Anti-H1B posters plastered in the heart of Silicon Valleys train network - <AUTHOR> http://www.firstpost.com/world/anti-h1b-posters-plastered-in-the-heart-of-silicon-valley-train-network-bart-4395579.html <comment><USER2> People often forget how the entire ecosystem is structured, when the Trump administration wanted to send back people who were on Green card wait, a statistic was published in the local newspapers here in India. Apparently there were a good 6+ lacs H1-Bs residing in US currently. Add L1 and F1 categories, to it, then add green card holders and you could be staring at 10+ lacs Indians/Indian orgin people in the US already.

This is already a lot of people. In some way there are already enough Indians working in the US.

This number already rivals the entire head count of several Indian IT firms added together.

</comment><comment><USER3> These guys are behind it [http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/261/2616346...](http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/261/261634671/261634671_201512_990.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER4> For a less opinion based article try the Mercury News article that this one is based on.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16613568](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16613568)

</comment><comment><USER5> You are expensive. Tech jobs in America earn _double_ what they do in other western countries.

</comment><comment><USER6> I was born in California, and I love to write software. I have 10 years of experience and have been networking, hackathoning, and applying my butt off for 2 years now, and still no offers. Nothing! I've always stayed sharp, especially because for years I have seen more and more brilliant engineers train their H1B replacements and kicked out with no comparable or sustainable employment options. It is an absolute fact that these immigrant workers are displacing hard working Americans. Why do foreigners get the jobs and the health care while locals like me get the finger? Where do I need to move? A different country? Or maybe a different field altogether? Software has so many people coming in, why do we need _even more_ from overseas? It's starting to look less like a good job and more like a salt mine, and that's probably by design. Profit++

<comment><AUTHOR> Hiring should be on merit. Why does it matter where somebody was born?

<comment><USER6> Shouldn't a country look to benefit and protect its own citizens?

<comment><USER7> While you're clearly trolling, this is indeed a valid question.

The answer: Capitalism cares about no national boundaries.

Whether that's good or bad is for us to figure out. Do your boundaries lie around a state? a country? a species?

<comment><USER6> Definitely not "trolling".

That's maybe a bit too theoretical of a question, but let's say a person's bounds are his body. In order to protect bodies, we have constructed this idea of "countries" and "borders".

If a foreign body crosses a border and takes from another country and harms its locals, whether with a gun or with a piece of paper, isn't that bad?

<comment><USER8> Not sure what countries have to do with it. If someone takes something, that is rightfully yours, by force or other means then that's morally (and probably legally) wrong. It doesn't matter if they crossed borders or not.

But it's not clear that that's happening. In your OP, no-one has taken anything from you. They just haven't given you something that you feel you deserved but they, presumably, didn't.

You seem to be making the assertion that you've been unfairly treated, and that may be the case, I have no idea. But if you think that it's primarily down to foreign labour then the evidence is against you. There are a lot of US citizens employed in software development in the US. Much more than there are foreign nationals.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Giant Résumés Fail to Impress Employers - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304851104579360721244708190

<comment><USER3> This reminded me of a debate I've had with some friends for a while.

My current resume (LaTeX 4 life) is 2 pages. It's fairly detailed, and I feel like it gives a good overview of who I am. It has lists of my work experiences (with key achievements and technologies used), education (with specializations and details about my undergrad/graduate thesises), talks, open source projects, volunteering activities - the whole deal.

Then one day a friend of mine joked that in the tech industry, where everything must use emojis and communicate in <140 chars, a 1 page resume is the way to go. I made a 1 page resume (without sacrificing legibility or using 0pt margins), and it's grown on me. It's concise, to the point, no BS- and I feel like it still gives a good window in who I am and what I do (and like to do).

But some friends have said that a one page concise resume came across as ballsy and too confident.

Any HNers have insights on this? Or is it one of those things into which one should put the least amount of thought possible?

<comment><USER4> Just a note, this article isn't about the length of a paper resume, it's about students using online portfolios to store information on projects, verified transcripts, etc. Basically, a more thorough replacement for a resume.

But regarding your question, I think two pages is perfectly fine in the tech world, if you have enough to say. By the time you're ten years into a career I'd be surprised if you don't want more than a page to talk about what you know and what you've done. I think the aesthetic gains from a one page resume aren't worth the risk of omitting something that's important to a potential employer. It's the four page resumes that annoy me.

<comment><USER5> I'm 34 years into my career and I still maintain a one-page résumé.

I think keeping it to one page shows respect for a reader's time. Instead of dumping everything I can think of onto the page and letting them pick through it for what's important, I do that work for them. In many cases I've customized the résumé to some extent for the employer.

I've never had anyone tell me it was too short.

<comment><USER4> >I think keeping it to one page shows respect for a reader's time

A well-laid out resume does this _for_ the reader. Basically, the reader should be able to get a high-level idea of the applicant by quickly reading the top of each section/subsection, and then dig deeper into whatever they feel is relevant by moving deeper into the "tree".

Anecdotally, when I interview senior level people (data scientists, but this would apply to software engineers too), more than half the resumes are two pages. It's not abnormal and by no means a deal-killer. The last guy I interviewed had seven jobs and three degrees crammed into a single page - <USER2> had to waste 25% of the interview just asking him what he did at each job because his resume didn't tell me (except a title and a really terse summary). This only hurt him because I had less time to build a case to hire him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Better title: "Lazy HR assclowns admit they're still using checklists of buzzwords instead of actually reading things"

<comment><USER7> Equivalently, "time-constrained professionals apply 90-10 rule to increase throughput by discarding time-consuming edge cases."

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> When I hire people, I get like 60+ resumes for 1 position. So I create a bozo pile, good pile and awesome pile.

Usually we have a couple of people involved. We look for consensus and let people veto folks they feel strongly about. The goal is to talk to about 10 people. Interview 3-5.

Long resume doesn't really factor in. The really long ones are usually bozo- ed, because they are insane. The fact that you were a summer lifeguard in 1992 is fascinating, but really weird to be telling people in 2014.

You should be telling a story with a resume. A 2-3 page resume can tell a good one.

</comment><comment><USER9> I always remind people:

CV/Résumés get you interviews.

Interviews get you jobs.

Focus specifically on those things and you'll get a job.

</comment><comment><USER10> I refined a version of mine with the Hemingway app. The result seems alright, but I've yet to test it out.

</comment><comment><USER11> Why is this news? This has been common wisdom for ages. The only difference is that, before, there was no web.

Keep it 2-3 pages tops and just in PDF, unless you're a designer or site dev. And provide your github if you're a dev doing JS or Ruby.

Did I miss anything? I have no idea what Java, etc. devs and IT geeks need to have anymore.</comment>


When marketers try to have me clean up their mess, I try to bill them - <AUTHOR> http://mr.gy/tmp/link-removal-request-censored.txt

<comment><USER2> I do this too.

What's funny is, these are the same people who a year ago wanted to pay me to add their links to my pages.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is great but the SEO company will simply use Google's disavow tool to pull the link the week after you respond, they'll even include your response as evidence of you not cooperating.

I wonder if disavow / non-cooperation with this kind of stuff becomes a signal for the PR algorithm?

<comment><USER4> Verified, although if they are doing this proactively like the original email suggested, it's not in their best interests to actually follow through with a disavow. Generally only do that when already under a penalty, meaning this might be a tiny smidgen of a little bit more likely to work.

Though I do think it's a little overpriced for comment spam. Might actually get bites if the price drops.

<comment><USER5> Or submit the site on the other end of the link to Google as a spammer...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The site in question is actually abandoned, and has gathered a LOT of spam. If I could actually be paid individually for removing spam comments, this could be a business. ;)

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting idea. Love to hear the results in a few months if it works out at all.

</comment><comment><USER7> whats the conversion rate?

<comment><AUTHOR> 0 and counting. ;)

<comment><USER7> hey, you gotta start somewhere! cool idea :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So, how much you been collectin' ? Y'all must have money comin' out the wazoo.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nothing yet. I'd be suprised (and happy) if I will collect anything.

<comment><USER9> I really doubt you'll make any money out of this.</comment></comment></comment>


Why 85% of homeowners in Houston don't have federal flood insurance - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1063985/hurricane-harvey-why-85-of-homeowners-in-houston-dont-have-federal-flood-insurance/ <comment><USER2> They should be careful about that, they didn't vote for Trump.</comment>


A new tool for creating, sharing and iterating user personas. - <AUTHOR>

I'm currently Working on a new product aimed at UX professionals and collaborative teams. Most personas created these days are not designed to make the reader care about the user, and take substantial time to develop and iterate after testing assumptions. Stakeholders need a better tool that enables them to make better design decisions, faster. So that's what I'm attempting to build. You can check it out at http://userforge.com.<p>Just trying to get the word out there, get some feedback, make some connections and further test my own assumptions about my intended user groups. Comments and questions welcome. <comment><USER2> TL;DR: As somebody actively dealing with the using persona in iterative agile/lean contexts I have no idea what you product does and how it would help me.

Longer version ;-)

Me: I'm about half dev & half UX. I do persona development among other things. For the last 10+ years that's been mostly in agile/lean contexts.

I'd disagree that the persona development is a long process. Persona documents are a communication tool — an artefact. It's user research that (can) take the time if done traditionally. Persona are one tool in communicating that research.

Managing the research, doing the analysis/synthesis of that research - that's the hard bit. Persona are one output from that. Your site reads like a persona creation tool - that's not the hard problem.

That said, using persona well in more agile/lean contexts is an issue for some folk. It's one various folk are already addressing in various ways (the ad-hoc persona structure you see from folk like Luxr, my incremental persona work, etc.). So there's definitely a problem to be solved for some people.

However, in my experience it's not really a software or tool problem. It's a discipline silos / workflow problem. One you get past that there are a bunch of existing tools that seem to support the necessary work just fine.

Reading your site I have no real idea what you product does, what pain points it solves, and how it would help.

Sorry ;-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Adrian, thanks for the honest feedback. Very much appreciated. Prior to building this landing page to further validate my own assumptions on the need for this type of product, I conducted some user testing and interviewed 10-12 UXers and asked them a series of questions about their current use of personas in their workflow, time allocation to them as deliverables, feedback and iteration process, and pitfalls they experience while developing them. The takeaway for me was learning that UXers value personas as a tool for driving design decisions, but would welcome a faster more efficient way to create them, a better way to share and collaborate with stakeholders and speeding up the iteration process. So that's ultimately what led me to the MVP feature set.

Obviously no product is a good fit for everyone, but if it solves a problem for enough people, its worth pursuing :)

<comment><USER2> It's not the fit that's the problem for me ;-) I think there _may_ be good fit.

The problem I have is, reading the landing page, I have _no idea what the product does_.

I've just shown it to three other UXish people. Neither do they ;-)

That suggests there may be a problem with the articulation here somewhere...

<comment><AUTHOR> Good to know. I'll spend some time over the weekend working on the copy and trying to articulate the value prop and feature set better. Cheers :)

<comment><USER2> As a comparison — I can pretty easily look at [https://smaply.com/](https://smaply.com/) and get an idea of what it can do and whether it would be useful to me.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Against pandemic research exceptionalism - <AUTHOR> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6490/476 <comment><USER2> My normal position is fairly anti-government, but there is a role for an agency here that I wish they'd fill. It'd be fantastic to have a centralised agency organise a panel of experts who have gone though all the known papers and studies, synthesised them then just sat for a week doing a massive public Q&A session. Targeted at people who are really quite clever rather than the usual aiming-low that the mass media goes for.

The volume of research has gotten far too much for me to keep track of; the media are in full swing polluting the channel with irrelevant and frequently political noise. I really do not care about what politicians think about given drugs, and honestly their justifications for why they are doing X or Y are not going to matter to me for a while because politics doesn't happen quickly. It'd be nice to have a centralised, low bandwidth well moderated information source for the smartest 5-10% of people to get good information in response to their questions and uncertainties.

There are great information channels for PhD medicine types & doctors (I hope). There are good sources for people who are at risk of drinking bleach because they heard it might help (try a local news channel). There is a hole for, say, the top 5% smartest people where they really don't have an in to figure out how they might help, because they need information hidden in very technical articles or behind rather black-box modelling as described in the media. But they are otherwise very educated, intelligent, capable, wealthy or what have you. These are coordination problems a government could actually help with.

<comment><USER3> > It'd be nice to have a centralised, low bandwidth well moderated information > source for the smartest 5-10% of people to get good information in response > to their questions and uncertainties.

Any such channel which is truly open to questions immediately gets swamped by political attacks, along with an endless horde who think they're in the smartest 5% yet accuse the scientists of being in the pocket of the lizard people. Malicious agents will be able to mine even slightly nuanced explanations for out of context quotes to show that their political opponents are stupid or evil. If the channel is to be useful at all, it must make statements under uncertainty, but that gives it the chance of being occasionally wrong -- and anything it ever gets wrong will be repeated ad nauseum as an argument to defund it. If the channel is visible and trusted, it also becomes a prime target for politicians looking to shift blame away from themselves.

The reason I'm completely sure this will happen is that the information channel you're asking for _already exists_. It's called the World Health Organization, and they've been doing informative press conferences this whole time. However, everybody on this site has decided that they're useless because of a single, incorrectly read, out-of-context tweet from 4 months ago.

<comment><USER4> > It's called the World Health Organization

That's a political organization, not what is being proposed here.

<comment><USER3> You're perfectly illustrating what I talked about.

<comment><USER5> But the objection is perfectly valid. They are a political organization that sometimes places politics over reality (for example, refusing to recognize Taiwan, repeating Chinese reports unchallenged and praising China's transparency, or as another comment pointed out, appointing Robert Mugabe as goodwill ambassador).

That internal challenge should be added to your excellent list of external challenges the proposed organization would face, and the WHO does face: politically motivated people and powerful nations will capture the organization from the inside and abuse any trust it has built up to serve their own ends.

<comment><USER6> > refusing to recognize Taiwan

So it wouldn't be political if they did recognise Taiwan? No one on Earth besides a few Caribbean islands recognises the ROC and yet somehow the WHO has no credibility for doing the same.

Very much making the GP's point for them without even realising here.

Mugagbe is a perfect illustration of that. They were trying to tackle non- communicable diseases in Zimbabwe, getting him on board and giving him a meaningless title was their plan. Instead of seeing it as a boon for the poor in the country, people decided to make it political and demanded he not get the worthless honor. Either outcome had absolutely zero effect on the people screaming the loudest about it.

Put the politics aside for a moment and ask yourself the question: Would health outcomes for the poorest Zimbabweans be better or worse if Mugabe had kept the title?

<comment><USER5> The fact is, the Republic of China exists and is independent of the People's Republic of China. They have a military and a government that doesn't answer to Beijing, and have maintained that government in Taipei for 70 years.

That's reality.

Recognizing reality need not be political, but refusing to recognize reality for political reasons definitely is.

But the main point is that politics, not medicine or science, is dictating the WHO's decision here. Would health outcomes for the Taiwanese be better if the WHO included Taiwan?

As for Mugabe, you're arguing that it was _good_ politics by some measure, and it may very well have been, but it also erodes faith in the organization from people who don't think it was good politics.

> Would health outcomes for the poorest Zimbabweans be better or worse if > Mugabe had kept the title?

If we assume that outcomes would have been better, that implies that listening to the WHO does improve health, and therefore we should also assume that other people who would have lost faith in the organization would have had worse health outcomes as a result. I don't know how it would all balance out, but again, the point is merely that it's a political decision, not a scientific one.

<comment><USER6> > Recognizing reality need not be political, but refusing to recognize reality > for political reasons definitely is.

Getting China offside means 1 in 5 people on Earth would no longer get WHO advice and state media would undermine them at every turn.

Getting Taiwan on side means appeasing political activists in the West and having little if any measurable positive health outcomes, the Taiwanese are used to this state of affairs and have more than competent doctors and lawmakers, they are one of the smartest countries on Earth.

Despite the closeness and affection between my own country and them, when their foreign minister visits they don't go near parliament or meet elected officials in public, they go to trade shows and meet with industry.

As much as it might pain some to accept, compromises are the best outcome for all here, the WHO is being realistic about the position they are in. Hopefully more sideline commentators can be too.

<comment><USER5> > Getting China offside means 1 in 5 people on Earth would no longer get WHO > advice and state media would undermine them at every turn.

Basically you're saying the same thing I'm saying. Authoritarian nations are allowed to dictate WHO policy in order to keep them "onside".

You're just arguing that it's necessary, and I'm inclined to agree, but it's also the reason the WHO is not an impartial or trustworthy source of information. And it's probably impossible for any such organization to be so at this time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As someone who was arguing for speedy reporting a few weeks ago: the longer the pandemic goes on, the more important rigor becomes.

Waiting a short time to get things right today is a a very different matter than a 4-8 weeks ago, where on-the-ground information was completely absent. Speed still _really_ matters, but the longer this goes the more taking our time and doing things right will pay off.

<comment><AUTHOR> Are you arguing that in the initial stages _incorrect_ information is less harmful than no information?

<comment><USER8> There's a difference between incorrect and incomplete.

Facts, like how many people in a trial of 23 recovered, can be shared and useful early on even though they're incomplete. That's different from attempting to draw a strong conclusion about what works from n=23, that might be an incorrect conclusion.

<comment><USER9> The _form_ that the incomplete data took was part of the problem.

Adding numbers to a spreadsheet is one thing. When the same data takes the form of an NJEM or Lancet paper, it definitely implies--and some cases, outright says--more than "FYI: 37/53 people got better when we did [this]." Part of this is how papers are ordinarily written, but I think the authors (and editors) should have stopped all over the word "improvement" in those manuscripts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Numerous trials investigating similar hypotheses risk duplication of effort, > and droves of research papers have been rushed to preprint servers, > essentially outsourcing peer review to practicing physicians and > journalists.

I'm curious about this point. Often we have the opposite problem, that we can't get anyone to replicate studies with strong looking but potentially specious results. Isn't perhaps a small amount of duplication of effort a good thing, especially if studies are rushing and letting standards slip a little? Aside from coordinating and not using too much of the funding to investigate a particular hypothesis, what are the other reasons to avoid duplication of effort?

<comment><AUTHOR> Their point is that there is actually a _very large_ amount of duplicate effort is happening now, as everyone _separately_ goes for the first ideas: this makes it more probable that a lot of effort will be wasted on super- duper-triple confirming that the first thing everyone thought of didn't work, slowing the exploration of more nuanced ideas.

But besides waste of time and resources, the only other problem they mention is an increase of false positives. These naturally become more common as you try the same thing more often unless you correct for it by keeping track of all the other trials.

<comment><USER11> My problem is that there are too many inconclusive trial. Someone makes a small trial without a control group, so the result is promising but difficult to interpret. Someone else makes a small trial without a control group, so the result is promising but difficult to interpret. Another person makes a small test without a control group, so the result is promising but difficult to interpret. ...

So after a few months, we only have promising inconclusive results.

Not that all the trials are different, so it is difficult to compare them. IIRC There was a recent trial with remdesivir without good results, but they only tried the drug in patients with strong symptoms. So people asked what happens if they use the drug in the beginning of the infection.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Not only research, but a lot of diagnostic companies are trying to take advantage of the _gold rush_ :

 _Theranos Would Be Thriving in the Covid-19 Pandemic_

[https://elemental.medium.com/theranos-would-be-thriving- in-t...](https://elemental.medium.com/theranos-would-be-thriving-in-the- covid-19-pandemic-63ec6d45c96a)

</comment><comment><USER8> Really interesting question here. I wish it went a bit more into specifics of how to navigate the tradeoffs. Maybe one way to put this is that it's fine to do preliminary studies that motivate and direct the actual rigorous research, but we're stuck in a place where people are only doing the preliminary studies, a lot, and not getting to the rigorous stage.

</comment><comment><USER13> > perpetuate the perception that, when it comes to the rigors of science, > crisis situations demand exceptions to high standards for quality.

Where are the high quality studies warranting strict lockdowns?

<comment><USER14> In fact I would be curious if a single medical textbook anywhere in the world mentions this as a possible solution to any epidemic. It seems to be a innovation, coming from politicians more than scientists.

The practice so far, still uncommon, was to quarantine sick people, not force the entire population to stay at home.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> What happened to the title? The actual title is " _Against_ Pandemic Research Exceptionalism". If this was intentional, it was a bad choice, because information was lost.

</comment><comment><USER16> I had wondered if a bandit algorithm would be an effective approach. Can anyone who knows more about it than me comment?

<comment><USER11> The name for an "A/B test" is "randomized control trial" (with two arms). There are also trials with more arms, like

* standard treatment + placebo

* standard treatment + some drug

* standard treatment + double amount of drug

and other combinations, like using two drugs in one arm.

<comment><USER17> Bandit algorithms aren't different only because they have multiple arms. They also follow the least possible amount of harm by updating the conclusions in a Bayesian style during the entire experiment, not only on the end.

They also can stand more arms appearing during the experiment after people know more.</comment></comment></comment>


Woman removes SIM card from smart energy meter, uses $193k of 3G data - <AUTHOR> http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2011/05/03/227031_tasmania-news.html

<comment><USER2> >Justice Tennent jailed Monks for 18 months, with the last 12 months of the sentence suspended on condition she be of good behaviour for three years. >She was ordered to repay Aurora $193,187.43.

This is a horrendous miscarriage of justice. 4 months internet access = approx $80.

<comment><USER3> She committed a crime. This wasn't a civil suit.

Once again we see the phenomenon where technology makes everything easier, including criminal acts, resulting in shock and dismay when the consequences and penalties of those acts are not themselves mitigated by technology.

<comment><USER4> Yes, she did, but I can't say that it merits 6 months in jail.

Charging $193,000 for what someone here estimated was about 90GB of data is, itself, highway robbery. But that's Telstra's fault, not the power company's.

<comment><USER3> It might be highway robbery in the service model of iPhones downloading movies. That doesn't make it highway robbery in the context of access cards provisioned within the requirements and fee structure of a utility smart meter deployment. It does _not_ all add up to the same thing.

<comment><USER5> 90GB of data was stolen - nobody is defending that. Some of us have trouble believing that 90GB of data is actually worth the $193,000 as determined by the Telstra contract.

The actual "damage" seems pretty small when compared to crimes which carry similar sentences. If Telstra had a fairer billing system, then a more appropriate sentence would have been more likely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Our product supports GPRS based barcode scanners which send data to our application. To prevent precisely this thing from happening, we advise our customers to make a special deal with the mobile carrier to ensure that the SIM card can't be used in any other device than the barcode scanner.

Considering that there is such a simple technical solution (IMEI lock) to this problem and considering the amount the Telco charged for the data in this case, I really think that the punishment here was too harsh.

The power company should at least pay for some of the charges due to not using a simple technical precaution (which, according to the article, they implemented for later customers) and the carrier, well... where I live extortion is a crime in itself and charging 193K for data traffic is just crazy.

<comment><USER7> Power companies were some of the first customers on Telstra's new M2M platform so it seems it wasn't standard operating procedure to lock the cards/accounts down at first. "An Aurora spokesman said once the company became aware of the problem [of unlocked SIM cards] with a small number of the company's meters it had taken steps with Telstra to prevent it recurring."

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Telstra are the major Australian telco, and for a number of years (and still in a number of areas) pretty much a monopoly. They're infamous for their price gouging.

So, how could someone ring up $200k data bill? Here's Telstra's _current_ mobile phone plans <http://www.telstra.com.au/mobile/plans/phone_plan.html> Note, this includes a whopping $5 data/month at the bargain rate of $2/Mb

It wasn't that long ago they were selling 3 year, $29/month adsl plans that included 200Mb (yes, Meg) of data, and then charged $15/Mb for any used over that

<comment><USER9> Don't want to be devil's advocate here, but it clearly states on that page: "$2 per MB. You can add an extra 1GB Browsing Pack for an extra $10 a month." Not even in gray tiny text, and that doesn't sound overly expensive. // Okay I'll go wash my soul now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> News items like this make me sad. Reading the callous comments here (from people far more privileged than the convict) is even sadder. This and the misguided porn raid that was covered 2 days ago... and these are the ones that appear in HN. How many such injustices happen every day?

I think law schools should have mandatory "Internet Technology & Law" classes. I used to think that the judges in cases like music piracy were just dishonest and in bed with RIAA. Now, I understand the situation is even worse: they are _totally clueless_ about basic technology. And, obviously, they are not intelligent enough to have a health curiosity and learn about these matters (the US Supreme Court judges, for example, have demonstrated that they do this).

<comment><USER11> _I think law schools should have mandatory "Internet Technology & Law" classes._

I have no reason to believe that that interesting suggestion would help solve the problem you identify. My basis for saying this is that I attended a law school in the United States, where as far as I know all law students have to take a course in United States constitutional law to obtain their degrees, and yet I graduated in a class that included graduates who acknowledged to me that they had never, ever read the entire United States Constitution (which is only a few thousand words long). Making a course a required course does not seem to guarantee that students will learn the expected knowledge to be gained from the course. Isn't the same result found in university computer science courses?

<comment><USER12> Do you think the average student became more familiar with the constitution during the course?

Do you think a higher percentage of students would understand more about the Internet & technology after taking a required class on it?

<comment><USER11> Do you think people in the legal system will necessary make the case decisions you desire if they become more familiar with your preferred subset of industry knowledge? That's the nub of the issue here. The thread is a complaint about a judicial decision. The one thing judges become practiced in doing is evaluating which parties to a case are b___s____ing and which parties are being straight with the court and law-abiding in their actions outside court. A trial judge's judgment can be reversed by an appellate court if the appellate court determines that the trial judge misapplied the law to the case. But it is a rare circumstance when an appellate court reverses any finding of fact by a trial judge, because trial judges see the witnesses, review all the evidence submitted by all parties to the case, and hear motions from all parties about evidence should be admitted.

In general, I think that most young people who attend law school are more knowledgeable about the law after attending than before. (I cannot say the same with confidence about young people who attend colleges of education with respect to teaching.) But as someone with a legal background, some of the statements I see here about why the Australian judge's decision was an outrage are not convincing to me. Are you willing to consider the possibility that if all readers of HN became much more knowledgeable about the law, they might perhaps disagree with the dollar amount of the judgment, but support the finding of liability in the case?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The real crime here is what the wireless provider is charging the power company (and by extension, the consumer) for that data. Wow.

<comment><USER14> The smart meter probably doesn't transfer that much data under normal circumstances. I'd assume most of the expenses were due to exceeding the "data plan" for the card.

<comment><USER15> true but as OP said, such overage charge is plain robbery.

<comment><USER16> That's silly. These SIM cards are used for very low monthly transfer. The companies agree to them _because_ the devices won't use much bandwidth. Properly configured devices (i.e., when SIM cards aren't being stolen and used in laptops) will not ever encounter these overages.

There's no "robbery" involved.

<comment><USER17> So, why don't they internally cap the data available to a card of that type? This is a technical solution that would take what, 10 minutes? 20 minutes? Rather than allowing someone to run up $193k of overage charges (all the while cackling manically and rubbing their hands), why not behave in a reasonable fashion?

In effect, this charge is a life sentence to a person. You don't expect the lady to pay this back anytime in the next 30 years, do you? Bear in mind that she needs to fulfill her regular needs with a criminal record hanging over her head. And since the fine is administered by a court, I don't imagine that it will be defaultable.

If an individual did this to someone, there's no doubt that it would be looked-upon differently. It's done by a corporation with no physical body and people defend it.

The goal of a society should, in general, be to construct a reasonable, fair place for people to live. This woman did not get treated fairly.

<comment><USER16> Sure, a technical solution can and, probably, will be looked at at this point. That said, your blithe assumption that it's twenty minutes of work does belie an ignorance of how this stuff works. And you're castigating them for not putting one in place when it hasn't been, to the best of my knowledge, a significant issue in the past. Had there been a previous rash of SIM card thefts, something very well may have been done in the past.

In other words, I am reasonably certain that you have decided on your conclusion and are working backwards from there (see your nonsense about "cackling maniacally"). I am rather certain that this is an unacceptable way of looking at business or law.

As for whether the fine is equitable--well, let's see:

* The overage charges were part of a legal contract and agreed to by both consenting parties.

* An third-party agent--the thief--unlawfully incurred charges on behalf of the power company (charges that, one can presume, would have been an acceptable, if regrettable, cost of doing business had they been incurred, for example, due to a software fault in their power meters).

What do you think should happen? Do you think the telco should not be paid according to the agreement for their account? Should the power company pay it despite the SIM card against which the charges were levied being stolen? Or should the fine be levied against the thief who committed the wrong?

As is likely apparent, I am of the opinion that the thief should be forced to make good on her damages. They are not illusory damages; _someone_ will be made less than whole if the thief is not expected to provide compensation. And, no, I don't expect her to pay it back. But it is her obligation to make whole those she has wronged. Doing otherwise is neither reasonable nor fair.

The unforeseen cost of her action is quite high. That's unfortunate. But, at the end of the day: if you commit a crime against another person or entity, you _are_ culpable for the results. If she did not want to be held responsible for the results of stealing another's property, she shouldn't have stolen it.

<comment><USER18> Eropple: As is likely apparent, I am of the opinion that the thief should be forced to make good on her damages. They are not illusory damages; _someone_ will be made less than whole if the thief is not expected to provide compensation. And, no, I don't expect her to pay it back. But it is her obligation to make whole those she has wronged. Doing otherwise is neither reasonable nor fair.

Keyword: damages. Damages are not the same thing as missing out on an opportunity for profit through means of extortion.

Sure, she should pay for her damages caused to Telstra--they just need to give her an itemized receipt of expenses that she caused the company. This might include the amortized cost of hardware, maintenance, support staff, etc. However, these costs would certainly not include Telstra's insane profit margins. The purpose of most legal systems (Australia's too, I hope) is to maintain justice, not to serve as an alternative means of doing business. Somehow, I think Telstra might come up with a slightly smaller figure than 193k if required to itemize their damages.

<comment><USER19> These are damages, plus _punitive_ damages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > using a stolen SIM card to download almost $200,000 worth of data from the > internet.

What does '$200k worth' of Telstra data look like anyway?

If you're prepaying at the highest levels[1], it's $1.50/GB up to 10GB. If it was this, she must have downloaded a little over 130TB of data or been subject to one hell of an overage charge. Seems unlikely.

If you're using their 'extreme usage' standard plan[2], it's $5/GB up to 120GB, which may well be enough for dozens of movies. That plan is $600/mo or $15k over 2 years. Which means she's being accused of stealing over two decades' worth of their highest consumer data tier.

Either something's up with Telstra's corporate data rates or there are some incredibly customer-hostile penalties attached to these things.

[1] [http://www.telstra.com.au/bigpond-internet/mobile- broadband/...](http://www.telstra.com.au/bigpond-internet/mobile- broadband/prepaid/rates/index.htm) [2] [http://www.telstrabusiness.com/business/portal/online/site/p...](http://www.telstrabusiness.com/business/portal/online/site/productsservices/standardplans.44017)

<comment><USER16> Telstra almost certainly has a special deal with the power company--extremely low per-device rates for consistent very low bandwidth usage. They have a ton of these power meters out there and they don't exactly need a multi-gigabyte network plan.

Those overages are as high as they are because they're a deterrent from the power company from fielding broken hardware that uses more bandwidth than it should.

<comment><USER20> I assumed there must be some kind of special deal going on but the shape of it eluded me. This sounds reasonable. It also suggests the idea of bug/theft insurance for corporate hardware use - pay a little extra and maybe we'll alert you when your power meters develop a hunger for torrents.

Come to think of it, shouldn't Aurora have noticed a meter dropping off the grid and taken action to shut down that data account?

<comment><USER16> Probably. I'd guess it's just something that didn't come up in the past.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What I hate most in such cases is that the telco will just sit silent until it presents you an insane bill at the end of the month. How hard is it to implement a system that would compare each customer's last day's spending with their own 75-percentile daily spending over last 30 days and alert them of extraordinary activity? That would prevent 70% of such problems. 99% if something similar was implemented for roaming charges.

<comment><USER21> My university does this, and sends me an email the second my bandwidth usage is showing 'unusual activity', usually triggered by skype (since it uploads a lot). So, not too hard.

<comment><USER22> But your university gives you a flat fee for bandwidth, does it not? If so, then their incentive is to help you use less. A telco which offers per-GB rates would rather you use _more_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This was a huge failure for the phone and energy company. There is no reason that kind of use should be allowed in the first place. Here in the US, a lot of GSM based alarm systems have SIM cards in them, but they are access controlled to prevent such theft and abuse. I'm not trying to excuse the woman's behavior, but Telstra needs to get their act together to prevent similar crimes in the future.

</comment><comment><USER24> Theft of SIM cards from devices is going to get increasingly common, there was this case from traffic lights in South Africa a while back <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12135841>

I imagine a lot of them are used by criminals who want to make anonymous calls, they probably get cut off more slowly than stolen handsets.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is yet another case that shows that 3G data is absurdly priced way above any reasonable equilibrium.

<comment><USER26> It shows that Aurora are being bent over a barrel by their suppliers data rates.

Negligent for not securing their meters and SIM cards better in the first place.

Do we really believe they didn't negotiate the bill down with their supplier when they found out about it. Even Telstra is usually willing to help out a little.

<comment><USER27> >It shows that Aurora are being bent over a barrel by their suppliers data rates.

Doubtful. Aurora likely negotiated an extremely low monthly rate, knowing that these devices would use very little data in very predictable ways.

Aurora should've locked the SIM to a specific device. That's definitely on them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Nowhere in this entire story is the premise that _the bandwidth was actually worth that much money_ even questioned. What is wrong with people?

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm confused. It sounds like she was given the sim card and didn't know it was stolen. Does Australia not do _mens rea_? Or does it not apply here for some reason?

I mean, common sense says she didn't think she was doing anything wrong.

<comment><USER30> _It sounds like she was given the sim card and didn't know it was stolen._

That was her second story. Her first story was that she didn't know anything about it. Her second story was that some man she met on the internet (whom she could not identify any further except to give a name, despite the fact she had presumably exchanged physical goods with him) decided to ask her (a random stranger) to download a bunch of data for him because his modem was broken (despite the fact that they had no trouble talking on the internet).

It sounds to me like a completely bullshit story. I assume the judge saw it the same way. In fact, I'm guessing there was some other evidence which didn't get included in this story -- surely the electric company knows exactly _whose_ meter the SIM card comes from?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> What if she just repays the $193k?

I have a feeling that quite a few nerds would be pissed off enough about this to donate a cup-of-coffee to a "keep this poor woman out of jail" fund.

That, and hopefully something like that would bring publicity to the absurdity of this.

Granted, yes, what this woman did was completely wrong, and she should be punished for it. That punishment should be about on par with people who use cracked smart cards in their satellite receivers.

<comment><USER32> This nerd will be drinking my cup-of-coffee, not donating to keep a crook out of jail.

The only similarity between this and satellite crackers is that they both involve smart cards. (And the satellite people can pay for their own crimes/torts as well - keep MY coffee out of it).

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I see many people comparing to consumer data plans, or even linking to Telstra's plans. That's pointless.

The power company is not using one of the standard Telstra plans. Think about it--the cheapest plan linked to is a minimum of $30/month. Does anyone really think the power company is going to be spending $30/month/meter to collect meter readings?

Of course not. They will have some kind of special rate structure where they pay a small or no monthly fee, and either have a small data quota, or perhaps have no quote but pay a fairly high rate per byte starting at the first byte.

</comment><comment><USER34> Same thing happened here (South Africa) only on a much bigger scale. Hundreds of them were stolen. Can't remember what they were used for though (Wasn't smart meters).

I feel the supplier should carry part of the costs. Unlimited SIMs easily accessible with zero safeguards should attract a stupidity tax.

</comment><comment><USER35> How much data is that?

<comment><USER36> The consumer PAYG rate is $2/MB so about a gigabyte a day for three months. The business rates don't seem to be published.

<http://www.telstra.com.au/mobile/browsing_packs.html#packs>

<comment><USER7> Telstra Wireless Telemetry Service standard rate card: <http://www.mobilitypartner.telstra.com/web/mpp/plans> $1/MB is the highest rate.

Interestingly the some of the sales material states "If a system is using more data than anticipated, Telstra Wireless M2M [Machine2Machine] Control Centre can alert you or automatically message directly to a device installed in the vehicle. Automated alerts and business rules monitor the health of the devices and instantly modify services based on exception activity." Guess Aurora weren't taking advantage of that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> The cost of using Facebook. Priceless.

</comment><comment><USER38> "dozens of movies" for 193k? If she downloaded 199 movies (assuming they'd say "hundreds" if it were 200 or more) at 4GB each that's 796 GB or $242.46/GB. Sounds more like the power company was getting ripped off by their data provider.

<comment><AUTHOR> If they had chosen a plan with very little included data allowance it may have had high excess usage costs.

Looking at the Telstra Business website[1], their $19/month 1GB plan has an excess usage rate of $0.25 per MB. Yes, megabyte.

For your guess of 796GB that would work out to over $200,000.

[1] [http://www.telstrabusiness.com/business/portal/online/site/p...](http://www.telstrabusiness.com/business/portal/online/site/productsservices/memberplans.44018)

<comment><USER38> Just because it's an excess usage charge, doesn't mean that it's reasonable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> What amazes me is why didn't the power company used a Prepaid SIM card instead.

A $150 recharge on Telstra for their prepaid mobile broadband gives 10 GB of data allowance and has an expiry of 365 days.

Seriously, how much data can the smart reader be sending back?

</comment><comment><USER40> Can anyone explain why 3G data is this expensive? I'm not currently able to connect the dots here.

<comment><USER41> 3G bandwidth is a limited resource. There should be a way for clients to pay less if they know that they use little. However 3G providers misuse the deals with limits by charging insane amounts per megabyte made over the limit. Of course, they can lower the transfer rate instead, effectively helping the client not overcharging due to an error (because it's always an error). They don't do it because their nasty business model in such case is based on the clients who unknowingly make the error and pay dearly. Crooks.

<comment><USER42> In any sense, this phrase "...3G providers misuse the deals with limits by charging insane amounts per megabyte made over the limit." would be a textbook definition of usury.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Does seem like excessive punishment to me, especially for someone who is in such hardship. Did Telstra really lose $193K on this incident? The cost to the state to imprison such barely harmful acts is definitely not worth it. All she deserves is a slap on the wrist, a small fine and some probation time.

<comment><USER44> No, she got the proper punishment for stealing from the corporate masters of US. She'll be trapped by the prison industry for the rest of her life.

EDIT: OK, my bad. But Australia is run by the same ppl in the same way. NWO and the world government are around the corner anyway :D

<comment><USER45> You mean of Australia. Kind of loses its punch, doesn't it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> People wonder why "women" find certain fields distasteful. came to HN: Number one topic for comments - about a "Woman".

Why say she is a woman? Depressing. Is it required? No it is just to stress the fact that women are stupid and perhaps deceitful than men. Yet my empirical suggests otherwise. So sad HN.

Edit: Downvote all you want.

<comment><USER47> How is it worse than "Guy unknowingly live tweets the Osama raid in Abbottabad"? "Woman" just happens to be a word used for female human beings.

<comment><USER39> "Guy unknowingly live tweets the Osama raid in Abbottabad"

When I first saw this headline, I thought "Guy" referred to "Guy Kawasaki" :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> When I read stories like this (which I took care to do before commenting here), I wonder what hackers who are attempting to build software-as-a-service web-based start-ups think about this? Is it just plain immoral for a builder of a service to make a living from the service? Are creators of intellectual property not entitled to any protection of their property? Do you really want to live in a world in which any potential customer can steal your service rather than pay for it?

<comment><USER48> I don't want to live in a world where relatively harmless people receive draconian punishments for minor offenses but bankers steal billions without a sour glance.

But if I must choose, I'd choose the former over the latter even though it makes it more difficult for me to make a living.</comment></comment>


Former Psion designers return with a fresh take on the PDA - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/09/former-psion-designers-return-with-a-fresh-take-on-the-pda/ <comment><AUTHOR> And a review of a production unit: [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/21/planet_gemini_pda_p...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/21/planet_gemini_pda_production_hands_on/)

</comment><comment><USER2> I misread this as former prison designers return with a fresh take on "public display of affection".

Curious about that article!</comment>


10 Simple, Science-Backed Ways To Be Happier Today  - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/3015486/how-to-be-a-success-at-everything/10-simple-science-backed-ways-to-be-happier-today?partner=newsletter

<comment><USER2> Do something nice for someone. If you see someone drop a stack of books, help pick them up. If you see someone trying to get something they paid for out of a vending machine (and you an afford it), buy one for yourself and let them keep the first. Drop an extra-big tip on a waiter or cabbie or delivery person who seems to be having a tough day. Or a busker who plays something you really enjoy, if you're so inclined.

It is absolutely shocking just how much the most trivial-seeming acts, when properly applied, can brighten a person's day. It is almost as shocking just how much seeing this effect, and knowing you're responsible for it, can brighten your own. There is no quicker pick-me-up, especially if you yourself are feeling down.</comment>


Get that job at Google  - <AUTHOR> http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/03/get-that-job-at-google.html?m=1

<comment><USER2> Only if you can travel in time back to before this article was written.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ancient?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, but its a good article.

And apparently there isn't a discussion on here anymore...maybe we should have a new one?</comment></comment>


Pseudo-Random vs. True Random - <AUTHOR> http://boallen.com/random-numbers.html <comment><USER2> It is of course impossible to get true randomness from a deterministic algorithm, but many pseudo-random generators (PRG) are often _good enough_ for practical applications, for example statistical simulations.

Bad PRGs can be ruled out by tests like the one in the article, that is, showing that the exhibit some regularities that would be unlikely to get from a truly random source. An infamous example is RANDU [1], whose output is concentrated on low-dimensional subsets.

Smart people have put together batteries of statistical tests to assess the quality of PRG, the most famous being the Diehard test [2]. The idea is that if a PRG passes all the tests it is _indistinguishable_ from a truly random source for all practical purposes.

Good generators such as the widely used Mersenne Twister pass most of its tests. There are even better generators that pass more tests, such as Marsaglia's Xorshift [3], which is _faster_ and _simpler_ than the Mersenne Twister, and surprisingly not very well known.

For anyone interested in PRGs, I strongly recommend reading Marsaglia's original paper [4], it is a good example of how to design a principled PRG and it just requires some elementary linear algebra on finite fields.

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

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

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

[4] [http://www.jstatsoft.org/v08/i14/paper](http://www.jstatsoft.org/v08/i14/paper)

<comment><USER3> Thought I read that the Mersenne Twister has a major vulnerability. It's possible from a small number of samples (<1000) to predict the future values. Hmmm, this is the best link I can find [http://b10l.com/?p=24](http://b10l.com/?p=24)

<comment><USER4> Of course it has this "vulnerability": 624 of those values are MT's internal random seed.

RNGs have two primary functions: to provide _statistically random_ values (for simulations, say) and to provide _unpredictable_ values (mostly for crypto). These are different goals, and many RNGs are good at one but not the other. That's why we have both RNGs and Crypto RNGs.

Like many good RNGs for simulation, Mersenne Twister is not, and never has been, a Crypto RNG. It is explicitly in the first category.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I run an online dice roller for pen&paper roleplaying gamers, it does use mt_rand() and the results are from what I can tell random enough (no discernable periodicities, no preferred numbers, averages and median are where you expect them, and so on).

However, every so often I get a bug report professing some bias of the RNG. Turns out, people want the numbers to be not random but uniformly distributed even over small sample sizes of about 10 to 20 dice rolls. If the same number comes up three times in ten D20 rolls, they assume it must be a bug. The same happens with physical dice, by the way, I've seen players discard "unlucky" dice like that.

<comment><USER6> Didn't Apple have a similar problem with the ipod? People complained that it was not random because it would sometimes pick the same track twice or would pick tracks from the same artist more often than people expected.

I believe they fixed it by changing the odds every time a track was played so it would seem to be making a more random selection, although technically it is now less random.

<comment><USER7> Of course, people might not actually expect _random_ playback when they hit shuffle. Changing odds sounds like a good approach.

edit: similar to how some players generate a random playlist (every track on listed once, random order). Then on loop, either create an entirely new list, or simply loop.

<comment><USER8> Yes! IMO they should keep track of songs played in the shuffle mode over the sessions and try to uniform it instead of providing randomness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Starting with Ivy Bridge processors, Intel has included the RdRand instruction which uses random processor noise to generate random numbers.

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

Pretty cool in my opinion; at least for applications where you don't need to repeat the same set of numbers.

<comment><USER10> How fast is this instruction? And how to access it with a C program in Linux?

<comment><USER11> I used RDRAND to seed a SSE Fractal Flame generator (which is a stochastic system which needs 4 random numbers per thread per loop iteration, sometimes more depending on the variations used). RDRAND has a maximum throughput of something like 500MB/s, and it takes approximately 150 clocks per invocation. I was never able to hit that performance wall with my fractal program. My fractal program is also significantly faster than other CPU implementations, though that is probably due to the intrinsic vectorization more than the random number source. I also got significantly better looking fractals then what I would get with most of the PRNG that I tried.

For more check the "performance" section of this article

[http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-digital- rando...](http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-digital-random- number-generator-drng-software-implementation-guide/)

Note: if you need more than 500MB/s you can uses RDRAND (or RDSEED in Broadwell, when it comes out) to seed a PRNG. I was doing this at first, but the performance of the system didn't improve enough for it to be worth the added complexity.

And if you want to access it in linux from C you can either:

* Use inline assembly, just be sure to check the Zero flag after calling RDRAND, because if RDRAND fails (you're exceeding the 500MB/s) the zero flag isn't set, so you have to just keep calling RDRAND until it is.

* Use intrinsics (easier, immintrin.h), here's how I did it in my program (bug reports welcome, I'm only a freshman in college who had lots of free time and a fascination with fractals)

[https://github.com/aarongolliver/FractalFlameMicahTaylorEdit...](https://github.com/aarongolliver/FractalFlameMicahTaylorEdition/blob/master/FractalFlameMicahTaylorEdition/include/rdrand.h)

[http://software.intel.com/sites/products/documentation/studi...](http://software.intel.com/sites/products/documentation/studio/composer/en- us/2011Update/compiler_c/intref_cls/common/intref_bk_post32ranum.htm)

<comment><USER12> Do you have any screenshots or samples of the fractals? Just curious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm wondering how this piece of n00bishness is at the very top in HN.

The only reason there is a perceivable diference (in the presence of patterns) is that rand() is not very solid (it's optimised for speed, they recommend mt_rand() where a stronger generator is needed, and you can still do much better).

PHP's mt_srand is a Mersenne Twister, which is pretty good [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister)

<comment><USER14> That's exactly what the article says.

<comment><USER13> It does now. It didn't when I posted that. Or I might have missed it before?

Still, tries to sell "pseudo" vs "true" as if this image showed the difference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If you like this, look at lcamtuf's "Strange Attractors" visualizations of TCP sequence numbers (old, but great use of visualization).

[http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/oldtcp/tcpseq.html](http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/oldtcp/tcpseq.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> I remember wondering about how could Randomness be a thing on my old calculator when I was something like 10. I talked about it later on to my friends and no one would understand me when I said that a computer couldn't give you true Rand() functions. No one would understand. So, because there was no wikipedia and I knew no one with enough knowledge I just decided that Rand() on calculators and computers was actually taken from a table that was initialized through a uniform distribution of numbers.

I guess I was wrong.

<comment><USER16> Occasionally you come across tables in _very_ old statistics textbooks for generating random numbers that are just lists. You close you eyes, stand up and drop a pen to select a number.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> If you like neat pictures of random bits take a look at page 6 of _Playing Hide and Seek with Stored Keys_ by Shamir et al[1]

       In this paper we consider the problem of efficiently locating
       cryptographic keys hidden in gigabytes of data, such as the
       complete file system of a typical PC. We describe efficient
       algebraic attacks which can locate secret RSA keys in long
       bit strings, and more general statistical attacks which
       can find arbitrary cryptographic keys embedded in large
       programs.  These techniques can be used to apply lunchtime
       attacks on signature keys used by financial institutes, or
       to defeat authenticode type mechanisms in software packages.

       Keywords: Cryptanalysis, lunchtime attacks, RSA, authenticode, key hiding.

[1 [http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~astubble/600.412/s-c- papers/keys2.pdf](http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~astubble/600.412/s-c- papers/keys2.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER18> Could be better titled "PHP's rand() is utterly broken".

<comment><USER19> * for some definitions of utterly

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> If you want to learn what's actually going on be sure to follow the link at the end of the post:

[http://cod.ifies.com/2008/05/php-rand01-on-windows- openssl-r...](http://cod.ifies.com/2008/05/php-rand01-on-windows-openssl-rand- on.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> In case anyone's curious (as I was) about Javascript's Math.random(), here's an implementation I wrote and executed in Chrome on a 300x300 div: [http://i.imgur.com/63M2Adb.png](http://i.imgur.com/63M2Adb.png)

</comment><comment><USER22> For something more in-depth about the types of randomness, Brian Hayes has a superb article:

[http://bit-player.org/2011/a-slight-discrepancy](http://bit- player.org/2011/a-slight-discrepancy)

</comment><comment><USER23> OK so what is random.org doing that they can claim it's a true random number generator (TRNG)? I looked at the page but didn't see any explanation, maybe they don't say, but as others have said there's no way it can be a TRNG. edit: I see the explanation on random.org

I'm not a mathematician or computer programmer but wouldn't a TRNG require infinite memory, infinite storage, infinite time to generate etc.? One number generated may be 2 but the next number may be negative infinity.

I work in a casino as a slot tech and sometimes even though I know it's not true some patrons can almost convince you there are patterns.

<comment><USER24> >wouldn't a TRNG require infinite memory, infinite storage, infinite time to generate etc.? One number generated may be 2 but the next number may be negative infinity

What are you talking about here? Generating random Real numbers or something? First off you'd have to define a distribution of some sort or your goal is meaningless...but throw all that out. It provides random the sensible way, one bit at a time. Interpret that bit however you want. Memory requirements: zero (or maybe O(1) depending on design). Time requirement: O(n) where n is the amount of entropy you desire.

<comment><USER23> I guess what I'm asking is say I have a device that can generate a stream of numbers, integers, nothing fancy.

I want random integers with no limit to the size returned, a truly random number and by that I mean a true random integer without any limitation in size.

Really I guess I'm trying to grasp how a true random anything could exist or more to the point how a person could make a device or even be able to know if a random number or anything has been returned as a result.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I used this code and just replaced rand() with mt_rand() in PHP to get this: [http://i.imgur.com/EvjKnsO.png](http://i.imgur.com/EvjKnsO.png)

If you ask me, it is look pretty random.

<comment><USER26> sure about that? [http://i.imgur.com/gQkgwR3.png](http://i.imgur.com/gQkgwR3.png)

(sorry for this)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> It's easy to blame PHP (edit: not that I think the author meant to suggest that PHP or Windows is at fault), but LCGs are quite common in standard libraries and really bad at this particular task:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_congruential_generator#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_congruential_generator#Advantages_and_disadvantages_of_LCGs)

<comment><USER28> with php in windows, this is apparently the best I can generate: [http://i.imgur.com/4nCOI9B.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/4nCOI9B.jpg).

using this:[https://gist.github.com/kennethrapp/198e419d1b620cddbc7d](https://gist.github.com/kennethrapp/198e419d1b620cddbc7d) which should work a lot better in linux, but I haven't tested it with the image thing yet so who knows?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Slightly unrelated but is there a better algorithm that can give me "nth random number after a seed"?

Currently I am using something like

r = (n*very_big_number)+seed

</comment><comment><USER30> I think PHP's rand() just uses the C rand(). So you would think that would be pretty good - well tested.

<comment><USER31> Well tested? Yes.

Pretty good? It has been known for decades that it is pretty bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I am shocked-- shocked!-- to learn that PHP's random number generator is seriously flawed, like everything else in PHP.</comment>


Ceramic Hacker - <AUTHOR> http://convozine.com/conversations/6902

<comment><USER2> Really interesting! Looking forward to see how it progresses, the applications, and if it become reasonable/affordable for small scale/home use.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The video is worth watching</comment>


Email account used by Petya ransomeware has just been closed - <AUTHOR> https://posteo.de/blog/info-zur-ransomware-petrwrappetya-betroffenes-postfach-bereits-seit-mittag-gesperrt <comment><USER2> So it will continue to spread and now nobody can reclaim their files, and they continue to accept btc.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here's the English version: [https://posteo.de/en/blog/info-on-the- petrwrappetya-ransomwa...](https://posteo.de/en/blog/info-on-the- petrwrappetya-ransomware-email-account-in-question-already-blocked-since- midday)</comment>


What is the best app while traveling, and why? - <AUTHOR> http://branch.com/b/what-is-the-best-app-while-traveling-and-why

<comment><USER2> Google Maps, because you're traveling.</comment>


Ask HN: Could it make sense for Apple to switch to AMD - <AUTHOR> Hacker news: could it makes sense for Apple to switch to AMD? Any ideas on the likelihood of a switch given the high performance and low cost of Ryzen chips?
I am not a hardware expert so I defer to HN. From a cost perspective it seems like it could make sense to increase Apple margins and maybe decrease costs to increase Mac penetration. Intel has also been known to miss deadlines and cause issues for Apple product launches.
What does everyone think? <comment><USER2> AMD's Ryzen on GloFo's 14nm process seems to be highly efficient up till 3.3GHz - even better than Intel with its better process. So I think that's great news for the notebook APUs, but we'll have to see. Apple has already started using AMD's GPUs in some devices, so I could see them moving to AMD in the near future fully or almost fully.

And before anyone says that Intel may still offer better performance, if Apple cared about absolute performance, it wouldn't have switched Macbook Air from Core i5 to Core M chips, which likely lowered performance compared to previous generation Macbook Air, or at best stagnated it at the level of a few years old Macbook Air.

If switching to AMD will lower the Macbook's BOM costs by 20% (from about 40% represented by Intel chips in ultrabooks now), I think Apple will do it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well, we have seen m68k, PowerPC, x86_64, arm, AArch64.

Given the inherent problems to the x86 architecture, if they could produce a multi-core successor to the A10, an alignment in arm64 between mobile and desktop would be a best fit.

\- power consumption \- no Trojan as a service ;) \- a single arch to support \- ...

The issue here s the performance : beating an Intel processor is not as simple as taping a bunch of cores together.

</comment><comment><USER4> Apple mostly uses ARM and the ARM chips are mostly of its own design. If Apple moves away from Intel for its PC lines, I'd bet on ARM over AMD all day, every day. Of course, AMD could heavily subsidize an Apple switch, but I think that is fairly unlikely. If the new chip is good enough for Apple to switch, it will do fine in the market all on its own. If it isn't, there isn't a big enough subsidy to drive an Apple change.

</comment><comment><USER5> No. The cost of the AMD CPU itself might be low, but I imagine there is an engineering cost to switch CPU vendors. And for laptops, Intel CPUs provide better battery life which seems to be a higher priority than pure performance.

Given Apple's preference to have control over their CPUs, they might end up replacing Intel CPUs with an in house SoC at some point.

</comment><comment><USER6> In order for Apple to even consider making that tradeoff, they'd have to find a successor technology to Thunderbolt (Intel makes Thunderbolt), which has been part of the Apple ecosystem for quite some time.

USB-C might fit that bill, but I don't see Apple making the jump anytime soon.</comment>


ImgPage - upload 25 MB photos to S3 and Cloud Files via email - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mailgun.net/post/40019942057/python-tutorial-how-imgpage-lets-you-upload-25-mb <comment><USER2> Blog post author, here.

As I shared in the post, Mailgun (YC W10) solves a _very_ difficult problem and does it well. Backed by a top-notch team.

Happy to answer any questions here or use the email address in my profile.

</comment><comment><USER3> Awesome. I shoot a lot of photos in RAW and want to either keep in that format or high-res jpeg, its nice that this works with large files.</comment>


Terry Pratchett starts process to take his own life - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jun/12/pratchett-starts-process-to-end-his-life

<comment><USER2> I think it's really important to stress that he's only starting the formal process, and that this does not, in fact, mean that he will be taking his own life. From the end of the article:

> Pratchett, the creator of the Discworld novels who was 60 when he was > diagnosed, said his decision to start the formal process did not necessarily > mean he was going to take his own life.

I'm stressing this because the headline makes it sound like he will be taking his own life in the near future. But starting the formal process is a completely separate decision from actually performing the act. I recognize his desire to control this aspect of his life, but I sincerely hope that the day he goes through with it is still quite a ways off.

<comment><USER3> Also, this article is from the summer yet is listed as the most read article presumably because his new book Snuff is being released and causing people to search and read related stories.</comment></comment>


Would Transparency In Company Financials Increase (Disruptive) Innovation? - <AUTHOR> http://www.arcticstartup.com/2012/01/16/would-transparency-in-company-financials-increase-innovation

<comment><USER2> I think public companies already file this info..

<http://sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/webusers.htm></comment>


Domain Name Investing Is Not Cybersquatting - <AUTHOR> http://www.domainsherpa.com/cybersquatting-giving-the-domain-name-industry-a-bad-name/#.TiztdMzOTsQ.hackernews <comment><USER3> "Domain investing in generic or geographically based domain names is a perfectly respectable and legal practice. Many law-abiding citizens have developed viable businesses by buying and selling non-trademark-related domain names. Domain name investing, like other legitimate businesses, requires discipline and expertise. Domain investors must continually review the value of their holdings in comparison to the cost of domain renewal fees. Savvy investors work hard to monitor global trends and consumer patterns to make sound financial choices with their domain name portfolio."

Yawn, it's not difficult to do at all, and I'd still label it squatting - <USER2> have a page sitting there that just has ads on it, providing nothing of value.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you compare cybersquatting to real-world squatting, then no - it's not the same, because cybersquatting costs money.

The real question is whether this cybersquatting is a good thing, that we want. And the answer is no.</comment>


Ask HN: Would you prefer your kids educated for a job, or as an entrepreneur? - <AUTHOR> It seems many education systems are focused on giving kids the skills to work for someone else - some company.<p>Presuming you had kids, would you prefer they take the education path to a job/career, or do you see some sort of alternative where they learn how to find and make money on their own by seeking out opportunity in an entrepreneurial manner? <comment><USER2> As with most things developmental, I think kids are very much molded by what is modeled for them. Generally this is by parents. If their parents teach them by example to work hard, be considerate of other people, don't be afraid of trying out new ideas, and that taking educated risks are ok, then likely these kids will develop into someone who could be an entrepreneur. They still need a standard enducation and they still need working experience.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think all people have their own personalities, not necessarily a nurture thing. Some people don't have the chaos-loving mindset it takes to be an entrepreneur.

2-3 generations ago, the optimum was working class. This generation it seems to be entrepreneurship. With AI and tech impact in 20 years, it's really hard to see how it would be for the next generation.

</comment><comment><USER4> imo you cannot teach kids to be business people without proper real-life experience. So send them to regular schools, but create them an environment to be entrepreneurs. Without "working class" experience they will be not good managers and leaders. I think every person, especially one that are from rich families, should work as a sales clerk or similar to get real life experience.

<comment><USER5> Experience is gained on the job, not during education.

<comment><USER4> We have to agree to disagree. Education is a part of the real-life experience. Schools give you a chance to develop socially, work in teams, learn how to succeed. Education is not only books and library, its real life experience as well. For many people first grown-up experience they get.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd prefer my kids educated for life.

</comment><comment><USER5> Education is developing people's intellect and reasoning ability, turning them into members of civilized society. It is not job training.

And the fact that the former has been replaced with the latter shows: the US is no longer a society, let alone a civilized one.

</comment><comment><USER7> Out of the two entrepreneur, i wish I'd woken up sooner but didn't even realize it was an option

</comment><comment><USER8> The child should make this decision after a well rounded pre-college education.

<comment><USER5> Well rounded education? No such thing anymore.

<comment><USER8> Why would you say such a thing? It's simply wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Academia lays important foundations. Discipline. The meaning of commitment and followthrough. It simulates some important root behaviors that are essential in being successful at all things. At the same time it instills a foundation of basic knowledge. These are the things I find academia important for, not degrees or qualifications.

My boys are young and entrepreneurship is a big word to them, and as of today a highly romanticized false idea by the rest of the world it seems.

I wish for my little boys to grow up knowing the value of knowledge, while maintaining an implicit understanding that their lives are wholly defined by their own ability to see the world as something they can change. There's literally nothing you can't do if you can learn it.

I suppose the TLDR: Its not a choice between the two. Ones the foundation, the other is a world view and self belief.

<comment><USER5> You mean when there was still academia. There isn't anymore. It's been replaced with vocational training.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Why is it binary ?</comment>


Launch HN: Stoa – Stoic Meditation and Journal App - <AUTHOR> https://www.producthunt.com/posts/stoa <comment><AUTHOR> Stoa is a meditation and journal app grounded in the ancient Greek and Roman philosophy and contemporary therapy (CBT, ACT, MCBT).

I made Stoa because I wanted to combine my mindfulness practice with the philosophy of Stoicism. I've discovered that I'm not alone!

It includes hours of meditations, thousands of quotes, a private journal, and conversations with experts like Donald Robertson (psychotherapist, How to Live Like A Roman Emperor) and Massimo Pigliucci (philosopher, How To Be A Stoic).</comment>


Deep Intellect: Inside the mind of the octopus - <AUTHOR> http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/6474/ <comment><USER2> The fact that relatively high intelligence has arisen from many architectures multiple times on this planet bodes well for the frequency of intelligent life on exoplanets.

Even today, there are still biologists who assert the formation of intelligent life is tightly coupled to our specific brand of brain and should hence be considered a huge accident. Yet we see the formation of minds in a lot of places, and they can be almost arbitrarily far removed from the human brain.

The octopus is a great example for a radically different neurological substrate. Given enough time and a little bit of luck, some funghi too might evolve a mind of their own as Fuligo Septica already shows some capacity for problem-solving behavior.

The argument that human-like intelligence is again another unlikely step discards the myriad of social animals with advanced problem solving capabilities, some of which are even tool users, and some of which have actual languages and cultures. A lot of these have come onto the stage very independently from us, having sprung from far removed genetics - and yet they have enough in common with us that should make us recognize the frequency of species with minds might indeed be high wherever life takes hold.

<comment><USER3> "It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English (up to fifty words used in correct context) [even higher since Sagan died] no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."

~ Carl Sagan

<comment><USER4> I've always wondered how we figure we'd communicate with aliens someday, or decode a future SETI message, if we can't even decode the language of a dolphins.

<comment><USER5> Dolphins are not (so far as we know) actively trying to teach us their language. I would be exuberant to be corrected on this, but to my knowledge a dolphin has never put a fish in a human's hands and cried 'kreeeikaaa' to try to teach us the word. Whereas we do that endlessly with the dolphins, which is why they have learned a bit of our language.

I suspect (with no proof) that a human-level intelligence, bent on communicating, would have the intelligence to perform experiments and then structure a learning environment for the other life form to learn its language.

<comment><USER6> > Dolphins are not (so far as we know) actively trying to teach us their > language.

Exactly. Cats actively try to teach us their language and you can ask any cat owner, he or she would be very fluent in their cat's language.

<comment><USER6> Hey, why the downvote? It wasn't just a witty remark, i was serious. I find it rather fascinating that in the case of pets, both parties mutually form a method of communication. And this method isn't exactly part of either species' natural language. Humans train pets to respond to certain gestures/words and the pet adopts certain behaviors which have the sole purpose of communicating a need or intention or request to the owner. I think it says something abuot the intelligence of BOTH species

<comment><USER7> There is some interesting behaviour so far as cat communication with humans. Cats will not meow to other cats unless it's a kitten / mother situation. Meowing with humans is pretty unique.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_communication#Meow](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_communication#Meow)

<comment><USER6> Wow, good point. Cats usually have this entirely different set of vocal and bodily language when communicating with other cats. Isn't that a sign of higher intelligence? To be able to learn multiple languages. Even if each is fairly small, it's rather fascinating ability to be able to classify your total known language into two distinct sets and knowing which set to use with whom

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I once read about a lab that was doing research on various sea creatures, but primarily crabs. The experiment involved having 100s of a certain type of crab. Every day the crabs were counted, and each day there was quite a few completely missing. The head researcher suspected one of the lab assistants was stealing and selling the crabs, so they set up a camera to watch the lab overnight. It turned out that it wasn't one of the assistants, but instead the lab's octopus. Every night it was waiting until everyone went home, then taking the lid off it's tank, crawling several meters across the floor, opening the lid of the crab tank, eating a few crabs and then crawling back, remembering to replace the lids of both tanks.

<comment><USER9> Fascinating! Is this the video?

[http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/wd- ep3-octothief](http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/wd-ep3-octothief)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> One day we will use computers to bridge the human mental and social worlds with those of even quite alien creatures like the pacific octopus.

That will be the dawning of an age of widespread empathy with our animals brethren, along with a wave of horror and shame at our previous treatment of them.

Long before that, though, we'll enjoy immersive VR recordings from the viewpoint of other creatures. I wouldn't be surprised if Jim Cameron was involved in bringing such things to a wide audience.

But even with today's technology this recording from an eagle's PoV is a great example of how mesmerizing the alien worlds of our animal relatives can be: [http://youtu.be/G3QrhdfLCO8](http://youtu.be/G3QrhdfLCO8)

<comment><USER11> > That will be the dawning of an age of widespread empathy with our animals > brethren, along with a wave of horror and shame at our previous treatment of > them.

Because that worked so well with regard to fellow humans.

<comment><USER12> The world is less violent than ever. The average person's chances of coming to a violent end have been declining for a while:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/22/world-less- violent-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/22/world-less-violent- stats_n_1026723.html)

Much of the common violence and atrocities of the past when portrayed in movies and other forms of entertainment are shocking and far removed from the every day experience. See the most recent US Academy Award "Best Picture" winner for an example.

<comment><USER13> > Much of the common violence and atrocities of the past when portrayed in > movies and other forms of entertainment

To be fair, they are never portrayed in a very realistic way. Or at least not in a way in which you care about the characters dying on screen.

As to the claim of "less violence", let's rather say "violence in number is decreasing", but there are still very violent AND cruel acts being carried as we speak in many parts of the world. And let's not forget there are still many places as well where people are enslaved - the fact that these behaviors are resilient does not say lots of good things about humanity.

<comment><USER14> > To be fair, they are never portrayed in a very realistic way. Or at least > not in a way in which you care about the characters dying on screen.

I'm not sure I agree. Usually they are not, but perhaps you might re-watch Saving Private Ryan. It's not the only gory war movie, but it does a remarkable job of showcasing horrific things we humans do to each other. The knife fight scene is especially disturbing.

"The Tudors" also had some pretty cruel punishments, though often it's not carried off on-screen. Even when the people being tortured are not protagonists, it's hard not to empathize in the "oh god that's just not right" way.

You make a good point though about there still being terrible things going on in other parts of the globe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I will be happy when people stop referring to intelligence as a binary state. My dog is intelligent, mice are intelligent, nematodes are intelligent. The ability to interact with and adapt to the environment is present in all of these creatures. The degree to which something is intelligent is something we need a much richer vocabulary for. I am sad to say it but this is most clearly put in comic form ([http://www.smbc- comics.com/index.php?id=2867#comic](http://www.smbc- comics.com/index.php?id=2867#comic))

<comment><USER16> Here's one kind of classification: [http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2006/07/dennetts- creatures.htm...](http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2006/07/dennetts- creatures.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Excellent article, I liked this part:

> One octopus Mather was watching had just returned home and was cleaning the > front of the den with its arms. Then, suddenly, it left the den, crawled a > meter away, picked up one particular rock and placed the rock in front of > the den. Two minutes later, the octopus ventured forth to select a second > rock. Then it chose a third. Attaching suckers to all the rocks, the octopus > carried the load home, slid through the den opening, and carefully arranged > the three objects in front. Then it went to sleep. What the octopus was > thinking seemed obvious: "Three rocks are enough. Good night!"

<comment><USER17> It seems weird to say, "Well obviously this is what this _alien intellect_ was thinking".

<comment><USER13> That's the way we perceive things. But the article mentions many times that we probably have no idea what is the consciousness level of the Octopus, since it has more neurons in its arms than in its central brain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> We are fortunate that octopuses do not live long (hence limiting how much knowledge an individual octopus can accumulate to personal experience) and that they do not raise their young (and hence do not get a chance to pass knowledge to the next generation).

If not for those factors, I suspect that Mankind would only have whatever access to the oceans that the octopuses decided to allow us.

<comment><USER19> What a cool image! I wonder if "civilized" octopi would concentrate their war- making on us, or perhaps on each other?

In any case, let's not let them figure out how scuba gear works...

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > "Only intelligent animals play—animals like crows and chimps, dogs and > humans."

Err, I'm barely knowledgeable in this field (so maybe someone can point out something that I'm missing), but I have to nitpick that this strikes me as poor reasoning. Off the top of my head, juvenile squirrels are known to play[1], along with many other species which we would consider less intelligent than cephalopods or even dogs. This just seems like an odd assertion to come from an expert biologist.

[1] [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.06.024](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.06.024)

Really interesting article, though.

</comment><comment><USER21> Sometimes 'text only' trumps an article that has pictures and moving video. It is good to have one's imagination work overtime rather than have everything 'spelt out' with imagery.

At one moment I was imagining an octopus bigger than myself, able to drag me into a tank and maybe eat me whole. The next moment I was learning of an octopus able to fit inside a beer bottle (note to self: be careful what one picks up when scuba diving!).

I feel I might actually remember more about the life of the octopus from having read this article and having to engage my imagination than what I might have learned had I sat through some nature programme on TV. Plus it takes less time to read than it does to endure a programme. I also now know things I don't know, such as what it is to make eye contact with an octopus, something that a TV programme could go some way to describe.

Aside from the 'wow, intelligence', why is it that those of us with spines lack any 'computing power' in things like our arms? Are there any common sense reasons?

<comment><USER22> > Aside from the 'wow, intelligence', why is it that those of us with spines > lack any 'computing power' in things like our arms? Are there any common > sense reasons?

I wonder if the fact that we can't grow them back is a factor. I could imagine that this would make it hard for us to evolve any sort of appendage intelligence that was important to our function.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> For any pedants who cringed reading "octopuses" instead of "octopi", here's the wiki section to reassure that this is actually correct:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus#Etymology_and_pluraliza...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus#Etymology_and_pluralization)

Other sources through Google also confirm this.

<comment><USER24> We should note that this is for the worst kind of pedant only: the wrong kind. It's also important to note that the most correct of all forms (though also more archaic) is _octopodes_.

<comment><USER25> I noticed the author used _octopodan_. First time I think I've seen that word.

> But she was very significant to me, both as an individual and as a > representative from her octopodan world.

<comment><USER26> It's a common adjective formation. Octopoda -> octopodan, compare to Mollusca -> molluscan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > _Biologist have long noted the similarities between the eyes of an octopus > and the eyes of a human._

> _Scientists are currently debating whether we and octopuses evolved eyes > separately, or whether a common ancestor had the makings of the eye._

This is not under debate. This is one of the classical examples of convergent evolution. From: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution#Eyes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution#Eyes)

> _One of the most well-known examples of convergent evolution is the camera > eye of cephalopods (e.g., squid), vertebrates (e.g., mammals) and cnidaria > (e.g., box jellies).[22] Their last common ancestor had at most a very > simple photoreceptive spot, but a range of processes led to the progressive > refinement of this structure to the advanced camera eye — with one subtle > difference: The cephalopod eye is "wired" in the opposite direction, with > blood and nerve vessels entering from the back of the retina, rather than > the front as in vertebrates.[8] The similarity of the structures in other > respects, despite the complex nature of the organ, illustrates how there are > some biological challenges (e.g. vision) that have an optimal solution._

More info: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_eye](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_eye)

</comment><comment><USER28> I took a scuba diving course with an instructor who formerly worked as a diver with a local aquarium, and he related to us that the aquarium had to replace their octopus population every few weeks because they would keep dying of boredom, so to speak. They would put the food in hard-to-open enclosures, but it just wasn't enough. Octopuses need to be challenged and engaged. It gave us food for thought about whether we should be keeping creatures with such a powerful intellect in captivity.

</comment><comment><USER29> Fascinating. I am particularly intrigued by the separate evolution of their intelligence and neurons in their arms. A different type of consciousness indeed, I wonder if it is even possible to comprehend what their experience of the world might be like.

<comment><USER30> The independent nervous system in an octopus' arm (which continues to operate after an arm has been severed) reminded me of the independent nervous system in the human gut:

 _" The enteric nervous system has been described as a 'second brain' for several reasons. The enteric nervous system can operate autonomously. It normally communicates with the central nervous system (CNS) through the parasympathetic (e.g., via the vagus nerve) and sympathetic (e.g., via the prevertebral ganglia) nervous systems. However, vertebrate studies show that when the vagus nerve is severed, the enteric nervous system continues to function."_[1]

It's remarkable how two nervous systems that evolved separately share this kind of similarity.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_nervous_system#Complex...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_nervous_system#Complexity)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I've read a ton of Arthur C. Clarke so I'm really interested in intelligence uplift of other species.

How much smarter could octopi be if they didn't die when they mated? Or if they had lifespans 10 times longer than they do now?

What if we could train octopi to hunt with humans? Similar to how thousands of years of hunting with wolves has produced the dog, could we breed octopi that help human marine hunters?

</comment><comment><USER32> My girlfriend was delighted to learn about how intelligent octopuses are today. She was reading an article about whether they can get concussions -- I'll see if I can get it from her.

What a strange coincidence to find this on the front page of HN a few hours later.

<comment><USER33> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader- Meinhof_phenomenon#Frequ...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader- Meinhof_phenomenon#Frequency_illusion)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I have always loved octopuses from hearing stories about their intelligence.

Reading about the antics of some of these octopuses in this article was surprisingly hilarious.

</comment><comment><USER35> In the great 1957 scifi novel "Niourk" [1], men have (mostly) abandoned Earth, the oceans dried away and octopi became larger, cleverer and are becoming the dominant species. Spoiler alert: don't look at the wikipedia page in case you plan to read the book :)

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

</comment><comment><USER36> I love the comparison of the octopus with a smart alien. We might not completely understand them, but something about them tells us they are intelligent beings.

</comment><comment><USER37> We should give octopi the gift of technology and let them overtake the underwater world. Just like in 2001.</comment>