Ask HN: Is There a Manual for Babies? - <AUTHOR> I'm going to become a father soon. A friend of mine told me he really wished he'd been given a manual so he could have prepared better for fatherhood.
I'm guessing if there was a book written for the scientific or engineering parent this would be the place to find it.
Any ideas? <comment><USER2> As someone whose parents were actual child psychologists, and a wife who's professionally certified in child care, I don't think the manual helps. We've seen all the manuals and even written a few, and they tend to be pseudoscience, even the ones written by academics. There's lots of data on what children do, what ages they do it, why they do it. But most of it is not helpful; they are simply manuals. A lot of it is not field-tested, just logs.

Things you should be aware of like Terrible Twos, which is the age where they want agency over the world and try all kinds of behavior to see what they can impact.

In the early stages, you should also be aware that sleeping is a skill. Many babies don't learn it properly. Many kids fall asleep because of coddling and such, and can't figure out how sleep without that routine. There's a lot of advice, about how to put your baby to sleep based on this principle. Ignore half of it and figure out what works for you.

There will be lots of crying and sleepless nights. Babies who sleep late are tired. They don't get enough sleep. Then they can't sleep because they're too tired to sleep. And it's a nasty cycle. Try not to bring your baby out at nights unless absolutely possible.

In general, what works for us is treating them as newbie humans. Instead of spanking or forcing them, try to convince them. Sometimes this means letting them get hurt. But do it in a harmless way, like letting them bite a raw onion when you told them not to, or touch a hot-but-not-scalding bowl of soup.

They will imitate what others do, especially their ages and their parents. Put them in good company. Every child is a different human; a big part of it is nature. So never compare your child with another. You'll see some babies with egos, some are kind-hearted, some are stubborn, some are selfish, some are violent.

The good manuals are probably those with instructions, and not so much those with psychology. It's a bit like diets in that sense (both the good and bad). Good luck and congratulations!

<comment><USER3> This is good reply. Can you shed some light on what apart from coddling can help a baby sleep? Is there a way to try and make the baby pick up that skill, like you've mentioned here?

> In the early stages, you should also be aware that sleeping is a skill. Many > babies don't learn it properly. Many kids fall asleep because of coddling > and such, and can't figure out how sleep without that routine.

<comment><USER4> Every kid is different so YMMV. In my experience (N=2) the biggest factors were:

* Full bellies (more milk!) * Dark rooms (blackout curtains) * white noise * Consistent routine (more relevant after 6-9 months)

For us the general idea was that we wanted to be able to put them down in the crib awake so they could learn to fall asleep on their own rather than always nursing/holding them until they feel asleep and then trying to put them down. I cannot stress enough that every kid (and parent) is different so your mileage may vary.

[https://www.preciouslittlesleep.com/what-you-need-to-know- ab...](https://www.preciouslittlesleep.com/what-you-need-to-know-about- sleeping-through-the-night-part-i/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't think there is a manual, but here are some tips I can think of off the top of my head.

Read Bringing Up Bébé: One American Mother Discovers the Wisdom of French Parenting. The chapter on sleep cycles is important.

Child proof your place now, you won't have time later.

Do not let the child sleep in your bed.

Always keep a pack of the next size up diapers on hand.

Kids cloths seem to run small. They also outgrow stuff super fast. Don't buy too much of one size.

Cribs all have to meet safety standards, so don't overspend.

You are only going to have time for one hobby if you are lucky, so make that choice now which one it will be.

Read to your child as much as you can.

<comment><USER6> Why not let the child sleep in your bed?

<comment><USER5> Once they check in, they will never leave. You want them to learn to be independent to sleep on their own in their own bed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Emily Oster's books and recently her newsletter. They're not for everyone but they are definitely for the type of person who asks for parenting advice on Hacker News :P

She's a professor of economics and her main shtick is that she evaluates the academic literature behind a lot of the big decisions facing new parents during pregnancy and early childhood. Personally the parts I found most useful are areas where people have extremely strong opinions about what parents should do while in reality the data is too weak to justify any strong views.

Her first book, Expecting Better, is mostly about pregnancy. Her second book, Cribsheet, is about early childhood (through pre-K).

She also started doing a newsletter recently that I've been enjoying. [https://emilyoster.substack.com/](https://emilyoster.substack.com/)

</comment><comment><USER7> Yes, there are manuals, but I think approaching a baby like you approach a toaster is the worst approach you can make.

Sure you will have to Google shit like how many bananas are ok for a toddler daily, and talk to nurses, doctors, other parents but don't treat your baby like the equivalent of your new company's kubernetes cluster (a horrible engineering problem to figure out).

See, all babies are different. This will be your baby and guess what, the baby is the manual, so read it. In the meantime relax and enjoy your current life one last time.

<comment><USER8> My parents. You have a kid. You figure out quickly that a lot of advice doesn't apply. Figure the kid out. Have another kid. The stuff you learned with the first doesn't apply.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The best manual is a proper set of expectations... readjust your reality accordingly:

* Plan on getting about 4 hours of sleep per night at first. Sleep where you can find it and avoid stimulants.

* Your female delivery counterpart (I don't know your relationship status) will suddenly realize this is her new life: locked between a child, obligations, and without a swimsuit model body. Depression and self-doubt will follow. You have to be a team player even without sufficient sleep.

* Infants require a lot of time constantly and are tiring. Think of this as having a full time job that pays money with great reassurance and respect. Then you come home to another job that costs money, is extremely tiring, and is filled with risk.

* Getting refridgerated breast milk the right temperature at feeding time is far more time consuming and challenging than you could possibly imagine.

* Your 2 door sports car is now a hinderence. Trade it in for anything with 4 doors and excellent suspension.

* Your 1 bedroom apartment won't work. If you already have a child your two bedroom apartment is a struggle.

* If you are an extrovert your days of late night social activies and parties are over. First of all you will be too tired for any of that nonsense. Secondly, it becomes such a low priority its simply not worth the effort.

* Prepare to enjoy life as a secluded homebody. Going out to movies and fancy dinners is a nightmare.

* Hopefully you have been saving money. Everything in life just become more expensive, except car insurance.

* Get a cat. Cat fur greatly contributes to dust and all the problems that with that which is great for strengthening the immune response of small children.

* Family will give you gifts. Figuring out where to put all that stuff can be a real challenge.

\---

There are a lot of benefits too:

* Children are great for self-reflecting upon your time management and money management skills.

* Children are a solid performance gauge of whether you are a narcissist or are humble.

* Having children completely recenters your perception of the world in a way you cannot understand otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER10> Father here. Mom and I agree on two things:

1\. Avoid the 'What to Expect' series at all costs. It's popular, but it's utter bullshit. We can name a half dozen parent friends who threw theirs away too.

2\. Read Penelope Leach's Your Baby and Child.

But these are just guides; there is no manual. Unlike technology, no two children are alike. You'll only get the hang of it through firsthand experience.

And: 'baby' is a mere blip on the developmental path--that brief stage of a few months is the 'easy', honeymoon part. Trust me: by the time you've gotten the hang of 'baby', they'll be a toddler. When you've learned to handle a toddler--they turn four and ohmygod. You don't have a 'baby'\--you have an ever-changing, ever-developing human.

<comment><USER11> >Avoid the 'What to Expect' series at all costs. It's popular, but it's utter bullshit.

I don't really agree with this for the first book. The main issue with the 0 - 12 month book is that it tries to cover a very wide range of things, many of which will not apply to your child. So you have to read it and just find what is useful for you. For example, we never knew that lots of babies get terrible gas in the 3rd(?) month and that's completely normal.

There's so much "normal" stuff that seems like something is seriously wrong (e.g. gas, witching hours) with your child. Reading about it just helps to know you're not failing as a parent.

I'd agree that the other books are not that useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> There is a lot of, mostly unreliable, third-party documentation, but _Caring for Your Baby and Young Child, Birth to Age 5_ for the American Academy of Pediatrics has seemed to be a pretty good value.

[https://shop.aap.org/caring-for-your-baby-and-young-child- pa...](https://shop.aap.org/caring-for-your-baby-and-young-child-paperback/)

Beyond that:

You and your co-parent need to watch out for your own and each other's physical and mental health. It's easy to lose track of.

Talk to your baby, as much as possible.

Everything will change when you least expect it. Be flexible.

</comment><comment><USER11> One book I wish I had known about was "Precious Little Sleep" by Alexis Dubief. You don't have to follow everything, but having some guide to your babies sleep needs and will be helpful.

Honestly, forget the manual. Get help with either taking care of the baby or with household stuff. Get family to come, pay somebody, whatever. If you aren't comfortable with paid help to take care of the baby, pay somebody to clean and cook. Having healthy home meals ready is going to save you a lot of misery.

Babies are actually pretty easy from a task perspective. Sleep, eat, poop, diaper changes, playtime, tummytime, etc. What takes the toll is how many times you have to do this stuff combined with sleep deprivation.

Get help and emotional support. That will do much more for you, your relationship with your partner, and your ability to be a parent than any manual can do.

Also a note on pediatricians. A lot of pediatricians are fairly easy going in that if the baby has no major symptoms (e.g. no fever, no vomiting) is gaining weight, there is nothing to worry about. This is actually a good way to look at things, but it's definitely hard not get frustrated with this easy-going approach when you have this little person in your arms and you're totally overwhelmed.

<comment><USER4> I second the recommendation for Precious Little Sleep. I bought and would recommend the book, but you can also get a lot of what you need from these blog post but the author.

[https://www.preciouslittlesleep.com/what-you-need-to-know- ab...](https://www.preciouslittlesleep.com/what-you-need-to-know-about- sleeping-through-the-night-part-i/)

That was enough for a while and I believe I didn't actually buy the book for at least several months. Then I bought it at 2am during a particularly rough sleep regression. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

My main caveat for sleep advice is that you need to take it all with a grain of salt because whether any particular strategy will work depends on the parents and kids temperaments, along with a variety of other factors. YMMV and don't let anybody else's success story make you feel bad. They're probably leaving out the worst parts, possibly because their brains have literally blocked out the memories of them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Not a lot more at can be said in here, but I'll just mention the most common mistake I find folks make about babies and sleep. Other folks have touched on it but I want to reiterate this.

Good sleep, makes for more good sleep when it comes to babies. If a baby sleeps well at night, they'll often go down for a nap really well.

Bad sleep, makes for less sleep and a cranky baby. If a baby goes to bed late, they'll often have trouble falling asleep / aren't likely to 'sleep in.'

You and I if we stay up late at night we can sleep in and recover that time. Babies generally do not work that way. Once they get behind on sleep they'll wake up bright and early the next day or even shockingly wake up in the middle of the night even though they're tired. ... won't be able to go back to sleep.

Skipping naps or staying up late are terrible ideas, the baby won't likely sleep later when you need them to.

Find a routine, that might involve singing, a bath, etc all before bed / nap time and stick with it.

Now having said that, that isn't a recipe for a great sleeping baby (that's more luck than anything IMO) but it will generally make things easier.

</comment><comment><USER14> Personally I found (observing the difference between my own experience and some of my friends) that ignorance can be bliss.

I didn't read the books, and muddled my way through. Sure there were some things I learnt slower (like the benefit of routine) but overall I had a lot less anxiety about milestones or stages or all that stuff. Stormy days??! yeah ok whatever.

My main advise (for the first year at least) would be to listen to all advise, then throw out pretty much any "plan" and live 100% in response mode. Respond to what's going on hour to hour, don't get hung up about sleeping in the middle of the day or having breakfast at 4am, just do what feels right at that moment.

Also, when your friends ask what they can get for the baby etc ... HelloFresh, Deliveroo, or come round to my house and do the laundry while I sleep. You will not be short of baby clothes, but you will be short of energy to do some basics stuff.

</comment><comment><USER15> Here are a few books that I found useful:

* What to Expect the First Year - It was pretty logical and scientific but don't think everything in it has references.

* Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst - Not really a book about babies but I got interested in human behaviour and this book helped me understand a lot of things that babies and adults do.

* The Happiest Toddler on the Block - Again I thought it was very scientific, good ideas on discipline. I think it introduced idea of using emotions to communicate with toddlers instead of logic. I still find myself using logical arguments with my 2.5 years old, hard habit to break.

* Brain Rules for Baby - Really enjoyed it. All suggestions in it seems to be backed by research. The main idea in this book is that one should provide their kids a happy, relaxed home. Stress and anxiety at young age can stun kids' brain development.

</comment><comment><USER16> @martingoodson - Congratulations. Imagine receiving an Ikea book shelf with missing parts and an instruction manual in Swedish. That's basically what parenting is. A very much "well shit, what do I do know" experience. You can't truly be prepared for your baby until their arrival and trust me, you won't need a manual or want one. Here's the good news - there's no one else better fit in this world to know what to do for your baby than you - and your partner.

There is, however - a manual for building your baby registry. I just launched it. [https://poppylist.com](https://poppylist.com).

It's not what you're asking for, but I can at least help simplify one area for you.

I'd wish you luck, but you won't need it.

My daughter just turned one in May - welcome to the best club on earth.

</comment><comment><USER17> Given that every human on this planet was once a baby, I've often thought that it's kind of weird that we don't have more _data_ about raising a child. Like, I know everyone's a unique snowflake blah blah blah, but we're not THAT different. If we were, we wouldn't have shared hobbies or like the same clothing or tolerate the same foods. Looking at babies, for instance. OK, your baby is crying. There's a checklist (somewhere) of why the baby might be crying. Maybe they're hungry, maybe they're tired, maybe they pooped their diaper, maybe they're too hot or too cold or have something stuck up their nose or don't like the smell of your cologne. But there's a finite list of possibilities, and surely -- SURELY! -- there's enough data out there to give you best practices for determining which of the things it is and what to do when you find out. Like maybe if they're crying because they're hungry, you just straight up feed them, or maybe science shows the best outcomes are when you let them cry it out for 30 minutes and THEN feed them.

I don't know. I'm not a baby scientist.

Long story short, there are potentially billions and billions of data points out there, and surely some sort of meta-analysis could surface some best practices for how to raise a child. It can't just be "reinvent the wheel" every generation. That's just bonkers to me.

Given all the other scientific advances we've made in the last few centuries, I sort of wonder why nobody has an IKEA-style guide to raising a child.

I say this all a bit tongue-in-cheek, since I'm not a parent, but as a person of science and a fan of data-driven decisions... The way Americans like me raise a child is basically "figure it out for yourself with a few anecdotes from your family and friends and maybe you read a bunch of books full of conflicting advice and don't worry at least if you're trying you're ahead of most people" just strikes me as... well... not very scientific or data-driven!

Anyway. Congratulations! I wish you the best of luck, and who knows?! Maybe you'll be the one to write The Book!

</comment><comment><USER18> Fortunately yes. Unfortunately, it's a cultural memory that the Modern West has lost because 1) we don't live in multi-generational homes and 2) we don't live in (truly) close community with other families throughout our lives

<comment><USER19> While I understand your point, I would like to point that scientific research has found out the best methods for a lot of things regarding raising babies. Advice from our elders (what you seems to refer as 'cultural memory') is often wrong. What worked for them may not be the best thing to do, they had n=1, science has n=millions. There is a huge problem that scientific findings regarding raising babies does not get transferred well enough (if at all) to the population.

<comment><USER18> I'm talking about cultural memory and community on large scales, where generation after generation is devoted to the thriving of its community and the people in it. I think the best way I can explain it is to recommend Wendell Berry's essay The Work of Local Culture. I'm not saying modern science has nothing to say, but I do believe that as insightful and beneficial as it is in this context, local community and culture would be even more-so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Hayne's manuals are always a traditional go-to: [https://haynes.com/en- gb/baby-manual-3rd-edition](https://haynes.com/en-gb/baby-manual-3rd-edition)

</comment><comment><USER21> I found this book to be extremely helpful. [https://www.amazon.com/Moms-Call- Basic-Baby-Months/dp/098541...](https://www.amazon.com/Moms-Call-Basic-Baby- Months/dp/0985411422)

There's a section on typical days that really helped us orient our days. We also found that by following this schedule our baby started sleeping from 9:00 pm - 5:00 am at around 7 weeks. And by 12 weeks the baby was sleeping from 7:30 - 6:30. Other friends have seen similar sleep patterns.

</comment><comment><USER22> Fist, congratulations. You should enjoy your last good sleeps before the birth.

I got one baby manual as a gift : [https://www.amazon.fr/Baby-Owners-Manual- Instructions-Troubl...](https://www.amazon.fr/Baby-Owners-Manual-Instructions- Trouble-Shooting/dp/B00BR9WV8C/)

It has some funny moments but it's only the basics. I don't think there is anything wrong with it, but your country may do things a bit differently.

</comment><comment><USER23> There are some books out there that cover the very little that we do know (I've read a bunch of them) but the big takeaway is that we don't know a lot. The reason is that you can't create great studies with babies.

The good news is that you don't need to "fix" or "maintain" a baby. They need their basic needs met, they need to feel safe and they need love. Do that for a year and then you get a toddler.

</comment><comment><USER24> Congratulations! Short answer ... kids do not want stuff nearly as much as they want to spend TIME with you.

The 'what to expect ... ' series is great techie style. Plain spoken. Explains limits on both sides...

They have one for before the baby.

And another for the first few years. Common problem, my child is age x months but has not started walking / talking.

Great for the calming the nerves

</comment><comment><USER25> I was impressed with the books given out by our government (Alberta, Canada) [https://www.healthyparentshealthychildren.ca/resources/print...](https://www.healthyparentshealthychildren.ca/resources/printables) Some of it is region specific, but still lots of useful info.

</comment><comment><USER26> That would be awesome but unfortunately there is no generally accepted standard. Approaches vary widely.

When I was expecting my first child, I reviewed all the parents I knew of, and picked the family that I thought was doing the best job, then interviewed them and wrote down notes and that became the plan.

</comment><comment><USER27> If it's crying it's not happy. Your job is to figure out what that is and fix it.

My four month old wanted me to hold her up at the door to the kitchen so she could watch mom cook dinner. She cried and cried and cried until I figured that out. Then she was silent. Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER28> Babies - owners manual

[https://www.amazon.co.uk/Babies-Haynes-Explains-Owners- Works...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Babies-Haynes-Explains-Owners- Workshop/dp/1785211021)

</comment><comment><USER3> May I recommend: Be Prepared - A Practical Handbook for New Dads by Gary Greenberg and Jeannie Hayden.

I've been casually reading this and it seems pretty good and covers a variety of topics.

</comment><comment><USER19> I try to follow a lot of "attachment parenting" theory. Read material on that.

I also did co-sleeping, which means I actually was able to sleep, but doctors in my country seem to be all against it since that's the current common practice. Read all of [https://cosleeping.nd.edu/](https://cosleeping.nd.edu/) .

My wife also read a lot on breastfeeding. There's a lot of science behind 'how to successfully breastfeed' and there's a huge chance all the advice your elders are going to give you is completely wrong. Read what modern science has to tell you about breastfeeding, ignore grandmas as much as possible! This stuff should be taught in schools.

The tl;dr of my manual would be like something:

\- be in contact with the baby (preferably in mom's or dad's hands) as much as possible

\- when they cry, give the breast first, ask questions later

Edit: learn that modern society's expectations that both parents work _really_ sucks when there's a baby in the way. Mom going back to work when baby is 4-6m is not good for the baby. If you can financially afford to not to it, you should. If you can have one of the grandmas do the babysitting is alleviates the problem a little.

</comment><comment><USER29> the best advice that will have the most effect, is not doing it alone.

</comment><comment><USER30> Nice

</comment><comment><USER31> This was a fun read. We still joke about "keeping the unit fed/clean", and he's twelve now.

[https://www.amazon.com/Baby-Owners-Manual-Instructions- Troub...](https://www.amazon.com/Baby-Owners-Manual-Instructions-Trouble- Shooting/dp/1594745978)

Is it the best? No, but it's not just a joke either. Lots of simple things, covered in a lighthearted 'like a car manual' kind of way.

With a newborn, sleep is your challenge. We discovered my wife needs 8 hours, but can be interrupted. I need 5 and CANNOT be interrupted. So I handled things until 12:30am and then Mom took over until 6-ish.

And on that note, during the first few months, if one getting out of bed wakes the other, consider the couch or a guest bed. You do not want to let notions about marital sleeping together turn into being sleep-deprived and hostile toward each other.

If breastfeeding doesn't 'take' right away, get on the phone and have a lactation aid come help. Every kid/nipple situation is different. Trying to figure it out on your own, while sleep deprived (see above) is maddeningly difficult. Hire a guide to get it sorted.

Bear in mind, some kids are slow feeders, so that 4-hour feeding interval might be closer to 3 hours.

As the kid gets older I found it's best to not ask the open-ended "what do you want to do?" Because that leads to tears when the impossible can't happen. Rather have 3-4 plans YOU want to see happen and present it like THEY get to choose. You help them learn agency without setting the situation up for failure.

And it's not until they're about 2.5 years old that they won't accidentally kill themselves. It's up to you to make sure they don't walk into traffic/off ledges, eat/drink something bad, pull furniture/stove pots over on themselves, etc. But at about 2.5 they start to realize they've got some skin in the game and start exercising a little care. I emphasize START, you're still on duty to keep an eye on them.

I was fortunate to be able to handle being Dad at home. It was fascinating witnessing the bias. As in, when we were out and about, people (often women) assuming that it was just a single "Day out with Dad"... oh no, dearie, EVERYDAY was Dad day. And during kiddie gym/exercise/music classes it wasn't until they realized I clearly knew more about strollers/diapers/formula than they did that mothers started to come around.

Pro-tip, babies don't understand words. They do understand emotions. It seems obvious, but yelling at them or telling them not to do something in a drawn- out sentences is as useless as yelling at the goldfish.

Help them, guide them, let them see you as someone they can trust and that loves them. Don't set them up to see you as angry/stressed/disinterested.

<comment><USER32> I remember the bias; in my case I was never sure whether it was because I was the only father at the local playgrounds, or whether it was because I was the only foreigner there.

But I will say that while children don't understand words (so much at the start) they really do pick up on tone of voice, and emotion. Sometimes there's an instinct urge to shout "Nooooo!!!! Stop!!! Don't do that!!" when a baby/toddler starts doing something dangerous. It'll happen when you least expect it - don't beat yourself up, and try to remember to speak calmly and clearly.</comment></comment>


Show HN: In Mint.com, click on links in Footer under "Your Money" - <AUTHOR>

All the links redirect to the main homepage. Is this some SEO trick? <comment><USER2> "Show HN" should be for showing us something you have made. Please retitle.</comment>


Google Goggles - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/mobile/goggles/ <comment><USER2> This is a great example of how Google could out-do the iPhone. The more non- trivial mobile applications have some processing that happen in the cloud. If Android phones could translate voice in real-time during a phone call and the iPhone could not, which phone would you consider buying?

Realistically though Google wants their services and applications on _all_ platforms; now if only the App store would approve these...

<comment><USER3> Yeah but to me the quality of any manufacturer then Apple falls short. I've owned Windows Mobile, Andriod (HTC Hero) and now iPhone. iPhone for me is superior.

Google i think needs to make their own device to match the quality/stability of the iPhone!

<comment><USER4> _Yeah but to me the quality of any manufacturer then Apple falls short._

If it had been written "qualaty" then it would've been a delicious Dilbert reference. (For more than one reason -- left as exercise, hint included.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One step closer to photographing a sign in a foreign country and doing OCR followed by Google Translate, maybe followed by overlaying the translated text back on the sign.

I think this would be a killer feature. I've never had much of a positive response when posting it as an idea previously - is it the case that if it really would be a killer feature, people would be all over the idea as well as the implementation, or is it possible to be a little supported idea that turns into a killer feature?

(Edit: Or maybe it's just more a European thing where several foreign languages are a few hours drive in any direction?)

<comment><USER6> One thought I had is that there really aren't enough different signs.

In most foreign countries, I've been able to recognize signs for bathrooms and such, and most place names I can memorize (even if I can't read the language I can still think "okay, I want to go to the one with the squiggly second character").

I actually think this has high "cool factor", but have difficulty really coming up with uses. I think restaurant menus (as mentioned by my sibling comment) is probably the only real use, and even then knowing the name of the dish doesn't guarantee an item I'm able to eat.

Also, when I go abroad, I am definitely not enabling data roaming. In some countries, buying a prepaid SIM requires lots of documentation which is difficult to do if wandering around doing tourist-y things, etc.

(Sorry, I do think the idea is cool, I'm just trying to come up with reasons why its not the neatest thing since sliced bread)

<comment><USER7> > Also, when I go abroad, I am definitely not enabling data roaming.

I think this is an important point, which is freqently forgotten. So many apps that would be useful in a foreign country are useless because they require internet access. When I went to Bulgaria last year I would have loved to have a translator app for my iphone, but every single one available required internet access, which there's no way I'm paying for at £3/MB!

<comment><USER8> If you are with a provider that is everywhere anyway, like Vodafone or T-mobile, the idea of roaming is very obviously just about gouging money. It's not as if T-mobile has to pay a third party by the Mb to ship data from Germany to the UK, they own all the infrastructure anyway!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Previous work in the domain by others:

Nokia: [http://digital.venturebeat.com/2008/04/11/nokia-develops- nav...](http://digital.venturebeat.com/2008/04/11/nokia-develops-navigating- system-based-on-image-recognition-landmarks/) (they use the golden gate as their example too) Also: <http://www.mobvis.org/publications/MMT2007_Paletta.pdf>, [http://mirw09.offis.de/paper/What%20is%20That%20-%20Object%2...](http://mirw09.offis.de/paper/What%20is%20That%20-%20Object%20Recognition%20from%20Natural%20Features%20on%20a%20Mobile%20Phone.pdf)

'World browser': <http://www.wikitude.org/>

Using GPS together with the compass to get interesting results: 2006, Japan: <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/technology/28locate.html> and now there are iPhone applications [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2uH- jrsSxs&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2uH- jrsSxs&feature=player_embedded)

</comment><comment><USER10> For those of us who may have done a couple searches on the Market wondering why this isn't showing up: google goggles requires Android version 1.6.

<comment><USER11> Which Android products with Market don't have 1.6 yet?

<comment><USER12> At least some of the HTC phones with "Sense" UI, like the Verizon Droid Eris, are still shipping with Android 1.5.

<comment><USER10> The Sprint HTC Hero which launched two months ago as well as T-Mobile's MyTouch both shipped with 1.5; the T-Mobile G1 can be upgraded to 1.5.

<comment><USER13> myTouches should be on 1.6 already. T-Mobile was pushing the update in October (November?).

<comment><USER14> Confirmed on my MyTouch (worst phone name evar - though very happy with the beast).

App works fantastic in practice in my tests, though choked on one case tonight. Had kids in car, drove by movie theater -- no showtimes/reader board visible outside (theater is in the mall).

Tried to get showtimes by 'reading' AMC theater logo on side of building ("daddy, why are you taking a picture of that building?"). No go. Google maps and gps to the rescue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Augmented reality starts becoming more than just a pipe dream. Expect a lot more of this.

P.S. Just went to ARdevcamp at Hacker Dojo last Saturday- it was a really exciting event. There were a lot more people than I expected, and lots of interesting discussion about this emerging space.

</comment><comment><USER16> First there was the internet of Documents (www).

Then there was the internet of People (social networks).

And the internet of Places (maps, LBS, still happening).

Soon we will see the internet of _Objects_ and something like Google Goggles will be the key driver.

Documents -> People -> Places -> Objects. What's next?

<comment><USER17> Perhaps not Google. Maybe Google and Facebook.

Robert Scoble has an interesting perspective on the ambitions of Facebook.

"Phase 1. Harvard only.

Phase 2. Harvard+Colleges only.

Phase 3. Harvard+Colleges+Geeks only.

Phase 4. All those above+All People (in the social graph).

Phase 5. All those above+People and businesses in the social graph.

Phase 6. All those above+People, businesses, and well-known objects in the social graph.

Phase 7. All people, businesses, objects in the social graph."

[http://scobleizer.com/2009/03/21/why-facebook-has-never- list...](http://scobleizer.com/2009/03/21/why-facebook-has-never-listened-and- why-it-definitely-wont-start-now/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Can anyone who has an Android phone who has tried this out for a few hours/days report on how well this works in practice? This looks pretty fantastic, especially if it can also read stuff like QR codes, etc.

<comment><USER19> This works really well. Picked out the KU logo and Swingline staplers perfectly. Choked on a big box o Jolly Ranchers. I'll prolly keep futzing with this for the rest of the day now.

<comment><USER19> Took a picture of a Halflife 2 poster I have in my office ([http://store.valvesoftware.com/productpages/prints/product_H...](http://store.valvesoftware.com/productpages/prints/product_HL2DogvStriderPoster.html)) - not only did it return a strider battle youtube but also a wiki article on it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Damn you for making me want an Android-based phone, Google! First free turn- by-turn navigation, now this. Argh. Once AT&T gets a good Android phone, I'm switching.

</comment><comment><USER21> Just tried it on my G1; This works _really_ well.

</comment><comment><USER22> The number of mashups I would like to do...

Desperately awaiting an API.

</comment><comment><USER23> there's some scary future uses for this.

getting someone's number at a bar will be so much easier.

<comment><USER24> cell phone cams + face recognition + facebook ==> super creepy

EDIT: since people post so many pics of themselves on facebook under all sorts of lighting conditions and angles, that might actually make face recognition somewhat feasible from a cell phone cam. of course, efficiently searching thru a corpus of millions of faces (each taken at several different angles) is an enormous technical challenge. i envision some app like Shazam being developed to recognize faces rather than songs ...

<comment><USER25> I've done this kind of research 4 years ago based on general Internet image. That was a failure, but because of the rising of Facebook, it might work again. Someone already work on this for sometime: face.com.

<comment><USER26> Ive talked with one of the guys from face.com . They have put a lot of effort into making their system very fast and scalable.

He told me that they built it from scratch and did not use OpenCV. Some parts were even written in assembly.

Im pretty sure that this is the only web application that I use that has had major parts of it written in assembly.

<comment><USER25> I agree that for some specific tasks OpenCV is not particularly useful (I have to write detector and trainer from scratch even there is opencv haartraining. The OpenCV crowd are most interested in applying it to real-time video processing and put little effort on Internet scale problem).

But for assembly optimization it is really not as useful as it used to be. Scalability is more about how to get sub-linear time complexity and efficient communication pattern. Nowadays c compiler can get fairly good assembly code and for low level optimization, human cannot compete with machine (how many people knows the particular cache line alignment trick on old core i7?). Multimedia instructions (SSE/MMX/3D Now) are useful but most of them can be done by function call instead of hand-crafted assembly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Google's relentless focus on speed within search is going to play perfectly in the realm of augmented reality.

I anticipate a video version of this soon.

<comment><USER28> Doesn't the "Places" feature count as video?

<http://www.google.com/mobile/goggles/#place>

<comment><USER27> Yes.

But as per the other response here, I'm not sure it's using the video so much as the location and orientation to deliver results.

I'd like to see a version, like the still-photos, whereby the search engine is translating in real time as new objects enter the frame.

While I'm at it, I'd like it to perform these tasks with a T-800-style HUD.

Droid indeed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm eagerly awaiting an AR app for language learning. See the native labels for objects like a VH-1 Popup video.

</comment><comment><USER29> It works surprisingly well! It also includes an option to rate the results at the bottom of the search results.

</comment><comment><USER30> reminds me of a much more practical version of some of the cool bits from the "sixth sense" interface that was presented at TED / all over the news awhile ago - <http://www.pranavmistry.com/projects/sixthsense/> . There, their prototype was also able to "look at" an object and return information about it immediately (e.g. you hold up a book in front of the camera, a processor recognizes it and pulls some relevant information, and the mini projector next to the camera projects the information back onto the book cover)

</comment><comment><USER26> Where does the info for the landmark recognition feature come from? Is it from street view?

I dont see how the landmark recognition feature could be useful. If you have a camera + 3g on your phone, you have a GPS.

<comment><USER12> The latest iPod Touch has a video camera but no GPS. The same is true of various other non-phone handheld tablets. (Though landmark recognition might not be useful on those, since apparently it actually uses the GPS and compass as input...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Reminds me of the first time I saw TinEye. Mobile is sweet, though.

</comment><comment><USER9> Very cool. I am interested in learning where they got their data from, and how they trained their image recognition algorithms.

<comment><USER32> <http://images.google.com/imagelabeler/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Oh, wow. With Google's backing, an AR future suddenly doesn't seem very far off at all.

</comment><comment><USER34> Very cool. It seems to work on the first few things I tried with my droid.

</comment><comment><USER35> why aren't they enabling this for PCs/Netbooks & webcams?

<comment><USER36> Speculation: Because those aren't as mobile as a phone, and because Android needs something to differentiate itself from the iPhone. First seamless turn by turn directions, now this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> there's an Easter egg in the yelp iphone app that does something similar.

</comment><comment><USER38> impressive. Yet another reason to get droid. I wonder if verizon will get google to make these tools exclusively for the droid only.

<comment><USER15> It's already on the market available for phones other than Verizon's droid (tested on T-Mobile / G1).</comment></comment>


Digital clock in conways game of life 2017 (yt video) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NDAZ5g4EuU <comment><AUTHOR> and the original stack-exchange thread: [https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/88783/build- a-d...](https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/88783/build-a-digital- clock-in-conways-game-of-life)</comment>


A free intro to economics - <AUTHOR> http://bluntobject.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/a-free-intro-to-economics/ <comment><USER2> Supply and demand will equalize unless interfered with by force/threat of force.

Never bite the invisible hand that leads you.</comment>


Poland's Crooked Forest - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/science/crooked-forest-poland-theories.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront <comment><USER4> if that was supposed to be a demonstration of samsung's 360 degree cameras and video, i'm unimpressed. the image quality was terrible, and the video paused and couldn't be resumed before i could actually see the crooked forest - <USER2> just lies somewhere down that road i guess.

luckily, google image search has got me covered. if anybody else is curious and similarly frustrated by the format provided, here's what it looks like:

[http://cdn.earthporm.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/06/crooked-...](http://cdn.earthporm.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/06/crooked-forest-12.jpg)

<comment><USER5> The problem seems to be not the hardware but the huge amounts of pixels that require to be captured. 360 degree cameras already capture something comparable to 4k, but it's not enough.

<comment><USER6> Even low end cameras capture in the order of 10 megapixels nowadays, which is around the res of 4k screens. It shouldn't be much of a stretch to go to 20 or 30 megapixels for this sort of thing (yes, optics and sensor size are also very relevant)

<comment><USER5> The NYT article shows a 360 video and not static images (note the movement of the tree branches).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Im sure i seen this on reddit a few years ago and someone said that they used to pre-curve wood for making cart wheels. Dont know if it sounds true - <USER3> sounds plausible

<comment><USER8> From the article:

> The prevailing hypothesis is that farmers manipulated the trees in the 1930s > to use their bent wood for furniture or ship building, but that the war > prevented them from following through. [...]

> "Because there are so many crooked trees in this stand, I would proceed with > caution concluding it being human-caused, even though that is a definite > possibility" wrote Dr. Remphrey in an email.

<comment><USER7> fair enough - the article site didnt work that well on my phone

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> We've got a fair amount of these around my parent's home south of Denver. Growing up we were told that they were Indian trail markers. I figured that given how young the trees were it was probably just a parasite.</comment>


The Cubicle You Call Hell Was Designed to Set You Free - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/2014/04/how-offices-accidentally-became-hellish-cubicle-farms/ <comment><USER3> "call hell"??? LOL... no, I'd pay good money for a good old-fashioned cubicle right now. Compared to "optimized for spreading of viruses, transmission of noise, and interruption of attention" model we all know and hate today - <USER2> "Open Plan" \- I'd take a cubicle and love it like it was the last bottle of cold water in Hell.

</comment><comment><USER4> I recalled cubicles quite fondly when I had one of those godawful open plan office jobs. A good quality, reasonably planned cubicle farm can actually be pretty pleasant, at least as long as your neighbors aren't constantly on the phone.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think the primary problem is that the people who choose the office space are more extroverted than the folks inhabiting it. Or it could be money and control.</comment>


How Should Earth Respond When Aliens Say Hello? - <AUTHOR> http://www.space.com/8120-earth-respond-aliens.html

<comment><USER2> Kinda thin article.

My answer: I would assume that any message we receive from aliens comes with a primer. If it doesn't how then could we read it an know it's a message? The next obvious step is reading, understanding, then extrapolating from the message. Where they're from, who they are, how their message came to us. Like in Carl Sagan's "Contact" the message might come to us from a way station and not the actual source of the aliens themselves. The message might me an invitation, a warning, a plea, or simple salutation. Or it might be something in the middle. They are alien. And we do have trouble understanding humans born only 500 years previous.

How should we respond? Hopefully in the same way that message arrived, that seems obvious. What should we respond with? Something with similar content most likely. Something along the lines of this "Alien" response hoax to the Arecibo message: [http://rationalblogs.org/rationalwiki/wp- content/uploads/sit...](http://rationalblogs.org/rationalwiki/wp- content/uploads/sites/2/2013/04/Arecibo-vs-Chilbolton-300x400.png)

</comment><comment><USER3> "Very happy to hear from you. Let's hang out."</comment>


Ask YC: Launching gutmeet.com, need Critics. Thx in advance - <AUTHOR>

hi,
gutmeet.com is my weekend project and can anyone tell me what do you think?
I understand that there are similar services out there but I am trying to make one that I personally would actually use, simple and clean. My objective is to create a one page form that lets me coordinate everything simple enough even my mom can use it for family gathering.
<a href="http://gutmeet.com">gutmeet.com</a>
I'd like to seek critics on: is it complicated? or too simple? not helpful at all?
 why you don't find it interesting?
 what is not right? What else would be nice to have and make you come back etc? or I have just wasted my weekend?
I am seeking critics from web savvy users as well as grandmas. It doesn't hurt me if you find it 100% useless as it is just something I want myself.
Thanks for the time. <comment><USER2> You are attacking a good problem - organizing events. However, right now I'm hung up on the name - I can't picture someone recomending 'gutmeet' to their friends. It makes me think of the inside of a butcher shop.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. My first thought was "is this a meetup site for 30+ year old looking to extend their already robust beer gut?"

<comment><AUTHOR> hee. I was thinking of gut feeling and meeting people spontaneously. and Gut actually means GOOD in German. Just a bit bkgrnd information.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think it's a nice, useful app. This could be a really cool facebook app as facebook's event planning doesn't allow for gathering individual's preferences. I'd use it on facebook, to be honest.

I really like how you convey the purpose of your site by showing users the steps, and the steps you outline makes me understand the value of your service. My only question is about how the responses are stored, as there isn't any sort of log in screen, unless it generates a unique url (I haven't created a gutmeet). The site could be redesigned in a much more modern and fresh look. Please get rid of that font for the logo :P. Maybe a better name could serve well. Gutmeet makes me think of someone eating a chunk of my intestines.

Congrats, though. Really consider a facebook app. I think something like your service, with more features, can turn into a full fledged event planning network that supplements the crap facebook provides.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the advice. Actually I have done other facebook apps that I thought are useful. But I realize that people on facebook aren't looking for serious things at all. They are generous on throwing cakes to each other, but not for any real interaction that you would do real life.

I would give it a thought since it won't be too difficult to do it in facebook.

regarding the response, yes you do have a unique URL that you can share with others. I have only make email works since it is out of my scope (my habit) to communicate with others via other channels.

again. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The front page you have now should be the help page. I think the front page ought to be just two big loud buttons: create a meeting or find a meeting (and small text "click here to learn how to use gutmeet").

<comment><USER6> I completely agree. The front page is too busy, with too much "stuff" in the images. Instead of having images of the 3 step creation, just put the three steps right there. I think that would make all the difference in the world.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good idea. I just did it over the weekend and wasn't ready (no idea) how to make a proper front page. I will work on the front page.

I intended to deliver enough information for user to grab the idea in 3 seconds. But I guess it isn't a good idea after all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is also <http://www.doodle.ch/>.

For a weekend, it's a nice result. :)

</comment><comment><USER8> Take a look at <http://www.coordinatr.com> \- they have something similar.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree, there are others as well. One of my goal is to have no log in for anyone. Personally I think that logging in to use something is a big turn off to me.

Is there anything you'd like to see in such services? such as "um... ok now. I need to do this next, and it is not here" or "after organzing something, this is what I move forward with it." etc

I tried to add something easy, but everytime I try to attack one particular problem, it makes the whole thing complex, which is not what I intend to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> oohh.. some design issues. Awful font for logo, please don't use that. The font you used for your buttons are also ridiculous.

Stick to the basics, helvetica or arial.. they'll carry you a long way in terms of making your app look simple and unobtrusive.

</comment><comment><USER10> Accidentally went to gutmeat.com at first. Not bad. I thought the screenshots were live and broken at first. Need some sort of obvious wrapper/fade around them. Where is the list of events for other people to read?

</comment><comment><USER11> Very cool site; the type of thing that I do all the time and never considered could be automated.

The design of the site could be improved by making it less wide. Not all users run their apps fullscreen.</comment>


Cofounder Google Doc-inspired app - in 24 hours  - <AUTHOR>

Inspired by the Cofounder Google Doc's appeal (and the obvious need for a collaborative app), we coded up http://findmycofounder.com/ (based on feature suggestions in the comment threads), and launched it 24 hours later. <comment><USER2> looks great .. how can i create a new account?

<comment><AUTHOR> Just click the "Add my cofounder wish list" link in the home page. We're uploading the contents of the Google doc at the moment. Let me know if you encounter any errors.</comment></comment>


Chat app fined for plaintext passwords under GDPR - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/23/knuddels_fined_for_plain_text_passwords/ <comment><USER2> > The watchdog also wanted to avoid bankrupting the company. "The overall > financial burden on the company was taken into account in addition to other > circumstances," the authority noted.

Anyone bashing the GDPR for being too hostile towards startups and smaller businesses should read this. Looks like the fine was almost a bit too low in this case...

<comment><USER3> On the other hand, they could have bankrupted them if they wanted to. Do we really want the government to have that much say in whether businesses live or die?

<comment><USER4> > Do we really want the government to have that much say in whether businesses > live or die?

The company broke the law in a way that could have potentially harmed* individuals (passwords are critical secrets, many users do not have more than one, and so could lose their entire identity and maybe several years worth of funds. Sure, you can say that is the fault of the user, but there is the assumption of security here that was given by the company and not fulfilled).

If you rent a deposit box at a bank, with the assumption of safety, and it turns out they leave all the doors unlocked, don't hire guards, and someone came in and stole everyone's things and took them to the market, then closure of the bank is absolutely deserved.

Conversely, if a prison gives the assumption of security, but doesn't hire guards, or bother locking cells, and all the inmates walk out and some people are killed, does the prison deserve to go bankrupt?

These examples are exaggerated, yes, but roughly similar in circumstance. Hopefully enough to show that, yes, there are circumstances in which we want the government to have that hold over companies.

Now, do we want governments to have restraint? Sure. But it seems clear to me that they very openly are acting in restraint in this case. 20k EUR is a pittance to what was potentially lost by the people involved in the breach.

* - (Indeed, in America and a few other countries with weak to non-existent social welfare nets, loss of identity and money is likely to lead to homelessness and eventual death for the person, if they do not have family to rely on).

<comment><USER5> > ...passwords are critical secrets, many users do not have more than one, and > so could lose their entire identity and maybe several years worth of funds. > Sure, you can say that is the fault of the user, but there is the assumption > of security here that was given by the company and not fulfilled...

I have so little sympathy for this position that despite generally having been pro-GDPR I no longer can support it if it is going to be used to encourage users to do something fundamentally stupid :/. The reality is that if we are going to make users think using one password is somehow ok then we need to be using authentication protocols that don't involve sending that password to a server in the first place: this is 2018, and challenge response takes like an hour to implement; the idea that sending a critical password to someone in the hope that they immediately hash it and store it is something that is somehow protected is insane.

<comment><USER6> I have little sympathy for the position that users just need to be not stupid and do things differently like they have been told to do for the last 20 years and yet have never done.

<comment><USER5> ...but what they are doing will never actually be secure no matter how hard we all cover our ears and scream into the void so we don't hear it when they keep getting screwed over and over again. We can't actually make that secure no matter how many passwords we hash, we can only attempt to mitigate some fraction of the eventual carnage.

What we need to be doing is spending our time either on a _massive_ education campaign or on technological solutions (like challenge response passwords, which HTTP never added even while every other old protocol was carefully adapting to get this right), not _entrenching_ the position that users should be allowed to do the thing that will never ever ever be secure by putting up laws that somehow make it look sane.

The point here isn't "shame on the users": the point here is "shame on developers and lawmakers for working _against_ users by encouraging them to do this horribly insecure thing rather than doing something sane". Seriously: how about we instead make a law (with a GDRP-like lead up of multiple years to "get ready for it") which says that "handling passwords at all isn't legal, even in transit (whether on a third-party SSL termination service or on your own servers)", and lets see how many _mere hours_ it suddenly takes the Chrome/Firefox teams to come up with a real solution to this problem?

<comment><USER7> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18380865#18381842](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18380865#18381842)

Passwords will never die. also by outlawing them either you force everyone to re-register to every site they want to visit or give all the power to single- sign-on services like facebook and google.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> They should have been fined more than a measly €20k in my opnion. As a developer I'm deeply ashamed that people are still storing user passwords in plain text. There is no reason behind this behaviour what so ever, other than pure laziness ...

<comment><USER9> When the breach was announced, they revealed that they did not store the passwords themselves in plain text, but had a second store that did, so they could prevent users from posting their passwords in chats. [0]

Still stupid, but at least the had good intentions, just bad execution.

[0] [https://www.golem.de/news/datenleck-warum-knuddels-seine- pas...](https://www.golem.de/news/datenleck-warum-knuddels-seine-passwoerter- im-klartext-speicherte-1809-136483.html) (in german)

<comment><USER10> Huh, that's actually... a decent-sounding intention.

 _Is_ there any way to do that in a secure manner? Because a hash says nothing about the length of a password (and you certainly don't want to store the length, which would make the attack space much smaller)... so if passwords are anywhere, say, from 8-64 characters, then for each chat message you'd need to hash every possible consecutive string of characters for every possible window size separately, which if the hash is even remotely computationally intensive could possibly turn into too much -- especially if being done on the server instead of the client (in order not to expose the hash and salt).

Is this just something it's not possible to protect against?

<comment><USER11> Easiest way is to do it on the client. The client has the plaintext password anyway.

<comment><USER10> Good point.

But is _storing_ a plaintext password, even on the client, good practice? E.g. in a browser that uses a cookie with something like a session ID to make sure you're logged-in... is storing a plaintext password in localStorage considered a valid security practice? I would have assumed not, although it's certainly not close to as bad as storing it on the server...

<comment><USER12> if you store plaintext password on the client, you'd be one XSS attack away from potentially having a lot of passwords stolen - best practice is to have password in plaintext for a little as possible (there's some research on not transmitting the password at all but I don't think there's anything widely accepted like bcrypt is for password hashing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero- knowledge_password_proof](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero- knowledge_password_proof))

<comment><USER13> You are already one xss attack away from having your session stolen or having your credentials stolen or any number of other bad things. Passwords on the client are fine.

<comment><USER14> Unless the user uses the same password for other things, which is extremely common.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> previously [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18510203](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18510203)

</comment><comment><USER16> Even though the fine is low, at least this stuff is starting to get some attention and offenders are getting fined.

</comment><comment><USER17> The parts of gdpr that are fit-for purpose are the "non-regulator-ish" parts. The laws which basically establish what is ilegal and what carries liability.

The (most visible) part that isn't fit for purpose are all the things which gdpr solves by referring to a pseudo-contract between customer and website... permissions.

The premise, that a user/reader of a website has a contractual relationship with the website... this is madness. An average user's permissions on Google or BBC does not represent their privacy preferences. They don't understand the implications and expecting them to is silly.

That whole part of the legislation is doomed to (a) fail to benefit users and (b) cause freedom problems. Freedom as in free market and also freedom as in freedom and open platform.

It could) should be replaced with new rules governing online advertising platforms. Most privacy issues gdpr addresses begin here anyway.

<comment><USER18> I used to think like you until I heard my mother talk about the data her gardeners' association collected on her and which they now had to explicitly ask for due to the GDPR. The gardens are owned by the association and leased to association members, while house, trees and other objects are property of the member. So the association has an interest to ensure that there's insurance in case e.g. of a fire, and my mother agreed. However, she did not want to reveal private details such as the value the house was insured for, and refused, which GDPR requires to be possible for all data that is not absolutely required. Many other gardeners reacted the same way. In the end the association settled for looking at proof that an insurance contract exists without recording additional details.

Note that no online advertising platforms were involved, the data subjects were not exactly technically literate (most are retirees) and GDPR helped them greatly to protect their privacy.

The nice thing about GDPR is that all non-essential data collection needs to be opt-in, so if someone doesn't understand the implications of a choice presented to them, they can simply refuse to agree without negative consequences. How many people accidentally opt-in to being tracked for advertising when they have to individually allow each advertiser to do so?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wonder, though, whether this could also apply to email addresses or usernames themselves. They are, after all, personally identifying information too.

<comment><AUTHOR> If you want to email someone, you need their email address. There is no way around this. And yes, that means that the business needs to store email addresses securely so that hackers can't harvest their database of customer email addresses and spam them. This is good.

Usernames can be whatever the user likes, unless there is a good reason for them to give their actual name. In which case, there is a good reason for them to give their actual name. And then the business has a responsibility to store the user's actual name securely, etc. This is good.

There is _no_ good reason for anyone to store passwords in plain text. Fining people who do this is good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> "And if you forget your 2FA hint, we can show you your password to jog your memory..."

</comment><comment><USER21> Obligatory [http://plaintextoffenders.com/](http://plaintextoffenders.com/) They collected 5000 domains already.

</comment><comment><USER22> but where is that fine goes ?

</comment><comment><USER23> What, no 20Mi fine? No tar and feathering?</comment>


How Academia and Publishing are Destroying Scientific Innovation - <AUTHOR> http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-academia-and-publishing-are-destroying-scientific-innovation-a-conversation-with-sydney-brenner/ <comment><USER2> "But today there is no way to do this without money. That's the difficulty. In order to do science you have to have it supported. The supporters now, the bureaucrats of science, do not wish to take any risks. So in order to get it supported, they want to know from the start that it will work. This means you have to have preliminary information, which means that you are bound to follow the straight and narrow."

It's getting even worse, at least in Canada, where not only is the above true, but another pattern is emerging, namely that the government is "intervening" in the topics that get funded, by directing more funds to projects that have an immediate (or even a perceived immediate) impact on commercial activity, and/or topics of interest to the government (e.g. alberta oil sands)... and a concomitant decrease in funding to "open competitions".

<comment><USER3> Although it has its own set of problems (some pretty large), this is one somewhat nice aspect of the EU scientific funding system. It has ulterior motives, but many of them are "meta" motives rather than specific ones like oil-sands, because it's not one national government setting the priority. Instead there are meta-motives like "improve European research/educational integration". That's implemented by requiring that EU-level funding only go to multi-country projects with partners from >= 3 countries represented (single- country or two-country projects are supposed to be funded at the national level). That adds coordination difficulties since every EU project is a big multinational management problem, but it's at least a political criterion that's mostly orthogonal to the actual research. And when they do pick actual topics, because of the need to compromise between so many governments they tend to be very vague, like "data & 21st-century society", which you can fit a lot of things under.

I do recall seeing a study that suggested that just taking the total pot of money and dividing it by the number of researchers would be at least as good and maybe better, though. Even if the lack of competition leads to less hard work and more money being spent on questionable things, there is a _huge_ overhead removed: the entire infrastructure of people writing 100-page documents, other people reviewing those documents, people flying to Brussels (or D.C. or Ottawa) to make funding decisions, support staff at universities reviewing documents, etc., etc.

<comment><USER4> The odd thing about your comment is that in my experience science in Europe is a MORE feudal system than in the us, with hierarchies of professorships and less independence for most researchers.

It's possible that this is a cultural thing writ large, but how exactly do you get a committee to do anything but reward the 'haves' at the expense of the 'have not's?

<comment><USER3> That's one area that _really_ , really varies, and is completely unstandardized across Europe (while the funding mechanisms and degrees are becoming more standardized, which is a tricky divergence). Germany has more of a traditional model where a Professor has a capital P, is not a social peer of the lower-down people, and there is no clear route to becoming that person. But once you are, there is a large degree of research freedom and some guaranteed funding. Sweden has the diametric opposite, where a lecturer with a masters degree who's been teaching at the same place for a few years basically becomes permanent faculty with tenure, without having to either do a PhD or go through a tenure application (and anyone _with_ a PhD is more or less equally at the top tier). Denmark isn't quite as flat on the teaching side, but is flatter on the faculty vs. PhD student side, with PhD students considered more or less faculty, paid much better salaries than most PhD students (€40-45k), and guaranteed funding (by law) for their entire PhD before they're admitted. Italy is more feudal, with "barons" controlling the positions in some departments (apparently Umberto Eco, mostly known to the general public for his novels, is somewhat notorious in Italian academic circles for being one of the big ones). Spanish universities can be super-regional, with complex language requirements, e.g. a colleague of mine who was born and raised in Galicia can't teach at a Galician university without doing additional certifications, because his degree was not done in a Galician university. Etc.

But my point was mostly just that the EU as a funding body doesn't micromanage research areas that much, because it has too many governments to do so: Denmark might want all the money in wind power, but they won't get that through. Instead the EU picks general meta-goals like "promote European research integration", and a few broad focus areas, which allows quite a bit of flexibility on what the actual scientific project is. Some blue-skies stuff gets funded as a result, as long as it's multinational blue-skies work in a broad area of interest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Science funding has devolved back to Feudal times, where an aspiring scientist must gain the favour of wealthy barons to support his research. Because of course by capitalist reasoning, science as a pursuit has no immediate returns on investment, thereby being a frivolous waste of time.

Honestly, I don't know if this insanity will ever stop in our lifetimes. Profiteering has now become the number one profession of the developed world, and anything that does not generate short term profit is seen as wasteful. I increasingly fantasize about the days of the Manhattan and Apollo projects, where the state treated science as critical to its survival.

Let's look at ourselves: how many brilliant people are now scrambling to make web/social/mobile apps in hopes of getting acquired or hitting their IPO? Is this what these people would do if left to their own devices? Or would they become fascinated with the eternal undertaking of science, and make breakthroughs in fields which would change the way we understand the world?

All the brilliant people I know have admitted defeat, along the lines of "If you can't beatem, joinem." The only way they see research in their future is if they can become the next Bill Gates or Zuck, and have billions to spend at their discretion.

This is an extremely sad development. An entire generation of aspiring scientists (myself included) are shut out of the system, while parasites such as administrators and rent seekers suck the last bits of life from the dying government funding apparatus that they have successfully gamed.

Science is the eternal pursuit of truth. It is the very thing which distinguishes us as a species. The quest to understand ourselves and the universe is a fundamental drive of every human being which should be nurtured from birth. Increasingly, however, scientific pursuit is relegated to the sidelines in the quest for pure capitalism. A society focused upon profiteering can only have one end: fiscal and moral bankruptcy.

<comment><USER6> Hey, don't despair.

First, not everyone has admitted defeat. Maybe you just need to meet more people. Grad schools are just wrapping up admission season, and I'm totally inspired by the level of talent and quality of students I met this past few months.

Second, scientists are among the greatest beneficiaries of the information technology revolution. The most important instrument every scientist uses is a personal computer. Brenner says "The way to succeed is to get born at the right time and in the right place. If you can do that then you are bound to succeed. You have to be receptive and have some talent as well." This definitely feels like the right time and place to me.

Science may be the pursuit of knowledge, but that doesn't mean humans who work as scientists get to be privileged when it comes to allocation of resources. We will just have adapt to new ways of communicating why our work is important, and new ways of raising money [1]. Science is way more expensive than most people realize, but it costs millions, not billions to run a successful lab.

Anyway, we'll make it work. Just like our predecessors made it work when science budgets were a fraction of their current size.

[1] For example: YC-backed experiment.com

<comment><USER5> Of course there will be extremely talented yet naive students lining up for graduate schools. They are mostly unaware of the soul crushing reality of working in perpetual poverty in hopes of landing a tenured research position that doesn't exist.

This is a perfect case of confirmation bias due to information asymmetry. They have been in school their whole lives and thus have only met the few successful people who've managed to land tenured positions. They haven't met any senior grad students who've spent decades in a lab being paid less than the lowest administrators, and dumped to the curb for a fresh batch as soon as their best years are spent.

I'm not a pessimist, but when the reality is bleak [1], I will not convince myself that everything is dandy. Will this change? Hopefully. When and how are the questions I'm most concerned with at the moment.

1\. [http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/a-dark- future...](http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/a-dark-future-for- science/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> " I don't believe in peer review because I think it's very distorted and as I've said, it's simply a regression to the mean."

"SB: ... Somehow that's why the journals insist they will not publish your paper unless you sign that copyright over. ... everybody works for these journals for nothing. There's no compensation. There's nothing. They get everything free. They just have to employ a lot of failed scientists, editors who are just like the people at Homeland Security, little power grabbers in their own sphere."

</comment><comment><USER8> If we want scientists to be able to work on projects that nobody else cares about, we can't be judging who deserves money and who doesn't. What we need is a system that allows people to work on whatever they want without any requirement that their efforts be sanctioned by greater society.

Sounds to me like a job for guaranteed basic income.

<comment><USER9> That won't work. The money isn't going to line the pockets of (most) of the researchers. It's going to fund the actual science costs itself, which is millions per project.

The problem is that science nowadays is expensive. We've past the days where scientits can preform chemistry experiments in their garage, most science requires heavily specialized equipment, years of preparation, and/or lots of people.

I don't see a clear way to fix this problem. The projects that have the clearest ROI will continue to get funded first.

<comment><USER10> This really isn't true. Math and computer science research need very little in terms of materials cost. The physical sciences are indeed more of a problem, but I have difficulty believing that everything needs big money to research. Surely a large communal lab would facilitate a lot of smaller scale work?

<comment><USER9> Those fields aren't the issue, and not what he is discussing in the article. The two fields he mentions, bio-chem (the DNA sequencing) and quantum physics (higgs), both require large amounts of funding to progress. Think the large hadrom collider was cheap? Think a DNA sequencing machine is cheap?

Math is only limited by computer power, and our own personal mental computing power. Computer science, similarly. Those two fields are different from the rest of science as we know it today.

<comment><USER8> It's true that certain aspects of science are very expensive. We're generating a lot of data these days through DNA sequencing, particle collision, and various other expensive scientific measurement techniques.

But there's a lot of work to be done in making sense of that data. It doesn't cost anything to play with data that's already been collected.

The biggest breakthroughs come from people thinking differently.

<comment><USER11> Not sure what you're trying to say, do you believe collected data is currently shunted to a bin while the next sequencing run is started or something?

<comment><USER8> No. I'm just saying that we're collecting data faster than we can make sense of it. New discoveries don't necessarily require new data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Let's not forget about self-sustaining communities:

15 erasmus friends cite each other, and peer review each other.

In few years, one/two/ten of them will be also editors of more or less decent journals (Impact factor usually between 4 and 12). Most of them will publish 10/15 papers per year, on their companion journal. Which is a good throughput for having founds.

And if one is caught saying bullshit, 14 "experts" will protect him.

As an example see Stellacci story here [http://raphazlab.wordpress.com/](http://raphazlab.wordpress.com/)

<comment><USER13> Well, that's eye-opening. So the rot seems to have reached materials science?

<comment><USER12> I've been in the community 5yrs now. And I've seen a little bit of everything.

This is my favorite one so far:

        A, B, C write paper, submit to his pal D.
        D appoints E,F,G as reviewers.
        C, and E were in school together.
        F was a C student.
        G sends the paper back to C to auto-review it.
        C cannot be bothered, so delegates the review back to A.
        A reviews his first name paper.

        (poor phd student B doesn't even know)

yay peer review!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> One of the reasons I left academia was that, as an Engineer I became completely disillusioned with the _novelty over utility_ bias. Things were published because they were new and not because they were really any better than existing techniques.

<comment><USER15> I completely disagree with your sentiment and think that academia should focus on novel work rather than incremental improvements. Something novel may not be better than the existing techniques right now, but what's to say they won't be better in the future? When Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, it was not better than candles because it was extremely expensive, fragile, lasted only briefly, and the light was very dim. But it was novel and with more improvements, beat the state-of-the-art.

<comment><USER14> You can't disagree with my reasons for leaving academia. I never said academia was at fault, simply that I wanted to build useful things and couldn't achieve that when I was only going to be measured largely on how novel the solution was.

I would also suggest that most valuable research conducted today _is_ incremental. Even the amazing breakthroughs are usually the final piece of many years of work by many varied teams.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Academic funding is just like venture funding in that you need to convince someone. And because they don't know what will work, they mostly follow trends and fads. You can see this if you look back over the publication history of the average academic (i.e. not a leading, ground-breaking academic who founded their own field), with paper titles twisted to fit the then flavour of the month.

Here's a popular thought for HN: why not a YC-style academic funding, where you fund people, not ideas?

The metric for success would be parallel to YC: funding rounds from academics. This potentially falls prey to the same biases as current - but avoids it, by giving all ideas a initial start. The other question is whether academic work really does require more mentoring and guidance than start-ups.

Though I guess the first year of a PhD often plays this role...

<comment><USER3> > Though I guess the first year of a PhD often plays this role...

In the U.S., the NSF Graduate Research Fellowships sort of do that for a bit longer (3 years). You do have to write a short proposal, but like with YC, there's not necessarily an expectation that you'll stick with the project that was in the proposal. It's just there to demonstrate that you can come up with a coherent project proposal. I actually did something completely unrelated to the original proposal, and they were fine with that. So it ends up being 3 years of guaranteed funding to do whatever you want. The funding is also tied to _you_ , not through a faculty member, so you really can do whatever you want (e.g. if you change supervisors or even universities, the grant follows you).

At the faculty level, there are also NSF CAREER awards, which are supposed to fund promising researchers, not specific projects. However at that point it's harder to dissociate the person and the research area: is it really possible to judge only the person unbiased by which area they work in and what they've been publishing? With the graduate fellowships it's a bit easier because, like with YC, applicants often have no real track record, so you're just judging college seniors' potential to do research, not judging their existing research.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Part of me views this as a branch apart of a larger problem in our societies today, which seems to be with the allocation of capital in general, combined with the (mis)alignment of traditional institutions in general (the state/corporation/church) with the (idealized?) vision some people look back upon their effectiveness in the past.

I think this interview gives me insight as to what the void is (something I've been wondering myself as I feel kind of estranged from academia, but wanting to pursue pseudo-academic interests), and how its currently being filled (by individuals in an ad-hoc fashion, who have capital it seems), but leaves me wondering: who will be the actors in the future, where their incentives will align enough, for something to take off on a larger institutional level?

</comment><comment><USER18> Really fantastic interview, thanks.

</comment><comment><USER19> A bit of a read, but couldn't agree more, although I believe something of a similar title was on HN within the last 6 months that made the exact same points. If I didn't know better I'd bet that professor is an HN subscriber!

</comment><comment><USER20> A significant element of scientific research is being the first to find something. It's the ego thing, all the way to standing up there in fancy dress some day to receive one's gong. Publishing is a time stamping service for the ego trip. Why rail against it?

<comment><USER21> That's a naive interpretation of state of things. Timestamp aspect can be simply fulfilled by putting your pdf online and let google (and wayback machine) index it. "Publishing" as understood in academia is very different. It's about publishing a paper in a "high impact" journal and has pretty much been devolved to a grade card for the working scientist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Clickbait. Next.

<comment><USER9> Don't think so. The interview is long winded, but right around the mid-point the author get's to the point. The title isn't misleading.

<comment><USER23> The scientist interviewed is one of the most important biologist ever. He is worth listening to.</comment></comment></comment>