Double Slits with Single Atoms - <AUTHOR> https://physicsworld.com/a/double-slits-with-single-atoms/ <comment><USER2> The phrase "wave-particle duality" obscures the central mystery in quantum mechanics. You can visualize waves quantized into particles - that's not mysterious. But how does a single particle create an interference pattern when there's no other particles for it to interfere with? And how does covering up one slit destroy the interference pattern when there is only one particle going though one of the slits in the first place?

Just saying "wave-particle duality explains it" is false. It was a shock for me to realize that everything taught in physics textbooks was so misleading. (For a good explanation see MWI)

<comment><USER3> MWI doesn't explain much. Why should this electron be able to cross universes and talk to another one and interfere, while nothing else can cross universes?

Can I setup my experiment so that quantum decay decides if I emit an electron or not - and then wait for no electron, but I somehow detect the electron that was released in a another universe?

MWI also doesn't explain why the individual electrons would take different paths and interfere with each other - the universes are identical, so why are the electrons taking different paths?

<comment><USER4> These are exactly the sort of thing MWI precisely explains. It take time to go through, but this is the best explanation I've ever seen [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/apbcLXz5zB7PXfgg2/an- intuiti...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/apbcLXz5zB7PXfgg2/an-intuitive- explanation-of-quantum-mechanics)

<comment><USER5> +1, this series of posts is my favorite explanation of it. I love the focus on it from the philosophy of science angle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One thing I've wondered recently is how possible it is to recreate the double slit experiment (with electrons) just in your garage today. It feels like the cost of the required components have to have come down from whatever it was in the 60s into if not affordable then at least in the range of a semi dedicated hobbyist. I will admit to having done very little research in this regard (at most looking at CRT monitors as potential electron beam sources), but kinda just intriguing to me what the potential general cycle of scientific experiment -> commodity might be and how that might vary across experiment classes.

<comment><USER7> I'm pretty sure Ben Krasnow could pull it off to some degree of satisfaction. Between his electron microscrope, ion sputtering and mass spectrometer projects, he probably has close to enough of what he needs right now to pull something together.

My guess is that he could use his sputtering device or electrochemical deposition to develop a thin film for the target, electron microscope to mill and validate the slits in the film, then either the electron microscope modified or mass spectrometer almost as as-is to actually run the experiment as long as it's OK to bend the electron's path with a magnetic field after the slit and scan the interference pattern across a fixed point sensor. The mass spectrometer seems like it's basically set up to do the atomic interference patterns already (again assuming steering is OK).

If you're not allowed to manipulate the path of the electron he'd probably have to come up with a mechanism to detect the interference pattern.

<comment><USER8> For those who don't know, Ben's Youtube channel is "Applied Science"[1]. All the described devices have videos on their design/construction/use.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/user/bkraz333](https://www.youtube.com/user/bkraz333)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm no physicist but I've always thought about the wave-particle duality like this:

Image you're tracking someone across the country. You have some data that they were in 2 towns 100 miles apart with the hour. They must be in a car!

But then, you catch up to them and find their physical tracks. It's a single line. No car could drive like that. They must be on a bicycle.

You sit there scratching your head wondering how they could possibly be going by car and bicycle at the same time.

The above situation looks impossible if you don't know about the existence of motorcycles. I always thought we were dealing with things that were not waves, not particles but something that shares some of the properties of both.

I'd love anyone with a deeper knowledge of physics to correct me/add to my thinking.

<comment><USER10> Check out the work of Scott Aaronson. I definitely don't understand all of it, and it's definitely succeeded (I think?) in teaching me quite a lot more about QM than anything else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a different variation of the double-slit experiment, but it made me think of this result from last year, which pushes the boundaries of QM effects steadily further into the classical world.

"2000 atoms in two places at once: A new record in quantum superposition"

[https://phys.org/news/2019-09-atoms-quantum- superposition.ht...](https://phys.org/news/2019-09-atoms-quantum- superposition.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> Has anyone done a computer simulation of the slit experiment? I predict that even in a computer simulation with balls/particles, they will create a wave like pattern due to the balls/particles bouncing. If you take something from multi dimensional space (3d+time) and project it on a 2d screen it often takes the wave form.

<comment><USER13> Bouncing on what? When you do the experiment and you send a single particle there is nothing at all between the slits and the screen where the hit is detected!

<comment><USER12> My theory is that the balls will not all go in a straight line, some will hit the slit edge and thus not land straight behind the slit. As with light, the light will bounce around the room and come though the slit from different directions.

<comment><USER13> That (the interaction with a single slit) would explain difraction but not the interference pattern (which appears when there are two slits).

<comment><USER12> Sometimes the ball will go through the other slit. As with light bouncing around, it will go through both slits.

<comment><USER13> But you will have difraction (giving a smooth distribution) when it goes through one slit and difraction (giving a infinitesimaly displaced smooth distribution) when it goes through the other. Put them together and you get more or less the same smooth distribution, not an interference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Science-fiction idea: will it ever be possible to test the double-slit experiment with individual neutrino? There would be multiple issues for that: the detector, the production of individual neutrinos, the isolation from perturbations and external neutrinos, the material of the slits... More seriously, it has been done with individual atoms, photons, individual electrons, but has this been tested also already with other elementary particles like gluons, bosons, muons, taus ? And another science-fiction idea: the double-slit experiment with the Higgs boson, primordial black holes or quantum monopoles...

<comment><USER15> Photons and gluons are bosons. Also black holes are in the almost completely separate theory of relativity, which IIRC doesn't even have "particles" (at least how they are defined in quantum mechanics...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Here is a goofy layman explanation:

-particles have variable density and gravity. -particles rotate. -slits create multiple paths. -particle rotation + variable density and gravity makes particles choose multiple paths.

It's an explanation which is totally based on macro observations, as if particles where balls with a small heavy object in them, thrown out in multiple tracks. The initial configuration is random, the balls will roll into specific tracks, but since all outcomes are equally possible, over time the distribution of the balls will be equal for all tracks.

</comment><comment><USER17> See also: actual double slit with huge molecules

[https://www.livescience.com/19268-quantum-double-slit- experi...](https://www.livescience.com/19268-quantum-double-slit-experiment- largest-molecules.html)

</comment><comment><USER15> Huh, electrons ?? I'm pretty sure that we've been first taught in high school this duality with photons... (and got told that it worked for any particle later)

</comment><comment><USER18> I am waiting for the day when we can do this with single frogs.

</comment><comment><USER16> Question: in the double slit experiment, is the electron gun positioned in the center of the double slit setup?

</comment><comment><USER19> Okay, maybe I understand and have no question now!</comment>


The Biggest Problem in App Discovery - <AUTHOR> http://blog.gaborcselle.com/2012/10/the-biggest-problem-in-app-discovery.html

<comment><USER2> I completely disagree. Most app/website referrals aren't verbal. Verbally communicated referrals are easily forgotten (e.g. "what was that photo sharing site Mike was telling me about at the party last night?") Most referrals are via an email that includes a URL, a blog post or tweet from someone you follow, or an email generated via the "Share" feature within the app itself. All of these eliminate the "search" problem, and reduce the time to launch significantly.

<comment><USER3> Can you point to data showing that most app referrals aren't verbal?

<comment><USER2> No, it's anecdotal evidence.

<comment><USER4> it is reality for my business, on both fronts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> While amusing :) it's not really accurate. The Web part is missing "finding the correct link on search results (damn Google keeps changing, also everybody is running out of unique names it seems)", "finding the signup button or free plan on plans&pricing (sometimes you need to find the p&p first!)", "oauthing via twitter/fb or registering (if registering, then creating another pass, verify email, log in)". Unless the Web example is a simple, non-interactive content site. But where's fun in that?

<comment><USER6> You also have to look through the app store's search results. And sign up in the app if it requires it.

<comment><USER7> Actually, if the app requires sign up then I close and delete it (unless it's a mobile interface like Skype).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> But after the user downloads the app, it's a fixture on their home screen. They can use it now, use it later, use it repeatedly.

The web side needs a 0th step: "What was that URL you sent me last week again? I forgot..."

<comment><USER9> It's getting better with omniboxes. At worst you need to do a history search. Really, the web is too vast to be browseable through icons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Ah, but sudo apt-get cal<tab><tab> brings up virtually all the apps I need.

</comment><comment><USER11> He forgot a few steps for web apps revolving around registering -> checking email -> validating -> load first run page

<comment><USER12> That only applies to sites which require user accounts for being usable. Also using existing logins simplifies this step quite a bit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The only advantage of native app stores is in gaining initial visibility/traction. Things like the google chrome store are not good enough for that. We should have something effective for web apps instead of infesting HN, reddit and various blogs. Are there any startups working on making the process of bootstrapping a new web app easy?

<comment><USER13> I launched Threddie.com two years ago by submitting to web app directories like appstorm.net . It was a manual and repetitive process which bored me half to death, but it still yielded better long term results than posting on HN & reddit or cold mailing big tech blogs.

From that experience I did notice that getting listed on a relatively big one like KillerStartups.com always resulted in an avalanche of automatic listings on smaller directories and blogs - as well as a lot of twitter activity.

From poring over google analytics, and talking to users, I concluded that while a lot of that chatter is automated garbage, it does often end up being read by real people who follow the links and sign up for the app.

All of this is to say that potential web users are scattered across too many discovery vectors to solve the problem by simply building The One True Directory.

What could be done, maybe, is build a sort of central repository to which developers could post their apps in a standardized fashion and then have those listings freely available. That repository could work a bit like Crunchbase, except with less focus on money & people and more on categorization & features. Ideally, app directories would then consume and relay that information to their audiences - editorialized or not.

Such an initiative would require massive participation by app developers, which, of course, is the real crux of the matter. In practical terms, there would be little difference between building a solution now or simply flocking massively to one of the already available directories. Which begs the question: why don't we?

<comment><USER9> There have been many central directories in the past. What is needed is people to actually give a go at the apps and spread them virally if they like them. One would need to organize a large pool of mechanical turks around a pay-to- submit-your-app model.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think you can download Android apps directly from the web to whatever device you select. Yet, I use an iPhone.

<comment><USER15> You can, and any URLs to the play store will offer an option to be opened in the market. Which also won't ask for your password.

Instant open apps would be nice, that's something that should be aimed for I think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> iOS 6 now lets you update your apps without a password, but you still need to enter your password to download a free app.

I don't understand why you need to enter your password to download a free app. At the very least, you should be given an option to turn off the password protection.

<comment><USER17> A lot of free apps are basically 900 numbers. Free to get, but then they want you to pay $4.99/minute to play/work/have information.

I think a long time ago (a year?) the in app purchase options didn't require passwords, so password-to-install was the only line of defense. It may be a holdover from that.

<comment><USER18> What used to happen was that you had to enter the password to download the app, then for 15 (?) minutes the device remembered your password and would not ask you for it.

This blew up IIRC with the Smurfs kids game, one of the first really popular freemium games. A parent would download the game, hand the device to the kid, and the kid would be free to make as many in-app purchases (or other games?) as he/she wanted. Someone got a bill in the thousands and complained.

Apple changed it so password entry for paid content must be re-entered for each purchase. Free apps and updates still required password to download, but honored the 15 minute window. With iOS 6, updates do not require the password at all. Combined with the strict limitations for auto-renewal payments (subscriptions only allowed for music, magazines and video content), it's pretty hard now to spend money by mistake.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> But...the chart stops at "Open App", at which point the comparison is "Rrrruuuunnnn" vs "RunRunRunRun".

<comment><USER20> It really depends. I know web sites that are super snappy and apps that are dog slow.

And I would wager the minimum possible startup time is actually smaller for a web page than an app. Apps usually take at least a second or two to open for me, and Google has their page load time down below a second, right?

Either way, your choice of platform is not going to be the thing that prevents you from building a fast app. It's going to be your failure to use the architecture well.

<comment><USER21>
      > I know web sites that are super snappy and apps that
      > are dog slow.

Yes, but would dog slow app implemented as web app be any faster? Or even more slow?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> the app store does make up for this deficiency in other ways though.

\- app reviews (incl. facebook integration now) that make it a lot easier to know whether the app is working/useful/great.

\- highlights in the app store app itself. sure this is limited to what Apple chooses to show but there's no perfect equivalent on the web (maybe HN or TC?).

</comment><comment><USER23> "But once a user has signed up, make sure you take them by the hand along the funnel." A few weeks ago, Danielle Morrill of Refer.ly, blogged about a her company's new user onboarding process (<http://bit.ly/QZ9cxt>). She was apprehensive at first to "hand-old" first time users, but ultimately the strategy worked for getting people to share their first piece of content.

My question follows: What's the rate of returning users that create more than one piece of content when using a hand-holding on-boarding strategy compared to using a very minimal on-boarding strategy? That might be the next step in Gabor's chart.

</comment><comment><USER24> I think the point is right, but comparing is to web was a poor choice. They both have their own challenges that are unique to the platform.

</comment><comment><USER25> I've never had to enter a password to install an app.</comment>


Reaper: Digital Audio Workstation - <AUTHOR> https://www.reaper.fm/ <comment><USER2> Justin Frankel, of WinAmp fame, founded Cockos, the REAPER company, and is still the leader there ([https://www.cockos.com/team.php](https://www.cockos.com/team.php))

<comment><USER3> He's not only the leader of the company but also the lead programmer (together with a guy called Schwa). It keeps boggling my mind that Reaper is being developed by only 2 people, especially considering the fast release cycle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have used most of the major DAWs at one point or another (including deep dives into Cubase, Ableton, Logic, and Pro Tools). I switched to REAPER years ago and never looked back. It's absolutely outstanding.

People often cite it as the "best deal in audio," and it certainly is that. But honestly, DAWs are not the big expense for us (my studio monitors cost twice what my laptop cost; the most expensive DAW out there is still one of the cheaper elements of my studio).

I use REAPER because the answer is always "yes." "Hey, can you? . . ." You name it. If it has something to do with audio, REAPER can probably handle it. And it's hands-down the most stable DAW I've used. I can't remember the last time it actually crashed, but I guarantee you it was a wonky plugin.

I've heard it described as "the emacs of DAWs," and that seems about right. As with an industrial-strength editor, there's a bit of a learning curve (maybe an endless one). But if, by some miracle, REAPER can't do what you want out of the box, you can almost certainly hack something on top of it that will.

<comment><USER5> What type of music are you producing?

Is Reaper suitable for all types of music or more suitable for music you record from live instruments, i.e. traditional band music vs electronic music.

I was looking into Bitwig[0], because I like its modulators and the way you can automate things.

PS. I'm a total beginner.

[0] [https://www.bitwig.com/en/bitwig- studio.html](https://www.bitwig.com/en/bitwig-studio.html)

<comment><USER4> Honestly, if you're a total beginner, you almost can't go wrong with DAWs these days. All the mainstream ones are superb. After awhile, you may well find that one or another is more to your taste, but that's the kind of thing that can only reveal itself gradually over time.

You'll hear lots (and lots) of talk about which DAWs are best suited to which types of music, but honestly, I've written symphonies using Ableton Live and electronica using REAPER (and I'm hardly alone). It's true that some communities of composers/producers gravitate toward certain DAWs, but -- especially if you're starting out -- that fact isn't as important as it might seem.

Here's my advice on the matter: Pick a DAW (Bitwig is amazing), and commit to _not buying a single third-party plugin_ for at least a year.

The problem beginners have is that they think there's something wrong with their software, when the reality is that they don't yet understand how compressors, and EQs, and reverbs, and delays, and filters (and all that stuff) work. And they think that if they drop a fortune on fancy third-party versions of those things, all their problems will disappear. They won't. Truth is, the "stock" versions of these things that come with DAWs nowadays are absolutely fantastic.

I have close to 300 third-party plugins in my plugin folder. That gives me all kinds of shades of color and nuance that I can use to create certain kinds of sounds and moods. But if someone asked me to make a record using _only_ the stock plugins in Live, or Logic, or Studio One, or REAPER, that wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Wait until you _really_ understand how those components work before you start chasing down "that sound." And remember that some of the best records ever made were made using equipment that is startlingly primitive in comparison to the audio facilities _of your phone_.

Everything on the internet says otherwise, but it's all about the music and your knowledge. It is almost never, in the end, about the gear.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for your advice - especially regarding not buying plug-ins until you fully understand the DAW.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Reaper to me is the biggest bang for your buck when it comes to DAWs. I purchased it about 7 years ago for $60 and I'm still receiving updates to this day. They just added linux support not long ago and I was thrilled. Also the Reaper installation is tiny compared to most big DAWs probably due to not being bloated by huge sample libraries and virtual instruments.

It also comes the the ReaFX plugins which may not be pretty but damn are they useful. I believe you can get them for free to use in other DAWs.

On the other side of the coin it probably isn't the easiest to get started in and it's not the best for making Electronic Music IMO (FL Studio and Reason are much better adapted for this).

<comment><USER7> I'm another REAPER fan. It's wonderful if you're looking for a reliable, slim, portable, cross-platform DAW.

A few notes:

+1 that you can get most of Reaper's plugins for use in other DAWs (maybe only for Windows though?): [https://www.reaper.fm/reaplugs/](https://www.reaper.fm/reaplugs/) \- almost any DAW seems to have decent stock plugins these days but Reaper's do some nice stuff like a clean N-band multiband compressor.

Upgrades do go on for quite a while - though @abaga129, unfortunately your free update train just ended a couple weeks ago. Purchasing a license at version N gets you all updates for major releases N and N+1, but N+2 is a paid upgrade (and would come with all upgrades through N+3). Version 6 was just released this month, so it's a great time to jump in and get a license if anyone's been running that trial past the intended period.

Reaper is absolutely worth $60 (for studios with a decent amount of revenue it's $300 or so IIRC), but for some musicians I think other, more expensive DAWs can be a better deal, for example Studio One when it's on sale, or Logic Pro X for Mac users at $200 - it has a huge amount of stock plugins and instruments that Reaper really doesn't match. Perhaps you don't need them. And many people likely end up with tons of third-party plugins anyway so it won't matter. And of course there are plenty of good, free third-party plugins online.

Though elephant in the room (for me) for Logic is whether Apple will continue to support the pro line. Having a nice MBP refresh and the new new Mac Pros out is a good signal.

Students can grab Apple's Final Cut Pro X + Logic X + other stuff bundle for $199: [https://www.apple.com/us-hed/shop/product/BMGE2Z/A/pro- apps-...](https://www.apple.com/us-hed/shop/product/BMGE2Z/A/pro-apps-bundle- for-education) For everyone, you can likely purchase iTunes gift cards at a discount and use that for apple's pro software.

Reaper has a fully-functional 60-day trial and is a well-behaved app on your system (no USB dongle drivers for example). Totally recommend trying it out.

<comment><USER8> Apple has added so much functionality to Logic in the past few years that I would be surprised if they stopped supporting it anytime soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Reaper is awesome. I've made a lot of my (bad) music sound very great with it !

I've used it for more than 10 years, and it's my go-to DAW ever since.

</comment><comment><USER10> I've been a Cubase user since the v1.0 for PC arrived on one floppy disc. Over the years I've tried to switch to Logic, Ableton and Reaper but found I cannot be as fluent as I am on Cubase. I also noticed it's like a religion - users of one Sequencer/Daw are unlikely to switch to another permanently and will swear by their platform of choice. Pretty much like the old Amiga/Atari or PC/Mac arguments. I wish it was an easier learning curve to switch because I'd love to diversify but every time I try it's comes to a point where I'm either creative right now or learning. But not both, so I revert back to the church of Cubase (albeit an old version I still use).

</comment><comment><USER11> I installed the new version the other day and I'm a bit puzzled by the enthusiasm about the new dark skin. I'll have to test it more as I've reverted for the 5.x look for now.

Reaper is amazing. Some of its default behaviors regarding tracks management (especially multi-takes tracks) are a bit weird coming from another DAW though.

The most impressive features for me is the a-track-can-be-anything and the routing capabilities.

It's hard to describe all the reasons why but to me it really feels like a DAW made for developers.

</comment><comment><USER12> I have tried ProTools, Cubase, and few others but after finding Reaper I never looked back... my second option would be probably Bitwig, but pricetag is too much crazy.

</comment><comment><USER13> Fun fact: if anyone is a fan of Guitar Hero or Rock Band, REAPER has been used by Harmonix Music Systems since the beginning for song authoring.

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't know why a link to this site would be on the front page of HN. Is there something more interesting about this DAW over the others?

I happen to use this one myself though. I have found it to be relatively easy to use and one of the more affordable options available at $60 for non- commercial use. They just released 6.0.

EDIT: Removed Audacity mention as an alternative because Audacity isn't a DAW.

<comment><USER15> Audacity is more of an audio editor though, not a "real" DAW. The most well- known open source DAW I'm aware of is Ardour.

<comment><USER16> One of the things on my TODO list that I never get around to is getting back up to speed with the Audacity codebase and making its PCM waveforms look like the actual wave rather than join-the-dots.

So many random people use Audacity because it's zero cost, and every one of those people is an opportunity to implicitly teach what's actually going.

Yes, they could all go watch Monty's excellent video showing what's going on, but they needn't do that if the tools we give them show everything properly in the first place, they'd just assume "Right I guess it's magic somehow" and only need Monty's video if they needed to actually understand (or argue with people who are wrong on the Internet).

Everything else about Audacity is pitched just right for an audience that doesn't need a full-blown DAW anyway.

<comment><USER14> Thanks for this. Could you provide more info about Monty? Maybe a link?

<comment><USER16> [https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml](https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml)

<comment><USER17> That video is top-tier educational material - engrossingly entertaining even though I knew the subject matter already. If only high school had been like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> is this the same Cockos that built Licecap?</comment>


A Future Where Everything Becomes a Computer Is as Creepy as You Feared - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/technology/future-internet-of-things.html <comment><USER2> As a security professional I think making the Government responsible for IoT security is a bad idea for two reasons. One, we've already seeing the Governments willingness to use cell phones as a means of spying on the public. Being in charge of security IoT just gives them more resources. Second, the powers that be can be lobbied but the companies they are supposed to be overseeing, Just look at Net neutrality as an example. In this case I feel that public is better off learning to secure their own devices and voting with their dollars. If company has bad security practices than don't buy from them. It will force them to make chances and send a message to other companies. This is one of those cases where I don't think government involvement is a good thing.</comment>


See no evil: two registrars issue half of world's 'rogue' drug domains - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/03/see-no-evil-2-regisrars-issue-half-of-worlds-rogue-online-drug-domains.ars <comment><USER2> Who is LegitScript - they do not appear to be an arm of the law of any jurisdiction or even a state-recognised watchdog?

Is there any reason these registrars should act on behalf of another private organisation, especially one that is not even directly involved in the business which they seek to effectively regulate?

Beyond those responsibilities required by law, I do not see how it could ever be the responsibility of ICANN (or its delegates) to act as the enforcement arm for the globes enterprises on the Internet...

This is a restart of the whole RIAA/MPAA/SOPA nonsense all over again but applied to another industry. The laws already exist to pursue claims, even globally. What is really being asked are the _transfer of costs and risks, including legal_ to ICANN or any other organisation that would act in its stead.</comment>


Why Kids Should Grade Teachers - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/10/why-kids-should-grade-teachers/309088/?single_page=true#

<comment><AUTHOR> This looks great -- testing to actually reflect and improve rather than "prove" academic worthiness.</comment>


Ask HN: How to you archive inspiring design? - <AUTHOR>

Every time I see great web design - from a button to a complete landing page - I want to archive it in order to look at it later and receive inspiration from it when I design myself.
I started using bookmarks for this, but it has become to much to handle and pages vanish now and then. I tried Kippt which is awesome for saving screenshots from Dribbble, but not so good for actual web pages.
How do you archive inspiring design?
EDIT: Of course it should be really easy to browse, via tags and colour. <comment><USER2> Pinboard's great and fast and offers an archival account for $25/year. [https://pinboard.in/signup/](https://pinboard.in/signup/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Try Mozilla Archive Format: [http://maf.mozdev.org/](http://maf.mozdev.org/)

</comment><comment><USER4> I use Scrapbook Plus addon for mozilla and evernote web clipper on chrome.</comment>


Matplot++ – A Plotting Tool for C++ - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/alandefreitas/matplotplusplus <comment><AUTHOR> Excited to give this a shot next week. Earlier, I had to export all my data to txt/csv and use either matlab, python, gnuplot to visualize it.

It would be great to be able to do this directly within code and conditionally turn it on/off for debugging using some #ifdefs.

</comment><comment><USER2> I love how the page has screenshots of hundreds of types of charts. This is usually what I want to first look at for a plotting library.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's pretty amazing to be reading the examples and almost feel like it's code for matplotlib save an auto or angle brackets here and there. I've spent hours waiting for matplotlib to render data over the years.

I just hope the compile times aren't atrocious or that some kind of interactive mode is possible.

</comment><comment><USER4> Wow this looks incredible! I've been looking for a C++ plotting library suitable for real-time audio visualization but with a matplotlib-like api. This looks to fit the bill perfectly, and with great documentation. Well done, following.

</comment><comment><USER5> Does anyone know if there is any effort going on to make gnuplot also available as a lib?

Dependencies like gnuplot are nice on linux machines, but distributing it on Windows is always a little bit painful

<comment><USER6> Seems difficult to do, because of the terms in the gnuplot license:

> Permission to modify the software is granted, but not the right to > distribute the complete modified source code.

[https://sourceforge.net/p/gnuplot/gnuplot- main/ci/master/tre...](https://sourceforge.net/p/gnuplot/gnuplot- main/ci/master/tree/Copyright)

<comment><USER7> Given the name, that is very surprising.

Wikipedia has a section on this [1], and apparently it is not named after the GNU project, but after the animal.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnuplot#Distribution_terms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnuplot#Distribution_terms)

<comment><USER8> Wow, I would have sworn it was a GNU project if someone had asked. It just seems so typical of a GNU project: free, open source, around for as long as I can remember, available on every Linux but with a dated look and feel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This looks really cool.

Another great plotting library for C++, if you can use Qt, is Qwt:

[https://github.com/opencor/qwt](https://github.com/opencor/qwt) [https://qwt.sourceforge.io/](https://qwt.sourceforge.io/)

</comment><comment><USER10> Looks absolutely incredible. Sort of matplotlib for c++, will look into the internals when I have the time.

Seems like everything for Python these days is matplotlib based; Whereas everything for R is ggplot2 based (but even the ggplot libraries for Python are mostly based on matplotlib).

<comment><USER11> Matplotlib is amazing EXCEPT for the speed and the 3D plotting. This looks quite intriguing to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you're familiar with Matplot on Python, you might find this useful. I've been using it lately [https://github.com/lava/matplotlib- cpp](https://github.com/lava/matplotlib-cpp)

The posted library does look nicer though.

</comment><comment><USER13> This looks really good. It's much more intuitive than most other gnuplot wrapper I've seen and tested.

</comment><comment><USER14> This is amazing. I've been looking for something like this for a while.

It doesn't do the one type of plot I actually want for the project I'm working on (x,y,z data as a 3d bar chart "surface"), but that takes nothing away from just how good this is.

</comment><comment><USER15> Very very cool. What does it mean by x, y are any ranges? Do x and y have to be arrays?

<comment> v-yadli > Do x and y have to be arrays?

Nope. Ranges are anything enumerable (can run an iterator through it by calling begin()/end() to get the boundaries), so you can do lists, arrays, generators etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Looks very promising... I wanted something like this for sometime for a project..

Is is a new project or has it been around for some time? Github history shows only commits from Aug 2020 onwards only..

</comment><comment><USER17> Impressive. I would have loved this back when i made all my plots with root 2.x...

</comment><comment><USER18> Looks great, a wide range of different plots.</comment>


A Reddit Co-Founder's Devastating One Line Takedown of Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/06/a-reddit-co-founders-devastating-one-line-takedown-of-facebook/277386/

<comment><USER2> Reddit can be a cesspool too, just in different ways.</comment>


Handmade Hero: C game from scratch - <AUTHOR> http://handmadehero.org/ <comment><USER2> The programmer behind this, Casey Muratori, has been helping out Jonathan Blow (Braid) on his new game, The Witness, and blogging about it.

For the more experienced game devs out there, the series is a fantastic read: [http://mollyrocket.com/casey/](http://mollyrocket.com/casey/) (starting post 6). Many of the insights apply to software engineering in general, not just game dev.

<comment><USER3> The series is pretty good overall, but his endless tirades against OOP (many of which are specious) drained much of my enthusiasm for his blog. Regardless, it's still good reading and this new game project is a great idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow. I can't even begin to express how much the premise behind this series resonates with me. I've been looking for something just like this.

My only issue is that, although in C, the preview/introduction video seems pretty centered around visual studio[0]. In the FAQ you say that multi platform support for *nix systems will be added later.

How exactly will this work for those of us who want to follow along, but don't have Windows?

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3ntGDm6hOs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3ntGDm6hOs)

<comment><USER5> Judging by the initial video, you won't be able to follow this without a Windows machine. The author plans to implement a game from scratch (no third party library will be used) in C on Windows, which means he will use Win32 functions (OS specific code) for creating a window, reading/showing image files etc ...

If you want to follow along from day one I suggest you install Windows in a virtual machine (you can download a legal copy of Windows and use it for about a month, just make sure you regularly save the code on your main OS). Alternatively, you can wait until the author will present how to do the same thing (window creation etc ...) on a Unix like OS.

<comment><USER6> He'll probably use SDL for that kind of stuff.

P.S. EMACS!!!

<comment><USER5> I doubt he will use SDL, the author mentions in another video that he is interested in implementing his own render. Also, he claims he won't use DirectX or OpenGL.

<comment><USER7> He said he might you some OpenGL near the end. Hopefully, he does because using the GPU will allow for so much more performance. I guess he can make that a separate class.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This looks very interesting, in straight C no less. Props to this guy.

I'll definitely be watching it, although I take some mild offense at the idea that I am somehow less of a gamer or game-maker if I decide to use an engine. Truthfully, I am not a very good programmer: I don't delight in getting into the guts of the mathematical algorithms that allow for the complicated physics calculations, AI pathfinding, or multiplayer networking, nor do I enjoy the tedium of hand-optimizing routines for tweaking performance. I just want to make games.

On the other hand, someone like John Carmack clearly does delight in some of these things, and he is ten times the programmer I will ever be. To boot, he has written this amazing Doom engine (to use an antiquated example) which he will license out to other developers! Why shouldn't I use it? What am I demonstrating by insisting that I do everything myself if it results in an inferior game?

<comment><USER9> There's nothing wrong with using an engine at all. For the same reason I use Numpy and don't bother making my own array manipulation classes.

Most of the time you don't need to reinvent the wheel because someone has probably spent a PhD implementing it better than you ever will. I think this is a perfectly valid excuse and I use it every day. If I didn't, I'd get no work done. With the libraries available few people should ever need to implement an FFT, for example. However, it's good practice to try coding some algorithms yourself to see how they work.

In terms of games, I assume the intent wasn't to belittle, but to try and show people what happens under the hood. It helps you make better decisions about which engine to use and what features to use within the engine. If you're given pathfinding options within your engine, to take a silly example, do you know enough about the algorithm to know which one would be best for your game instead of blindly choosing A*?

Understanding how the underlying code (probably) works allows you to make better decisions about which engines to use, which features you want and which you could brew yourself if you needed to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Lost interest when it became Windows-only. Writing C on Windows is a nightmare and the chance of portability plummets if you aren't targetting a POSIX system from the start.

<comment><USER11> Taken directly from the website:

Will the game support multiple platforms? Yes! Windows will be the first platform, since it is currently the most common gaming platform, but the series will later cover (at least) Mac, Linux, and Raspberry Pi. Portability will be a major topic in the series, so all the code will be structured to demonstrate how to write code that is easy to port to new platforms.

<comment><USER10> I realize that he's promised eventual support for sensible systems, but it's _much_ easier to write code that is portable from day one than to port something later. Everyone who's not using Windows will miss out on the majority of the project, too, having to wait until it's decided that portability is a concern.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This looks like it could be really helpful for someone like me who wants to up their C game.

</comment><comment><USER13> Oh, nostalgia.

I hope this will turn out to be a great resource for experienced programmers interested in graphics, real-time processing, and the like. I wish I had the time to go through it.

However if your goal is to make games my advice, and I'm not alone, is to _make games_ and use an engine. Your users will not know if you developed it from scratch in C. They won't even care if you tell them. Only programmers and game developers care.

<comment><USER14> Lots of gamers can tell when a game is a "Unity" game for example (due to lots of built in shaders and effects). I'd agree using an engine is a wise choice but make the decision very carefully. It can save a ton of time, but you still have to put in a lot of work to not let the engine dictate too much about the look and feel of the game.

<comment><USER13> The point I was trying to make is that developing a game from scratch is a labor-intensive way to make a game. You have to consider file paths, resource management, texture packing, file formats, parsers, and hardware. You have to think about abstract things like event processing, concurrency, simulation, reacting to inputs, etc. A mountain of work goes into lighting up a pixel on the screen. Doing it from scratch is essentially inventing the universe from the atoms up.

I like this kind of stuff.

However there are projects where I'm more interested in game play mechanics, art, music, and experience. I can still write my own shaders. I still write all of my own behaviors, AI, and controllers. But with an engine I don't have to worry about animation blending, input control, hardware platform differences, asset tooling, etc, etc, etc, etc.

I don't want to discourage anyone who is curious. I just wanted to push back against some of the nostalgia in the video. It's not all glamorous. I've spent my share of my youth slavering over cryptic compiler errors. Developing games then wasn't as much fun as it is today, IMO. It was different and unique in its own way. But the tools we have today are far, far better.

<comment><USER3> Absolutely right. I've gone through the dark times of wondering how to get the linker to stop exploding on me. And when speaking about developing a game engine, it's not just the work required to create feature X, it's the entire ecosystem. Making a sound play or wiring up PhysX is not difficult. Making fifty modules work correctly with each other is the foundation and is not easy or quick. Then there are editor tools, with modern engines providing a full editor suite that would take a team years to make. In the case of Unity, you get correct play-in-editor as well as truly live editing, which allow for incredibly rapid iteration (part of the true secret of efficient game development is being able to go from your shower "ah ha!" moment to a working prototype as quickly as possible). Then there's their asset store with a proliferation of not only art and sound but valuable scripts and entire systems or engines. And while I'm making my game, the middleware company is making my tech better by fixing bugs and adding features, with nearly-push- button support for over a dozen modern hardware platforms to boot.

I can see lots of reasons to develop a game engine from scratch, but they become less compelling every year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The video was top-notch, nearly gave me goosebumps.

</comment><comment> a-saleh I have just finished reading [http://mollyrocket.com/casey/stream_0019.html](http://mollyrocket.com/casey/stream_0019.html) that he links in the article.

Interesting, that though he mostly spoke about refactoring procedural C, it really reminded me how I would work when programming in Clojure.

</comment><comment><USER16> Very cool and ambitious project. If I was 14 again, I would have been all over this. Back then, all I had was dusty library books. Now, totally not interested in making games, although I enjoy playing them! I'll probably skim just to see the algorithms he uses to handle AI, pathfinding and physics.

</comment><comment><USER17> This was one of the easiest purchases I've made in my life. I've been following Casey's blog for some time and his Wednesdays posts are amazing.

I can't wait to start watching the videos and of course, code along.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is one thing that I always wanted to learn, but never knew where to start. I guess this will be a good place. Looking forward to it.

</comment><comment><USER19> Awesome, I'm definitely interested in this! It will be cool to be able to understand creating a game from scratch with C.

</comment><comment><USER20> _" professional-quality game"_

Always happy to see component-entity systems or other modern game architecture patterns applied!

</comment><comment><USER21> If he knows he will be porting the game, why does he not abstract away the OS layer and perhaps even the graphics library? Then implement it behind some interface with for example SDL2 and OpenGL depending on platform.

Would not that save lots of time and ensure it works cross-platform from the start? To me, it just seems that you re-invent the wheel by not doing this.

<comment><USER22> He will abstract it. His style is to implement first, then figure out the abstraction, not the other way around. Plus he's done this before and probably has an abstraction in mind which will make that style work even better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm amazed that people are totally unaware how a game works.

<comment><USER24> the devil is in the details: physics, path finding, matrix multiplication, space partitioning, graphic pipeline, and many other algorithms.

I don't think those feeds will teach how those things work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> this is interesting and hardcore!

<comment><USER26> Oh yeah, very hardcore. [http://xkcd.com/378/](http://xkcd.com/378/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Man, you had me all hyped up until you typed emacs into a windows command prompt... Would have been such a badass ending if you hit nano from a shell. :(

<comment><USER25> lool... i feel your pain :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> "If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." ~ Dr. Carl Sagan.

Is he using an existing processor / memory / motherboard? Is he using an operating system? Is he using a compiler, editor, IDE? Is he using a standard library? Is he using any 3rd party libraries?

Just because he isn't using an engine doesn't mean it's made "from scratch".

<comment><USER28> I've been playing around with bare bones assembly on Raspberry Pi. (Actually just following the baking pi tutorial.[1]) Maybe I should work up to a game from that level. That would be fun. I could go from Assembly to maybe a simple Forth interpreter (possibly the easiest language to implement from bare bones), and build tools and subroutines on top of that.

[1] [http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/projects/raspberrypi/tutorials/os/](http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/projects/raspberrypi/tutorials/os/)</comment></comment>


Valerian: How Luc Besson Made a $180M Indie That Can't Fail - <AUTHOR> http://www.indiewire.com/2017/07/valerian-luc-besson-180-million-indie-cara-delevingne-dane-dehaan-europacorp-1201851376/ <comment><USER2> Just watched the new Ultra HD Blu Ray release of The Fifth Element last night and it's still so good. Can't wait for Valerian.</comment>


Does mathematics have a place in higher education? - <AUTHOR> http://mathbabe.org/2012/07/29/does-mathematics-have-a-place-in-higher-education/ <comment><USER2> The future is computers, and computers work through tagged languages and symbolic systems. Everybody needs to understand formal symbolic systems. Math is the best way that I know of to do this.

It used to be that to be a composer, first you learned the piano. The piano was thought to give one an appreciation of the nature and nuance of music. From there you could much more easily learn other instruments and then learn how to put them together into something beautiful.

Math is the new piano. Learn symbolic manipulation -- and I'd say that means first-year calculus -- and you can work with the kinds of symbolic systems you'll find everywhere else in the modern world.

I used to do some tutoring when I was a kid, and I think this level of understanding is achievable by 90% of the population _given the right environment_. The real question is "why are the structures and environments for education that we create so unable to accomplish this?"

Dumbing down the system isn't the answer. It's not like you can dumb down the world to make up for your inability to prepare students for it.

<comment><USER3> Why is first year calculus the standard for symbol manipulation? Algebra is also pure symbol manipulation, and the applications of it are more universal, whereas calculus is symbol manipulation over 2 functions, plus algebra; but those two functions have a lot of conceptual baggage that is not nearly as useful.

<comment><USER4> I think abstract algebra (group, ring, field) is a better way to teach symbol manipulation. Or even logic. A proof of well-ordering theorem beats integration by parts if your goal is to teach deduction and symbol manipulation.

Let's be honest: calculus is taught for its application in engineering, not to teach deduction and symbol manipulation. If that is your goal, there are more suitable maths to teach.

<comment><USER3> You need to change the way math classes think of proofs. Every times I have seen a proof in math class, they managed to take a beautiful and elegant argument, and distill it down to the least number of characters that formally proves the statement. Presently, I am doing research work in (applied) chryptography, which as you might imagine involves reading a fair amount of modern math papers. All but one of the papers I read were easier to understand than the textbook proof for Pythagorean's thuerom.

<comment><USER4> I agree. More motivations, intuitions, insights behind fewer proofs would be more useful than lots of proofs, if the goal is to teach mathematical thinking, not to teach particular math results.

I think proofs are compressed because of lack of margins. Don't laugh! Authors seem to think they need to cover lots of essential results, and if you do motivations, intuitions, insights for all of them, already long math books will be impossible to hold in your hands. In my opinion the obvious solution is to omit most proofs and do far more non-formal discussion around important proofs. Which won't happen because their goal is to teach particular math results, not mathematical thinking, contrary to what they say.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "School mathematics" is something almost completely different from mathematics. (For an elaboration on this idea, see <http://duckduckgo.com/?q=lockharts+lament>).

Meanwhile, being good at (actual) math is rapidly become a prerequisite for having a bright economic future. School math is worth increasingly little (computers do it better than you). Whereas true math is deeply creative, and computers suck at it.

This separation is also why so many programmers say "programming doesn't take math". It doesn't take _school_ math. It rests deeply on true mathematical reasoning.

<comment><USER6> My personal anecdote-backed theory is that the lack of proper math teaching (and yes, a little bit of old school drilling) lays the foundation of more advanced "school maths" subjects being perceived as hard: If you struggle with in-your-head multiplication, then the FOIL mnemonic for binomial multiplication is going to be hard, which makes algebra hard. If you can read the language of maths, you can see patterns and understand things in the same way you can when you can read an article.

This continues to spill over until it becomes a negative selector, driving a preference for liberal arts type subjects over science and engineering, not by the positive virtues of the former, but by the perceived (and, probably at this point, real) difficulty of the latter - and further augmented by the fallacy that _any_ college education is better than none.

We're happy to drill reading in schools, but loath to drill even the simplest maths. Only the most abject failures are allowed to go through school without being able to read a newspaper article at a reasonable speed and give a summary, but if someone breaks down having to do 12 * 9 in his head, it's fine, he's just not very "sciency".

Rant over.

<comment><USER7> I had to google "FOIL mnemonic" to learn what it is. My reaction would be "why in ???? would you teach your pupils such a trick, given that it breaks down when generalizing to e.g. (x+3y+z)(2x+5y+z)? (anybody who could say "that's just ((x+3y)+z)((2x+5y)+z), so I'll just apply it multiple times would be able the much more general "just add all pairs (something from the left, something from the right; there ar #items on the left times #items on the right such pairs"

Do they really teach that somewhere?

<comment><USER8> Yes. It's a common teaching method (and not just in math) to teach simplified methods so that people can see them in action, and once students have some experience experimenting with them, delve into the underlying theory. I think it's a perfectly valid teaching method. Students should probably be past the point where they really think "Now I'll use FOIL" by the time they finish a class where it's used as a teaching method. But in any class, there are going to be students who don't really end up grokking the theory.

<comment><USER9> What _is_ the underlying theory? I've taken a lot of math courses significantly past the point where I learned FOIL and I don't remember it being explained.

<comment><USER10> Multiplication distributes over addition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> She makes a good point about algebra students not understanding prerequisites. I worked for two years at a high school where students were having trouble with algebra. Almost invariably this was due to (a) an abysmal grasp of arithmetic; many students couldn't divide or even subtract reliably, leading to insurmountable frustation, and (b) the hand-wavy means by which algebra, and especially its archaic conventions (such as order of operations and elision of the times symbol) were taught.

I once solved these problems for a small group of these children to whom I taught algebra from first principles: all grammar was explicit (no elision of parentheses or operators) and we used no numerals. The reduction rules then were able to fit down one side of a whiteboard, and after five one-hour sessions, self-professed math phobes were solving nontrivial equations.

<comment><USER12> Interesting! This same problem occurs in calculus as well. Leibniz's notation is pretty offensive, for example: in basic calculus, d/dx is an operator. In differential equations, you suddenly begin treating dx as a separable algebraic term — and way too many teachers suck at explaining why this is suddenly permissible.

<comment><USER4> I recommend Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach to those interested in calculus. It treats dx as a term from the start, and matches my (and I suspect most people's) intuition of the subject much better than epsilon- delta. And it is actually completely rigorous, not hand-waving infinitesimals.

<comment><USER13> The book is available as a free online pdf:

<http://www.math.wisc.edu/~keisler/calc.html>

Checking it out now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What a marvelous stupid idea.

Math and Applied Math is more than numbers and math for the sake of math. It is a way to bring your level of abstract thinking higher - much the same way learning languages does.

Math is so much more than algebra and calculus. It will teach you pattern recognition and deduction - two highly sought after skills in engineering - but can be applied to any profession.

If anything I believe we should bump up the level of math that high school children learn.

<comment><USER4> You seem to imply that actual mathematical content is rather less important. Then why stick with algebra and calculus?

Frankly, I agree with Hacker: quadratic equations are boring. Teaching number theory will do better job of teaching pattern recognition and deduction. More Fermat's little theorem, more Chinese remainder theorem, less quadratic equations. I found undergraduate number theory to be far easier and more fun than calculus, and you need no calculus to start on number theory.

<comment><USER14> > You seem to imply that actual mathematical content is rather less important

No. The point was that it is much more than what you call the content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Nobody ever brags about not knowing how to read, but people brag all the time about not knowing how to do math."

This is not just math, it's virtually every subject you learned in school. Imagine the following at a cocktail party:

"I had to read Joyce, Whitman, and Hawthorne, but I never got the point of any of them."

"I took a lot of history, it was a bunch of dates which I could never remember."

"I took three years of Spanish, but I don't remember a word."

Et cetera.

<comment><USER16> All perfectly understandable. It's called "the path less taken."

A lot of people just don't click with formalized education at all in their early years. They just couldn't throw themselves behind all those authors and facts they're "supposed to" be up on. Some of them are too busy learning _informally_ by dealing with the world around them -- i.e. with things like nature, work, and you know, _other people_.

Then slowly grow to form their own view of the world, and seek their own path to obtaining a more structured comprehension of it -- which might well mean starting (on their own volition) formalized education sometime in their 20s or 30s -- or perhaps not.

A great many who choose this route, or have it forced upon them may fail or flounder -- but a great many also don't, and end up with accomplishments for others to read about or hear about in those books, classes and received intuition that some people think are the only valid starting points to figuring out how to make a dent in the universe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> My dream educational system destroys the concept of "subjects" - no more siloing knowledge within artificial boundaries. Students think things like "Algebra is Math and I hate Math so I hate Algebra" or "Math is my worst subject." It is an easy label to associate their failures with.

An example of learning without boundaries:

One day, I decide I want to play the guitar. I get my hands on one and fiddle around. Perhaps a brief history on the instrument will give me some better context as to why the instrument is shaped as it is, and what all the features are. An exposure to famous guitarists and their music improves my appreciation of music and gives me context to work with. As I continue to struggle with notes and basic music theory, it may be a good time to take a brief detour into the realm of physics - a lesson in simple harmonics. If interested, I can dive further into the required algebra relevant to harmonic equations. Hmm... maybe learning to use a computer program can help me figure out how messing with these waves changes the sound...

And so it goes. A familiar story to most hackers, but sadly an approach that most educational systems do not encourage.

Is this exploratory form of learning superior? My theory is that the associations formed between nodes of knowledge are necessary for any sort of actual deep learning to occur. By sandboxing subjects, the standard school curriculum limits the possible associations that students think are allowed, thus limiting the probability of successful links between nodes. Even an above average student can graduate from college, and be left with nothing but a bunch of barely reachable random islands of knowledge, floating further out to sea every day.

In other words: school sucks, learning rules.

<comment><USER18> I really love that idea. I think a lot of students which are bored by school (and/or feel left behind) would regain their natural curiosity in such an environment. I think the technical possibilities we have now make much more individual approaches to learning possible and computers can help with this cross-subject approach.

Based on your example they could then go on to construct some instrument (say, a flute) by writing a little program and print the instrument with a 3d printer or have a rough version cut by a laser cutter. The question is: how to integrate ideas like that in the current school system? ...

<comment><USER17> I can see an immersive virtual world being amazing for encouraging curiosity. This world, the information stored within it, and the humans who frequent it, would attempt to encapsulate all human knowledge. Sound familiar?

We already have such a world - it is the Web. And we know it is a mess, a time sink, and a minefield. However, with focused effort, it does function as an amazing learning environment.

Unfortunately, it is not a suitable alternative to school yet. Telling kids to drop out of school and hit the 'Net instead is most likely a bad idea.

Perhaps the future role of Teachers, will be to function as Guides in this virtual world of information. Most awesome field trip ever!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Nobody seems to understand what college-level math _is_. This isn't balancing checkbooks, folks. I loved being a math major, and _I_ have trouble doing simple math. College-level mathematics is about as far removed from the "real world" as you can get. We convince ourselves that this learning is valuable because those who have certificates saying they've learned it get better- paying jobs -- because we've convinced ourselves that it's valuable.

Don't get me wrong - math is awesome, and everyone, especially young people, should have the opportunity to explore it. Perhaps it's helpful to think of math as a cultural activity, which is mostly removed from practical concerns.

<comment><USER20> I don't think she is talking about Math majors. She is talking about some requirements that other majors have to complete as part of finishing up their degree. Having said that, I know people in say computer science who struggled through Calculus not really caring for the subject. I can't imagine how things were for people in less technical disciplines. While Calculus is certainly important for CS majors (well probably about as much as say randomized algorithms), I can't help but ask why these classes are not replaced by a class in first order logic, especially if the end goal is to train people to think mathematically.

<comment><USER4> Calculus is certainly not important for CS majors. Compared to, say, linear algebra.

I always recommend [http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/math-for- programmers...](http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/math-for- programmers.html) on math for programmers.

<comment><USER21> How the heck is linear algebra important for CS majors? Where in CS is linear algebra useful where calculus isn't?

<comment> UK-AL Machine Learning, Graphics etc

On the other hand calculus is also used in machine learning...

Plus optimisation via calculus is sometimes a better choice then other cs specific methods.

<comment><USER21> And calculus is used in graphics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Well, it's not an example of Betteridge's law ;-)

The political science professor in question might consider the fact that while many college students struggle with basic math, they struggle just as much with basic literacy (most undergraduates can't write grammatical sentences, use punctuation, don't know how to write an essay, and have a hazy grasp of the idea of citation). Extending his argument we might consider removing History and English from the curriculum.

</comment><comment><USER4> Go read "How should mathematics be taught to non-mathematicians?" for a mathematician's take on the topic.

[http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/how-should- mathematic...](http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/how-should-mathematics- be-taught-to-non-mathematicians/)

</comment><comment><USER23> Is this problem unique to mathematics? Consider natural sciences, history, geography.

It's easy to make up real-world examples of when each could be an advantage, but it's hard to say anything is necessary. It is what you make it.

<comment><USER4> The article is not really talking about mathematics. It is talking about numeracy, which is on par with literacy in importance in my opinion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> So...why shouldnt we phase out Poetry too?Is there a definitive study showing that training in poetry makes for more competent assembly line workers and lower unemployment levels?

<comment><USER25> I think we should commission such a study. Those of us with English degrees will be perfectly suited to conducting this survey and delivering the results in epic poem format.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I would say that the basic college level math courses have helped me tremendously in non-obvious ways. Companies run on spreadsheets and formulas, and to better predict and analyze situations, it is easier if all parties involved have a common understanding.

Our economies are huge, number driven in almost every aspect. To ignore that or turn out graduates are less well rounded would not be more productive as a whole.

</comment><comment><USER27> The thing about mathematical literacy and financial contracts (credit agreements etc) is that if those contracts are constructed in such a way as to deliberately confuse the average customer/borrower, then increasing the average level of education wont actually help. The contracts will just get even more confusing to compensate.

</comment><comment><USER28> > Yes, young people should learn to read and write and do long division, > whether they want to or not.

Ironic, since in our modern computerized world algebra is important and long division is useless. The writer himself probably carries a powerful computer in his pocket.

</comment><comment><USER29> people say they want science and math skills but do they really?

when i was a 10 yr old kid in 1982 i wanted to create email and newsgroup type systems and my computer science teacher was like that's a big waste of time like video games, get thinking about data structures and algorithms instead

10 years later I'm in college and the guy who runs the computer center got a source code license for SunOS and fubar-ed our whole system because he wanted to block our access to the internet, which would stop our academic pursuits.

hell we were just trying to be matt zuckerberg a decade before his time.

or there's this guy who was the one bright kid who remembered what he learned in organic chemistry class. all the other muggles sold their textbooks and forgot about it, but he applied what he learned to invent a way to make a new drug with stuff you can buy at the grocery store.

this grad school dropout got his work cited in the "journal of emergency medicine" because some kid made a batch of this vile brew and chucked all over his bed and the doc in the ER is like "what the f'uh?", "i mean you read this on the f'en internet and really did it?"

And all this time this guy and his crew are worried they're going to get called to testify about this in Congress and they were just so happy when the statue of limitations came up.

If students studied science and engineering and got both the ability and the will to confront technological society, we'd have a revolution.

<comment><USER30> A little coherence goes a long way.

<comment><USER29> ...and James Joyce showed you can get lit profs to take what you write seriously without any coherence

<comment><USER12> ...only in Finnegans Wake. And let's be fair to English professors, many of them don't take that book too seriously. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Yes.

</comment><comment><USER32> No.

</comment><comment><USER33> '...people brag all the time about not knowing how to do math'. This is true, I think, mostly of Anglo-Saxon countries. It is quite a disgusting attitude. In what way is someone's life-chances or overall happiness degraded by a better understanding or skill in the use of numbers and higher mathematical concepts? I consider this anti-maths meme one of _the_ most pernicious aspects of our culture.

<comment><USER4> I think this is misunderstanding of cause and effect, and correlation does not imply causation. High math skill does correlate with nerdiness, and ceteris paribus, nerdiness does degrade your life chances or overall happiness. It does not mean high math skill alone, if you are not nerdy, will degrade your life chances, but well, they do not have high math skill to understand that. :)

<comment><USER33> I wasn't so much thinking about innate mathematical ability, more the mathematical education most kids should receive. Disparaging attitudes towards maths skills, which is a general rule, is pretty harmful to society, I think.</comment></comment></comment>


A Radical New Scheme to Prevent Catastrophic Sea-Level Rise - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/a-new-geo-engineering-proposal-to-stop-sea-level-rise/550214/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> In short: the proposal to build loose walls that prevent warm ocean water from coming close to the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. This will slow down their melting enough so they won't produce the enormous icebergs at a fast rate any more.

Unlike many global geo-engineering projects to prevent global warming, this one looks somehow realistic.

<comment> w-ll Any estimation on the co2 output building said walls and surrounding Greenland and Antarctic with them. What about animals the navigate through these waters. This just doesn't seem like a well thought idea to me.

<comment> King-Aaron > What about animals the navigate through these waters

This is going to sound mighty unpopular - it already does to me while I try to formulate the right way to say this in my head...

But at what point do we need to conclude that saving the nearly 8-billion human beings and the overall habitability of the Earth is of greater importance than certain animals living in individual biomes?

I know it's not the contemporary, popular thing to think about. But if the alternative is the mass displacement and deaths of humans, it feels like it's something we're going to have to make a decision on.

<comment><USER3> Well, I can sympathise with the "this is going to be unpopular but..." cos that's where I'm going too, though a bit different to you.

A very large number of human beings, even among those that accept the science of climate change and it's likely consequences, have proven remarkably resistant to ANY persuasion to voluntarily moderate their lifestyles even a little to make the kind of changes that, if they were made en-masse, could mitigate the worst impacts. They are even MORE resistant to even mild attempts to impose change by way of a carbon pricing mechanism. God forbid I may have to pay 5% more for certain goods, or that I should sacrifice one of my SUVs.

My main gripe therefore with these geoengineering proposals is twofold.

1\. On what planet where we we're not willing to pay even a modest price on carbon, are we going to be willing to pay trillions for geoengineering projects?

2\. Geoengineering is yet another reflection of that innate human desire to externalise costs as much as possible. Whether that be the cost of labour, pollution, or climate change. It's always the 'other' that should bear the worst costs - the third world, the whales, the forests, whatever.

The attitude of placing greater importance on 'us' over everything and everyone else is exactly what got us into this fine mess, AND STILL IS. You may think your view is unpopular but only insofar as people don't actually want to hear the truth about themselves.

Note: I'm already aware that my two points may be slightly contradictory.

<comment><USER2> There is a very simple way to make people pay for CO2 they produce by e.g. burning things: add a tax on it, so that the price increases. Tax oil-based fuels, firewood, coal. This will send the signal down every industry, adjusting price of goods accordingly. Use the money for the anti-warming geoengineering.

How popular might it be? Like, kill the whole coal industry around the world; who would mind? Make fuel, say, 2x as expensive; who would mind? Make barbecue coals as expensive as the meat; would anyone notice? Also, enforce it globally, including places like India, Russia, or China, the latter critically dependent on coal-based electricity.

Now compare to building some walls around glaciers, maybe mere thousands of miles.

I heard somewhere a great parable. Imagine that some aviation specialist would analyze plane hijacking data and recommend to install strong locked doors to pilot cabins on airliners. It would have prevented 9/11, saved thousands of lives, and would have been _incomparably_ cheaper than all those security measures implemented in the aftermath. But likely every airline would be against this unneeded expense, and it would be very hard to push this measure.

Same thing with the global warming, wars, and various other (impending) catastrophes: people hope that they'll get by somehow; how bad it can really be? You see, nothing is happening! When it hits, the view changes drastically, but it's too late already.

<comment><USER3> The meme that an effective carbon tax would ruin entire economies is pretty much just scaremongering. For a brief period in Australia's recent history, we had a carbon tax with quite a moderate impact economically which measurably reduced our carbon output.

[http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon- pric...](http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-price-helped- curb-emissions-anu-study-finds-20140716-ztuf6.html)

The other point I'll make about huge big-bang projects is that in recent decades they've only ever been achieved by authoritarian regimes that don't need the kind of consensus that kills such projects in western democracies. We live in a world where a significant fraction (perhaps majority?) of the citizenry is largely ignorant, anti-science, distrusts authority, believes in outrageous conspiracy theories and lacks the ability to form coherent thoughts about most things. I put it to you that your chance of getting a large-scale geo-engineering project supported by that majority at a direct cost to them (a cost that can't be moderated by behaviour changes by the way) is practically zero outside an outright dictatorship.

<comment><USER4> OTOH there is a saying if voting really changed anything they would make it illegal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "First, they should construct them in the outlet fjords of Greenland's largest glaciers, like Jakobshavn. These fjords are often only a mile or two wide, and an underwater dredging project there would resemble successful large-scale civil engineering projects, like the Palm Islands in Dubai. Greenland is also under the shared control of Denmark and the Greenlandic national government, two entities that might decide to undertake the construction project together."

Even if the later stages (building 60-mile-long sills _beneath_ floating ice) seem unlikely to be cost-efficient, this part definitely sounds like it could be feasible; It's especially notable to me amongst climate-related megaprojects in that it does not require any new developments, but rather uses extant, mature technologies. Building the sills would require "only" time and money.

<comment><USER6> It's also refreshing that unlike most proposals, it doesn't have to be done everywhere, forever, on a crazy global scale.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The cost of engineering projects on this scale would be astronomical.

Surely there would be a better ROI if that money were spent on efforts to replace fossil fuel power with low-carbon alternatives, electrification of ground transport, etc?

If we can reduce carbon emissions by 90% or so, quickly enough, then the climate should stabilise. If that fails, then we can build the mega-projects as a desperate last stand.

<comment><USER8> Do you think 90% is really feasible any time soon? Wouldn't that require nonexistent new technology for air travel and container ships?

<comment><USER2> For air travel, yes.

Large ships are large, and, unlike aircraft, have sufficient room and carrying capacity to install reasonably efficient carbon-capturing devices.

It will cost a lot, of course.

<comment><USER5> There's also currently a lack of incentives for ship owners to invest in emissions-reducing technologies, even if the cost per voyage is _reduced_ \- see SkySail's troubles [1].

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

<comment><USER7> The real issue that fuel oil is so cheap. If customers are paying for the fuel, and fuel was a significant cost, then they'd certainly be interested in shopping around for a ship that can offer lower fuel consumption.

But fuel oil is really just a byproduct of refining crude. It's the muck left over when you've extracted everything else that's useful. And of course, it is not taxed, so prices don't account for it's environmental externalities.

If we can reduce overall demand for petroleum products, this should eventually cause fuel oil prices to rise because there'll be less crude being refined, and thus reduced supply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Any review of geoengineering projects to combat climate change should also include an analysis or description of iron seeding of oceans to promote plankton growth. In addition to sequestering carbon such work results in abundance in the marine food system. A pilot project completed off the Alaskan coast may have resulted in record salmon runs in 2017 as juvenile fish found plenty to eat.

<comment><USER10> Leading to rapid population growth in marine ecosystems and then a ton of decaying biomass afterwards which releases the CO2 back into the ocean, asphyxiating the marine life and undoing the benefits.

<comment><USER11> Did that happen in the trial? Because I thought that anything that died in the ocean sank to the bottom, gets incorporated into the sediment and turned into oil.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> For another big geoengineering project, check out "Atlantropa", an early 20th century German proposal to dam the Strait of Gibraltar and lower the Mediterranean Sea by 100 meters to generate hydroelectricity and create more arable land.

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

</comment><comment><USER13> My biggest concern with these single attribute solutions is that they might lead to a sense of complacency about CO2 emissions. This could lead to an even bigger problem with ocean acidification than there would have been otherwise.

<comment><USER14> If the ice sheets melt, it won't just raise sea levels, it'll lower the planet's albedo, directly raising the temperature. That'll bring us further along feedback loops that cause the planet to release greenhouse gases by itself: CO2 and methane from melting permafrost, CO2 from forest fires, methane from hydrates, etc. That will quicken ocean acidification.

As for making people complacent: they're already complacent. I include almost everybody in that. The Paris agreement is unrealistic, lacks enforcement, and most countries are well behind their modest targets. Germany is increasing CO2 emissions because they're shutting down their nuclear plants. Etc, etc.

Maybe what makes good people complacent is watered-down, sugar-coated plans for fixing the climate. Just plant trees, put some solar on your roof, turn down your thermostat, we'll be fine. Maybe it would shake them out of complacency if we showed them what it would _actually_ take to get us out of the mess we're in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Every time I read something like this I think; What would it take to actually block the sun like Mr. Burns? And, would there be any downsides to attempting this?

Partially block of course. I was in Maine last year during the big solar eclipse (in the US); I don't remember how much percent of the sun was blocked in that location but the temperature dropped several degrees and outdoors it only visibly got slightly darker in mid-day.

I'm completely naive and ignorant about the practicalities of space stuff and climate science. But it does always pop in my mind as the obvious way to cool things down.

<comment><USER16> _> What would it take to actually block the sun like Mr. Burns?_

Put a small concentration of aerosols (microscopic dust particles or other light absorbers/reflectors) in the upper atmosphere. Basically a scaled down version of what happens during a volcanic eruption. The impact of that is one of the (few) areas where we actually have good predictive power in climate science.

 _> would there be any downsides to attempting this?_

Depends on how you feel about putting a small concentration of aerosols in the upper atmosphere. Also, you would have to do very small increments to avoid having more impact than you want.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> What I'm missing in these kind of articles is an overview of different schemes to prevent damage causes by climate change, and, then a discussion of the ROI of each scheme.

</comment><comment><USER18> What are the downsides of this? Imagine the earth is getting warmer, but we have walls holding back melting ice. What is the implication to the earth of a warmer planet with lower sea level ? Historically, temperature of earth and sea level have been very correlated. What happens when we interfere with that?

I am thinking about things like mass desertification, changing currents, etc.

<comment><USER19> This doesn't tackle acidification which is the second side effect of climate change. Also if the glaciers melt from the ocean getting warmer they will release carbons

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Does nothing to mitigate or remediate the ongoing acidification of the oceans and the consequent collapse of the marine food-chain.

[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/06/1510856112?sid=...](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/06/1510856112?sid=7cf666e7-ed44-4205-af86-fe92592a6201)</comment>


Dinosaur Programmers Know More Than You - <AUTHOR> http://kickin-the-darkness.blogspot.com/2007/10/dinosaur-programmers-know-more-than-you.html <comment><USER2> like a lot of other unsexy industries (garbage, funerals, cigarettes, ...), there's probably a ton of money to be made once these dino programmers retire - since not many ppl our generation know what's going on in ancient mainframes nor do most of us want to learn it

<comment><USER3> My number one concern about maintaining an existing system, "ancient" or otherwise, is how well thought out and executed it is. Some of the best software I've ever seen was 25 years old. If you want to see some of the worst, just look at the javascript of almost any webpage. You really want to maintain that? "Generations" and "ancientness" have got nothing to do with it. Quality does.

<comment><USER2> that's interesting - when i looked at stuff I wrote 10 years ago I began to wonder what the hell I was on while i wrote it.

I have a feeling 10 years from now when i look at code i write today, I'll have the same reaction...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Excellent! (although I prefer the title "Caveman").

New technology is great, but don't think that it replaces fundamentals and common sense. I was just testing a new web app and was able to put the same credit card number in for 2 different customers. The response I got was, "So?"

You still have to think, people! I think that was his main point.

<comment><USER4> So?</comment></comment>


Review of:New treatments show promise in prolonging human lifespan - <AUTHOR>

I read the article at http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/10/more-evidence-emerging-that-rapamycin.html, that gives a reasonably thorough review of drugs that are currently believed to slow or reverse aging. It could could be improved by links to the original documents or studies, and by reviewing contrary evidence as well. There is an academic bias against printing negative studies that makes it difficult to know how rebust a result really is. <comment><USER2> This spam I think.</comment>


A Successor to Sagan Reboots 'Cosmos' - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/science/space/a-successor-to-sagan-reboots-cosmos.html

<comment><USER2> I'm sorry, I know the internet loves him, but Tyson will never be able to replace Sagan.</comment>


The Next Gawker Will Be Darker - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/2016/06/peter-thiel-gawker/ <comment><USER2> I have been seeing a lot of people I know defending Gawker and I don't really get it. If a business uses illegal practices they should be sued. There is freedom of the press but that doesn't give you complete immunity for everything. It seems like journalists these days think they can do anything they want. Remember the News International phone hacking scandal? You can't break the law to get profits. I wouldn't mind if the "next gawker" is underground -- at least no one would be profiting on shady journalist tactics

<comment><USER3> >Remember News International phone hacking

Did they hack Hogans phone to get the tape? >Gawker says it received the Hogan sex tape anonymously on a DVD in the mail [0]

People are defending Gawker because outing Peter Thiel wasn't illegal and the First Amendment is specific about celebrities personal lives being news worthy. Hogan's a public figure by his own choice and the story was true, it's not even really a case worth trying.

The fact that Thiel can bleed a publisher until it goes out of business for hurting his feelings shows how unfortunately fragile the first amendment has become.

[0] [http://www.wired.com/2016/03/hulk-hogans-nsfw-gawker-suit- fr...](http://www.wired.com/2016/03/hulk-hogans-nsfw-gawker-suit-free-speech- battle-royale/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm the author of this piece. can anyone explain why this piece is flagged? it has been submitted, upvoted to the home page, then banned 3 separate times.

<comment><USER5> Users of the site, like me, with more than some (nominal, low) amount of karma points clicked the "flag" button that appears under the headline and flagged it off the site.

Your story hasn't been "banned".

<comment><USER4> what's the difference? It was upvoted to the main page then flagging boots it off right?

and why did you flag it if you don't mind me asking?

<comment><USER5> It makes an argument I agree with but have read in dozens of other places, and makes it in an insufferable tone. It's written in such a way that it will generate a horrible thread here. Some topics are worth long arguments on HN, but the Nth take on why Thiel vs Gawker is ominous isn't one of them.

<comment><USER4> ah. just see you edited your comment here. glad you agree w/ the argument.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why has this been flagged?

<comment><USER7> Almost anything with "Gawker" in the headline tends to get flagged.

<comment><USER4> I'm the author of this piece. why is mentioning Gawker grounds for 'flagging/banning' this?

<comment><USER7> Some people _really_ do not like Gawker.

<comment><USER4> this post is about what happens if Gawker is destroyed by thiel... if people really don't like gawker, then I _really_ don't think they'll like what is likely to come next. this is a prohibitionist argument and it seems like a good thing for Hacker News to discuss instead of flagging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So you're saying the next [website doing illegal things] will be forced to go underground? Well, duh.

</comment><comment><USER9> Some people just want to watch the world burn...

</comment><comment><USER10> Ooooh, interesting article, it's talking about... Oh, sorry I was reading... You don't like ad blockers you say? Oh well, guess it must be a pretty boring article anyway. Farewell.

<comment><USER11> Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

<comment><USER10> This is a bit insulting. If you find my comment unsubstantive, please delete it. I think this kind of paywall is threatening the web and thought important to point it out.

<comment><USER11> I certainly didn't intend to insult you! It's more that that kind of snark is deprecated on HN, because it's associated with lower-quality internet discourse and we're trying for higher quality here.

The point about paywalls also comes up so often that we've asked people not to post such complaints in the threads; for the most part they're off-topic ballast. Few people here like paywalls, but it just gets tedious reading the same complaints over and over, even if one shares the complaint.

<comment><USER10> I have to admit it was snarky. Thank you for explaining.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > The next Gawker will be decentralized and it may follow the Wikileaks model > or even publish on the dark web.

There are plenty of ways to publish someone's sexual preference or sex video and you don't need to evoke Wikileaks.

Likewise I doubt the marketing maven for the next Adam Sandler movie will be paying in Bitcoin for a site takeover of a .onion domain, no matter how many celebrity nudes and confidential Sony documents it leaks.</comment>