Oil droplets guided by pilot waves do not give rise to double-slit interference - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/famous-experiment-dooms-pilot-wave-alternative-to-quantum-weirdness-20181011/ <comment><USER2> Why does this matter? Does anybody seriously question whether the basic math can work? So somebody found a nice parallel between pilot wave theory and another physical phenomenon, but then the parallel wasn't as strong as thought. This experiment is the equivalent of arguing that light isn't a particle because your tennis ball doesn't bounce off the wall the way you thought it would.

When I saw the droplet experiments, I thought "that's cool, but it doesn't prove anything about pilot wave theory because the arguments are over much deeper things than what this is demonstrating". Debunking it is just as meaningless. The people who actually know about this stuff are arguing over determinism and non-locality and what not. I thought oil droplets are just a nice way to introduce people to the concept.

Disclaimer: I don't really know anything about any of this

<comment><USER3> It matters because the theory in this case wasn't that both light and tennis balls behave like a particle. It was that light behaves like a tennis ball. As such, demonstrating that tennis balls succeed or fail to display certain light-like behavior is certainly an important result.

So, the most controversial aspect of pilot wave theory is the idea that a classical system can reproduce some phenomena considered only to arise in a quantum one. The 2006 result was important because it appeared to definitively prove a classical system could do just that, and for one of the most famously "weird" quantum results. How accurately it correlated with a hypothetical pilot wave based quantum reality wasn't really relevant. And if the original result was important, then the failure to reproduce it is also important.

More generally, scientists can argue about theory, mathematics and the "deep" stuff until the cows come home. But what actually advances science is experiment. It may not always be the most glamorous or exciting work (CERN notwithstanding). It can be an expensive, years-log slog to add a single negative data point against an idea a theoretician dreamt up in an afternoon, and which they'll dismiss as irrelevant, or avoid by tweaking a single equation. But it's, quite literally, the part of science that gets results.

<comment><USER4> One excercise that is fun to do: reduce the Schrodinger equation by splitting the real and complex parts, the figure out how to build a damped spring system that can support the wave. My interpretation of quantum mechanics is that everything is springs and dashpots in the end.

<comment><USER5> This is great, I think I'm going to explain it using your method from now on.

Edit: I love that there's a segment of people in the QM community approaching these "very serious" thought experiments like Schrodinger's Cat (as the classic example), instead using absurdism to produce equivalent but blatantly ridiculous results. Like the Surrealist reactionary art movement but with the often insane results QM produces. Sometimes I think string theorists need a group kind of like this too.

<comment><USER6> My favorite of these types of bizarro QM communities is that of the "holographic fractal" universe. Nassim Haramein[1] being one of the popular figures of this movement. If you're willing to sift through the mysticism, the r/holofractal subreddit has some interesting ideas to chew on during an otherwise dull lunch break.[2]

[1] [https://resonance.is/about-haramein/](https://resonance.is/about- haramein/)

[2] [https://old.reddit.com/r/holofractal/](https://old.reddit.com/r/holofractal/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > _Unsustained by the particle or droplet, the wavefront disperses long before > reaching its slit, and there's no interference pattern. The Danish > researchers verified these arguments with computer simulations._

Wait, what? From what I've always understood, the math behind de Broglie-Bohm interpretation results in the same exact results as the Copenhagen interpretation. It shouldn't be possible for any "computer simulation" to disprove it, by definition.

This article feels 1) pointless and 2) like it has an agenda. Oil droplets are a macro-scale approximation of something on the particle level where we already know the math works. This doesn't disprove anything, any more than doing experiments with rubber sheets and basketballs lets you disprove the general theory of relativity.

> _crushing a century-old dream that there exists a single, concrete reality._

This is just sensationalist, cheap journalism. I expected far better from Quanta Magazine, and I'm disappointed in them. I've enjoyed many of their articles in the past, but I'm not sure I can trust them editorially any more if they print something so obviously incorrect as this article.

<comment><USER8> > Wait, what? From what I've always understood, the math behind de Broglie- > Bohm interpretation results in the same exact results as the Copenhagen > interpretation.

The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation is not the same as the pilot-wave theory, which was never fully fleshed out. de Broglie-Bohm is valid and makes the same predictions as the standard interpretation, but as I understood it, has never been generalized to the relativistic versions of the standard theory. That is, there is no de Broglie-Bohm version of quantum field theory.

This is discussed in the article; the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation relies on a global pilot wave, which has non-locality issues that pilot wave theory hoped to avoid.

> It shouldn't be possible for any "computer simulation" to disprove it, by > definition.

Here I believe they are disproving the idea that the oil droplets riding the pilot waves cannot result in the double-slit interference pattern, using standard fluid mechanics (which appears to be Tomas Bohr's area of expertise).

<comment><USER9> > The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation is not the same as the pilot-wave theory, > which was never fully fleshed out.

Most contexts ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory)) define pilot-wave theory and the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation as the same. de Broglie himself also proposed a specific pilot-wave theory that is not valid (see article). When referring to a "pilot-wave" theory it is helpful to state specifically who the author is in order to resolve any likely confusion, which this topic usually seems to involve.

> has never been generalized to the relativistic versions of the standard > theory

Quantum field theory generalizations( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#Quantum_field_theory")) do exist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Bohm's pilot wave theory is interesting to me not because it is so intuitive or tasteful or something, but because it works without sacrificing realism, and thus demonstrates that the Cophenhagen interpretation (neither local nor real) claims strictly more about the nature of the universe than is required by the evidence we have. Nonlocality is established by experiment, non-realism is not. In my experience, this tends to be underappreciated (or I'm misunderstanding - please teach me if so).

I personally favor epistemological interpretations, in which the wave function models our knowledge, and the universe operates via an as-yet-unknown dynamics. Wave function collapse on measurement isn't weird anymore if the wave function represents your knowledge of the system. Thinking about it this way makes "shut up and calculate" work nicely in my head.

<comment><USER11> > I personally favor epistemological interpretations, in which the wave > function models our knowledge

These have been largely ruled out via no-go theorems [1].

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

<comment><USER12> Could you explain this further? The Wikipedia article doesn't go into much depth, especially w.r.t. de Broglie-Bohm interpretation.

<comment><USER11> It has no effect on Bohmian mechanics because it posits a real wave function. PBR rules out most "psi-epistemic" models where the wave function represents only our ignorance of the system, and not some fundamental, real property of the system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There is recent research on photons (rather than bouncing oil droplets) that backs up the Bohmian interpretation. "Experimental nonlocal and surreal Bohmian trajectories" [http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1501466](http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1501466)

I am not sure if the different QM interpretations are only a matter of taste in terms of all predictions. These surreal trajectories are seen as nonsense under the Copenhagen interpretation.

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't think this is all that surprising to anyone. The "pilot waves" in the oil bath aren't superluminal, so of course they don't correspond with perfectly QM pilot waves, ie. they will only correspond in scenarios where the non-locality doesn't matter.

Edit: the article actually agrees with this, so it's hyperbolic all the way through except this critical passage:

> In a quantum reality driven by local interactions between a particle and a > pilot wave, you lose the necessary symmetry to produce double-slit > interference and other nonlocal quantum phenomena. An ethereal, nonlocal > wave function is needed that can travel unimpeded on both sides of any wall.

</comment><comment><USER14> So, am I right in thinking that we have.

        1. Theory X hypothesizes Q

        2. Phenomenon Y models theory X

        3. Phenomenon Y does not demonstrate Q

Surely there would be an insurmountable burden of proof on 2. Similarity does not mean identical. For any Y claiming to be the same as X, why can't it be rebutted with a "No it isn't" Proving that they are the same would be a different thing altogether but if as the article suggests X is not fully defined, it strikes me as impossible to prove. It just ends up in the not- falsifiable bin.

<comment><USER15> That's a fair observation. Though, I think the thought experiment to about the distance between the two slits as irrelevant to QM more concretely disproves the pilot wave theory.

Most physicists when asked about QM will just say that this is a useful model to predict the outcomes of experiments. In fact the most successful model, ever. The magic that happens in the middle is currently untestable and thus uninteresting beyond philosophy.

The problem with determinism is that it introduces more complexity to the model without improving any accuracy. Moreover, it doesn't help us predict the outcome of any experiments.

Even if this experiment was successful, who cares? Does it change the math or predictions? Science works in a very simple way. We have evidence about how the universe works. We make models to explain that evidence. The models also make predictions about new evidence that we would expect to see. New evidence appears and either confirms or limits the domain of the model. Basically nothing but gravity has limited the domain of QM.

<comment><USER11> > Though, I think the thought experiment to about the distance between the two > slits as irrelevant to QM more concretely disproves the pilot wave theory.

This sort of experiment does not disprove pilot waves.

> Science works in a very simple way. We have evidence about how the universe > works. We make models to explain that evidence. The models also make > predictions about new evidence that we would expect to see. New evidence > appears and either confirms or limits the domain of the model

This is a very anemic view of the scientific process. Scientific theories have predictive and explanatory power. You described the process covering only the former, but the latter is _critical_ for advancing theory.

For instance, without Bohmian mechanics John Bell probably would never have developed Bell's Theorem and all the subsequent no-go theorems which have dramatically improved our understanding of quantum foundations.

Theories that provide a mental framework for thinking about problems guide you in devising new experiments. Theories with no explanatory power provide no meaningful framework within which to devise new experiments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm a bit sad that they couldn't reproduce the double slit interference pattern. I'm still holding out hope that we'll eventually develop a model of reality where the apparent indeterminism of quantum mechanics can be explained by currently unobservable interactions in higher dimensional space (such as the space described here: [https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-discover- geometry-...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-discover-geometry- underlying-particle-physics-20130917/) )

<comment><USER4> What you're describing has been desired by many (including Einstein). However, John Bell more or less proved it impossible[0] in a landmark, sweepingly general result. He would have won a Nobel for it if he had lived long enough.

On the other hand, if you are willing to accept superluminal messages and also unobservable mechanics, there is always the pilot wave interpretation[1]. The fluid analogy is disappointing to see go but pilot wave theory lives on.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory) [0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem)

Edit: fixed order of references.

<comment><USER16> Thanks for the link to Bell's Theorem (I recalled there being a result like that, but didn't remember the details of it). If the hidden variables really are in a higher dimensional space, then maybe superluminal communication (in our observable dimensions of space) isn't off the table either? But that comes with its own can of worms that would have to be taken care of as well.

<comment><USER4> If you give me both sides of a superluminal telephone I can use it along with special relativity to set up a time paradox. If I only have one end of the phone, or if I can't have a phone at all (not all apparently superluminal interactions allow signaling) then it's considered an undesirable trait but not paradoxical.

<comment><USER17> By paradox, do you mean something like reverting order of events in some inertial frames?

<comment><USER4> The order of events is fair game to reverse so long as they are far enough away from each other that one couldn't have caused the other. The order of pairs of events like that reverse all the time. It's only a time paradox if you can actually do something paradoxical, like killing your grandfather.

<comment><USER17> > if you can actually do something paradoxical, like killing your grandfather. > ... before certain crucial event in his life, you mean, I assume.

How exactly does having a superluminal telephone imply I could change history? Changing history is the paradoxical part - don't assume it can happen.

<comment><USER4> Here is an article that goes in to the detail[0]. In so many words, you can use the superluminal telephone to transmit information to your own past. In essence, there is a certain amount of freedom in the simultaneity of events that is well-known to exist (having been experimentally verified). You can abuse it to create time paradoxes if and only if you can send messages faster than light - without FTL it is a curiosity that seems strange to some but otherwise doesn't upset anything.

[0] [http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.htm...](http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html)

<comment><USER17> Thanks for the link. See also the comments below the essay which give some valid criticisms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> For some background on pilot waves: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory).

Also from the same source, a couple years back: [https://www.quantamagazine.org/pilot-wave-theory-gains- exper...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/pilot-wave-theory-gains-experimental- support-20160516/)

</comment><comment><USER19> Does anyone have a link to a video of the oil drop tunneling experiment?

[https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.10...](https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.240401)

(like [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE))

</comment><comment><USER20> So, pilot wave theory remains a strong intuitive model, by confirming an inability to perfectly predict the future state of a system of quantum events.

</comment><comment><USER21> > droplets were seen to tunnel through barriers

If true, one wonders if you could use this to build a d-wave like annealer.

</comment><comment><USER22> I don't understand why non-locality is a problem. Fields are non-local. If particles are point-like, fields are volume-like and permeate all of space. Problems like spooky action at a distance aren't really problems if there is no distance from the field's point of view.

<comment><USER23> Why isn't there distance from the field's point of view? Isn't the field spread throughout space?

<comment><USER22> But it's still considered one field, not many individual fields at each point. That's why I called it volume-like. The electric field of the universe doesn't have a position. It has a volume.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Visualizing pilot-wave phenomena: the $60 rig" [http://math.mit.edu/~bush/?p=3230](http://math.mit.edu/~bush/?p=3230)

</comment><comment><USER25> Has anyone done the double slit experiment with the long wall before the slits? I'm not entirely convinced it still works unless it has been demonstrated.

<comment><USER26> That would be something to directly ask Prof. Bohr who's mentioned in the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> All the paradoxes disappear if we use Quantum Field Theory instead of Quantum Mechanics. I would really like someone with deep knowledge on Quantum Theory to explain if something is wrong with a theory that otherwise makes a lot of sense to me. A good read on the topic is the paper "There are no particles, there are only fields" — [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616.pdf)

<comment><USER28> Surprisingly, physicists are very much aware of the field nature of all "entities" in the world, having invented QFT themselves. Even more surprisingly, popular journalistic explanations simplify things considerably, making it seem that the thoughts of physicists are much less refined than they really are. To complete the trifecta of surprises, in the refined thought process of us physicists, using QFT, many problems and paradoxes of interpretational nature or otherwise remain with quantum theory that need to be resolved.

<comment><USER29> Regarding "in the refined thought process of us physicists...many problems and paradoxes...remain".

It seems to me that a true paradox in physics must mean a theory provides at least two different incompatible predictions for a given physical situation. Given the success of the Standard Model, that surprises me. Do you have an example?

<comment><USER4> The use of the word "paradox" in physics usually means any conclusion that is considered unacceptable or unnatural for any reason, even intuitive. In logic there are no paradoxes, only contradictions. As far as we know there aren't any contradictions in the standard model, but there are plenty of suspicious conclusions that we would like to see resolved either with greater understanding or a better theory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I was thinking about the double-slit problem the other day, and was trying to make connections to any other phenomenon that exists in the natural world and I think I came up with one.

In conditional probability theory, there exists something called the boy or girl paradox. The paradox shows that the likelihood of an event can be drastically affected by _how you know_ even seemingly innocuous information. I think that observation of the atoms passing through the slit is affecting the search space for the other atoms in such a way that we currently do not understand. This observation while seemingly innocuous has a drastic affect on the distribution which would explain why we see such confounding results. It follows the same logic as this other naturally occurring phenomenon so I think its an avenue at least worth exploring.

An example of the paradox would be if I told you that my neighbor has 2 children and at least one of them is a boy. If I asked you what the probability that their other child is a girl, normally the result would be 2 / 3, but if I know one child is a boy because I spot him in front of a tree then the odds his other child is a girl drops to 1 / 2.

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

<comment><USER31> I'm having a fundamental problem understanding why the paradox is modeled the way it is.

"Mr. Smith has two children. At least one of them is a boy. What is the probability that both children are boys?"

For some reason, it's expanded as a choice from {BB, BG, GB, GG}. But why on Earth does the order of children matter in this question? The way I see it, it should be modeled as {both-boys, boy-and-girl, both-girls}; by telling me that one of the kids is a boy, you eliminated one possibility out of three, leaving us with 1/2 as an answer.

<comment><USER32> Let's say I flipped two coins. I tell you I did this. You ask me, "Did heads come up at least once?" I answer yes.

What are the odds that the other coin was tails? 2/3, because there are three scenarios (HH, HT, TH) that satisfy my first answer to you.

If you flip a pair of coins a few thousand times, and search the flip pairs for all the ones that had a heads among them, you'll find a tails in those pairs 2/3 of the time, and a pair of heads 1/3 of the time.

Same with the girl-boy problem.

Now if you ask me if the _left_ coin came up heads—and I say yes—that doesn't give you any information whatsoever on the right coin. And if you search through the thousands of pair flips looking for an "H" in the left column, the right column will 50/50 have an H or a T.

<comment><USER33> That's a good explanation.

> Now if you ask me if the left coin came up heads—and I say yes—that doesn't > give you any information whatsoever on the right coin.

Exactly. "At least one" gives information about the _whole set_ , implicitly giving information about the second one whereas "the first one is X" gives no information about the second one.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Superconductivity near room temperature - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01583-y <comment><USER2> The interesting thing about this is that the work neatly fitted with existing theory:

> Drozdov et al. observed this isotope effect and found that, compared with > the lanthanum hydride samples, the critical temperature in lanthanum > deuteride samples is lower by almost exactly the amount predicted by the > theory.

So like the article points out:

> From a scientific standpoint, these results suggest that we might be > entering a transition from discovering superconductors by empirical rules, > intuition or luck to being guided by concrete theoretical predictions.

Whilst this result might require huge pressures, steady progress towards a theory of super-conduction is an exciting thing indeed.

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't be too optimistic. The theory they are talking about is BCS theory. Most of the other high TC superconductors cannot be explained with it and high TC BCS superconductivity so far requires crazy environments with no clear path to making them easier to use. With the kinds of pressures required to make this happen, it's probably easier to just buy liquid nitrogen and use other materials.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> At pressures a million times those experienced on earth. Still an advance, of course.

<comment><USER5> Nobody wants "high temperature" superconductors. They want superconductors at roughly standard temperature and pressure. This is only an advance by the extremely artificial metric of considering temperature only. Ceramic superconductors work at liquid nitrogen temperatures and standard pressure, which is much more accessible.

I'm not raging at ttsda. It _is_ an advance. Of sorts. But not nearly as much as the headline suggests.

<comment><USER6> You're vastly underestimating what the significance of what this is part of. High Tc superconductivity was thought to be essentially dead. Extremely few significant new results for decades. Now this and magic angle twisted graphene and some other stuff. It's really really cool. It's like we're watching an entire field thawing and lurching forward.

<comment><USER7> Is the graphene thing dead? One paper indicated graphene or even graphite soaked in a hydrocarbon would superconduct at room temperature. I was so excited I purhased some and tried that, it had a DC impedance similar to dry graphite...

<comment><USER8> Did you buy graphene or graphite? If the former, maybe what you got wasn't actually graphene? Apperently, the progress in this field is held back by most suppliers selling something they claim that's graphene but really isn't (or is of garbage quality) - [https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2018/10/11/gr...](https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2018/10/11/graphene- you-dont-get-what-you-pay-for).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > From a scientific standpoint, these results suggest that we might be > entering a transition from discovering superconductors by empirical rules, > intuition or luck to being guided by concrete theoretical predictions.

That would be an exciting development.

</comment><comment><USER10> Is the Sun a superconductor? The Sun consist of a high percentage of hydrogen ~73% and there must be really high pressure at the center.

The suns central pressure is 2.5*10^11 bar according to nasa.

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

[https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html](https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html)

<comment><USER11> The sun is also at a temperature of millions of degrees. At these temperatures, there is no such thing as chemical bonds, and so the rules with hydrogen from the article don't apply.

<comment><USER12> interesting, is this a sub-field of physics ? high temperature physics or something ?

<comment><USER13> Plasma physics I guess, plus magneto hydrodynamics, plus GR for really heavy stars.

<comment><USER12> dank u

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Has this been discussed here? Navy files for patent on room-temperature superconductor.

[https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room- temperature-s...](https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature- superconductor.html)

"The application claims that a room-temperature superconductor can be built using a wire with an insulator core and an aluminum PZT (lead zirconate titanate) coating deposited by vacuum evaporation with a thickness of the London penetration depth and polarized after deposition.

An electromagnetic coil is circumferentially positioned around the coating such that when the coil is activated with a pulsed current, a non-linear vibration is induced, enabling room temperature superconductivity.

"This concept enables the transmission of electrical power without any losses and exhibits optimal thermal management (no heat dissipation)," according to the patent document, "which leads to the design and development of novel energy generation and harvesting devices with enormous benefits to civilization.""

</comment><comment><USER15> > lanthanum hydride compounds become superconducting at 250 K

That's about -10F, or -23C.

(And it would make a lot more sense to put that in the article. Most of us don't "think" in Kelvin.)

<comment><USER16> It's easy: "room temperature" is about 300K.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > Writing in Nature, Drozdov et al.1 report several key results that confirm > that, when compressed to pressures of more than one million times Earth's > atmospheric pressure, lanthanum hydride compounds become superconducting at > 250 K — a higher temperature than for any other known material.

 _One million atmospheres_ is an important detail to leave out of the title.

</comment><comment><USER18> > "Materials known as superconductors transmit electrical energy with 100% > efficiency."

What is the level of (in)efficieny for say power lines? And power cords, etc around the office/house?

That is, of the electricity produced, how much is lost due to how it's transported? Does decentralizing production (e.g., solar panels on your own roof) help in any way?

<comment><USER19> The bit of heat produced in a power line isn't a huge deal. The more important applications will be in electronics and electromagnets. For instance, it would make nuclear fusion reactors cheaper and easier to build.

<comment><USER18> So this isn't about advancing scale and distribution, it's at the end product and product sub-component level. Good to know.

<comment><USER20> It is also possible it will enable some setups that aren't currently possible. Part of why transmission loss in power lines is as low as it is is that we build plants near to where the electricity is going to be used, so it's not some sort of physics law that the loss is that low, it's engineering. Right now, the "plate the Sahara in solar to power Europe" solution is not technically feasible due to the transmission loss across that distance. Obviously that's a special case of the general problem of natural power sources not being where people live. If we can transmit power without loss, we get some more options than we have now.

I'd still guess the bulk of the value would be in more local uses, but there are some interesting large-scale possibilities, including power transmission.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> What's the highest pressure that can be achieved over a useful (1 meter?) distance? I find it amazing that they managed to scale up cryostats to 1km for superconducting powercables at low temperatures - it would just be interesting if they started scaling up high pressure environments.

</comment><comment><USER22> I understand that the achievement in question was made in a high pressure environment; but if we get room temperature superconductors (at standard atm pressure), does that mean large scale hover cars/boards deployment will be viable as well [0]?

[0] [https://youtu.be/PXHczjOg06w](https://youtu.be/PXHczjOg06w)

<comment><USER23> Room temperature super conductors are in the category of materials that will cause semi-magical transformations in society along side generation techniques that make .001$/KwH electricity, 1$/kwh electricity storage, or >200 gigaPa tensile strength materials for cheap.</comment></comment>


Turkish Event Planning Startup - <AUTHOR>

What do you think about this event planning website?  Basically, it lists vendors and event places so that you can get offers directly OR you can list your event with your budget and Aktivito.com will find vendors suitable for you.
Aktivito provides premium service (for a % of budget) to bring you the best deals and places that are best fit for you.
http://aktivito.com <comment><AUTHOR> Adding a comment for clickable link: <http://aktivito.com></comment>


Show Me the Science – How to Wash Your Hands - <AUTHOR> https://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/show-me-the-science-handwashing.html <comment><USER2> Last fall I asked my doctor how I could avoid my annual month of cold/flu downtime, and she said "wash your hands a lot and stop touching your face."

I bought a container of sanitizer for my desk, I carry a smaller one in the car and another in my jacket pocket, and I try to be conscious of using it any time I come out of a public space (the bathroom, grocery store, restaurants or cafes, the water cooler). When I have to scratch my face (which is frequently because of anxiety and slight dermatitis) I use my sleeve or try to ensure I've sanitized my hands since the last time I was exposed. It hasn't been as difficult as I'm making it sound here, and this is the first winter in a decade that I haven't been sick, knock on wood. If you catch bugs easily, I recommend trying to be mindful of cleaning your hands for a season to see how it goes.

</comment><comment><USER3> And for drying your hands [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FMBSblpcrc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FMBSblpcrc)

<comment><USER4> As for alternatives to paper towels, here's [0] a review of different studies about drying your hands. It's not clear that alternatives to paper towel hand drying are more effective from a health perspective. But obviously cost and environment are the biggest problems.

It seems most harmful microbes are between your nails on your fingertips and paper towels might be more effective with removing microbes on your fingertips, but there is still some controversy about if this even matters overall and which is more effective in removing them from other parts of your hands. Some are also concerned about air dryers blowing up airborne microbes, and I'm personally concerned with the super loud noises (also mentioned in the research below [0])!

Finally, I only see paper towels in every medical center or hospital I've been to.

[0] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538484/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538484/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> one of the more striking demonstrations you can do in a biology wet lab is to dust peoples hands with fluorescent powder and then ask them to wash their hands and see what they missed.

Top of the thumbs is almost always poorly washed, even if the rest of the hand is generally clean.

</comment><comment><USER6> > However, the best way to dry hands remains unclear because few studies about > hand drying exist, and the results of these studies conflict.

One of the most striking aspects of this is how much we don't know about hand- washing and hand-drying. It seems like a topic worth studying until the studies stop conflicting.

</comment><comment><USER7> "The temperature of the water does not appear to affect microbe removal; however, warmer water may cause more skin irritation and is more environmentally costly." And I always thought warm water is better than cold water for washing hand.

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't know what my partner will think about my mental health if I sing the happy birthday song twice every time I wash my hands.

<comment><USER9> It just asks you to hum it! Entirely different!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Its hard to turn on the water to rinse without touching the faucet (with your hand).

<comment><USER11> Second to last point:

> While some recommendations include using a paper towel to turn off the > faucet after hands have been rinsed, this practice leads to increased use of > water and paper towels, and there are no studies to show that it improves > health.

<comment><USER10> Thanks. I guess depending on the faucet you could use your elbow.</comment></comment></comment>


My intellectual progress in the last decade - <AUTHOR> https://invertedpassion.com/my-intellectual-progress-in-the-last-decade-2010s/ <comment><USER2> I clicked on the link thinking it would make me feel dumber and lazier than usual and I was not disappointed.

</comment><comment><USER3> I absolutely love this blog</comment>


Google Voice Is About To Take Off: Number Porting Coming Soon For $20 - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/19/google-voice-is-about-to-take-off-number-porting-enabled-for-20/ <comment><USER2> Has anybody else had a completely horrid experience with google voice? I've consistently had a problem where a large percentage of text messages sent to my google voice number from AT&T customers simply don't show up. (either in the web interface or on a handset) This is a terrible problem as no indication is given to the sender that the message wasn't received.

I requested help via their web forms and never got any response. Eventually I had to stop using my google voice number. Any other horror stories?</comment>


Reality is an illusion – .NET OSS is hard - <AUTHOR> http://blog.markrendle.net/2013/09/26/reality-is-an-illusion-net-oss-is-hard/

<comment><USER2> Insightful article, but it leads right up to the author's blind spot. (It's always easier to see other people's blind spots than my own.)

He asks why not more OSS in C#? Then he makes a case for VS == C#, which he defends well enough, although there are some counter examples. He argues that the answer is that adding VS components is hard, so it's hard to add things for C#.

I think he's very close, but still missing the elephant in the room. Hackers often write things for themselves first. We tinker with out editors our environments our OS --everything.

People who love C#, generally love VS. Which means they aren't as interested in customizing their editor, or really their environment, and the tools and environment actively discourage it by becoming unstable when you monkey with it too much. Then how do you fix it?

You don't have the source.

That's the elephant in the room. OSS has difficulty spontaneously starting in the C# community because people who love C# are more likely to be OK with not having the source to their development environment, OS, applications etc. It's just not a priority.

Most people who want to tinker are likely to wander out of the MS planned city and go build their own hut out in the wilderness. We've just learned to build some very nice huts. :)</comment>


Ask HN: Your bookmark structure/folders? - <AUTHOR>

How do you organize your bookmarks?
I am going through thousands of bookmarks, deleting most, but some tips would be nice.
Also - are there any chrome extensions or tools that would help me out with the processing of bookmarks? Eg have the bookmarks open with a shortcut key to delete/file/etc? <comment><USER2> I place mine in folders and subfolders by topic and subtopic category, and synchronize them all with xmarks

</comment><comment><USER3> Delicious.com + tagging. Trying to figure out the One Right Folder for most sites is a doomed prospect.</comment>


Long-tail acquirers for medium exits - <AUTHOR> http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2012/05/long-tail-acquirers-for-medium-exits.html <comment><USER2> One aspect of gabe's otherwise excellent post that went unmentioned is the cultural issue associated with an acquisition of this sort.

For the acquired company to make a difference, it is going to need to be put in control of a large number of business processes. And for it to produce productivity gains, it will likely automate away many of the existing jobs at the acquiring company. Finally, if the acquired company is in fact a failing startup (as gabe postulates), it won't have a large team, or much revenue, or have proven itself against the acquirer in the marketplace.

These things will combine to produce intense and arguably justified political resistance at the acquiring company. The old guard there will see a bunch of young whippersnappers, who just became millionaires, without any revenue, who are coming in and expecting to tell them what to do when they are the ones who've been producing profit for this company for 20 odd years.

In this view, the only way this works is if it's a Mint/Intuit-type deal, where Mint crushed Intuit's online offering to such an extent that it gained respect within Intuit.

<comment><USER3> I should have made this more clear, but exactly as you say I had the Mint/Intuit deal in mind. I didn't include it because it was a software company acquirer.

In other words, the case I was thinking of for the medium exit was a success case not a failure case. The big co would take the success off the table and try to incorporate it into their internal processes.

I referenced an earlier post on the failure case, which was geared towards small exits for talent acquisition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting premise although I don't think this is playing out yet (my company tracks this data). That said, we do see lots of corporations entering the venture ecosystem which is probably a precursor to what Gabriel is mentioning.

That said, I do think @antrod's point that Gabriel references is somewhat flawed if I'm understanding his point correctly.

For a public company doing an acqui-hire, dilution would likely not come into play as the amount being paid is probably small (for the acquirer) and so EPS (earnings per share) dilution doesn't really become a factor. Of course, if the deal is larger, it does, but then it's probably not an acqui-hire either.

In terms of valuing on a EBITDA multiple, that may be the case for some companies, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of feeling like they (big co) might be left out from a coming boom or be disrupted as motivation to pay a price that is not strictly based on a financial ratio. I used to work in a big co in a previous life, and if they believe it's a burning platform need, financial constraints can and will be overridden.

</comment><comment><USER5> The most interesting case study would be Home Depot's acquisition of Redbeacon. Does anyone have:

\- acquisition price

\- Redbeacon's # of employees

\- Redbeacon's revenue

\- reports from members of either team on how the integration is going? (this would be the most interesting)

<comment><USER6> The rumor I heard from trusted sources is ~90m

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm curious on the financials behind the acqui-hire deals when the startup is only seed funded with little to no revenue. Valuations based only on the seed amounts and equity doled out seem too good to be true.

What kind of purchase prices do we see here and how much do the founders usually get? Would love to hear from members of the communities that have been acquired and are willing to share some numbers.

<comment><USER4> Acqui-hires by definition are not a purchase of the startup but of the talent.

What we've seen in talent acquisition valuations we've captured is the range is large ($2-$5M/engineer). While these numbers look very appealing, please note that many of these acqui-hires are paid for in part or in whole in stock which vests over time.

When the stock is coming from a publicly traded company, it is liquid and so has real value (once vested).

When the acqui-hire is done by a private company, and you receive stock, that stock is highly illiquid and the valuation is far from precise. And given market dynamics, that valuation could look very different by the time it vests.

<comment><USER8> _What we've seen in talent acquisition valuations we've captured is the range is large ($2-$5M/engineer)._

How much of that typically goes to the engineer? I imagine that a $20 million purchase of a 10 engineer company roughly works out to $2 million per engineer, but I imagine the founders and early investors would get the lion's share.

<comment><USER4> Unfortunately, don't know the answer to this as even getting the $2-5M number took us some digging. But your assumption is probably right and is only logical in that the "spoils" of an acqui-hire are not evenly distributed across the team.

<comment><USER7> It's unfortunate that there's not much info available yet, as I suspect most folks involved in these kinds of deals are tied up in non-disclosure agreements and need to wait for vesting options to expire before they can open up.

I look forward to finding out how the acqui-hires went in about 5-7 years, much like we're finding out about Flickr now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Every company is not going to be doing software acquisitions. Regardless of if software eats the world. The premise of the article is wrong.

It will never happen for the same reason that every company doesn't employ an army of electricians and plumbers. The same applies for duct work, air conditioning, construction, architecture, food services, and on and on. Your average company also has no interest in running their own cloud setup, or data center; they'd much rather outsource that for all the obvious reasons.

Some extremely high percentage of companies will continue to outsource their software needs, exactly as is done today. There will be no broad based software acquisition binge. It's a very difficult world to specialize in, innovate in, and manage unless software and tech is what you already do.

<comment><USER10> >doesn't employ an army of electricians and plumbers.

But the whole premise of software eating the world, is its sooo prevalent, its not like hiring air-conditioning workers, its like hiring _literate_ workers.

Writing code will be like writing essays at college and memos at work.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Stop Lying to us Amazon - <AUTHOR> http://robbiet480.github.com/StopLyingToUsAmazon/

<comment><USER2> My personal opinion is this: Don't use Amazon or AWS if you can't deal with, or you accept that there will be outages out of your control.

That's the very nature of what you signed up for.</comment>


Letter From A Psychopath - <AUTHOR> http://www.twitlonger.com/show/dh5l3q?share <comment><USER3> I think psychopaths are incredibly boring, unidemensional people who hopelessly, endlessly intellectualize and play mind games because there is no depth to them. It is only mind machinations without the depth and nuance of a fully feeling and emotionally alive human being. I had psychopathic parents and studied psychopathy as a PhD criminal forensic psycholovist encountering many serial killers, cons and the like. Why do they do what they do? It is no great mystery as I used to think. They dismember people psychologically and physically for the simple reason that they enjoy it. They derive pleasure from the destruction of victims to their power dominance orientation. They are boring stupid people who ate not the least bit interesting. They are pathetic. They choose people smaller and weaker than them that they can pick them off out of the herd of humanity. They are sad expressions of the human genome and dont deserve near the hype and fascination they get. Once you figure them out, it is very easy to remain quite detached from their mental gyrations to seduce and ensnare. It becomes annoying actually. I for one am over it. I do recommend that you not allow one at your hearth or into your bed. You will pay dearly. One cannot allow emotional involvement or any attachment to such people as a regular person is want to do with other humann beings. Get rid of them, they will destroy your mind, spirit and your life. Take it from one who knows from a very young age.

<comment><USER4> > _I think psychopaths are incredibly boring, unidemensional people._

I met at least two. Both were extremely vivid people, and deeper contact with them, when they turn off their cloaking field, was baffling: it was a bit like communicating with an alien.

In any case, these people were really, really far from being dull.

<comment><USER5> How did you knoe they were psychopaths?

<comment><USER4> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist), and before that, a very strong gut feeling. Too many things click together: the overall toxicity of a person, his desire to belittle / denigrate many people around him (a waitress in a cafe, contributors to an internet community project, a non-psychopath competitor etc.), his grandiose self-image (he literally designated himself as 'elite'), threats of violence and criminal leanings, always hogging the spotlight in social settings, "friendships" that change to enmity overnight, et cetera et cetera.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Everybody should turn on showdead in the settings and check out losethos' comments here. Psychopathy is really interesting and fascinating, but so is schizophrenia.

It boggles my mind how anyone can write such nonsensical rambling comments while at the same time coding a 64 bit operating system from scratch.

<comment><USER7> Let's all prattle on about the guy as if he isn't an active member of this forum. The man can read you know, most developers can. I'm not trying to censor discussion but it just seems a little odd to publicly deconstruct this guy in every mental health thread like he's some type of lab specimen. It is indeed possible to read comments while hellbanned.

<comment><USER8> The relationship between this community and losethos seems very strange to me. Perhaps because this is the first community i've been involved in where hellbanning was a feature. Any other site would have banned him outright for his own good but the hellban encourages him to continue posting. The result is almost as if he's treated like a mascot, or some brilliant but obstinate child being actively ignored at the adults table.

We know he's there, he surely knows he's hellbanned, and he knows we know he's there. He's both the best and worst argument about hellbanning as an effective form of moderation.

<comment><USER9> HN as a community exhibits a lot of sociopathic traits (which makes this whole thread a little bit funny, but not funny-haha).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you're interested in what life for such a person is like (or if you might be one!), check out M. E. Thomas's _Confessions of a Sociopath_. I wrote about it here: [http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/summary-judgment- co...](http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/summary-judgment-confessions- of-a-sociopath-m-e-thomas/) and Tyler Cowen wrote about it here: [http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/con...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/confessions- of-a-sociopath.html) and elsewhere.

FWIW, from what I've read ([http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_seabrook?currentPage=all)) there were (at least) no therapies or treatments that reproducibly help psychopaths:

 _The psychiatric profession wanted little to do with psychopathy, for several reasons. For one thing, it was thought to be incurable. Not only did the talking cure fail with psychopaths but several studies suggested that talk therapy made the condition worse, by enabling psychopaths to practice the art of manipulation. There were no valid instruments to measure the personality traits that were commonly associated with the condition; researchers could study only the psychopaths' behavior, in most cases through their criminal records._

And now there are, at least in the sense of reducing criminal behavior:

 _In a landmark 2006 study of a specialized talk-therapy treatment program, conducted at a juvenile detention center in Wisconsin, involving a hundred and forty-one young offenders who scored high on the youth version of the checklist, Michael Caldwell, a psychologist at the treatment center and a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, reported that the youths that were treated were much more likely to stay out of trouble, once they were paroled, than the ones in the control group._

But note that the linked article is from 2008. Perhaps things have changed since.

<comment><USER11> You might also want to note that there are many different versions of _[staying] out of trouble_.

<comment><USER12> Exactly what I thought. Especially given the above quote:

 _researchers could study only the psychopaths' behavior, in most cases through their criminal records_

It's a fascinating disorder, really, in that the most severe cases are difficult to detect so long as they do not make mistakes.

<comment><USER13> The most interesting part is how unlike a typical disorder it is. Your typical disorder removes capability; psychopathy removes empathy, which can be seen as a capability- but it could also be seen as a natural (well-intentioned) limiter.

<comment><USER4> It's quite possible that this is not a disorder, but a stable evolutionary strategy.

<comment><USER14> I don't think it is evolutionary stable. I think a society of sociopaths would fall apart. We evolved to live in groups; we are social animals. Social animals need empathy, otherwise they are unlikely to cooperate and live in mutually beneficial ways.

<comment><USER15> "Psychopath" could just be the degenerate form of the personality type that evolved to lead those groups. In other words, a leader is a psychopath with better impulse control.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm generally viewed as a "nice guy" but once when I was younger met a psychopath who viewed my "niceness" as a weakness and took it upon himself to destroy me. I retreated from that battle, but from then on learned to identify such people and try to match wits with them. I'm very competitive and couldn't stand losing to them. I out-witted several of them over the course of my life and they would usually leave me alone when they knew I would fight back. Fortunately, there are not a lot of true psychopaths running around. However, I finally met my match recently later in life, in a former prison inmate who ran had run his cell block, who had intelligence, charisma, and a breath- taking ruthlessness. He had fooled everyone on his release that he was reformed and had obtained employment where I worked. I did battle with him and lost because I was not willing to go his lengths. Good does not always over Evil, as we all know. I had to get as far away from him as I could. The experience was traumatic in some ways, and I say all this to recommend you avoid psychopaths whenever possible. It's not worth it. A true psychopath is beyond redemption.

<comment><USER17> how do you spot a psychopath? what are the usual traits you looks for? How did you do battle with former inmate?

<comment><USER16> With regards to the last guy, it was an experience unlike any other in my life

I transferred into his location so I was new. He took it upon himself to be my friend and mentor. The first few months were fine. I go along with everyone and did a good job. This was his information gathering phase. I'm an open person so he learned a lot about me before the red flags went up.

He slowly began praising me, saying I was uniquely qualified for the job and the other guys weren't doing it right. He and I would show them how it was done. His charm and intelligence won me over and I was very flattered.

Simultaneously, he began turning everyone against me, making me dependent upon him. Feeling isolated, I found myself drawn closer into his orbit. I began suspecting him, but I found myself drawn like a moth to a flame to his charisma, praise and intelligence.

He had all the people in positions of authority fooled, so they trusted him. He began telling them without my knowledge that I wasn't very good at my job but he would look out for me.

If I deviated from what he wanted, no matter how small, his punishment was severe. I went to the authorities about this but they just shrugged their shoulders.

When I realized what was going on and being a computer person (this was when I was taking a break from a programming career), I managed to delve into the computer system and show with facts how he was cheating and how I was actually doing as well or better than the others. He responded by convincing them my computer skills were dangerous. They restricted my access to the database. He received a minor punishment because he was popular.

By cheating (and actually breaking the law in some cases) he managed to receive outstanding performance reviews. When the big bosses came to town he was recognized for his outstanding performance. He made sure to tell them I was a basket case that he was trying to bring along.

I began asking around about him. I found out he always wore long sleeve shirts to hide his prison tattoos. I foolishly thought I could fight him, so I found other ways to bring his cheating to light. This went no where because the other employees and management were afraid of him.

When he couldn't beat me outright, he enlisted a confederate to sabotage my work. With my guard up, I became very adept at justifying my work and proving I wasn't in the wrong.

I began noticing how he faked emotions. For example, he was essentially humorless, but he could fake a laugh that when you thought about it, was obviously fake and looked maniacal.

I became worn out, depressed and sick. I left the company. They all thought I was a "nice guy" and said they liked me and I believe they meant it, but thought it was to bad I wasn't up to the job. This was his end game, for the simple fact that he liked the company to be short handed so he could collect more over-time. I believe he actually liked me, but he liked the money more.

To answer your question: The psychopaths I've met are charming, intelligent, popular with people in authority. They get a free pass that others get punished for. You'll see how they cheat but never get in trouble for it and notice how other people are afraid of them. They have a way of working their way into control of any situation. They are very dominant, but in a charming way. They are usually what is called the 'alpha male.'

<comment><USER18> They aren't always charming and intelligent, sometimes they are repulsive and brutal.

I'd say the big warning signs are cruelty, a repulsion of weakness while also finding it irresistible, rapidly changing tactics (sometimes within seconds) that shift between dominance and attempting to garner empathy that begin to appear shallow after the first few salvos, highly manipulative to ends that don't really matter, and always "clever".

<comment><USER16> I agree, but I immediately avoid the one's that exhibit negative traits. The problematic ones for me are those that are charming and intelligent. I forgot about the rapidly changing tactics within seconds. That's really astonishing when you see it. I've never met a psychopathic woman. The couple crazy girlfriends I've had were borderline personalities, which I found even more difficult to deal with.

<comment><USER18> There are plenty of female psychopaths out there. The difference is that women are more socialized than men (hiding more obvious traits) and they seldom take the macho (sometimes violent) route to feed their egos.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Programmers (me included) are intrigued with psychopathy: we like the idea of pure thought, unencumbered by guilt, untainted by emotions, conventions and niceties. But paradoxically we overromanticise it in the process: I am pretty sure that living day-to-day with such condition kinda sucks, and that it seldom leads to notableness or notoriousness, let alone self-improvement or any kind of refinement. A serial offender petty criminal is probably more representative of the 'average' psychopath than the author of this post, I am afraid.

<comment><USER20> If I understand correctly, the IQ distribution in psychopaths is not different from the population as a whole.

So, the 130 IQ (+2 sigma) psychopaths are probably intelligent and self-aware enough to hold their "evil" tendencies in check and to succeed.

On the flip, the 70 IQ (-2 sigma) psychopaths probably do not have the self- insight to understand "why" they feel the way they do. Their impulse control will be much smaller, and they are much more likely to indifferently hurt people, commit crimes, and act on impulse.

<comment><USER19> Quoting from Wikipedia: 'Additionally, studies suggest inverse relationships between psychopathy and intelligence, including with regards to verbal IQ' (but later it's stated that such correlation is not unanimously accepted).

I think we mostly are in agreement; I think the impulsive and antisocial tendencies of the psychopath are often self defeating and only the very intelligent navigate life successfully. We end up having a selection bias because we are likely to cross paths only with the latter subtype, so we end up believing that all psychopaths are superintelligent and verbally dazzling, while probably the majority of them is badly dull.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Perhaps the most fascinating part of this letter is observing people's reactions to it. In the letter, the author goes so far as to admit that s/he is and always will be a psychopath without a sense of guilt or remorse toward others and a keen ability to recognize and exploit weaknesses in others for his/her own gain.

Judging by the comments here, the letter has done just that. One comment below notes that "Jeez, that's the single most interesting, insightful, and well- written piece I've read on the internet in a long time." Others are expressing a desire to meet the author or expressing how they can identify with the author. It's incredible to see just how effectively this letter resonates with the people who read it.

Don't get me wrong: It's both impressive and admirable that the author was able to not only admit that he needed therapy but to press on long enough to make therapy work for himself in an effective manner. I don't want to downplay his accomplishments. However, it is still interesting to dissect and observe all of the persuasiveness of the letter and the fluidity with which the author transforms psychopathy from a very difficult personality disorder into somewhat of a super power that the reader can't help but envy by the end of the letter.

As you read the letter and experience strong feelings of empathy for the author, consider his own poignant words at the end: "In the end, psychopaths need to be given that very thing everyone believes they lack for others, empathy."

The letter begins with the psychopath distancing himself from the traditional destructive psychopathic traits in the most admirable and self-aggrandizing way possible: He went against all odds and admitted himself into treatment, where he claims the health agency had never seen someone of his nature walk-in before and he was too incredible of a case for anyone but the highest-ranking therapist to handle.

He continues by setting up various straw-man caricatures of psychopathy ("cartoon evil serial killers" and the CEO who prizes profits over people) and knocking them down one-by-one, leaving the reader feeling guilty of possibly embracing those stereotypes at one point. With the reader feeling a bit guilty, empathetic, and as if the author's condition is simply misunderstood, the author has set the stage to rebuild the reader's view of psychopathy in a way that benefits the author.

Toward the end, he even goes so far as to put words in the reader's mouth just so he can turn around and undermine the very caricature of a psychopath he suggested you might hold : "Such as statement _might tempt you to say_ 'well obviously you're not a real psychopath then'. As if the definition of a psychopath is someone who exploits others for their personal power, satisfaction or gain."

The rest of the article explains the author's psychopathy the way the author wants you to view it: As "a highly trained perception, ability to adapt, and a lack of judgment borne of pragmatic and flexible moral reasoning." He goes on to say that he "enjoy[s] a reputation of being someone of intense understanding and observation with a keen strategic instinct." At this point, the author has completely distanced his psychopathy from the purely negative caricature he painted in the first half of his letter. Who wouldn't be envious of such incredible, valuable, and morally-neutral abilities as he described them?

I've read the letter several times over, and I'm still amazed at how effective it is at garnering empathy from the reader and cultivating a sense that the author is an impressive individual who has triumphed over adversity after a great struggle. And it's true that overcoming your own objections to seek, and stick with, treatment for such a severe personality disorder is both impressive and admirable. His points about the general public's misunderstanding of true psychopathy are equally true, although he crucially omits any and all explanations of how psychopathy can _actually_ be dangerous and destructive to others. It's an incredible piece of writing, and incredibly persuasive and manipulative in a way that I'm sure PR and marketing teams everywhere would be jealous of.

<comment><USER22> I hate to logic-chop a civilian (i.e. someone who didn't waste their youth in an analytic philosophy department studying ethics) but here we go.

If your position is that all convincing self-accounts by psychopaths are themselves only convincing because the psychopath is somehow 'tricking' you, then you can take that statement and s/psychopath/any group you care to name/ and you'd never know the difference.

Don't believe me? Try substituting various bogeymen of the twentieth century: crack dealers, pedophiles, etc. You see what I mean? It always works: You shouldn't trust what pedophiles say because, well, they're pedophiles!

Generalizing, there's always a reason why someone's supposed perfidy makes them an untrustworthy speaker, and that's a problem.

One floor down, what's going on is 'begging the question' \-- not in the colloquial motivates-the-question sense, but in the sense that you are assuming what you set out to prove (circular reasoning).

Watch:

CLAIM = C is a psychopath; therefore, don't trust him when he says C is good.

CLAIM' = X is a Y; therefore, don't believe X's claim that Z.

But there's still an implicit claim hiding! In fact, it's the value of Z. Let's suss it out:

CLAIM'' = X is a Y; Ys are untrustworthy; therefore, don't believe X when X says that Ys are trustworthy.

There you have it: a textbook case of circular reasoning. That's the sort of thing C is talking about: people get so emotional when they think about psychopaths, they fail to hold themselves up to the same standards for rational discourse at which a psychopath ironically excels.

<comment><USER23> > If your position is that all convincing self-accounts by psychopaths are > themselves only convincing because the psychopath is somehow 'tricking' you, > then you can take that statement and s/psychopath/any group you care to > name/ and you'd never know the difference. Don't believe me? Try > substituting various bogeymen of the twentieth century: crack dealers, > pedophiles, etc. You see what I mean? It always works: You shouldn't trust > what pedophiles say because, well, they're pedophiles!

Your logic chop fails because one of the elements of psychopathy is being a convincing liar.

<comment><USER22> So is being any sort of successful criminal. A pedophile, for example.

<comment><USER24> I still have no idea what you're trying to say. I don't have an abundance of trust for psychopaths, pedophiles, or crack dealers. I've worked very closely with psychopaths (one was also a pedophile) in an institutional setting in the past. I had to assume that every interaction was a manipulation. Even being extremely careful, it was easy to get caught from time to time particularly when I was understaffed (i.e. 1 staff to 3 clients).

Reading the top parent of this thread was very interesting because he was thinking in exactly the way I had been conditioned to think at that time in my life.

When a person in your life lies to you or manipulates you, you will certainly begin to question the value of other interactions from that person. Once you have confirmed that the person has a personality type that makes them particularly likely to lie or manipulate (compulsive liars, psychopaths, criminals, what have you), you must be careful about your interpretation of any communication. But here's the real difficulty: If a psychopath is trying to manipulate you and knows that you are conscious of it, the manipulations morph. They adapt to your particular defense. In the institutional setting, they're in it for the long haul so they don't mind missing a couple times. In fact, getting caught is often part of the manipulation.

I wandered off my initial topic here so I better wrap it up.

<comment><USER25> Everyone lies and manipulates you, not just psychopaths.

<comment><USER24> Very true. Still, when you are aware of a particular propensity for manipulation, it is prudent to tread carefully.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Many of the best venture capitalists and entrepreneurs have psycopath-like tendencies.

Think about the similarities. A good entrepreneur/venture capitalist should be:

-Ruthless, selfish, unsympathetic

-Capable of manipulating, good at acting, great at selling a concept and convincing others to drink the kool-aid

-Unfazed by negative outcomes

-Unaware of (or at least, unfazed by) social norms and the status quo

-Creative, capable of thinking radically differently than everyone else

I've seen this comparison a few times, and now I can't seem to find any of the articles that I have read.

<comment><USER27> Psychopaths are devious not creative.

<comment><USER26> I guess I consider those traits to be one and the same at their root, one just has a negative tone.

In my mind, everyone who is devious is creative, but not the other way around.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> ... Am I the only one who interprets this letter as an attempted sympathy exploit/attack on people being properly on guard against psychopaths?

<comment><USER29> I think the interesting thing is how it is literally impossible to judge his sincerity.

For all we know, he could have given us a 100% spot-on description of psychopathy, or he could be lying through his teeth - without experiencing his life, we have no way of knowing the difference.

I suppose this is possible for /any/ self-description of the internal state of a human mind, but this particular condition obviously muddies the water to an extreme degree.

<comment><USER30> You assume the author is a male.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I come from a rather unstable and violent corner of the world, and I've met plenty of psychopaths growing up. I have a hypothesis that early childhood traumas and violent environment can trigger the development of psychopathic tendencies, but I'm not entirely sure how much role does genetics play in this process.

Some of the commenters on this topic seem to ascribe superhuman rationality and brainpower to psychopaths. I don't think that's a correct way to look at it. They can be very smart, but they suffer from the same set of biases and blind spots and Dunning-Kruger type of phenomena as other people. I think the defining characteristic is the complete lack of empathy and the willingness and ability to manipulate people (practicing the skill from early childhood, hence very good at it).

I was just looking up one of the smartest and most pronounced psychopaths I've met in recent years. Apparently he got his MBA and started an offshore private equity fund, seems to be doing well for himself. The guy had monumental talent for manipulating people. I wonder how far will he go before people catch on to his true nature...

</comment><comment><USER32> Sociopaths are one of the fundamental threats facing humanity today. Such traits may have been beneficial in times past as group conflict was so prevalent, but if global issues like getting into space, climate change and the prevention of economic chaos are to be dealt with effectively, humanity is going to have to learn how to cooperate more effectively. And that means preventing sociopaths from getting into positions of power.

Unfortunately, society does not seem to have yet evolved the mechanisms to deal with these parasites effectively. The law is hardly a useful tool, given how "flexible" and corrupt it is, and how money aka power is so important in manipulation of the law versus "truth". Economists aka amateur sociopaths are finally beginning to realize an obvious truth - that most humans are not rational actors strictly concerned with profit and loss but that decisions are based on emotion much more than they'd like to admit and so this has a significant effect on economic behavior.

All this does matter because ask yourself - what of the effects these people have on the lives of those they exploit? what sort of setbacks do the good people end up facing and how much of a drain is it on their lives and their efforts to -contribute- to society as a whole? I see so much waste because of the unnecessary chaos the sociopathic introduce to society as a whole. They are a threat and capital punishment is a logical response, because they can not be rehabilitated. But given how society is organized, rich white people are never going to be executed, or even prosecuted, for their crimes unless they're so egregious they can't be ignored.

Even then, the case of Jimmy Savile (in the UK) is an example of how humanity still is little nothing more than talking chimpanzees who respond more to and are controlled by instinctual behavior patterns versus the ability to cogitate like "we" think we are able to. Jimmy was a sociopath, everyone knew he was a pedo, but nothing was done because no one wanted to speak up because of the social cost. Things are better these days, of course, so maybe in another 100 years, there will be a test toddlers are given to track whether they are likely to be sociopathic, and more effort will be put into preventing the development of such evil monsters. It is like the Head Start program in the States - prevent issues down the road by ensuring children have the best psychological foundation established as early as possible.

<comment><USER33> Well good luck with your witch hunt.

<comment><USER32> Why is the global witch hunt against terrorists (excuse me, Muslims) acceptable, but bringing people like the bankers at HSBC, who enabled drug lords and the like for over a decade, not? HSBC's actions were far more detrimental to society than any terrorist attack, yet no one will ever be punished for their actions - not anyone involved in the crash of 2008. Both are clearly wrong, but given how hypocritical Western society actually is, it is obvious one can get away with anything as long as you're part of the upper echelons / in group. And abstract stuff like financial crimes are not so emotionally tinged as concrete crimes, like murder. And federal prosecutors are lazy sociopaths who haven't got the stomach to prosecute powerful people anymore...

This probably explains why people get more conservative as they get older - they see how screwed up the world is and retreating into pseudo- authoritarianism makes sense, emotionally. But conservative values these days are just cover for the authoritarians. I guess I am complaining about the fundamental lack of integrity of Western society that is so obvious anymore. On that note, I just picked up "The Reluctant Fundamentalist" which looks like a good read.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I've sometimes wondered if the presence of psychopaths in powerful organizations leads to sociopathic behavior on the organizations part, even though most members are "normal." I'm thinking of situations like the outlandish behaviors of major investment banks defrauding their customers, knowingly selling them "toxic" mortgage back securities.

A small population of actors, inclined to gain power, and ruthless in conduct forces all members of the community to act in concert, lest they be cast out entirely.

This might also explain the disconnect of an organization like the NSA, made up of mostly decent, sincere people, engagin in profoundly anti-social, if not downright illegal, activities.

</comment><comment><USER35> >It is also the case that, being 'normal' takes a degree of energy and conscious thought that is instinctive for most, but to me is a significant expenditure of energy. I think it analogous to speaking a second language.

Sounds about right. I thought it was pretty 'normal' to feel this way sometimes...

<comment><USER36> There's an old psychiatric joke: there are no healthy people, they're just not diagnosed yet.

I'm not a psychopath, but I have high levels of social anxiety and probably high functional Aspergers. Every situation I didn't rehearse in my head is incredibly exhausting, and even then, if it gets too complex I feel the urge to withdraw — and it doesn't matter whether it's a jerk coworker being a jerk or someone I like dropping a compliment bomb on me, or even, if I'm not the best shape, a partner being affectionate.

We override our deficiencies, but it's tiring.

<comment><USER37> I had a teacher who worked in a psych ward. She insisted that everyone has a trait of each mental issue you could name - you just don't get a diagnose until it's a big enough issue for the person.

<comment><USER11> Of course. The difference between "personality trait" and diagnosable illness is whether or not it causes you or others significant problems. There is no difference in _kind_ , only in degree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I find that it is hard to distinguish between psycopathy and narcissism. This person seems like a pathological narcissist not a psychopath. This person is ego tripping by self identifying with something they find powerful. A psychopath may have similar hangups but they don't believe in their own bullshit and would not waste time with self reflection or therapy. Psycopathy is like depression; psycopaths do crazy shit because they can't feel.

</comment><comment><USER39> >psychopaths hate weakness they will attempt to conceal anything that might present as a vulnerability [...] ability to rapidly find weaknesses in others, and to exploit it

There seems to be confusion about what constitutes 'strength' and what constitutes 'weakness' in regard to human personalities (or 'hard' vs 'soft')

For example, compulsively manipulating other people is more properly regarded as a _weakness_ , I think. Whereas getting up on a stage and being open and vulnerable in front of a crowd, that's _strength_. It can inspire people and produce lasting change.

People with heavy streaks of psychopathy, or narcissism, or whatnot, are on a different path to the rest of us. It's better to avoid them where possible, tempting though it is to hope they will eventually acknowledge their faults and apologise. However, not having access to various feelings is going to create straightforward problems in their lives which can in principle lead to private acknowledgement and progress being sought. So I refuse to regard them as incurable cases

<comment><USER40> >There seems to be confusion about what constitutes 'strength' and what constitutes 'weakness' in regard to human personalities (or 'hard' vs 'soft')

This here is the crux of the matter, and we only stand to lose if we go on with all the hyperbole and analogies around psychopathy. The value and consistency of what constitutes "weak" and "strong" depends to a large extent on the feedback we (and "they") get in everyday interaction (whether they live in a city or grow up around Baloo the bear). Burying psychopathy down to some exclusive and immutable genetic level is to ignore this (I'm not talking about causes here, but about behavior reinforcement and motivation).

<comment><USER39> Yes. Another reason I think we can call sociopathy a weakness is that, as with all evil, the actors are thoroughly deceived about their own motives. This makes them especially maddening to those who catch on and falsely assume that they could make a straightforward choice to behave differently

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Jeez, that's the single most interesting, insightful, and well-written piece I've read on the internet in a long time. Imagine what things are capable when "being different" causes you - and enables you - to reflect deeply and thoughtfully on what being normal really means.

</comment><comment><USER42> "the director of the agency finally took me on herself, and to our mutual surprise we got along extremely well."

Birds of a feather?

<comment><USER43> That was my thought, actually.

<comment><USER44> more like forged letter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I have a very pragmatic view that psychopathic traits are just one specific set of algorithms of the many possible sets of algorithms our personalities can exhibit to connect and interact with other personalities or more generally speaking our environment. Looking at the state of the world, at least a subset of these behavioral algorithms seems to be quite efficient (as the letter shows) and various subsets/traits seem to be very common and even desirable. Obviously the manifestation of the overall set which you would define as "psychopathy" varies from psychopath to psychopath, hence the image of the "cartoon evil serial killers", the "CEO" and many more in between these two. I guess in the end it depends on the balance of influence between three factors: the other sets of algorithms which make up your personality, the personalities you interact with and your environment.

I personally think we should look into what we can learn from this set of behavioral algorithms (the good, the bad and the ugly) and how you can balance it to leverage its benefits while not suffering from its drawbacks. That's at least how I deal with it.

</comment><comment><USER46> Brilliantly articulated. I think this might be useful for everyone :

"The test of their self-superiority is their ability to rapidly find weaknesses in others, and to exploit it to its fullest potential.

But that is not to say that this aspect of a psychopaths world view cannot be modified. These days I see weaknesses and vulnerabilities as simple facts - <USER2> facet of the human condition and the frailties and imperfections inheritent in being human."

</comment><comment><USER3> I have extensive experience w psychopaths. They have almost destroyed my life given my vulnerability to them because of a mother who is a psychopath and a father who had major psychopathictraits. I had to seek nurturance from a snake and learn how to feed it and placate it while trying to stay alive.

</comment><comment><USER47> Interesting.

I would like to meet this person.

I find it very helpful to surround myself with people that have a different way of seeing the world.

<comment><USER48> _I would like to meet this person._

No, no no no no. No you would not. Not unless you mean it like "I'd like to meet a serial killer, just for the experience." Maybe it'd be interesting to get their point of view, sure, but you are far better off without them in your life. And certainly without having any form of relationship with them.

One of the main reasons this guy wrote this letter was probably self- aggrandization. The very fact that you find him more interesting is exactly what he wanted. That's not inherently a bad thing.

What's inherently a bad thing is that when human remorse and guilt have been genetically disabled, those people will do things to you which are fucked up. I have experienced the blunt, raw force of their emotional carpet bombing firsthand from a certain family member.

Everyone needs to remember that these people are hardwired to be deliberately manipulative, because they feel good only when you're giving them attention. Then they feel good only when you're doing things they've conned you into believing you want to do; sometimes things you'll feel shitty about for the rest of your life, once you snap out of it and realize you've been a puppet.

<comment><USER49> Love is the kindest and most valuable thing we can spread in this world and your reply offered none to this individual. He is no less deserving than any other. We all have the same life sentence.

We're all trying to do our thing, he, you and I included.

More love, less hate. Please.

<comment><USER48> This is actually the central reason I was so torn up over my experience, and one of the reasons the whole thing sometimes still haunts me. Because the only possible way out of my situation was to completely cut ties, and shut off the love. I'm a loving person and it absolutely tore me up for a long time. Eventually I came to terms with the fact that if I wanted to lead a life without torment, it was a necessary evil. These people will stop at nothing until you're twisted around their pinkie finger, and they will prey on your forgiving nature.

It's why I'm trying to call attention to how dangerous they are. But words aren't adequate to convey the breadth and magnitude of their ability to carve out chunks of your life for their own purposes. They'll take all your love and steamroll you in return.

<comment><USER47> You're personalty can't handle a psychopath mine can.

I'm not loving nor forgiving and although I do poses empathy and remorse can contentiously suppers it.

Everything has to be earned with me.

This applies to everybody including my own parents.

I grew up around manipulative people i know how to deal with them. I actually instinctively distance myself from them.

I'm not saying I would be his friend but i find his point of view valuable as long as he doesn't try it with me. I would notice if he did.

<comment><USER36> "You're personalty can't handle a psychopath mine can."

You actually come off like someone who claims that they had grown up around airplane pilots and therefore can handle gravity. It's actually unlikely you can.

"I would notice if he did."

I'm just going to call that posturing.

<comment><USER47> More like i was born on a planet so i can handle gravity.

The only thing i meant by that is that he/she is the sweet, loving, sensitive type nothing wrong with that but may not be well suited for some things.

I on the other hand am fascinated by psychology and love surrounding myself with different types of people even psychopaths.

Everybody has to offer a unique way of looking at things.

Some may consider that crazy, maybe it is.

I don't fall under any definition of normal that's for sure but normal is boring anyway.

<comment><USER36> Actually, that's a pretty common, normal line of thinking, often summarized as "those things happen to the _other_ people". Even the declared love of psychology is quite usual, as is the dismissal of "normal".

Sweet/loving/sensitive type dismissal shows a huge disconnect. People hurt that way include soldiers, astronauts, public performers, politicians, enterpreneurs and many others. You're not really looking into people, you're romanticizing the diseases they have, and that really comes off as patronizing in most cases, and in this case as reckless _and_ patronizing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> At one point in our evolution was there some advantage that being a psychopath conferred?

<comment><USER51> Purely as a matter of opinion, the way to think about this is not as an advantage for an individual, but for as a gene pool.

Mostly a human gene pool's survival and prosperity is best served by community co-operation, mutual support and self sacrifice for the good of loved ones and other community members. Sometimes though, the group as a whole has had it and the route to the survival of any of the gene pool is for one or a few to sacrifice the rest and make an all-out bid for personal survival. E.g. a terrible winter in which there is insufficient food and everyone is starving to death.

Another situation where psychopathy could be useful is warfare. Sometimes having a cold blooded killer with no remorse on your side isn't such a bad thing.

Ultimately, it's a matter of variety. You never know what challenges your community is going to face, and what range of behaviors are going to be optimal. Having a full range of behavior types available in your community gives it flexibility in it's response, especially to to existential challenges.

<comment><USER52> I'm not going to rule out that psychopathy can have been a good thing in some society roles, but they do look more like shirking parasites? (An evolved strategy that is turned on sometimes, depending on environment.)

[Edit: Afaik, psychopathy is not turned on after someone reaches adulthood. An evolved strategy for catastrophes would be turned on at e.g. hunger or stress.]

I especially wonder if warfare is a good example? Most of the time when humans evolved we were in a clan society. Clan warriors aren't generally known for live and let live-attitudes to people from outside their clan anyway; a psychopath would probably not stand out much in blood thirst. (And if you are in a war party, you really really need to trust the members in the party. Manipulative people would not last long when they were caught at it.)

<comment><USER53> Historically, soldiers have generally been reluctant to use their weapons. During WWII, around 20% of soldiers actually fired their weapons in combat. Even fewer shot to kill often aiming over the heads of the enemy. This is a form of posturing both to the enemy and their comrades. Through extensive use of conditioning, that rate and lethality of fire was raised during Vietnam and subsequent wars.

Even among tribal societies, warfare is highly ritualized in a manner that does not optimize for maximum lethality. Richard Gabriel, in studies on tribal societies in New Guinea have noted that hunts occurred with accurate feathered. Tellingly, tribal warfare employed featherless arrows. Similarly "counting coup" among American Indians involves touching rather than killing the enemy.

Cold blooded killers have their uses for society, especially in warfare. An excellent book on this subject is On Killing.

<comment><USER52> The point was, with the attitude to strangers in clan warfare (not modern post-clan societies), psychopaths have nothing to add regarding ruthlessness. See old Scandinavia.

For stylized cattle raids (e.g. historical Ireland, before the vikings) among old neighbors, there will of course be agreed levels below extermination (or the neighbours will be gone long before western contact).

<comment><USER54> It can just be an unfortunate synthesis of advantageous traits.

Detachment is pretty clearly a (potentially) useful trait for a leader. Same thing for stuff like charisma.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Interesting read, but about half-way through I realized he could be manipulating me into thinking he was decent person, just misunderstood.

Anyways, it is scary to realize that there are lots of powerful people out there like this.

Actually, I think there are many powerful CEO's and political leaders that are psychopaths.

How else could they convince people to give them the power, money, and influence they have?

</comment><comment><USER56> Interesting article on a clear psychopath:

[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html)

</comment><comment><USER57> Jon Ronson's audiobook version of The Psychopath Test is the Daily Deal today on Audible.com for 2.95

<comment><USER58> Do you have it? if so do you recommend it?

<comment><USER59> I've listened to this audiobook and I was hooked very early in the story. Jon Ronson is a very good story teller and he narrates his book. He's quite funny and engaging. "A Journey Through the Madness Industry" is the subtitle, and "journey" is indeed a very adequate description of what you'll experience with this book. Jon wanders from place to place where he'll meet psychopaths and people who work in the "madness industry" and relates his experiences and thinking.

It's not a definitive treatise on psychopathy, just the adventures of the author as he dives into this fascinating world. Definitely worth getting it at this price.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> This is a very good article. Thanks for this.

This explains - What makes a difference, if someone diverts their energy doing something Positive. As they say - It's not who you are, but what you do that defines you.

>Serial Killers & Ruthless CEOs exist - Voldemort does not.

Excellent ending to a great article.

<comment><USER11> Does it enhance or detract from the article that Voldemort may be the one writing it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> The more i read about phychopaths is that they are normal guys/girls and it is the society's problem to 'treat' them (because they are too strong competitors and shall be neutralized) rater than their own.

<comment><USER62> If that were true, we'd all simply be psychopaths, the genes would have long since won. There are important reasons why humans are empathetic, have guilt, concern for others, etc. It is unlikely that psychopaths could ever form a civilization on their own, for instance; one could make a utilitarian argument in favor of behaving the proper way, but without the shortcut of having your brain simply _wired_ to work that way it's going to be an uphill battle.

(Which goes back to one of my drums I beat here with some frequency, which is that while the rationality of humans is often overstated, so is their _ir_ rationality... many putatively irrational things like "guilt" or "empathy" in fact exist for reasons, or if you prefer, have significantly more positive effects when considered holistically than a naive analysis might indicate.)

<comment><USER63> Take stick and poke anthill so it gets rebuilt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Who here is aware of the fact Oskar schindler was a psychopath? He sold all his business and fortune to save hundreds of lives. All we hear is psychopaths who fit the stereotype, not those who do not. Cognitive dissonance.

</comment><comment><USER65> Given the number of people here who say have have met or interacted w/ a psychopath, one would think that every other person out there is one.

</comment><comment><USER66> Amazing and fascinating. His state of consciousness is so very different from ours. It is _his_ reality. I'm so happy he shared this.

</comment><comment><USER67> "I hope that it can remain confidential for the time being, seeing as it is quite personal."

Dang who is the one exploiting weakness here?

</comment><comment><USER68> Great read. Thanks for sharing.

</comment><comment><USER58> Can someone paste it on gist? Work proxy is blocking the site =/

<comment><USER69> Honestly? This is a question on _hacker_ news? There are millions of ways to access a site via another site. W3C validator comes to mind. Or textmirror.net. Or browsershots.org. Or the Google cache. Or or or...

<comment><USER70> How is asking someone to paste it any less of a solution than any of those?

<comment><USER71> They would be able to view it instantly instead of waiting for people to bother posting it on Pastebin

<comment><USER72> For the first person. For some subsequent people, it'll be faster because they can avoid discovering it's blocked.

<comment><USER71> Then there might also be more comments so it would take longer to find it, might as well just copy the link and paste it into a proxy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> Can two psychopaths fall in love with each other?

<comment><USER74> Yes!

<comment><USER73> Leopold and Loeb? How about Bonnie and Clyde? Probably both couples.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Are psychopaths ticklish?

</comment><comment><USER76> I think I've come in to the wrong forum. I thought this was HN.

<comment><USER76> Can't believe this story is at the top of the front page. Shame. Shame on you.

<comment><USER20> Because the inner workings of different human minds are not of interest to hackers.

Why shame?

<comment><USER77> Shame might be too hard, but I agree with OP. It's a general human interest piece that has little place in a dedicated technical news forum.

Mind you, I feel similarly about most NSA submissions and while I would very much like to have a dedicated mews aggregator \ Groklaw'esque blog-forum dedicated to the NSA\Snowden revelations, I don't try making HN into one.

<comment><USER76> Thanks for backing me up a little. I seem to have lost karma points for expressing my opinion also.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How Fighter Jets Lock on (and How the Targets Know) - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/how-fighter-jets-lock-on-and-how-the-targets-know-1644871272 <comment> a-k-h I always wondered how that works. Good article.</comment>


The Avengers should agree to be placed under UN supervision - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/diversions/21698458-avengers-should-agree-be-placed-under-un-supervision <comment><USER2> Spoilers ahead -

I was really surprised by Captain America's objections. He didn't even get into the details or give it a chance. And this was even after he was out in the field and saw a tragedy happen.

edit: had moar thoughts

I dare say that Captain America is the one with the ego problem, not Tony Stark.

And if Bucky ( the Winter Solder ) is an honorable man and worth Captain America's time and energy, why doesn't he agree to face justice? Especially when he sees the VIDEO of one of his crimes. He even says he's not worth all this trouble. Is he playing a victim now? Under the protection of the egotistical Captain America?

<comment><USER3> Why are you surprised that Captain America would be reluctant to place himself under governmental oversight considering that he just went through, you know, SHIELD having been revealed to have been controlled by HYDRA all along?</comment></comment>


Feds investigate why a Tesla crashed into a truck Friday, killing driver - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/03/feds-investigating-deadly-friday-tesla-crash-in-florida/ <comment><USER2> i can forgive the reporter for making a clickbait title, but atleast give the news some time to rest and get all the facts . from the brief info provided in the article only thing clear is that the driver was in the car when the accident occured and that some agency is investigating the "accident" and not the manufacturing units of the company , two very different things. minor aside here it would behove media organizations to disclose the short or long positions they have on any company they are reporting on.</comment>