you should find the time of the day that is the peak time for yourself. Ignore the fact that their good breakfast and work out helps power their peak times. Inconsequential.

Okay, but that's why those morning routines have you do the rote/everyday stuff quickly in a short window, so you can have longer peak times during the day. Notice in their long list of things blogger says you should do is none of the real work you get paid to do.

Granted, you don't have to wake up at 6am; but if you're going to have a routine that you do every day, that you should optimize such that it doesn't get interrupted by work messages and e-mails or other responsibilities, when's it going to be?

It's going to be early in the morning.

The author is making the exact point they're attempting to refute. You should have a morning routine, it should be filled with things that are good for you and harder to schedule during the day, you should optimize the specifics to what makes you feel good, and doing it will make you more productive as a result. Great.

I'm glad the author took the time out of their day to correct all those other incorrect bloggers who didn't know what they were talking about.

<comment><USER3> I think you're missing the point: 4:30am may be the right time for some, but that may be absolutely the wrong time for most. And it's not to do with finding a distraction free window. It's down to - as the article highlights - your body rhythm.

For instance, if I wake up at 6am I will spend hours in an awful state of catatonia. Often, I don't get over it the whole day. It's equivalent to how I felt when I suffered with depression. So, screw that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wrote a satirical piece about all the "advice" given on Medium.

[https://medium.com/swlh/how-to-be-productive-according-to- ev...](https://medium.com/swlh/how-to-be-productive-according-to-every-medium- writer-dd437133188)

</comment><comment><USER5> A guru saying the other gurus are wrong. Let people wake up when the want or can.

</comment><comment><USER6> A lot of productivity gurus and life coach-style authors are simply the survivor on bias (or whatever it is called, brain is blanking). Basically they did X, and they are successful, so they recommend doing what they did as a path to success. Of course as xkcd said, a lottery winner could logically follow the same pattern by recommending people buy lottery tickets.

<comment><USER7> Survivorship bias, but you were close. :-) Its more to do with the people that weren't successful not being around any more.

<comment><USER6> So close!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting read. I always find the peak hours concept cool. I generally wake up at 7am each morning. My peak hours are usually 10am, 3pm and 8pm. I love how peak hours are different for everybody.

</comment><comment><USER9> Find what routine works for you, sharpen the saw, take down time.

This is great and needs to be said more often to counter the prevailing message of "get up early and do as much as you can".

</comment><comment><USER10> This is super impractical. Although we'd all like to be able to set our own schedules there are deadlines to meet, meetings to attend and relationships to tend to. When everyone around you is working the 9-5 you've got to meet them halfway. Waking up early, eating healthful meals and exercising are good ways to do that.

And by the way, this talk about "prime time" is insane. You can get into flow whenever if you block out distraction, buckle down and are actually good at what you do.

<comment><USER11> > You can get into flow whenever if you block out distraction, buckle down and > are actually good at what you do.

Indeed, which is the reason I find it insane you would have to get up at 6 for it. I like to go to bed at 2-3 am and get up at 10; works fine, always has.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Much of the content of that article is talked about in depth in Why We Sleep[1] (and much more)

[1] - [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34466963-why-we- sleep](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34466963-why-we-sleep)

</comment><comment><USER13> I have known this for years. This is why the earliest I've ever been up is 10am.

</comment><comment><USER14> I know a couple how has been doing this for last 20 years. husband has been doing this for last 30 years. Both of them are the worst under-achievers I know.

<comment><USER11> And ofcourse for any anecdote there are many pointing to the opposite: I know many people who do this and who are over achievers and very successful. Like the author himself by the way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Felix Dennis called it "point at the sky" cargo-cult success modeling. Even so, Walmart C suite and veeps were notorious about whom could arrive the earliest and appear to work the most. OTOH, 37signals would say "fire the workaholics."</comment>


How to be a growth hacker - <AUTHOR> http://andrewchen.co/2012/04/27/how-to-be-a-growth-hacker-an-airbnbcraigslist-case-study/ <comment><USER2> "Software is eating everything" even traditional employee roles in organizations. People who can automate will always win, because they can do more in less time.

I remember once when I was consulting, I was on the bench for a few days and the marketing group contacted me to help aggregate and validate multiple lead lists. They had been working on it for days, copy/pasting record after record from multiple excel sheets into one big master sheet. They asked if I could help.

I wrote some algorithms that matched records on several criteria and put them into one big list. It took me a couple hours and I was done. Emailed them later.

The marketing group emailed me back -- ecstatic! I saved them so much time, they sent me all these promotional gifts meant to give to clients and potential customers. A thermos I use to this day full of starbucks bucks that I shared with my friends. I was king for a day.

These kinds of problems exist all over corporate america and now that programmers have automated many of their daily tasks and accelerated them where they haven't, they have more time to help more people within the organizations that employ them. Their new tasks show their immense power to people who normally think software is just something to get in the way of their daily tasks, slowing them down, making life worse. Much software out there is awful to use and built by engineers of the old days who were overworked, underpaid relative to their contribution, and perhaps angry and antagonistic toward coworkers.

There's a new breed out there and we are taking over! :)

<comment><USER3> This sounds very uplifting, but when I worked at an enormous corporation you've heard about we weren't allowed so much as to change my machine's time&date. Forget about installing anything. And even when I was able to improve anything (I got permission to install Python), there was a huge bureaucracy and permission had to be granted for anything. Just because you had an idea for improvement doesn't help if you have to mail a person on another continent, who must understand what you're doing and grant permission.

It's not uncommon for company critical software to be written by a Russian guy who no longer works there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As software integrates into everything more deeply are we going to get childish names for every profession?

Marketers are growth hackers, doctors will be health hackers, lawyers will be justice hackers?

Then we can ensure that even when software is as fundamental to our society as law or transportation or materials engineering there will still be a nice sheen of hucksterism and bullshit on top.

Good job software people, keep ensuring that society as a whole will assume that the software people need to always be underneath someone who is actually a professional on the org chart.

Everyone here must be familiar with the "software is eating the world" meme. That means that technical marketers are not growth hackers, they are good marketers who are keeping up to date with what's needed to do their job.

<comment><USER5> _That means that technical marketers are not growth hackers, they are good marketers who are keeping up to date with what's needed to do their job._

But it's more than that. A growth _hacker_ invents _hacks_ as a way to grow - clever, non obvious methods that drive adoption.

Things like the Reddit sockpupperts, the Dropbox two-sided incentive system or the Yammer variation of the Freemium business model are all things where a combination of technical AND commercial knowledge was the thing that drove the companies success.

That isn't _technical marketing_ \- it is elements of business model design, integration architecture and startup accounting.

If you think of a better name, excellent - but "technical marketer" undersells what is happening here.

<comment><USER4> It's called marketing, those are just new techniques. The goals are still the same, the things that work well are just changing a lot.

Remember the distinction a few years ago when marketers using the internet were called Internet Marketers? How many people in marketing don't touch the internet with any of their campaigns now? Now that's just called marketing.

It's perfectly fine to be interested in the new marketing techniques being developed, especially if you're the HN crowd. That's not what I'm saying.

You aren't understanding marketing if you can't see that "growth hacker" is a branding play. It's good to learn to recognize when marketing techniques are being used to appeal to your demographic if you want to get any skill at using it for yourself.

<comment><USER5> _It's called marketing, those are just new techniques._

Yes, and what Mel did was just programming[1], and calling it hacking was just rebranding by ESR to fit into his idea of what a hacker should be.

I stand by what I'm saying: You don't learn to reverse engineer Craigslist's forms in marketing courses.

[1] <http://catb.org/jargon/html/story-of-mel.html>

<comment><USER4> There are no fields where the newest practical techniques are taught in courses. Those are invented in the field and trickle down.

I'm not saying it's not impressive or not being done by the best marketers. Not at all. I thought that was clear. There all talented people in every profession, that's what people do.

I'm saying that it won't be called "growth hacking" in a short time and it will go on the buzzword bingo card and will only be used ironically. And I wish the community who read about these great marketers saw through the pandering and childish "growth hacking" term as a (successful and well done) branding attempt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> While this post is very informative, it has the potential to be quite dangerous. This type of marketing is like gasoline - it can take a small fire and make it huge. You almost want to conclude that 99% of the fire was due to the gasoline, but that isn't the case. Most of the critical work is getting the initial fire. Once it starts burning, you 'earn' the ability to add gasoline and see a big effect.

Long story short - don't try to growth hack until your product is ready. Every shining example of engineered marketing begins with a product that already had engaged users.

</comment><comment><USER7> The last thing the tech world needs is people walking around calling themselves "growth hackers".

Actually, the last thing the tech world needs is stuff like this, from the article:

 _If a startup is pre-product/market fit, growth hackers can make sure virality is embedded at the core of a product. After product/market fit, they can help run up the score on what's already working._

Stop making up "markets" and "niches", then making crappy products to try and be "viral" in these areas, then calling yourself a "growth hacker" or something as ridiculous and valueless.

Build something because you love it, not because a "growth hacker" determined that it was a "pre-market fit".

<comment><USER4> This attitude annoys the creative person in me as well, who loves writing software.

But you can't be mad at the business people moving in, optimizing the process because they got into the business because they saw an opportunity to make money.

I'm sure tv writers felt the same way about the first rise of infomercials and televangelists. Hucksterism works and it's good capitalism. And it always annoys the creative people who see themselves as artists or artisans.

<comment><USER7> You can definitely be mad at them.

If they're stupid and sacrificing the quality of the actual art/software/website/thing, that's not good. It's easy to get mad at this.

And when there's _so many_ of these types of people doing so much damage and causing so much waste, that's _really_ not good. It's very easy to get mad at this.

<comment><USER4> True, I didn't phrase that well. It's easy to get mad at it but you are mad at capitalism and human nature.

Since I have decided not to take these things on, I find it better to not get mad at them but to remain detached.

I can constantly be angry about the hucksters and not do anything about it or accept it as an inevitable outcome of the systems I live in and not do anything about it. This doesn't mean I don't admire/support those who have decided to attack these problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> People who were around technology businesses in the 1990s, please illuminate me: wasn't it common for pretentious managers to adopt fancy job titles? (I may have read too much Dilbert.)

This is really just marketing with a better knowledge of the technical possibilities. Do we really need a new job title?

<comment><USER9> Yup. Back then it was "guru", "evangelist", and "ninja" (perl ninja, etc).

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. People do resist change but it happens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Here at GraphMuse (invite engine for Facebook apps), we hadn't heard of a "Growth Engineer" until we really looked into some of the people interested in our product.

Turns out that Growth Engineers are actually respected "higher-ups." You said it yourself too. That said, I think few people are familiar with this job title outside of SV.

Was it Facebook who started this trend?

NOTE: I'd increase the line spacing on your blog, it's a bit tight.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes it was Facebook who started the trend as early days of the Facebook platform trained many of the best growth hackers in the Valley. 'Dan Yue' at Playdom, 'Joe Greenstein' at Flixster, and 'David King' at (Lil) Green Patch were a few Facebook pioneers. But, it was 'Sean Ellis' (Eventbrite, Dropbox, Xobni, Catchfree) who Originally coined the term.

That's true hardly a few people are familiar with this job title outside SV. I myself being a startup addict from India came across this title one night and couldn't stop dreaming the very moment 'how to be a growth hacker*.

<comment><USER10> I'd love to contact some of these people as "Growth" is the focus of what I'm working on. Do you know any of these guys you're referencing?

Can I shoot you an email? Mine is tony at graphmuse.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure you can. Shoot me an email on firstname.lastname@example.com

I am presently working for this company in reinventing their business model for the scaling/ growing up of operation.

And yeah the guys I'm referencing, neither I know any of them nor they know me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> why-el I am a little confused by the wording of this. I usually think of a growth hacker as somebody who helps scale an app, like an Instagram engineer for instance. Is anybody else confused by the naming?

<comment><USER11> Good question. In the last few years, the term has been overloaded to talk about a new engineering-like approach to marketing and user acquisition. But the confusion is understandable. I personally think it's kind of cheesy but whatever works for people :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Often confusion and anxiety is the best way to get early traction :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Interesting post, but the title (and subject) is actually " Growth Hacker is the new VP Marketing". The 'How' is absent.

<comment><USER13> Ah, the thing about marketing is that successfully calling yourself the new VP Marketing is most of the battle for being the new VP Marketing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The growth hacker has existed since the dawn of time. It is called being a top sales person, and good sales people are worth twice their weight in gold. Someone who can sell and can program is not a growth hacker, but a sales engineer. Think about it...

<comment><USER15> Sales and marketing aren't the same. This is not sales. A growth hacker is a marketing engineer, and I don't think that role has been prevalent until recently. Counterexamples are welcome.

<comment><USER14> Yes, it has been around for a long time. Deal is that these people decide to build a business for themselves and not others. Counterexample? Dan Kennedy is a good and recent one (recent as in still alive). His partner, Bill Glazer, is also a good example.

<comment><USER16> No, growth hacking is something new. Or rather: "growth hacking" is a term people are using to describe a genuinely new phenomenon. You can trace this phenomenon back maybe 10-12 years, but there is something interesting happening -- interesting enough that people feel the need to coin a term to describe it.

Andrew's example is a good one. AirBnb grew in part by piggy-backing off a pre-existing platform (Craigslist) in a way that required skills in copyediting, marketing, engineering, design, and psychology.

YouTube did similarly via MySpace. PayPay did similarly via email. Lots of people, like Slide, Zynga, RockYou, and even LivingSocial did similarly via Facebook.

There's something new happening here, and it's not coming from "top sales people" or even "top marketers." It's coming from engineers who have decided to approach marketing, customer acquisition, and distribution as an engineering problem.

It's more than quantitative marketing or direct sales. The best growth hackers have a STEM background. This thing, whatever it is, is "growth hacking."

<comment><USER16> It's not entirely new, no, but it's new like the iPhone was new. None of the component ideas in the iPhone were 100% new, but it wasn't possible to build one at a consumer price-point until certain preconditions, both technological and economic, were met.

I'd claim this: marketing more than most disciplines lives or dies by the state of communication technology. The best marketers in any generation know how to use that technology to their advantage.

But communication technology is radically different today than it was even 20 years ago, let alone 120 years ago when PT Barnum was alive. For one, it's more digital and more technological. It's also changing at an accelerating pace. 10 years ago neither Facebook nor YouTube existed. 6 years ago Twitter didn't. Tumblr, 5. Pinterest, 2. Instagram, 1.

Or, think of it this way (as a marketer might): the rate at which new marketing channels are being created is accelerating. We're talking channels that can potentially reach 1MM, 10MM, 100MM people sprouting afresh every year. That's not the world PT Barnum lived in.

Why is is so crazy to think that this new environment results in a new breed of marketer, more at home in bits and bytes than in creating hoaxes which spread through poorly fact-checked newspapers and traditional marketing "stunts?" And that therefore engineers -- the same people who are creating these new channels -- are perhaps best adapted to this new environment?

It's also presumptuous to think that growth hackers -- and I'd include myself in that lot -- aren't familiar with PT Barnum, David Ogilvy, Jack Trout, or other famous marketers.

<comment><USER17> In a thread extolling the virtues of Reddit's early sockpuppets and AirBnB's Craiglist games, it's a bit much to try to claim "growth hackers" are superior to old-tymey hoaxes, whatever their facility with bits'n'bytes.

I'm not saying such approaches don't have their place, but you can't on the one hand look down on similar tricks in the past and then on the other claim that performing them in new channels somehow make them better.

Also, PT Barnum was much more than hoaxes. Seriously, read up a bit.

<comment><USER16> I didn't claim they're superior. I asked: "Why is it so crazy to think that [growth hackers] are perhaps best adapted to this new environment?" Are fish superior to dogs because they can stay underwater their whole lives?

I also never said PT Barnum was nothing more than hoaxes. Nor am I sure how other people's commentary on Reddit and AirBnB's respective growth strategies does anything but reinforce my point, viz., we live in a world where huge marketing channels are being created every year and (for now) engineers rather than traditional marketers are best suited for taking advantage of them.

Was it traditional marketers who planned and executed those strategies? Even if they had planned it, could they have executed it?

At this point I'm not sure whether you're deliberately misunderstanding me, but I've been as explicit as I know how. I'll have to leave it at that.

As for reading recommendations, I own both his autobiography and "The Art of Money Getting." Is there something else you'd recommend?

<comment><USER17> If you've read those books, do you not see that he was taking advantage of the way the world was changing in his time? That he was being quite creative in finding new opportunities to reach people?

That's the entire point here. That taking advantage of new opportunities in marketing is absolutely nothing new. It's what has _always_ been done.

Since we're going down the road where you question my sincerity (seriously, does that ever work?), I'll also point out that you selectively quoted yourself. The second half of the sentence, which is still right there in your original post after all, very clearly has a tone that Mr. Bits'n'Bytes Growth Hacker is superior to the oldster Hoaxer who spread through "poorly fact- checked newspapers".

Come now, you have enough facility with language that you must know quite well what you were doing there.

<comment><USER16> "Very clearly."

Well, ok. I don't think that: I've known growth hackers who have done incredibly shady, unethical, and borderline illegal things. The Reddit and AirBnB examples are probably a ~4 on a 1-10 scale of stunts growth hackers pull.

I'm not sure what you're hoping to get by continuing, but I'm ready to stop. Later!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> A lot of the comments, imho, don't seem to understand Andrew Chen's post and are just fixating on some of the terminology. In fairness it would be easier to do so had the reader of this post been a regular reader of his blog. It is more readily understood in that context. I recommend reading his analysis of how AirBnB went about hacking for growth. And there are some excellent posts on growth hacking on Quora.

</comment><comment><USER19> This is kind of unrelated but has anyone bought this? <http://www.appsumo.com/appsumo-growth-action-video> . I'd prefer not to spend $80 to find out that it's full of cliches.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think meetup had the post to Craigslist a long time a go. Not sure if the still do it.

</comment><comment><USER21> If this is something you'd like to do for twitter, and you have javascript, rails, and/or java/scala chops, or you're just a damn good generalist engineer who can pick up anything, send me an email at lzmfAuxjuufs/dpn.

<comment><USER22> Just to confirm, you're looking for marketers with basic programming chops?

<comment><USER21> We've historically had waaay more engineers than marketers on twitter's growth team. We look at growth less as marketing and more about optimizing (through ux, design, experiment, machine-learning, analytics, etc) all of our possible distribution channels with respect to a set of core metrics.

We lean towards teaching good generalist programmers how to do "growth," which actually doesn't feel much like marketing in day-to-day practice.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am yet to graduate as an engineer but I am damm good as a leader and passionate about growth hacking this is what defines me.

I am learning rails, javascript these days and will be glad to get associated.

That was my first ever submission to the Hacker News. Sorry i didn't get, what is that email??

<comment><USER23> Take each letter he wrote and subtract one.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you :) It wasn't that difficult

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> If the "normal coder" on your startup isn't already a "growth hacker" you're doing something wrong. Same goes for the rest of the team.

<comment><USER15> Specialization and division of labor are valuable practices, to an extent.

<comment><USER25> Problem: the term itself is already not specialized. While there's no doubt a few people in the Valley actually know what it's about - for a startup, anybody knowing how to do one or two of the things below can call himself a "growth hacker":

\- UX \- A/B Tests \- BD \- PR \- "Virality" \- Facebook APIs ...

This is gonna be just like the SEO people of the past, but 10x worse.</comment></comment></comment>


UpWork to charge freelancers 0.15-0.90$ for project proposals - <AUTHOR> https://www.upwork.com/blog/2019/04/upwork-connects/ <comment><USER2> They forgot to mention that raising prices will probably have a net positive impact on revenue growth for the next 4 quarters, help them beat analyst Estimates, and positively impact the stock and management compensation bonuses.

Nothing wrong with that, imo. But, not mentioning it when it's probably one of the major reasons for raising prices is disingenuous.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think there'll be a lot of backlash for this (if it isn't already) but it might go for the good of the internet</comment>


Ask YC: AI - <AUTHOR>

The field of artificial intelligence has been always something I wanted to take a peek on, but never really had the chance. Could people here recommend me some good books to start my journey on this field? <comment><USER2> Here's the standard AI textbook: <http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/>

I'm assuming you mean "AI" in the sense of "fancy mathematical tricks to solve domain specific problems", not in the sense of artificial general intelligence.

<comment><USER3> I actually don't find this sort of research all that interesting.

I like out of the box solutions more:

<http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8246463980976635143>

<comment><USER4> Second that thanks. That was expletively amazing. I didn't expect to watch more than the intro but couldn't stop. That's an intersection of CS and HCI cleverness raised to the level of art.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Start with this book: <http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/> "Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach" by Russell/Norvig

It's one of the best books on AI and it's a "standard" AI textbook for most of the intro AI courses.

It's also great as a reference (I have it on my bookshelf beside me) and you can quickly look up algos and implement them in your fav language.

</comment><comment><USER6> Norvig, Mitchell, Thrun have good books

Also, google "Andrew Moore CMU" his homepage is full of useful tutorials

That said, "AI" is too vague. What do you want to be able to do?

</comment><comment><USER7> Also see Mitchell's machine learning: <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tom/mlbook.html>

</comment><comment><USER8> Maybe "Programming Collective Intelligence" would also be a good start.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, that's definitely a nice, practical book for machine learning stuff (but not really AI proper). For a practical book on AI itself, Norvig's Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming:

<http://norvig.com/paip.html>

is a great book, and a nice complement to Norvig and Russell, which is somewhat more theory-oriented.

<comment><USER10> _"... Yeah, that's definitely a nice, practical book for machine learning stuff (but not really AI proper). For a practical book on AI itself, Norvig's Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming ..."_

It is ironic that the man who wrote the book uses different methods (maths) to extract meaning from data at google ~ <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=90298>

Something smells about AI.

It has been well funded, attracted the best minds (Minsky, McCarthy, Newell) at places like MIT, Stanford and resulted in lots of useful languages & tools. [0] From Cyc to Powerset companies have tried to use these techniques trying to assign human like intelligence to machines yet have failed.

Why?

Bruce Stirling reckons it has to do a lot with the language. [1] Assigning intelligence to what is essentially a 21'st century equivalent of knitting mills or steam engines of yesteryear. Maybe thats why Google has taken the approach it has. Instead of creating intelligent software to find the meaning, take an insight into users who have pre-assigned intelligence to documents. And use well known sorting, linking techniques and software engineering along with not-so-well applied math techniques. Thus make google appear to make sense of what we search for.

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence>

[1] __ITConversations __, _'Bruce Stirling, The Internet of Things, 58m, 26.4 mb, 2006MAR06'_ ~ <http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail717.html>

<comment><USER11> I think that some progress in sensory systems would make AGI easier. Obviously, humans spend most of their time structuring the complex, physical world around them, not a stream of text like most AI approaches dictates.

Our genetic code isn't that huge, but the amount of information contained in our brains is. All that information must be coming for somewhere. I refuse to believe that evolution has managed to create _that_ awesome compression algorithms.

Maybe this is what Google does, in a way. They happen to have a huge corpus of machine-readable data, which is in a sense equivalent to what a sophisticated sensory apparatus would give you. I intended to disagree with you when I started writing this comment, but now I'm not so sure. Human intelligence obviously doesn't spend its time reading petabytes of information on other people's search habits, but maybe Google is actually onto something.

<comment><USER12> I think that what Google is doing is along the same lines of what human brains do. Google is crunching a ____load of mainly textual data to create an accurate statistical model of context. Humans use a much smaller amount of text but use visual, audio, and touch sensory input to create context. Humans also have the ability to refine their mental model by doing experiments on the world, whereas Google, as an observer, has to just use what people create. This means that Google (or any AI) needs a lot, lot, lot more of data to train its accuracy, which is now possible due to the internet.

<comment><USER8> Why would Google not be be able to experiment on the world?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I mean AI as Learning Algorythms and Decision Making programs.

<comment><USER2> There currently are no good general solutions, so the best tool(s) to use strongly depends on the specific problem you're trying to solve, resources you have available, and how good the answer needs to be.

Reading through the Russell & Norvig book would give you a good overview of the sorts of techniques available.

<comment><USER13> Unfortunately, too often, that perspective is lost. I know of no general solution to what defines intelligence. So I'm very dubious as to whether an encompassing artificial version is possible.

I see lots of specific solutions to specific problems. That, to me, is the best approximation of intelligence. To the extent that many specific solutions can be approximated and optimized, we'll be very well off. It's easy to denigrate a calculator and spell-checker, but I seem much more intelligent than I would be without them.

<comment><USER2> " _I know of no general solution to what defines intelligence. So I'm very dubious as to whether an encompassing artificial version is possible._ "

Logical Fallacy Alert! <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance>

I don't know how to build a rocket ship nor to do a heart transplant, but I'm fairly confident that these are both feasible.

<comment><USER13> It's not like people haven't been trying. Indeed, the great aspiration to understand humans is the effort to define our understanding (how's that for a circular argument?).

Moreover, you prove your own point - the one I was agreeing with initially out of everything said in this thread. A rocket ship or heart transplant are specific solutions to specific problems. The analogy to intelligence would be one universal solution to flight or one universal solution to getting oxygen and glucose into cells. It's not that a solution isn't possible. It's just that the hope for THE solution is misguided (see also THE cure for cancer).

I really like the flight analogy because of the length of time people put into finding THE solution. But what we end up with instead are rockets, and prop planes, and jet engines, and airfoils, and gliders, and helicopters, and hoverboards...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> my TA secretly recommended Norvig's book over Winston's, but we used Winston's "Artificial Intelligence"

For more philosophy, read Minsky's books / papers, and the readings outlined here: [http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and- Compute...](http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Computer- Science/6-803The-Human-Intelligence-EnterpriseSpring2002/Readings/index.htm)

Minsky's paper "Steps toward Artificial Intelligence" reads like a summary of 6.034 at MIT.

Speaking of which: [http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and- Compute...](http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Computer- Science/6-034Fall-2006/CourseHome/index.htm)

</comment><comment><USER15> Having looked through the introductory texts, I am left wanting to better understand current state of various parts of field.

Any suggestions on where to get more of that higher-level commentary?

<comment><USER12> I recommend "Beyond AI". It gives a high level history, present, and future of AI. It looks through the lens of a search for artificial general intelligence.

<http://www.amazon.com/o/asin/1591025117>

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'd recommend starting with a definition of intelligence. Once you clearly and unambiguously define it, consider you have 51% of the task done already.

</comment><comment><USER17> I recommend starting from scratch and ignoring the field. All the field will teach you is very complex ways to NOT have AI.

<comment><USER18> Those lessons can be useful, though. You might make the same mistakes.

<comment><USER19> I have taught AI many times now and I must agree.

You don't know how many times I have heard a student claim that they have made some type of major advance. But on inspection it usually comes down to something that requires exhaustive search.

I think that there is definitely a place for new ideas in the field, but I don't think they will come from complete novices. I think they will come from those who have CRITICALLY read the basic literature. And probably from those who have read more than just the basics too.

My own pet peeve on the field now is the over emphasis on asymptotic complexity. Sure its important, but its not exactly an AI result. The scruffies need to make a come back and start coding! See my own meager efforts (<http://www.anaphoric.com>)

<comment><USER17> Amazing how people with all this knowledge still haven't gotten anywhere close to AI.

It might even be something simple, overlooked, done a little differently.

<comment><USER20> Let us know when you find it.

I can't think of any phenomenon less likely area to have a simple algorithm than intelligence.

<comment><USER17> > _Let us know when you find it.

I can't think of any phenomenon less likely area to have a simple algorithm than intelligence._

Cf. Evolution.

<comment><USER21> I do not want to wait five billion years.

<comment><USER17> > I do not want to wait five billion years.

You're darn well _gonna_ wait -- and LIKE it!

Fortunately, it takes significantly less time than that -- no more than three and a half billion years. Haha, and you were worried!

<comment><USER21> Intelligent Design does it in 6 days!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


MagSpoof – magnetic stripe spoofer / credit card magstripe emulator - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHSFf0Lz1qc <comment> ryan-c It seems that the AmEx card number prediction discussed in this video has been under active use for fraud for several months - someone I know said they had their card cloned and when the CSR went to reissue there were already attempts to use the new number.</comment>


Cost breakdown for Solar PV with lithium-ion storage - <AUTHOR> https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/01/02/utility-scale-solar-power-plus-lithium-ion-storage-cost-breakdown/ <comment><USER2> > PV system with one-axis tracking

In the South West US, this reaches 30% capacity BEFORE any storage.

Add 4hr storage and we reach 50% capacity. This is true for about 50% (pure guess) of humanity that lives in sunny climates.

Even better, poorer/populous countries are often closer to the equator with even better solar conditions.

We are literally half-way to solving our climate problems.

Now, about those Windows updates...

<comment><USER3> Climate problems are not about price, they're about CO2 émissions. Turns out producing and installing batteries produces a lot of CO2, and they're not even enough on a large scale so they have to be complemented with more pilotable electricity, which unfortunately mostly is carbon-based. As long as we depend on those intermittent sources (that's the real name we should give them not to be confused with other renewable), we rely on carbon.

<comment><AUTHOR> >Turns out producing and installing batteries produces a lot of CO2,

That is counter to anything I've ever read on the subject. Can you source your claim?

<comment><USER3> Batteries are mostly produced in countries where a huge portion of electricity comes from CO2 ([http://www.worldstopexports.com/lithium-ion-batteries- export...](http://www.worldstopexports.com/lithium-ion-batteries-exports-by- country/)). On top of that, each battery needs to be transported to its final destination, which is yet another source of pollution.

<comment><USER4> I don't think this is a good argument. What you are describing is the chicken and egg problem. Once one part is solved, the other one is too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> 4 hours of storage is enough for a PV system to serve the early-evening period when demand is at its highest.

For example, here's the demand curve for California's CAISO today:

[http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx](http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx)

The peak demand is between 6 and 7 PM. Since the sun sets at 4:55 PM today in Los Angeles, and solar output dips significantly starting a couple of hours before sunset, solar cannot supply any of the peak-demand load at this time of year. Even with later sunsets in the summer, solar can supply only a fraction of peak-period demand. But solar coupled with 4 hours of storage can cover the most important hours just before and just after sunset. By the later evening, demand is lower and wind output has often increased.

The two most interesting cases:

 _Standalone 100-MW PV system with one-axis tracking ($111 million)_ \-- this is a pretty typical configuration for a new solar farm being built today.

 _Co-located, AC-coupled PV (100 MW) plus storage (60 MW /240 MWh, 4-hour duration) system ($188 million)_ \-- this is a battery system plus the solar farm at the same facility. AC coupling is a little bit more expensive than DC coupling but it is more flexible; it can be installed as part of the original solar project or as a retrofit. Most utility scale PV projects that are already built have ample room for a battery system on the same site.

A year ago, XCel Energy in Colorado received median bids of $36/MWh ($0.036/kWh) for PV plus 4 hours of storage:

[https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/record-low- sola...](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/record-low-solar-plus- storage-price-in-xcel-solicitation)

However, those bids are for projects to be completed in 2023 and NREL's cost estimates are for projects built now. That can explain part of why NREL's cost premium for adding storage appears to be higher than the premium assigned in recent auctions.

<comment><USER6> Shifting power east / west is another option. Supplying Florida with solar from California can significantly reduce the need for storage. This also allows you to supply morning power in California with solar in Florida.

The interactions are complex enough I think production, transmission, and storage all need to be dealt with separately.

<comment><USER5> Long-distance grid connections are _technically_ viable and can reduce the need for storage. The biggest problem in the US is the very slow and uncertain process of getting state-by-state approval for interstate transmission projects. A Florida-California transmission project would need approval from at least 8 states.

The proposed Grain Belt Express transmission project goes through only 3 states and received its first approval (in Kansas) 7 years ago. It is _still_ trying to get the necessary approvals in Missouri. Due to this drawn-out process in Missouri, opponents in Illinois were able to reverse the project's earlier-obtained Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. Even if Missouri gets on board the project will have to re-obtain approval in Illinois, and perhaps by the time that's over Kansans will have new objections.

<comment><USER7> JOOI, who is the opposition, and why are they opposing this?

<comment><USER8> Appears to be the usual mix of NIMBYs and anti-eminent-domain activists: [http://enquirerdemocrat.com/grain-belt-express-project- halte...](http://enquirerdemocrat.com/grain-belt-express-project-halted- courts/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > _or the standalone systems, a constant per-energy-unit battery price of $209 > /kilowatt-hour (KWh) is assumed, with the system costs vary from $380/kWh > (4-hour duration system) to $895/kWh (0.5-hour duration system)._

Still seems very low to me. I'm looking at my own 2x powerwall estimate (24 kWh), and it's $450/kWh after all rebates and credits. Maybe they're averaging some state rebate in this methodology.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is looking at utility scale storage, not small residential systems. Single home installs will be far more expensive per unit of capacity than industrial scale systems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > _For the standalone systems, a constant per-energy-unit battery price of > $209 /kilowatt-hour (KWh) is assumed, with the system costs vary from > $380/kWh (4-hour duration system) to $895/kWh (0.5-hour duration system)_

"The 19.4 cents per kWh New York households paid for electricity in November 2018 was 45 percent more than the national average of 13.4 cents per kWh" [1]. The four-hour duration system thus costs over 280,000% more than the baseline. How do those numbers make sense?

[1] [https://www.bls.gov/regions/new-york-new-jersey/news- release...](https://www.bls.gov/regions/new-york-new-jersey/news- release/averageenergyprices_newyorkarea.htm)

<comment><USER11> I think you're confusing operating costs and installation costs. The $380/kWh is referring to the cost for a battery that can store 1kWh of energy. That battery will store and release energy many times.

<comment><USER10> > * you're confusing operating costs and installation costs*

Yup–thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What does the `hours of duration` mean in this context?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's the energy capacity of the battery divided by the power of the battery; i.e. if you discharge the battery at maximum power, how long does the battery last?</comment></comment>


From the garage to the iMac: 1976-1999 (a new exhibit) - <AUTHOR> http://www.livingcomputers.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> The Living Computer Museum + Labs has just opened it's new exhibit _From the garage to the iMac: 1976-1999_ and it's a beauty. All the Apple machines and lots of other contemporary machines from the dawn of the personal computer. Lath Carlson (Executive Director), Museum Founder Paul Allen, and a host of engineers and volunteers deserve kudos for putting together an outstanding exhibit. Unlike most museum exhibits, the living computer machines actually work! If you can swing a tour of the back room, you'll come back with a severe case of computer envy. The coming attractions menu is stunning.

I was invited to join the "Apple Reunion Event" which brought 100+ graybeards with ties to the Apple and the birth of personal computing. Strange to be in a room filled with people who look familiar but are, well, older.

The Living Computer Museum, 2245 First Ave S, Seattle WA 98134, 206-342-2020</comment>


Themepunks - Short Fiction by Cory Doctorow where Y Combinators are prevelant - <AUTHOR> http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2005/09/12/themepunks_1/print.html

<comment><USER2> Whoo. I'm on chapter six so far - I really dig Cory Doctorow's work.

How much of the stuff in this book is real, and how much of it is made up?

The trolls seem like a great idea (and I think there's an inside joke there, too). The RFID tracking of your stuff is an even better idea... especially useful for checking out stuff I might lend to other people. (I always forget I've lent things, and they disappear, and I go into this unhappy phase where I stop sharing.)</comment>


Large-scale design in Haskell? - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3077866/large-scale-design-in-haskell

<comment><USER2> It's amazing that I can ask a question like this on SO and have one of the world's experts answer. The conclusion was, basically, read Xmonad.

<comment><USER3> You can summon dons anywhere on the Internet by using the magic word "Haskell". I don't know how he does it but it is amazing.

<comment><USER4> I suspect that besides RSS feeds to a bunch of places, he also has a few Google Alerts set up.

<comment><USER5> No, just RSS. I hang out on SO a lot these days though.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Should my barber do a technology upgrade? - <AUTHOR> http://www.tewari.info/2014/07/12/should-my-barber-do-a-technology-upgrade/

<comment><USER2> Great article! I've had similar thoughts with many service businesses still 'living in the stone age' but I realize that as tech people, we undervalue the importance of the transition. Great action plan and applicable to other verticals</comment>


Feds: Google stops challenging most US warrants for data on overseas servers - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/feds-google-stops-challenging-most-us-warrants-for-data-on-overseas-servers/ <comment><USER2> What a crappy potential violation of the sovereignty of my country (Ireland) and others where Google holds data. It's a stupid and unnecessary slippery slope of extraterritorial power by the US. We and most other countries were Google has data centres, already have proven legal arrangements for coperation with the US.

I hope dozens of countries start issuing extraterratorial warrants for data that forces US companies to hand over data held in the US. Lets see what happens then...the sooner the resultant outcry and general clusterf*ck happens and this issue is binned, the better.

<comment><USER3> > It's a stupid and unnecessary slippery slope of extraterritorial power by > the US

The slippery slope argument was relevant maybe 60 years ago, that ship has sailed mate.

> I hope dozens of countries start issuing extraterratorial warrants for data > that forces US companies to hand over data held in the US. Lets see what > happens then...

The US will more clearly tell them to f* off, in case there was any shred of ambiguity left about what has been going on here, will threaten to remove some form of funding, will threaten to boot them out of some form of alliance, will threaten to sanction them, and so on, until compliance is restored. And then everyone can go on pretending their sovereignty isn't nominal because the US won't mess with anybody's traditions.

This will continue to work as long as Russia is the boogeyman.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > Google, in a statement, told Ars that it supported recently introduced > legislation (PDF) authorizing Internet service providers to surrender > overseas data with a warrant.

Wait.... thats even worse than "stop challenging". Yes, clarifying that it must be done with a warrant is nice, but this doesn't solve the problem they were challenging which was that the seizure orders can often conflict with the laws of the areas where the data is.</comment>


Ask HN: Are there any good talks that focuses on just the virtual dom? - <AUTHOR> Any talks that explicitly talks about the virtual dom without focusing on React and but on virtual dom libraries like snabbdom? <comment><USER2> I highly recommend this blog:

[https://medium.com/@deathmood/how-to-write-your-own- virtual-...](https://medium.com/@deathmood/how-to-write-your-own-virtual-dom- ee74acc13060)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I will check it out.</comment></comment>


The trouble with volatile - <AUTHOR> http://lwn.net/Articles/233479/ <comment><USER2> From the comments there, this is a pretty good article on why neither volatile, nor anything else in C or C++, necessarily does what people want it to in the multithreaded context: <http://www.aristeia.com/Papers/DDJ_Jul_Aug_2004_revised.pdf>

<comment><USER3> And from that document:

      Third, avoid using a lazily-initialized Singleton unless
      you really need it. The classic Singleton implementation
      is based on not initializing a resource until that
      resource is requested. An alternative is to use eager
      initialization instead, i.e., to initialize a resource at
      the beginning of the program run.

I've personally never found the need for a lazy-loaded singleton and I expect the same to be true for most other software developers. This whole problem stems from the premature optimization of thinking lazy-loading something would be nifty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That old chestnut again?

Standard C and C++ do not have a memory model and do not support multi- threading at the language level. You have to rely on compiler-specific libraries/APIs, or C++0x (which has a memory model).

<comment><USER5> I don't see how to reconcile your dismissive comment with the fact this is clearly written in the context of the Linux kernel, where it is perfectly reasonable to talk about " _the_ memory model", imposed by the kernel, not the language. Is there some way you mean to apply your comment to the article, or did you just assume it was a generalized comment about volatile?

<comment><USER6> I assume he's dismissing it because the article is several years old and it's the second article criticizing volatile to appear on the front page today, i.e., it wasn't posted because it's new or interesting, but because it's volatile witch hunt season.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The meaning of _volatile_ keyword is not "do not optimize accesses to this variable". Rather, it's "this value may change at any time".

Let's say you have a variable that's used as a flag for communication between two threads. Protecting it with spin_locks inside a thread that checks the flag repeatedly inside a loop is not going to prevent compiler from optimizing that access away -- because as far as the compiler is concerned, value of that flag does not change inside that loop -- period.

It appears that the real recommendation of the article is to process shared data in special functions that access them by dereferencing a pointer. I don't see how that's more efficient/effective for simple cases like described above than declaring a volatile variable.

</comment><comment><USER8> Excellent LWN piece, as usual.

I just want to point out that there ARE cases where you MUST use volatile in userland. For instance, double-checked locking (see this Scott Meyers essay on DDJ for info: <http://www.aristeia.com/Papers/DDJ_Jul_Aug_2004_revised.pdf>) is only guaranteed to work on the MSCV compiler as of the 2005 release (and others at different versions) with volatile bools (though the same caveats mentioned on LWN will apply): [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double- checked_locking#Usage_in...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double- checked_locking#Usage_in_Microsoft_Visual_C.2B.2B)

<comment><USER9> The particularly pernicious thing about this flaw in the most common implementation of double checked locking is that it seems like such a simple optimization to one of the most common programming patterns, the singleton.

The singleton is something which the majority of programmers understand vs realizing that the runtime can optimize reads and writes to memory by doing things which make sense in the context of one thread but break in multiple is something I'd only expect the top 10% (and that may be generous) of programmers to understand.

So having the complex part be an intuitive (but wrong) optimization to the easy bit is just a deadly combination.</comment></comment>


New slats make the Golden Gate Bridge sound like a David Lynch movie - <AUTHOR> https://www.kqed.org/arts/13881451/the-golden-gate-bridge-sounds-like-a-david-lynch-movie-now <comment><USER3> I'm just glad they identified the source of the hum, many people are impacted for years by unexplainable sounds, and it is maddening.

It took me and my neighbours a month to find the source of a hum that was resonating with our windows. It was torture, with midnight walks and lurking around potential sources, mapping nearby industrial sites, and questioning our sanity, while our windows were vibrating without a stop. We were very lucky to track it down to a badly installed air conditioning vent 200 m away.

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

<comment><USER4> Two unrelated anecdotes:

1\. A few years ago I spent some time in Falmouth, MA and there was an ongoing battle over newly installed wind turbines. The humming sound was getting to people, including to the point where they were getting headaches. Some people heard it and others didn't. The locals were going to war with the initiative. This article reminded me of that and I checked in on the ordeal. Looks like they shuttered the project and have started dismantling the turbines. It seems like a total failure: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-green-new-deal-in- profile-115...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-green-new-deal-in- profile-11549325968)

2\. I was on a solo canoe trip in a remote part of Maine a couple of weekends ago and I kept hearing the sound of a motor start up and then die down. I heard it multiple times along a 25 or so mile stretch of water with the only other sounds being birds, moose rumbling in the woods, and beavers slapping the water with their tails. I chalked the sound up to some wind turbines I had seen on my drive up there and felt justifiably annoyed at the encroachment of the industrial world into my backwoods trip. I did some research when I got home and it turned out that I was hearing ruffed grouse "drumming" to mark their territory. In retrospect, it's an amazing sound: [https://youtu.be/q0obByQW23k?t=21](https://youtu.be/q0obByQW23k?t=21)

<comment><USER5> 1 Modern CFD techniques enable almost silent blades. If a $10 computer fan can have special dimples/channels why cant wind turbines

[https://www.quietpc.com/nf-a12x25-5v](https://www.quietpc.com/nf-a12x25-5v)

[https://cougargaming.com/us/products/cooling/cfd_red_led_fan...](https://cougargaming.com/us/products/cooling/cfd_red_led_fan/)

[https://aerocool.io/us/product/silent-master- blue-20cm/](https://aerocool.io/us/product/silent-master-blue-20cm/)

<comment><USER6> Well... size matters. The tip of a wind turbine blade moves _much_ faster (~25m/s, up to 80m/s in the biggest ones) than the tip of a silent computer fan (~5-6m/s, up to ~10m/s in the faster ones). You can make the blades more silent but there's a limit to what you can do when your blades move that fast and are up to 75m long. And any solution that reduces efficiency is probably a no go for manufacturers and operators.

From your links you can see that a 140mm computer fan at 1000RPM is noisier than a 120mm fan at 1200RPM. Even if the motor is quieter at the lower RPM, increasing the blade size is more than able to compensate and make it overall noisier, even with dimples and owl-wing tricks.

And it's not only the decibels that are the issue necessarily but also the frequencies which can propagate quite far and by all accounts are pretty disturbing. That low frequency hum that the blades produce by simply displacing air while they move is not a problem with a computer fan's tiny blades. And turbines come in farms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I tried making a spectrogram: [https://twitter.com/nibot/status/1269347206445756416](https://twitter.com/nibot/status/1269347206445756416)

I tried using baudline[1] (a 20-year-old program!) but it didn't work out-of- the-box on my current Linux installation. Instead I found something called Sonic Visualizer[2], which, while not real-time, worked out of the box. Using Pulse Audio 'pavucontrol' it was easy to configure Sonic Visualizer to use as its input the 'monitor' channel, i.e. capturing the audio while the video played on Twitter.

I'd love to get baudline working again since it's able to run in realtime.

It looks like the main tone is at 440 Hz and tones at 400 and 480 Hz come and go. Not sure what to conclude from this. :-)

[1]: [http://www.baudline.com/](http://www.baudline.com/)

[2]: [https://www.sonicvisualiser.org/](https://www.sonicvisualiser.org/)

<comment><USER8> every musician ever: A440 PROVEN BY THE BRIDGE

<comment><USER9> A440 is not as universal as you'd think. Tunings as low as A435 and as high as A466 are in use even today.

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A440_(pitch_standard)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A440_\(pitch_standard\))

<comment><USER10> "As low as A=435"? The reality is much stranger! Baroque groups such as Philharmonia Baroque Orchestra, and American Bach Soloists, and many others, routinely perform at A=415, which is the standard accepted "Baroque" pitch these days.

Earlier music is sometimes performed down around A=390.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Apparently they knew about the hum in advance. Under CEQA they should have had to do an Environmental Impact Report and hold public hearings. Someone is bound to sue.

 _UPDATE: The sound is intentional. Or, at least, known about in advance.

According to a statement Saturday morning by Paolo Cosulich-Schwartz of the Bridge District, "The Golden Gate Bridge has started to sing. The new musical tones coming from the bridge are a known and inevitable phenomenon that stem from our wind retrofit during very high winds." Cosulich-Schwartz adds: "As part of the design process, the District did extensive studies on the impacts of the project, including wind tunnel testing of a scale model of the Golden Gate Bridge under high winds." Those tests, seen in a video here, showed that the bridge "would begin to hum" when air passed through it more freely._

<comment><USER12> "musical"

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This sounds so beautiful and desolate, reminding me of a combination of the first two tracks from Aphex Twin's Selected Ambient Works Vol 2, disc 2, in particular "Blue Calx" and "Parallel Stripes" starting from 40 seconds. [0]

Thank you for sharing.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXBAU8HsAqk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXBAU8HsAqk)

<comment><USER14> I don't think SF residents are as thrilled. It's overwhelmingly loud.

<comment><USER15> I imagine it's just going to be ignored. Like the bart "screeching" they never fixed.

<comment><USER16> That's amazing. According to this article, bart is now moving to tapered wheels instead of plain cylindrical:

[https://sf.curbed.com/2018/6/11/17449460/bart-screen- convers...](https://sf.curbed.com/2018/6/11/17449460/bart-screen-conversion- wheel)

My understanding was that all rail systems since roughly forever use tapered wheels. Primarily to reduce wear, by having the tapered wheels self center instead of grinding against the track.

It's really odd that they seem to just roll that out in 2017?

<comment> frosted-flakes > unlike the cylindrical profile which again just steers with the flange > basically rubbing against the edge of the railhead.

That's crazy. That means that the wheels are actually slipping when going around a corner, because the wheels are all the same diameter. Unlike conical wheels, which are essentially self-steering.

Here's a great explanation by Richard Feynman: [https://youtu.be/WAwDvbIfkos](https://youtu.be/WAwDvbIfkos)

How could the BART trains possibly have cylindrical wheels? Conical wheels have been used on trains for ages, so that's seems weird. But doing some research, it seems that, yes, they were cylindrical:

> Queensland Railways, for its first hundred years, used cylindrical wheels > and vertical rails. With non-inclined rails and cylindrical wheels, the > wheel squeal from trains taking curves on that railway was slight. After > adopting coned wheels and inclined rails from the mid 1980s, the wheel > squeal from trains curving at the same location and at the same speed > decreased immensely. Some modern systems, such as Bay Area Rapid Transit > (BART) in San Francisco, use cylindrical wheels and flat-topped rails; BART > is now switching to conical tread to reduce the noise caused by flange/rail > contact and loss of adhesion of one of the wheels on curves.

\-- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheelset_(rail_transport)#Semi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheelset_\(rail_transport\)#Semi- conical_shape)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is very similar to an Aeolian Harp, also known as a wind harp.

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

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtzSm76ppS4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtzSm76ppS4)

They are pretty cool art installations. The Golden Gate bridge may now be the largest such installation ever built!

<comment><USER18> Ok, I'm on board here. This is _really_ cool.

Yes, it cannot be a 24/7 thing, the harp/bridge is too loud. Also, putting resonances into a suspension bridge is likely to be unsafe.

That said, like the chiming of church bells in a village, it may be used selectively. I can imagine some Burners quickly putting up an adjustable mechanism to have the bridge sing/chime.

Something that can point into the wind correctly (to some degree) and then be readjusted to turn off. Possibly to make more than just one note, like a carillon of bells in a bell tower.

Maybe at the tops of the hour it can turn on/off, like a church bell, to signal the time. Or on special occasions like New Years Eve, the 4th of July, etc. Or for swearings-in of a mayor's term, etc. Heck, even as a warning system for earthquakes.

Having that loud of an instrument, powered by the wind, and then controlled by a few hundred actuators or a bridge-worker/bell-ringer moving steel beams in and out, it's just too good of an idea.

If something like that could be made to work, on such an iconic bridge, well, that's a whole new industry. People have done 'love locks' for years now, chiming bridges would be a great idea too.

<comment><USER19> I joked with a friend today that with San Francisco being San Francisco, someone will have a system for making it play Carol Of The Bells by next week.

<comment><USER20> Rigging something so that it plays Blowing in the Wind would be much more fitting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I was working outside yesterday afternoon and this humming was driving me insane. I thought it was some instrument at a monastery nearby.

I can't believe it's the bridge.

<comment><USER22> > I can't believe it's the bridge.

Spat out my drink at this comment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> There should be an app for this.

To get direction and location, you need acoustic samples from multiple widely- spaced locations, all synchronized. Human ears are not wide enough apart to directionalize low frequencies, but with a baseline of tens or hundreds of meters from separate cell phones, it's not hard. Run a correlator, line up the samples, compute the hyperbolas of constant time offset, (like GPS and LORAN) and find the target.

This needs an app with timing accurate to a millisecond or so. Can you get that from cell phones? The built-in clock synchronization isn't that good. The GPS receiver has more accurate time, but you may not be able to get at that.

<comment><USER18> Nit: Human sound localization is 'good' from about 200Hz to about 1600Hz. Other posters have the sound at ~440Hz, so humans should be able to localize the sound fairly well.

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

<comment><USER24> In this case, I think they're mostly referring to "The Hum"[0] that others have been talking about, since the article is about the source of this noise. When it's lower frequency and not this easy to locate, it would be great if there were some other way to go about it.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I hope somebody has a chance to make high-quality samples/recordings before it's fixed. I doubt we'll get the chance to hear an instrument like this again, accidental or not.

<comment><USER26> > before it's fixed

Given that it was intentional, what makes you think it'll be "fixed"?

<comment><USER27> The article clarifies that "intentional" really just means "known about beforehand", and I imagine if enough people are annoyed they could "fix" it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I honestly think this is awesome and beautiful, though I might feel differently if I lived nearby just because of how relentless it is.

I remember years ago I had the idea that if you could design construction equipment to rotate/oscillate/whatever at frequencies that were harmonic with each other, construction noise would become musical, almost like a very loud set of wind chimes.

<comment><USER29> There's a scene like that in the 2003 version of Zatoichi. But it's with manual construction equipment, so the musicality is rhythmic rather than harmonic.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk4oGCPGXz4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk4oGCPGXz4)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I rode across the bridge in high winds last week and I thought that the bridge might be failing somehow - the sound was almost unbearable - I thought a serious safety issue was potentially occurring because of a structural frequency effect. I guess the good news is that there is no emergency - <USER2> news is maybe ear plugs on bike rides on windy days.

</comment><comment><USER31> Holy moly I can hear this from the Inner Richmond at night, WHILE IN MY BED. I thought my tinnitus was doing something new, but it's the freaking bridge!

</comment><comment><USER32> "In the future the most valuable thing will be silence" \--Voltaire

<comment><USER33> Pretty much the only good thing about the lockdown was the massive reduction in sound levels in London. Just off Old Kent Road which means traffic noise dropped, plane noise disappeared[1], general hubbub of the feral children vanished, no late night parties at the community centre, etc. It was as close to blissful as I've encountered in London.

[1] Normally one every 5-10 minutes from 0500 to 23000 since we're on Heathrow approach and not far off City's path.

<comment><USER34> Lots of good things about the lockdown from the aspect of peace, quiet, nature, clean air, reduced light pollution, and more. It just comes at a cost that society isn't willing to bear.

<comment><USER35> [https://xkcd.com/2305/](https://xkcd.com/2305/)

<comment><USER34> It looks like you may have misunderstood what I was saying. The polls pictured that linked to say America is united to defeat coronavirus even at such a high cost. My argument is that this price _that nets us these wins of peace, quiet, reduced pollution, etc etc_ comes at a price that society would not sustain past this crisis.

<comment><USER35> Ah, sorry, I get it now. And I suspect you're right.

FWIW, my big hope is that we can reconfigure our economy to work without conflicting with those wins. (The climate is still changing, so we have to reconfigure anyway.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> this is fascinating! i wonder how long it will take them to do something about it? seeing the video, i almost wish they'd keep it, but i don't live nearby, so...

i found a couple more video examples of accidental acoustic wind effects in architecture -- but it looks like these aren't as ever-present and loud as the Golden Gate Bridge is right now.

Beetham Tower - Manchester, UK: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8-MrU6lpwg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8-MrU6lpwg)

Freedom Tower - NYC, USA: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=25&v=nkjA3BvvOuw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=25&v=nkjA3BvvOuw)

in the Beetham Tower case, apparently the architect _lives in the tower 's penthouse_. i bet they're frustrated that none of the fixes have completely remedied the problem.

links from: [https://gizmodo.com/when-buildings-howl-a-primer-on- architec...](https://gizmodo.com/when-buildings-howl-a-primer-on-architecture- that-whis-1475982071)

<comment><USER37> Was in Manchester to see Metallica last year, Beetham Tower is spectacularly ugly in person though I suspect it'll be around long enough it'll become a much loved icon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Maybe they should find a way to generate electricity from the bridge, it sees plenty of wind practically every single day for the same reason the SF bay is great for sailing.

[https://patents.google.com/patent/US9444372B2/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US9444372B2/en)

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

<comment><USER39> The slats were added to reduce wind resistance. Generating power from wind would greatly increase wind resistance.

<comment><USER40> It depends. Doubt that would affect wind resistance if the shape stays the same, only the vibrations would be partially dampened by added piezoelectric generators. Draining some mechanical energy by turning it into heat+electricity might even improve the mechanical properties.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Lisbon also has a bridge that you can hear from miles away: one lane in each direction has a surface made of metal grating which makes a loud hum when cars drive over it.

People who live nearby don't notice it (strange looks if you point it out) but I think it's sad that it's impossible to escape the constant noise in certain places.

<comment><USER42> Another relevant bit about Lisbon's 25 de Abril bridge is the common misconception that it was designed by the same company as the golden gate, as it looks similar and also has a red paintjob, when it was in fact the company that designed the Bay Bridge, which is even more similar (except for the colour).

<comment><USER43> I guess there aren't all that many companies that can build such massive bridges. Now I'm wondering where else I might have seen a bridge made by the same people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> They finally found a way to reduce the cost of real estate in SFO! Seriously, you have to wonder how someone can actually think this is OK when it can be heard from far away at all times and people crossing it are reporting it to be unbearably loud.

My prediction is this will be added to the long history of engineering disasters. It's OK, this is how we learn.

Here's another video I found:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa2j9b8486I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa2j9b8486I)

</comment><comment><USER45> I'm curious if there can be an impact on the wildlife out here. Animals don't understand what the noise is, so can it disorient them in some way that could have a harmful effect?

<comment><USER46> I'm sure the constant noise will negatively impact predators, at the very least.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Sounds like the song from Devs.

</comment><comment><USER18> Another 'cool' mega-instrument is the Earth Harp. Instead of transverse waves (plucking) the strings, you use compression waves (pushing) in the strings to make the vibrations. Due to some physics here, you then need a very large resonator to hear the sounds. Essentially the Earth itself. Here's a good video from the Burn at an Earth Harp performance: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c66w_pPnO-s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c66w_pPnO-s)

<comment><USER48> How do they get audible sounds from strings hundreds of meters long? Massive tensions?

<comment><USER49> I think it's because the wave propagation speed through the strings is much faster for compression waves, compared to the standard transverse waves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Worse mistakes have been made

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_\(1940\))

Pretty sure every bridge engineer knows that one. Amusing that the lesson didn't generalize.

<comment><USER51> Every engineer, not just the ones building bridges. I was required to take an Engineering Ethics course that covered Tacoma Narrows as well as other incidents, such as the famous Hyatt Regency walkway.

<comment><USER46> We covered software-induced disasters in my CS courses. This isn't standard, which explains a lot about our profession.

My two favorite examples were:

The Therac-25 — it's just frontend GUI code. Why test it? What could go wrong?

The Siberian gas pipeline explosion of '82 — not technically an accident, but it shows the problem with testing untrustworthy code to correctness. It was also the biggest non-nuclear man-made explosion, at least at the time.

The Russians had stolen some pipeline schematics from US companies. The theft was discovered before they stole the control software. Instead of stopping the software from being stolen, US intelligence modified it so an integer would overflow after a year (or two) of operation. The Russian economy would be ruined if the pipeline wasn't operational in less time than it would take the bug to trigger, so it wouldn't show up in testing.

When it triggered, it slammed a bunch of valves shut, causing multiple parts of the network to explode at the same time.

The US military's seismologists detected it, and thought the Russians had detonated a new type of nuclear weapon. The military was going to escalate until the intelligence service told them they were responsible for the blast.

Here's a decent list of other incidents:

[https://royal.pingdom.com/10-historical-software-bugs- with-e...](https://royal.pingdom.com/10-historical-software-bugs-with-extreme- consequences/)

<comment><USER52> Fun talk by Paul Fenwick from a long ago OSCON about various particularly bad engineering failures. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkoyVPPXt5w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkoyVPPXt5w)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> There is this building that has a similar kind of noise: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetham_Tower,_Manchester](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetham_Tower,_Manchester)

</comment><comment><USER54> The second law of thermodynamics says that the energy of reducing the wind's speed has to go somewhere. It's either going to push the bridge around, make noise by generating vibration, generate electricity as in a wind turbine, or some combination of the three.

<comment><USER55> Well, I guess the goal may have been to let the wind pass through.

<comment><USER56> I think this fence was explicitly designed to block wind.

<comment><USER57> The article says it was to reduce wind resistance. In a separate video, the manufacturer states this was needed to offset for the new suicide net

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Does anyone know if they are planning on removing the slats? Maybe if they randomly changed the spacing of the slats if it would alleviate the problem ?

<comment><USER59> What's resonating? If the slats themselves are resonating, spacing them differently won't help much. Then again, if it is the slats would a horizontal brace running along the middle of the slats dampen or eliminate the resonance?

        |     |     |
        </comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-
        |     |     |

<comment><USER57> Dampers are probably only solution that doesn't involve rebuilding it. I haven't seen a great photo, but one of the videos seems to show the rails are square tubing...so could be vortex shedding?

Running a brace might not be a bad idea, but i could imagine that it might just double the octave, and make it a bit quieter

<comment><USER57> Update: Just saw the video from the manufacturer, and it's not tubing like I thought I saw, but just flat stock steel. No wonder they're singing

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I have been in the Bay Area for 12 years, but still cannot get over how beautiful the bridge, Crissy field, Presidio, and Marine headland is

</comment><comment><USER61> I wonder whether this could have a destabilizing effect on the construction over time?

<comment><USER62> Yeah, I wondered this, given that you can use tones like this to, say, loosen bolts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> I like how this article and lots of people's tweets mention '2020.' As if 2021 is going to be any better and things won't just remain permanently horrible! Have a nice day!

</comment><comment><USER64> The expressway I-5 bridge in Seattle is notoriously loud and can be heard for miles around. Interestingly, the sound from the busy topmost lane doesn't seem to make it to the ground. You can verify this during the brief pause when the express lane changes directions. I believe the traffic noise from the express- lane is reflecting off the underside of the upper lane. Seems like a diffusing layer on the underside of the upper lane would reduce the sound getting to the city below.

<comment><USER65> Alas, the US seems to care little about the lives of people who live near the expressways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Reminds me of Google's old Crittenden Lane buildings. The buildings have exterior metal vertical slats over windows for shade control. They sing when it's windy.

<comment><USER67> I never knew that. I am surprised there wasn't more chatter about how the sound attracted or repelled mountain lions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Oops. How did they not notice the noise while installing it?

<comment><USER51> the people who designed it were probably nowhere near the people who installed it

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> I'm glad the tones produced are a whole step apart instead of a half step or something smaller. I wonder if they took that into account in the design; it always drives me nuts when two neighboring beeping electric turn-styles beep in just slightly different tones.

</comment><comment><USER70> We just live with a very loud sound at our house. Run water for any reason. When you stop, some 0-15 seconds later an enormous sound reverberates thru the house. Plumber says its 'water pipes growing or shrinking, rubbing against the straps'. But it goes on for 10-30 seconds. No water pipe in the world moves that long/that much?

<comment><USER46> Definitely water hammer. Find a different plumber.

Be sure to review the first one on yelp after the second confirms.

<comment><USER70> Online I see that described as a 'hammering sound'. Not our problem. We have an extended thrumming that lasts for many seconds. And it can be delayed from the event by seconds. Is that definitely the same thing?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Has anyone gone out there with a sound level meter? If it's that loud, won't it drown out sirens or car horns??

<comment><USER34> Sound perception is extremely complex and nuanced. The brain can tune out both specific frequencies and baseline shift while the ears are more sensitive to some frequencies over others. This sound is fairly pure and doesn't really overlap with other artificially created sounds you'd encounter about the city, but I'm not an expert!

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> According to following, engineers knew this sound would happen during high winds from the west.

[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/06/golden- gate-...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/06/golden-gate-bridge- san-francisco-sings)

<comment><USER73> Here's a video from the company that built the new handrail: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-XCbsyRENI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-XCbsyRENI)

From your article: "The wind retrofit project is designed to make the Bridge more aerodynamic under high wind conditions and is necessary to ensure the safety and structural integrity of the Bridge for generations to come," Cosulich-Schwartz said."

This statement doesn't agree with the video's rationale for updating the railings. I'm guessing the new suicide net increased the wind loading, so the handrail had to be modified to reduce its wind loading. Without the suicide net project, I doubt the handrails would be changed. But the suicide net project is contentious politically, so they cannot admit this.

The new handrail uses long, unsupported plates. The old handrail was far more rigid:

[https://www.bontena.com/contents/2018/12/Interview-with- Rick...](https://www.bontena.com/contents/2018/12/Interview-with-Rick-Bulan- Owner-and-Designer-of-Golden-Gate-Furniture-Co-18121102)

<comment><USER74> I'm kinda curious what the rational of the net is. If you're determined to jump off the bridge, you can jump off the net too.

<comment><USER75> The net is 20 feet below the bridge, so there's quite the adrenaline rush just falling to the net. After getting caught by the net, you're subject to high winds and _quite_ the view, straight down, of the ocean below. Jumping a second time would be mechanically possible, but would not be easy for a human to do. Without the net, it's a quick hop over the side so having the net allows bridge workers critical time to go and respond to any attempts (which is about one every-other-day).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Did we just make the golden gate bridge more epic?

<comment><USER77> What makes it epic compared to other bridges? Well except being in many films so more people knows about it.

<comment><USER78> It's universally considered to be a beautiful bridge. Compare and contrast with the old eastern span of the bay bridge.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco%E2%80%93Oakland_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco%E2%80%93Oakland_Bay_Bridge)

You have to admit the old eastern span was just ugly.

<comment><USER76> the bay bridge at night is not bad [https://www.google.com/search?q=bay+bridge+at+night&sxsrf=AL...](https://www.google.com/search?q=bay+bridge+at+night&sxsrf=ALeKk013OYs8b5aiAAPV3ttm1YSaDmMkCQ:1591480293847&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwihqtOMlu7pAhURsJ4KHSFnCrcQ_AUoAXoECBUQAw&biw=960&bih=697)

<comment><USER78> Talking about the old eastern span, the new span looks a lot nicer.

[https://seaonc- assets.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2018/05/Old-E...](https://seaonc- assets.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2018/05/Old-Eastern-Span.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> I wonder if they will now need to install thousands of rubber vibration dampeners wedged between the slats.. like large versions of tennis racket string dampeners.. if that is possible to do without catching too much of the wind trying to pass through. Maybe only on every other slat, or every three slats, could reduce the noise at least somewhat.

So then someone would need to custom manufacturer all of those pieces of rubber and then they would all need to be jammed in there. But then the weather would probably degrade then over time.

I just wonder how many millions are going to be spent on mitigating this.

</comment><comment><USER80> I don't live in SF but have visited a few times. I would be incredibly angry if someone arbitrarily decided to add a whole bunch of noise into my environment for no good reason. However "interesting" the noise may be to some people, having to deal with it in my daily life would be awful! I cannot comprehend how a person or group could be allowed do something like that.

</comment><comment><USER81> This sounds exactly like the audio synthesis I did for a recent generative sound app. I didn't know too much so a very high q band pass filter over brown noise did the trick. Do that over several voices (not necessarily harmonic) and you get something similar. Check it out: [https://apps.apple.com/us/app/night- shapes/id1490540845](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/night-shapes/id1490540845)

</comment><comment><USER82> Check out The Singing Ringing Tree art exhibit:

[https://youtu.be/4B0hGyKV9qs?t=12](https://youtu.be/4B0hGyKV9qs?t=12)

<comment><USER83> With the clouds in the background in the video and the shape of the installation, my first thought on how to describe it would be a tornado rather than a tree. Maybe growing up in Tornado Alley predispositions me that way. I could see it as some sort of storm warning setup, steampunk style.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> I'd assume that the engineers would have performed some form of stress tests for these installations that were actually meant to afford wind resistance and that the noise should have been noticed. Does anyone know how these conditions are tested in a simulated large structural engineering lab?

</comment><comment><USER85> Here's a BBC doc on the "Bristol hum" [https://youtu.be/QpeKot2X_O8](https://youtu.be/QpeKot2X_O8)

Makes me almost happy for my hearing loss from attending a Jack White concert in a tiny bar where he maxed out the sound system. Although that's probably worse off.

</comment><comment><USER86> Apparently you can hear it from pretty far away and not just as you go over the bridge: [https://twitter.com/Shirin_Jnk/status/1269143410268467200](https://twitter.com/Shirin_Jnk/status/1269143410268467200)

</comment><comment><USER87> Wonder how this will affect housing prices? That is if it's there to stay...

</comment><comment><USER88> Sounds more like a theremin than a kazoo to me. (A kazoo sounds funnier.)

</comment><comment><USER89> I wonder what the space is in between the slats, or more precisely, the period. Working out what pitch this is, and a bit of $v=f\lambda$ might tell us which way the wind is blowing.

</comment><comment><USER90> It sounds like a WW-II air-raid siren.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgaCNEQzL1Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgaCNEQzL1Q)

<comment><USER12> Someone said it's 440Hz and "something I read online" says the UK air raids had a component frequency of 450Hz.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> I can't wait for the 99% Invisible episode on this :)

</comment><comment><USER92> I should probably know this, but mechanical design packages include thermal modeling and fluid dynamics modeling. How about modeling for resonating in wind?

</comment><comment><USER93> I heard it 2 miles away at the top of the Lyon Street Steps on Sunday afternoon. I hope they change it to reduce the volume.

</comment><comment><USER94> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_organ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_organ)

<comment><USER95> weird you picked that one, since on that wiki is the link to the wave organ in SF. Its pretty close to the Golden Gate.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> There is a wind harp in South San Francisco that drives me nuts. It just sounds like wind passing through power lines, a low hum.

</comment><comment><USER97> My bet: depression rate is going to increase around the bridge where the sound can be heard.

I wonder if you can hear it from top of Mount Tamalpais?

</comment><comment><USER98> The Black Lives Matter protest is marching over the bridge today starting at Noon. I'm sure it'll be an eerie experience.

</comment><comment><USER35> There's a marina in the East Bay that has the same effect on some of the railings there. Much quieter though.

</comment><comment><USER99> This is nice, it adds another dimension to the audio experience of the bridge- bay 'composite-system'

</comment><comment><USER100> It's been windy every time I was near the bridge. Is it howling every single day now?

</comment><comment><USER101> I wonder what Mills College's Center for Contemporary Music (CCM) will make of this.

</comment><comment><USER102> Reminds me of parts of the Half Life soundtrack. Desolate/dystopian.

</comment><comment><USER103> I love it, but I can also understand why it could be unbearable for others.

</comment><comment><USER104> Given it makes sound, it vibrates at high frequency. I've troubles understanding why a vibrating bridge is "better for structural integrity". I remember some of these in the past which broke

Bridge engineer cares to enlighten me/us?

</comment><comment><USER105> This reminds me... On the off chance someone reads this and happens to have a copy:

I once ripped this mix from, I think it was di.fm or soma.fm, called 'Quiet ambient preceding magnetic storm', but the only hdd it was on broke.

</comment><comment><USER106> DRINK FULL AND DESCEND.

</comment><comment><USER107> Clear case of no unit testing by the engineering team.

</comment><comment><USER108> I wonder how this sound together with fog horns.

Should be glorious

</comment><comment><USER28> > UPDATE, 1:30pm: The sound is intentional.

</comment><comment><USER109> I eagerly await the Tom Scott video.

</comment><comment><USER110> Cool. Btw, check out the wave organ.

[https://www.exploratorium.edu/visit/wave- organ/](https://www.exploratorium.edu/visit/wave-organ/)

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

[https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/wave- organ](https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/wave-organ)</comment>


Aussie cops: Silk Road TOR anonymity 'not guaranteed' - <AUTHOR> http://www.cso.com.au/article/431755/aussie_cops_silk_road_tor_anonymity_guaranteed_/#closeme

<comment><USER2> As another commenter suggested in the article, the government probably found the man because of factors external to TOR, such as the delivery address and the payment processor/information he used.

I don't believe the TOR network was compromised just yet, although I wouldn't test that assertion by buying drugs on it...

<comment><USER3> Not entirely true, see here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_%28anonymity_network%29#Wea...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_%28anonymity_network%29#Weaknesses)

"security consultant, revealed that he had intercepted usernames and passwords for a large number of email accounts by operating and monitoring Tor exit nodes.[27] As Tor does not, and by design cannot, encrypt the traffic between an exit node and the target server, any exit node is in a position to capture any traffic passing through it which does not use end-to-end encryption such as TLS."

It's strongly suspected that China used that method to arrest some opponents of the regime that were talking with TOR. I don't know if Australia has the same level of organization and can drop into communications like that though.

For this story, it really looks that they just used other factors than TOR to find out this guy.

edit: apparently Silk Road is 100% TOR, so it does not work in that case! Mea culpa

<comment><USER4> Silk Road is only available via TOR, so there is no exit node involved.

<comment><USER5> One other possibility is to hack the computers running Silk Road itself. It's a rather high value target, so I'd be surprised if they didn't try. They could also order drugs from it in order to find out how they were being packaged and alert customs to any new techniques. In fact, there are quite a lot of things they could do, none of which require compromising TOR or Bitcoin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> After seeing the headline, I expected to read a bluff by the Australian Federal Police that they can pierce through TOR.

Instead they didn't even do that; which to me implies that they caught this guy through weaknesses in his anonymity that had little to do with the merits of TOR.

</comment><comment><USER7> As awesome as the TOR network is, you can't send drugs through it, and physical delivery is way more difficult to obfuscate.

</comment><comment><USER8> When I find a great fishing spot, I always make sure I release a joint statement informing the fish.

</comment><comment><USER9> Hardly. They got to the _people_ operating accounts on those sites.

On the other hand, Anonymous has _actually_ pulled off something that revealed users on Tor.

<http://pastebin.com/hquN9kg5>

<comment><USER10> What they did was pwned a website and used that to hack its users via downloaded malware. The website was hosted as a Tor hidden service.

Again, this is not something that any anonymity network system is going to defend against. The fact that the attackers had to resort to hacking a server and then socially engineering users to download and agree to run the malware shows that Tor was working well.

On the other hand, the way they describe using a DDoS against specific exit nodes and correlating that with outages against a specific hidden service could be considered an attack on this feature of Tor. However, there's little to no data presented and it's mixed in with a lot of other odd factors so I'm very skeptical.

Opdarknet looked different to me from the other operations of Anonymous. My guess is that it was some unrelated entity using Anonymous as a cover. It's weird how they spend as much time bashing specific Tor developers as they do on the CP criminals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> another load of crap from another illegitimate "entity" which once was composed of public servants and now full of "officials".

save the bs for the main stream</comment>


Linux Mint 17.3 "Rosa" Cinnamon released - <AUTHOR> http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=2947 <comment><USER2> I hope they fix the problem with the black screen in 17.2 with some Nvidia cards. I am currently looking for a fix for that which won't break my system.

I have to wait a few days before they release a way to upgrade from 17.2 to 17.3 and boot into compatibility mode to upgrade.</comment>


Prologger - Open Source Github Achievement System - <AUTHOR> http://www.mahdiyusuf.com/post/5865765993/prologger-has-been-unleashed

<comment><USER2> Nice! I'm shooting for the <http://bit.ly/11I71v> achievement over the weekend...

</comment><comment><USER3> Is this similiar to coderwall.com</comment>