What STEM shortage? Electrical engineering lost 35,000 jobs last year - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9245494/What_STEM_shortage_Electrical_engineering_lost_35_000_jobs_last_year?source=rss_keyword_edpicks&google_editors_picks=true <comment><USER3> Partly this is due to edge effects in measurement (how conversational are you with the BLS SOC?), exacerbated by "software eating the world."

Similar people doing similar things for society are suddenly software people, not hardware people, despite the fact that the software they're writing targets a physical device rather than an anonymous Turing machine in the cloooooooooooud.

Consider the employment profiles of "companies selling electronic locks" in 2002 versus 2012. These days it probably ships with a microcontroller. That means, congrats, software people now outnumber hardware people, at least as the BLS measure things. (If you really want to get wonkish, read up on what the tiebreakers are if your work implicates multiple SOC classifications. If you spend more time with a mouse in your hand than a soldering iron you're probably going to get bounced out of engineering occupations entirely, a result which is -- to put it mildly -- not a 1 to 1 mapping with our intuitive understanding of the claim "US employment of engineers just decreased by 1.")

<comment><USER4> The article says there were only 19,000 net new software jobs and unemployment in that category remains high.

<comment><USER5> Actually, the article says the rate for software developers is 2.7%, and is referred to as "elevated."

Would it be fair to say that some percentage of that percentage probably aren't qualified to find work as developers, and that contributes to the elevated number?

<comment><USER6> Based on my experience interviewing at 3 separate software companies, I think that's fair to say.

Looking at any shortage by the number of applicants or job-seekers assumes that the bulk of the applicants are qualified to do the work.

This is not even remotely true in practice. A _large_ proportion (over 50%, honestly) of the developers I've interviewed in my life can't tell the difference between a tree and an array, much less apply them intelligently. The majority cannot articulate the performance and storage differences between arrays and hash tables. These are the most basic qualifications for writing code.

Without excluding this massive, massive pool of yahoos, I don't think the statistics here are ultimately that meaningful.

<comment><USER7> > These are the most basic qualifications for writing code.

That seems like a very strong assertion. I don't have formal CS/data structures training; I've read about all of these structures in the past but probably wouldn't be able to answer your questions about them to the level you seem to expect. (I could _tell the difference_ between a tree and an array, because they look different, but frankly I have no idea where it would make sense to use a tree; they aren't offered as a native type in any of the languages I use day-to-day and I've never missed them. I know a bit about the difference between arrays and hash tables because it's one of the most common criticisms of PHP, but again; to the extent that I use PHP--and I avoid it like the plague--their implementation of "arrays" using hash tables has never once affected me. It is the least shitty part of that language.)

So anyway, I confess my ignorance. And I'm very open to learning more about the structures you're talking about (seriously). But I (and many of the programmers I know) have been successfully writing programs that work for people who want it (and gladly pay for it) for a relatively long time without meeting your most basic qualifications.

<comment><USER6> You're overestimating the level I expect.

When I say that someone can't tell the difference between an array and a tree, I really mean someone _does not know what a tree is_. The number of interviews I've conducted where the candidate has _heard of_ trees before, but cannot articulate, even in a basic way, what they are, is depressing.

To be more clear, the basic level I'm expecting is "it's a way to store data, where one object has children objects, which in turn have children objects", or something along that theme. Really, if you articulate in some way that it's stuff pointing to other stuff, you're already further along than half the people I've interviewed.

A _lot_ of people can't even get that far.

These questions aren't designed to defeat you, they're questions that have depth so that you can get some idea about the candidate's level of understanding of data structures. Once you get past "it's an object with children" we can go deeper - what is the complexity of fetching an object out of a tree? What of sorting? Disadvantages and advantages in application? Cycle detection? All of these are nice to haves - but the basic requirement is that you have to know what a tree is.

<comment><USER7> Cool, okay that sounds pretty reasonable. Although I've successfully interviewed candidates without even asking them about trees, and they turned out just fine. I think there is a general tendency (and I don't intend to make assumptions about your specific case) towards overestimating the level of computer science knowledge required to crank out operational code for 99% of programming jobs. I think it's important for _teams_ to have that knowledge within them, but not necessarily replicated through every individual member. (I know, I know, "A players" and all that... but the best teams I've known or been a part of, in programming or otherwise, had a couple of A players and a lot of B's who had the _potential_ to be A's.)

EDIT: I'm more distressed by the number of applicants I've come across who've never written an SQL query, or have no idea what a database schema should look like (never mind noSQL stuff). I generally prefer working with programmers who understand and appreciate big picture design principles over the ones who sweat the details (because in my experience the former are usually able to pick up details pretty quickly, while the latter are not always able to appreciate the big picture design decisions being made) but in bigger teams there is presumably room/requirement for both types.

<comment><USER8> How do you know SQL and not know what a tree is ? How about we ask a simple SQL design question that you can't answer without knowing about the datastructures : what operations does an index accelerate, and which are unaffected and why ... How do you answer that without using the word hashmap/hashtable ?

<comment><USER7> It is entirely possible to use a database without understanding its internals. Look, I'm not encouraging incompetence--not by a long shot--I'm just challenging the assertion that everyone who "writes code" (the words 'potatolicious used, which started this sub-thread) needs to have the same knowledge base.

I've worked with a lot of academics who write code for math and stats without any real computer science knowledge (including no more than a rudimentary understanding of the most basic data structures). I have a business mentor who makes millions of dollars with a piece of legacy web software he wrote himself --I'm certain he could tell you that certain fields are indexed in the DB because the SQL performs better that way, but I doubt he would use the word hashmap/hashtable at all and that doesn't undermine his credibility in my eyes one bit. I have friends who write embedded code all day but couldn't write an SQL query to save their life; that is obviously fine for what they do, and it doesn't make them any worse of a programmer.

My example in the parent comment was obviously relating to web programmers, where the necessity of being able to write a usable SQL query is of far greater importance than the ability to explain how the database is actually executing that query. All I'm saying is that if we are able to deflate our own self-importance just a little bit (and accept the idea that the role of an employer might also be to act as a mentor), suddenly the pool of qualified applicants becomes bigger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Claims of shortages of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) > workers "have no support in fact and no connection to reality, "

Have to say that's the evidence I find in much of the developed West. I watched a program in the UK last night where they were flouting the Government encouraged idea that over 100K _new_ STEM graduates were needed a year - <USER2> of my friends leaving University with STEM degrees or thinking of enrolling on such degrees haven't bothered because job creation at that scale doesn't exist.

With outsourcing and offshoring by the bucketload it's refreshing for this Ron Hira guy to point out the reality for many.

Added link to summary of TV program if anyone is interested: [http://www.itv.com/news/2014-01-16/tonight-is-britain- back-i...](http://www.itv.com/news/2014-01-16/tonight-is-britain-back-in- business/)

<comment><USER10> I think that many of the powers that be in the UK are very wary of a manufacturing economy. I suspect they equate it with an organised labour movement and that was part of the ideology behind the push for a post- industrial economy in the 1980's.

I always found the idea of a post-industrial economy rather perplexing as it relies on the idea that we can design and manage the manufacturing of the rest of the world, but the skills required to do that are dependent on having manufacturing experience, which will die out in a generation without an industrial base in which to get the required skills.

<comment><USER11> "very wary of a manufacturing economy"

Like the US, the UK still manufactures loads of stuff - it's just there aren't many people employed doing it and it's a much smaller percentage of the economy than it used to be.

e.g. [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figure...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figures/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It seems to me that the true motive behind talk of a supposed STEM "shortage" is to flood the market with new STEM workers in order to drive down labor costs (i.e. wages).

The problem is not that STEM workers can't be found, it's that they can't be found for the wages business owners want to pay. And what they want to pay for skilled labor will always be: "less".

<comment><USER4> It's one of the few areas of our modern economy that reads like it's straight out of Marx. It's straight up capital vs. labor.

<comment><USER13> And like Marx, it's bad economics. And actually it's not really as simple capital vs labor, but also includes a component of US based labor vs "take rrrr jooooobs" foreign labor.

<comment><USER4> Are you implying that workers shouldn't have national interests? You appear to be snorting at the idea as if it doesn't make obvious sense. Are you some sort of open borders weirdo? I mean, it was obvious to César Chávez that immigration hurt workers and he wanted it stopped.

<comment><USER13> > Are you some sort of open borders weirdo

Being from the US, with an Italian wife and a daughter born in Austria, and working with people from all over Europe and the US, yes, I suppose I am some kind of "open borders weirdo" in that I tend to see the value in other people as something inherent and not depending on where they happen to be born or what their passport says.

Granted, I don't think Lichtenstein should probably open its borders 100% to India tomorrow, but in general I don't believe there is a fixed amount of labor to go around:

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

Immigrants have brought a lot of great things to the US and elsewhere. For that matter, the economy is a lot better now than 100 years ago when there were far fewer people.

<comment><USER4> I also see the value in other people, but in addition I see the value in nations and rooted associations and loyalties. The value of the latter must be taken seriously. Jonathan Haidt has excellent research on how a substantial fraction of people appear to be congenitally blind to these concerns.

> the economy is a lot better now than 100 years ago when there were far fewer > people

The era of strongest wage growth and increase in living standards coincided with the period between the 1924 immigration restriction act and the 1965 immigration act, resuming immigration. In that interval net migration was roughly zero. It's tough to argue the USA was badly suffering for want of more foreigners in that time.

<comment><USER13> > the period between the 1924 immigration restriction act and the 1965

Can you think of any other events in that time period that might have had some effects on the economy? It's not exactly an experiment with a control...

> I also see the value in other people, but in addition I see the value in > nations and rooted associations and loyalties.

I suppose it's a bit harsh, but IMO that kind of thinking is what breeds mentalities like those that created what the NSA has become. My loyalty is to my family, my friends, of whatever nationality they happen to be, and after that it gets a bit vague. I'm lucky to have been born in the US, certainly, but it's one country of many, with good things and bad things.

<comment><USER4> American involvement in WWII destroyed a massive amount of wealth and lowered living standards for years. It was a huge set back, and I don't know why you'd seem to be implying otherwise.

> mentalities like those that created what the NSA has become

A cohesive citizenry with a voice in policy leads to illegal spying? WTF?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My father in law is an EE. He was forced out of his job a few years ago (in his mid fifties). From what it sounds like, many of his similarly aged coworkers face the same treatment - if you don't hit a certain level of management by the time you're middle aged, promotion paths become closed to you and eventually you become marginalized, because there are so many new graduates coming in willing to work for close to half of what the experienced EEs command for salary.

He wasn't able to find another EE position, except at a small company as a part-time tester. He's retired now, mostly because he gave up trying to find fulfilling work.

<comment><USER15> Is it the case that an EE with 30+ years of experience isn't much, much better at the job than a fresh grad?

<comment><USER16> Good, experienced EEs are worth 10 or more recent grads. Especially those that know RF and/or embedded programming. But then again I'm in a area that has a large number of EE's.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I was a H1B before, and I can tell you that I was not paid less, if not more. Most of my H1B peers are well paid as far as I know, you can tell that by how fast they purchase the house and cars and start a STEM-professional new life in USA. The low-paid H1B steals good-quality-STEM-engineer-job theory does not hold water for me.

The STEM shortage is so true, while I agree outsourcing saves money, H1B are most often not, more likely, it's because the company can not hire the right STEM candidates and they have to go through the painful H1B hiring process, while paying for their very expensive immigration attorney bills to keep them.

More high-quality STEMs, less outsourcing, are the real solutions for a booming local job market. When we have more good STEMs locally, the H1B will become a non-issue.

<comment><USER4> This is matter of statistics, not personal anecdote. All reporting on the matter I've seen indicate H1-Bs in IT earn sub native wages, and employers easily get around the rules to hire cheap foreigners.

Anyway, as a matter of national policy it's remarkably short sighted to import large numbers of skilled workers to a large nation like America. Can't people see that addressing any "shortage" this way perpetuates it? People have got the memo loud and clear: If you are a technical worker you are a fungible commodity of little status. Your prestige and earnings will be attacked with immigration policy, visas, and outsourcing. Why go in for this as a career if you have options? The most able will go elsewhere.

<comment><USER17> The ugly truth is that, without H1B policy, the big corps will more likely do more outsourcing,which is worse. I agree some big foreign IT agencies are hiring cheaper H1B, those are normally pure-software jobs, the EE/H1B looks different to me, in that, H1Bs are not cheap, if at all. I am EE. I checked again and again, the college graduates here fail to do basic math is beyond imagination. I hope STEM can help to better that, in fact I'm leading a local math club as a volunteer to do just that.

<comment><USER4> > do more outsourcing,which is worse

Why would outsourcing be worse? The detailed analyses show that bringing people here has large costs externalized to tax payers. People use schools and when eligible chain-migrate low skill relatives.

If businesses feel the business environment the citizenry of America have built up is not worth the costs, well I'm fine with them choosing other places to operate. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is import a new citizenry.

<comment><USER17> In the long run, the engineers trained via outsourcing will become strong competitors, while USA have nothing to compete against then. USA can not have all the local graduates do architecture-design or marketing/project- management,that will doom the country soon or later.

Usually H1Bs' kids excel at school, and their parents pay tax on that. For their poor relatives to immigrate 22+ years later(roughly 5 year for greencard, 5 year for citizenship, 12 years for relative immigration waiting period), it's a immigration policy issue, however it's still all legal, at least 10X better than those who came here illegally.

Keep jobs local is vital, outsourcing R&D is so short-sighted, with more STEMs, H1B will be irrelavant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> And yet, if you read HN, most developers make over $100k and can find a new job that pays more overnight if their current employer does anything that offends them. What's the reality?

<comment><USER19> most developers _in the US_ make over $100k

<comment><USER20> If these[1] numbers are anywhere near accurate that simply isn't true. Median income is $72,630 and 75th Percentile income is $92,510. So at best you can say that perhaps the 20% highest earning programmers in US make over $100K.

[1] [http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/computer- programme...](http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/computer-programmer)

<comment><USER21> "Software Developer"[1] is three times as common and has a median income of $89,280. Most programmers are actually classified as software developers.

[1] [http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/software- developer](http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/software-developer)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Glad I took computer engineering in an ECE department. Although I'm not really that surprised at these results as let's face it, the centre of electronics hasn't been the US for some time.

<comment><USER23> Good point. The centre of electronics is switching to asian countries since the beginning of the 21st century and ignoring the global economy leads to a short-sighted analysis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I don't think STEM reflects market demand as much as it does our new understanding of 21st century skills. While the gov't loves the "college = success" equation, I think it is somewhat valid for STEM students, as it introduces a much more practical skill set and mind set to students.

</comment><comment><USER25> I feel like I repeat this anec-Data every time one of these posts comes up. This is all fine and good, but I've never worked at a SW company (8 years now) nor had a friend work in a SW company that wasn't constantly hiring. The companies I've worked for pay above market and simply can't find people they're willing to hire.

</comment><comment><USER26> Seems to be a philosophical shift in the working world & academia overall today. Just need to look to last year, where the guy behind the Higgs Boson said the publish or perish atmosphere today would've never lead to a theory. Then there's also the Phd who fell through the cracks to work at a subway before solving the twin primes conjecture. Somethings gotta get fixed.

</comment><comment><USER27> It seems to me there's a big shortage of people in the less 'fun' tech jobs like desktop support or QA or Java corporate development.

There's no shortage in the more creative jobs creating new apps, cutting edge web dev, network engineering, game dev, etc.

The kind of stuff that inspires most kids to go into comp sci.

It seems, the big 4 get more resumes than they can shake a stick at.

I could be wrong. Just my thoughts.

<comment><USER28> > _" It seems to me there's a big shortage of people in the less 'fun' tech > jobs like desktop support or QA or Java corporate development."_

And yet the wages being offered for these jobs haven't gone up. It's pretty hard to have a labor shortage if the remaining workers aren't seeing wage increases as demand exceeds supply.

<comment><USER29> > And yet the wages being offered for these jobs haven't gone up. It's pretty > hard to have a labor shortage if the remaining workers aren't seeing wage > increases as demand exceeds supply.

Isn't it possible the jobs just aren't worth that much?

There could be hundreds of unfilled positions, but not filling the positions is only costing say ~$50k in revenue. It's not worth paying someone $51k for that position

<comment><USER30> You have described an equilibrium condition in which, by definition, there are not hundreds of unfilled positions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I believe that Greenspun's article at [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/12/12/why-do- people-...](http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/12/12/why-do-people-who- chose-not-to-study-science-and-math-opine-on-the-virtues-of-studying-science- and-math/) is very apropos.

</comment><comment><USER32> This "shortage" talk is the problem with engineers. They take peoples' opinions and petty desires (such as business requirements and deadlines that are arbitrary) and assume them to be objective truth. I worked at a startup that was cargo-culting Scrum (badly) and people started talking about "Iterations" as if they existed objectively and had real, phallic, meaning. They don't.

Engineers insist on truth and struggle with the fact that most people who succeed in human affairs are extremely dishonest.

"Shortage" just means, "we can't hire talent at as low a wage as we'd like to pay". It is not an objective condition. It might qualify as a true shortage if companies were reducing the pay of executives and non-techs to make space for engineers, but that is happening almost nowhere.

<comment><USER33> >as if they existed objectively and had real, phallic, meaning.

Did you mean to do that? either way, it's pretty funny.

<comment><USER32> _Did you mean to do that?_

Do what? I'm not sure what you're asking.

Yes, I know what the word "phallic" means.

<comment><USER33> I could read the comment both ways, really, but the sentence parsed awkwardly enough to make me wonder.

It does sound like it could have come from an Agile consultant. "Are your iterations flaccid?" But nobody actually talks that way... right?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What's everyone's thoughts on justin.tv? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> It is unsurprisingly compelling. But the live chat and interactivity really made it for me. It's great to just idle in the room all day, pop back on the computer after some time and ask "So what'd I miss?"

The potential of justin.tv is just phenomenal right now. The platform that they've built is really going to change how entertainment is done.

</comment><comment><USER3> Dangerously addictive. I must have spent two hours looking at that site today.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not gonna lie I watched it a lot tonight. I really would have enjoyed it better if the sound was better though. It was hard to hear the speaker and a lot of the conversations. Wasn't Justin supposed to speak in front of everyone?

<comment><USER3> Justin's speaking at startup school; maybe that's what you're thinking of.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup thats the confusion. Thanks

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Doesn't seem sticky enough for me.

Yer basically playing out a concept to see if you can do it and then you can either break it down and turn it into a licensing kit idea for people and get the masses to start creating their own, and adding their own personal style to it.

If you don't sell it ya got about a month until someone learns from your idea and rips it off and now yer bleeding.

Still isn't sticky.

You could play it up more and do more truman like things to it, but then yer dancing into the realm of staged content, and the real effect could wear off, but as if people really think reality shows are all that real anyways, theres always a camera man there watchin people.

I dunno. Still biggest thing for me as a would be watcher, needs stickyness. I like the fact you can embed justin like a widget, and all the bits you have to rss it out etc is nice but overall stick is lacking.

Spend, Build, Learn, Craft, License, Sell thats yer best bet here. I seriously doubt these guys can go a year, and if they could i mean my god, gun to head please, eventually the audience will WANT you to turn the thing off. People like blogs for stories and threads and ideas that get manifested into an entry, in a real time stream, that after thought processing isnt there, so you may see it you may not, stickyness is relying solely on the person in play and whether or not somethings really interesting to see.

</comment><comment><USER5> What would be better is a well edited documentary, comparing the two biggest start-up incubators Ycombinator and Techstars.

It would be a fantastic promotional documentary for all party's involved. Heck, you could even turn it into some kind of reality Tv show if your wanted to where the 2 incubators compete somehow. 1st season broadcast via Youtube + HD websites. 2nd season via NBC.

It's 1000x better idea for a show than this <http://www.iamtheprodigy.com/>

its a reality based tv show where 2000 door to door summer salespeople compete to see who can sell the most, what garbage!! The people at Ycombinator and Techstars are the _future leaders of the world!_ How much more interesting can you get!?

If your interested in this idea I will be in the Bay area March 22-27. firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><USER6> There was a documentary done about one of the dot-com busts in 2000. I can't remember the title, but Google may be able to help you.

The problem is that most of work starting a startup is _boring_. So either a documentary distorts what actually goes on and shows you the interesting parts (like the one above), or you lose interest and forget about it.

My day basically goes:

1\. Wake up. Start development VM. Check yCombinator. Reply to a post or two while VM boots up.

2\. Implement a feature, or some administrative script, or setup some software package on server, while eating breakfast.

3\. Go to day job. Work on somebody else's startup for 8 hours. Use breaks etc. to resource technologies I'll need for that night's programming.

3.b. Sketch out some feature longhand in a notebook on the train home.

4\. Come home. Implement the low-hanging fruit that I just researched.

5\. Eat dinner

6\. Spend 2-3 hours working on some of the larger tasks that need doing.

7\. Repeat.

It's pretty productive, but hardly good TV. The documentary would basically be "Jonathan staring at computer. Jonathan staring at computer. Jonathan staring at computer."

I am keeping a blog (poorly - been 2 weeks since I updated) with the day-to- day stuff. But really, that's just "Here's the challenge we just faced. Here's how we solved it. Rinse, lather, repeat."

<comment><USER7> The documentary is probably startup.com

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> They'll get tons of VC money soon and they'll need it for the bandwidth bills. More people want to film their lives than want to talk into a fixed camera (i.e. YouTube). You need a little new hardware for this though which hurts.

Still, it will be huge. The next YouTube.

</comment><comment><USER9> Excellent. I had a lot of fun watching the tail end of the YC dinner last night.

I don't think they'll have any trouble getting publicity, considering all Justin has to do is tell all the live viewers Digg a link to his show at a certain time. :-)

</comment><comment><USER10> It's very, very cool. I'm in Canada, and it felt like I was at that party.

I kept having the strange urge to talk directly to people like pg, Trevor Blackwell, Jessica Livingston, as if Justin were some kind of Telepresence bot, or medium. It's weird to think of him walking around, with all these "spirits" in his head.

The robot demo was fascinating, and I love the unscriptedness. I think I prefer that to an edited or scripted documentary. You can infer a lot from the raw data that wouldn't make it through the editorial process.

</comment><comment><USER11> My guess is that the real money here is in a product placement advertising model, rather than licensing the platform.

They'll get some valuable patents for technology they develop, and a few hundred bucks each off the few hundred people who want to broadcast their life 24/7/365. But a big .tv-star will be able to bring in $K a day just to test a Segway, show up at the right restaurant, attend the launch party for a new startup, etc.

</comment><comment><USER8> I think the police entering their apartment at 1:40 this morning, guns drawn, is going to make a classic moment for the archives.

I'll be honest, I was thinking I was maybe going to see Justin get shot.

<comment><USER12> whoa, seriouly what did i miss there!? Why did the police enter the apartment?

<comment><USER13> Apparently someone used a teletype service (intended for the hearing-impaired) to call police and report a stabbing. Police arrived with guns drawn.

( These teletype services are frequently used for credit card fraud as a way for the perpetrator to remain anonymous. )

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What struck me was how slick the platform was. I don't particularly care to watch Justin for more than just a few minutes, but if it was someone I did want to watch I'd probably load it up every night.

</comment><comment><USER15> I may be older than your target audience but I think except for the police raid it was rather lame. But then I don't understand the appeal of American Idol or Survivor either

</comment><comment><USER6> Posted them here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=5313> before this thread was open.

</comment><comment><USER11> Prediction: At least two of the first ten .tv-stars will attempt a Borat style character.

</comment><comment><USER16> It feels like the "Truman Show", except the lead character knows he's being watched.

</comment><comment><USER13> I love it and I'm rooting for them big time.

</comment><comment><USER17> JustinTV is SO addictive!</comment>


Trump White House Withholds Cyber-Security Executive Order - <AUTHOR> http://www.eweek.com/it-management/white-house-withholds-cyber-security-order-for-further-revision.html <comment><USER2> Does anyone know what's going on inside the White House in terms of who is working on these drafts and why the first differs so drastically from the second?

We have no reporting on this, only these "leaked" drafts.

The two drafts differ substantially. I don't see how the difference has much to do with the immigration order debacle. That certainly happened in the meanwhile but if anything it seems the second draft has changed to reflect the confirmation of new "agency heads".

The second is noticeably less ambitious too. It's written as if to have little to no effect whatsoever on the status quo.</comment>


Show HN: Intuition – A daily GitHub digest and productivity tools for dev teams - <AUTHOR> https://intuition.app/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN, I've been building Intuition as a side project for a few months now to scratch my own itch. I believe that there are a ton of valuable insights sitting in the meta data in Git repositories and developer-focused tools (JIRA, Trello, Slack, etc.). This data largely goes untapped. This is my attempt at unlocking some of that value.

I focused on a couple of specific use cases:

* daily standup reports to replace or augment your existing standup * historical activity reports for sprint retrospectives * code change notifications so you can know when to provide just-in-time feedback

It isn't anything too sophisticated just yet, but I've already gotten a decent amount of value out of the tool in working with my own team.

Thanks for checking it out! Please let me know if you have any questions or feedback. It would also be awesome to hear what sort of reporting you would want to see next.

</comment><comment><USER2> this is cool. I would want the retro to be recommitted back to a different git repo as a merge request, though. I don't like more emails.

May as I ask how you're dealing with authentication/authorization? I always hit a wall monetizing side projects when I need to provide auth. I feel like I shouldn't have to roll my own auth system, but inevitably I do.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure what your environment of choice is, but I use Python with Django which has great built-in email/password auth and a really nice user admin tool[0] if that's all your looking for.

For third-party authentication/authorization, I use the python-social-auth django integration[1]. It has a massive number of third-party systems that it can connect to and it's really simple to get it set up. I would guess your language of choice has similar tools. I know passport[2] for nodejs is a solid choice.

[0] [https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.1/topics/auth/](https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.1/topics/auth/) [1] [https://github.com/python-social-auth/social-app- django](https://github.com/python-social-auth/social-app-django) [2] [http://www.passportjs.org/](http://www.passportjs.org/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm not sure if this is actually happening but nice touch of putting the current date in your example.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for noticing! The templates on the page are adapted from the actual tools in the app. They use sample data that has dates that are updated whenever the page is rendered. It's all cached on the backend so it doesn't end up costing too much extra in load time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> NICE APPS</comment>


Burger King to Deliver Whoppers to LA Drivers Stuck in Traffic - <AUTHOR> https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/05/15/burger-king-deliver-whoppers-traffic/ <comment><USER2> I don't live in Los Angeles, but my first thought was that if traffic begins to clear up right when the delivery motorcycle approaches the customer's car, that motorcyclist may be in danger.</comment>


Macaque monkeys have the anatomy for human speech, so why can't they speak? - <AUTHOR> http://www.kurzweilai.net/macaque-monkeys-have-the-anatomy-for-human-speech-so-why-cant-they-speak <comment><USER2> I have to do another post on this. [http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.1974668](http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.1974668) This has been a pet theory of mine monkeys hearing is not very good below 8khz, down as much as 60db in the 4khz and below range where human speech primarily resides. Maybe they are basically hard of hearing in our spectral range? I wonder if anyone ever thought about making a special hearing aid for them to boost the low frequencies. Or maybe move the human speech up to their range (they can hears as high as 45Khz while humans cut off at 20khz). Maybe you could teach them to speak but it would be super high pitched and another device could shift it back down. Like a frequency up and down converter.

<comment><USER3> I like the idea of a universal monkey translator.

<comment><USER2> I know right, I want to build one :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I had read that the spinal cord of monkeys and the small hole through which it must pass, does not permit the many nerves that are required to control the speech apparatus with sufficient accuracy for intelligible speech. I was surprised to find the article didn't mention this issue at all, either as an urban myth, or as a fact of anatomy. Has thinking moved on when it comes to this issue? Are Macaque monkeys somehow different in this regard?

</comment><comment><USER5> Descartes thought that monkeys could talk if they wanted to but they didn't because they would be forced to work.

<comment><USER6> I'd be interested in a citation for this, if you have one handy. I've read that he wrote about this in a letter but I haven't been able to find it. The closest I've been able to find is (via WP):

> The word [orangutan] comes from Bontius (1631, Hist. Nat. et Med. Ind. > Orient.) who claimed that the Javanese had informed him that orang-utans > could talk, 'but do not wish to, lest they should be compelled to labour'.

Dellios, Paulette (2005). A Lexical Odyssey from the Malay World. The Proceedings of the European Integration-Between Tradition and Modernity Congress, Editura Universităţii "Petru Maior", Volume Number 1, 2005, ISSN 1844-2048, pp. 460-463. [http://www.upm.ro/facultati_departamente/stiinte_litere/conf...](http://www.upm.ro/facultati_departamente/stiinte_litere/conferinte/situl_integrare_europeana/Lucrari/Delios.pdf)

Bontius's book looks like the sort of thing Descartes would have read, so I'd be interested in reading his reaction.

<comment><USER5> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes)

>Mr. Clerselier has written me that you are expecting from him my Meditations... in order to present them to the queen of the land. ...If I had only been as wise as they say the savages persuaded themselves that the monkeys were, I never would have become known as a maker of books: Since it is said that they imagined that the monkeys could indeed speak, if they wanted to, but that they chose not to so lest they be forced to work. And since I had not the same prudence to abstain from writing, I now have neither as much liesure nor as much peace as I would have had if I had kept quiet. But since the mistake has already been made, and since I am now known by an infinity of people at the academy, who look askance at my writings and scour them for means of harming me, I do have great hope of being known to persons of great merit, whose power and virtue could protect me.

>Letter to Pierre Chanut (Nov. 1, 1646) as quoted by Amir Aczel, Descartes' Secret Notebook (2005) citing René Descartes: Correspondance avec Elizabeth et autres lettres (1989) ed., Jean-Marie and M. Beysaade, pp. 245-246.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I suspect the answer is similar to why a macaque can't play billiards even though it is physically capable of it.

It's not like macaque monkeys don't "speak" to each other, they do make sounds that indicate certain things that other monkeys understand. They just don't have the cognitive ability for language. It's too complex and abstract for them.

Similarly, they can manipulate a pool cue and even knock balls around a table with it potentially. But they can't actually understand the rules or play the game effectively, even though they can be taught rules of much more simple "games" like "press the red button and get a treat, press the blue button and get nothing."

<comment><USER8> Other primates already have the anatomy required for natural language more or less, namely arms and hands. Signed languages are as complete and expressive as spoken languages, and there is speculation [1] that spoken and signed language use the same underlying grammatical facility or "language organ".

Kinda OT, but this got me thinking about why human evolution has preferred spoken over signed language - why did spoken language evolve as the favourite mode when we already had perfectly good anatomy for signed language? Spoken language has some obvious disadvantages that I can think of:

* limited iconicity compared to sign

* not good for communicating while hunting

* less private

* speech production requires fine articulations and motor control, takes longer to learn, extends adolescence?

* "The positioning of the larynx deep in the throat, and the tongue far enough low and back to articulate a range of vowels, also compromised breathing and chewing. Presumably the communicative benefits outweighed the physiological costs." [2]

Spoken has some advantages over sign though:

* communication over distance

* sound-based iconicity/ possible

* can communicate with poor vision

* can communicate while performing manual tasks (this is probably the biggest one)

Maybe early humans used a combination of both depending on the situation, and as the abstraction capability of the brain increased, spoken became the (hearing) norm. Either way, it seems like anatomical explanations for language evolution aren't very useful. Female Cosmetic Coalitions[3] is an interesting theory from anthropology which relates evolution of natural language with in- group trust.

[1] [http://www.lscp.net/persons/peperkamp/Peperkamp_Mehler_(1999...](http://www.lscp.net/persons/peperkamp/Peperkamp_Mehler_\(1999\)_Signed_and_Spoken_Language.pdf)

[2] The Language Instinct, Steven Pinker

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

<comment><USER9> I think the "can communicate with poor vision" is the most important as its dark in about 50% of the day when sign language doesn't really work. Not to mention that you first need to call the other's attention to start communicating with signs, possibly by making some sort of sound so they look at you. The second most important benefit is (IMHO) that you can speak while you are focusing on something, e.g. waiting for the prey to come closer while everyone holds their weapons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> So why can parrots be taught to speak? Of course they do not understand what they are saying but they can be trained to say words. Monkeys can be trained to do some pretty complex things in comparison to what a bird can do, it seems to me monkeys are smarter than birds. So it seems like there is some other part of the explanation that is not completely figured out here.

<comment><USER10> >not understand what they are saying but they can be trained to say words.

Not necessarily true.

[http://blogs.thatpetplace.com/thatbirdblog/2011/06/10/do- par...](http://blogs.thatpetplace.com/thatbirdblog/2011/06/10/do-parrots- understand-what-they-say-yes-according-to-a-new-study/#.WGl1jDQ8LCQ)

Edit: fix link

<comment><USER11> I think you've posted the wrong link...

<comment><USER10> Thank you

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Gelada baboons can talk:

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

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm1q-V2b1Sc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm1q-V2b1Sc)

</comment><comment><USER13> Good speculative fiction story: Extraterrestrial species of immortal primates visits Earth, deploys the substrate for Wernicke & Broca's areas into a species of speechless apes, to see the invention of Shakespeare.

<comment><USER14> As I recall, this was more or less a plot element in Daniel Keys Morgan's "Tales of the Continuing Time" sci-fi series. Good series.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> > Our findings imply that the evolution of human speech capabilities required > neural changes rather than modifications of vocal anatomy.

They have the anatomy to speak except for the brain anatomy. _rolls eyes_

</comment><comment><USER16> Because they lack the break through "retardation". And yes, for a monkey, unnecessary sounds, attracting predators are a handicap.

Imagine if vocalization was a disease result - a multi host disease that trys to attract predators by creating constant loud vocalization of thought.

<comment><USER7> Monkeys make "unnecessary" sounds all the time. It's not like a group of monkeys just sits there silently and only makes absolutely necessary sounds.

Plus as other commenters have pointed out, speech would let much more useful and detailed communications possible.

<comment><USER16> Okay, i was wrong :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> People should use this recording to ask their partners to consent to marriage. It says, our union will be both creepy and scientific in a way that is usually difficult to convey.</comment>


Get Tgethr: A Simple Email Collaboration Tool - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/16/get-tgethr-a-simple-email-collaboration-tool/ <comment><USER3> Looks like Mailman <http://www.list.org/> (except Mailman doesn't help with encryption, you have to figure it out yourself).

FWIIW, my experience is that Microsoft Outlook and web-based email interfaces have trained users to use incredibly bad habits with email (crappy quoting, top posting (a subset of crappy quoting), 200K Word documents for a 5 line memo, megabyte .BMP screen shots, etc.). This really hurts email list usefulness until and unless the users improve their habits.

Unfortunately...

a) Outlook use is usually required by The Corporate Overlords. Even if it isn't required, users that don't know better insist on using it because it allows them to paste Mbyte .BMP screen shots into it. :-(

b) While Outlook can be configured for usable quoting, nobody bothers to do so.

c) Even if configured in the best way it supports, Outlook is still suboptimal.

d) Web based email interfaces are generally even less configurable than Outlook and they all aspire to mimic Outlook, including promoting all of the crappy habits.

\---

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, in a moment of reasoned lucidity which is almost unique among its current tally of five million, nine hundred and seventy-three thousand, five hundred and nine pages, says of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation products that "it is very easy to be blinded to the essential uselessness of them by the sense of achievement you get from getting them to work at all." In other words, - and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation's Galaxywide success is founded - <USER2> fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.

\-- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy / Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001). 1st American ed. New York : Harmony Books, 1980, c1979 <http://www.douglasadams.com/>

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm not sure if anyone's gonna buy this. I understand from my look at tgethr that its about collaboration, security and email wrapped into new clothes. But then, the popularity of a service hugely depends on the size of its userbase right? How would tgethr ever get a huge userbase by putting restrictions and making people buy to get a feel in the first place.

I think the domain togethr.com would've been better, matches the pronounciation ... tgethr sounds like T gethr or something... I keep forgetting the domain for I thought it was togethr when I tried to open it after 20 minutes...

I wish tgethr could have a nice favicon, can't see any in chrome.

BstOfLck

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm not sure I understand the concept of Email Collaboration...

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure I understand the concept of all these startups with names warping the English language.

<comment><USER7> Lack of domain names.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Lame guys. I think the email encryption is probably the biggest feature, and you left it out from the try out. The only way to try it if it works for you is to pay for it.

<comment><USER9> Actually that's not true - you can try any plan for 30 days for free, then you pay.</comment></comment>


Timely Dataflow and Total Order - <AUTHOR> http://justinjaffray.com/timely-dataflow-and-total-order/ <comment><USER2> This has some of the cleanest looking "math typesetting in a web page" I've seen. Very nice.

</comment><comment><USER3> I really really like the design of this blog. So clean and slick.</comment>


Six Paths to the Nonsurgical Future of Brain-Machine Interfaces - <AUTHOR> https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2019-05-20 <comment><AUTHOR> The Battelle team, under principal investigator Dr. Gaurav Sharma, aims to develop a minutely invasive interface system that pairs an external transceiver with electromagnetic nanotransducers that are nonsurgically delivered to neurons of interest. The nanotransducers would convert electrical signals from the neurons into magnetic signals that can be recorded and processed by the external transceiver, and vice versa, to enable bidirectional communication.

The Carnegie Mellon University team, under principal investigator Dr. Pulkit Grover, aims to develop a completely noninvasive device that uses an acousto- optical approach to record from the brain and interfering electrical fields to write to specific neurons. The team will use ultrasound waves to guide light into and out of the brain to detect neural activity. The team's write approach exploits the non-linear response of neurons to electric fields to enable localized stimulation of specific cell types.

The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory team, under principal investigator Dr. David Blodgett, aims to develop a completely noninvasive, coherent optical system for recording from the brain. The system will directly measure optical path-length changes in neural tissue that correlate with neural activity.

The PARC team, under principal investigator Dr. Krishnan Thyagarajan, aims to develop a completely noninvasive acousto-magnetic device for writing to the brain. Their approach pairs ultrasound waves with magnetic fields to generate localized electric currents for neuromodulation. The hybrid approach offers the potential for localized neuromodulation deeper in the brain.

The Rice University team, under principal investigator Dr. Jacob Robinson, aims to develop a minutely invasive, bidirectional system for recording from and writing to the brain. For the recording function, the interface will use diffuse optical tomography to infer neural activity by measuring light scattering in neural tissue. To enable the write function, the team will use a magneto-genetic approach to make neurons sensitive to magnetic fields.

The Teledyne team, under principal investigator Dr. Patrick Connolly, aims to develop a completely noninvasive, integrated device that uses micro optically pumped magnetometers to detect small, localized magnetic fields that correlate with neural activity. The team will use focused ultrasound for writing to neurons.

<comment><USER2> None of those sound non invasive. How do they get light through the skull?

<comment><USER3> Typically, it is not wavelengths from the visual light spectrum. It is common to use infrared. For example, high-power infrared light can penetration at least 3 cm into the brain.

<comment><USER4> Uhh, I'm sure it's fine, but how high power are we talking? Just when you say "high-power infrared light" my brain thinks "cooking an egg"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A lot of commenters seem fearful of this tech. But I don't see a problem is it is strictly read only and not connected to the internet. There are ways to make this bad, but it's not fundamentally bad.

One thing I was surprised to learn recently was that mentally controlled prosthetics are simply machine learning algorithms trained to interpret the electrical signals and produce physical outcomes. In hindsight that seems obvious but before that I had assumed something more complicated. I think a lot of great stuff could come from this. Especially art. Either generating things that the device observes you find enjoyable or generating music you're mentally composing could be awesome. Imagery could be great.

<comment><USER6> A malicious firmware update that commands the prosthetic to punch you in the face on an infinite loop will still be a threat. Updates will likely be necessary for a while as the ML stuff gets tuned, though it's not impossible to get the other parts of the controlling software correct the first time and make those read-only.

Also I expect the medical device manufacturers will most likely join this market eventually and they have a less-than-stellar record of security with their devices. Some company is going to connect it to the internet and regulation will be too glacially slow to stop it.

<comment><USER5> That fear feels overblown to me. This isn't some autonomous vehicle, it's a learned mapping of electrical signals to specific motions. I don't see a need for over the air firmware updates. And the model can't generalize because everyone's brain works differently so you'll need to retrain every single time.

Perhaps I wasn't clear but that technology already exists and is in use. It's much easier to do prosthetics because you can just hook it up to the nerves on former limb stub.

<comment><USER7> > _I don't see a need for over the air firmware updates._

There isn't a need, but if the same thing happens here that happened everywhere else in the tech industry, there will be a _motivation_ for over- the-air firmware updates. If the average person won't install adblock because they don't realize the end result of ad network tracking, why would they object to a prosthetic that records their every move? Time and time again, the public has shown that they have no practical aversion to being creeped on and abused in ways that don't immediately translate to pain or lost money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is why SF should be mandatory reading in high school. People can't even grasp the consequences of tracking cookies and we are going to sell them stuff to plug in their head.

<comment><USER9> What is SF?

<comment><USER10> Science fiction. The poster you're responding to I think means that the common philosophical issues brought up in science fiction aren't being thought of by the creators of this technology in advance.

Basically, they're too preoccupied with whether they could, and not thinking about whether they should.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As a clinician, this news is extraordinarily exciting. Here's why.

A brain computer interface is something that records neural activity in a person, and then decodes that neural activity to allow them to control objects in their environment. When we think about sources of neural information, it's useful to divide them into non-invasive (EEG, fMRI, MEG, NIRS) technology, and to invasive technology (intracortical electrodes, SEEG, ECoG) systems.

Fundamentally, the DARPA grant is about acquiring new sources of neural information. As the article points out, the latter category is happening almost exclusively as people are hanging out in epilepsy monitoring units with nothing better to do, or as part of early clinical trials looking at safety profiles of implanted devices.

Simply speaking, the divide between invasive and non-invasive systems is about the signal-to-noise ratio of neural information. The closer you get to single neurons, the closer you get to the source of neural activity, the higher the signal quality you get to decode with. Consider that EEG systems (the most commonly used non-invasive methods) average neural activity over the range of several 10^-3 to 10^-2 meters, through the attenuation of spinal fluid, dura mater, skull, five scalp layers, and the electrode interface. Electrodes used in modern intracortical BCI systems are 10^-5 meters in diameter.

To my mind, the DARPA announcement is extraordinary -- these technologies have the possibility of upping the SNR for non-invasive methods, and acquiring fundamentally different sources of neural activity. Importantly, the methods seem to have the ability to work at the bedside, without needing very large and very expensive devices (e.g. fMRI, MEG).

Here are some reasons why this would be important:

1) Someone has been admitted to the intensive care unit, and needs a breathing tube on a ventilator for life saving purposes. Some people in this situation are awake and alert. Literature suggests that being intubated and awake is incredibly scary, since you're aware but can't communicate. Having a non- invasive beside method that could decode your thoughts would be a dramatic increase to the person's quality of life, given their temporary stay. Note that eye-trackers may not be feasible, given the amount of stuff in the ICU room, the fact that they're lying down, etc.

2) If you ask people with locked in syndrome them about their priorities for improving their quality of life, the biggest need is improving their ability to communicate (as opposed to spelling boards, or looking up/down to communicate). Note these people cannot use eye-trackers, due to their neurologic condition.

3) Ongoing clinical trials have had volunteers undergo implantation of electrodes into their brain. The devices implanted have been percutaneous (i.e. had a portion go through their skin). These devices have allowed some participants to feed themselves, either using muscle stimulation or through robotic arm control. Not only would having a non-invasive method obviate the need for a surgery, but having a method for "writing into" the brain would provide closed-loop control of the arm/robotic limb they were controlling, putatively increasing the quality of control.

</comment><comment><USER12> These are all interesting approaches. I m surprised there is nothing related to optogenetics, but i guess that is considered too invasive. In reality once we are inside the brain it might prove to be easier to deliver signals, because our brains can learn to "read" a specific sense. This is essentially about creating a sixth sense to humans which can deliver information in new forms to the brain.

<comment><USER13> You would need to engineer cells for optogenetic. So unless you do it at the embryo stage, or have very efficient and robust delivery and editing mechanisms, it will not work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> As long as I can avoid synaptic seepage!

<comment><USER15> Is this a reference to something cyberpunky?

<comment><USER14> Certainly is! :)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Mnemonic_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Mnemonic_\(film\))

[http://www.subzin.com/quotes/M1282877de/Johnny+Mnemonic/Syna...](http://www.subzin.com/quotes/M1282877de/Johnny+Mnemonic/Synaptic+seepage+can+kill+you+in+2+or+3+days).

<comment><USER15> thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Let's see, for such communications we already have eyes, ears, fingers, and voice with all or nearly all of these well proven from most mammals from the smallest mouse to the largest elephant with development time 65+ million years.

And with those _systems_ given, DARPA is going to try to do better, just externally, by using sound, optics, magnetic fields, etc.?

They are NOT going to put one of their devices anywhere near MY head!

Ah, DARPA has done some good stuff -- they are allowed some big losers!

Old Advice: The first step in good research is to pick a good problem!

<comment><USER17> If you like science fiction at all, give Accelerando a read. Of course it's just a story, but it feels like a possible real future (at least the first section). In it, there is definitely a place for people who reject integrating with technology, but that place is in the back and left behind. Instant access to all of digital knowledge, unlimited storage for every thought or experience that interests you, performing complicated calculations, visualizing higher dimensions, and so on. Your fingers, ears, and voice aren't that quick, and your eyes are limited to 2D and only have decent resolution around the center. There is certainly room for improvement over what evolved in mammals (or any animal).

It probably won't be real before I die of old age, and I'd certainly let the early adopters find the bugs, but sign me up for version 3.0 or later if I'm still around.

<comment><USER18> > "Accelerando"

Singularity book 3 by Stross?

<comment><USER19> By Stross, yes. And it's online: [http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog- static/fiction/accelera...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog- static/fiction/accelerando/accelerando-intro.html)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Angry Birds is so successful and popular? - <AUTHOR> http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/2011/02/why-angry-birds-is-so-successful-a-cognitive-teardown-of-the-user-experience/ <comment><USER2> What about the _story_?

As already stated in the comments, Angry Birds is almost identical to "Crush the Castle", another game, of which Flash versions were quite successful but mobile versions weren't. (It involves destroying castles with a trebuchet -- play it here: <http://armorgames.com/play/3614/crush-the-castle>).

It would have made for a more interesting article to compare Angry Birds and Crush the Castle (CTC) to identify differences between the two; as it is the article lists six attributes of success for Angry Birds:

1\. simple yet engaging interaction concept

2\. cleverly managed response time

3\. short-term memory management

4\. mystery

5\. how things sound

6\. how things look

Every one of those qualities is present in CTC, sometimes differently (different sound, different look) but most of the time EXACTLY in the same way (the first three items).

The main originality of Angry Birds is that projectiles are not inanimate objects but living (thinking) creatures, and the pigs (the victims) are stupid/despicable.

In CTC the projectiles are bullets and the victims are soldiers: the goal is to crush the castle but not really to kill the soldiers; the player doesn't care about them (and she certainly doesn't care about the projectiles). It's mostly an engineering project.

In Angry Birds the goal is more to kill the pigs than to crush their houses, and the player identifies with the birds. I would argue this (the story) is a key element to user engagement.

<comment><USER3> A huge difference is the controls. In CTC you aim by timing the release during the swing of the trebuchet. This is tricky, especially since you can't see the target. In Angry Birds you aim by pointing in the direction you want to launch the bird.

A slight error in the timing of the trebuchet launch easily turns your shot into a complete miss.

Angry Birds does introduce timing later, with the various types of birds whose behavior changes with a tap while in flight, but that generally occurs when the bird is close to the target where a slight error usually doesn't completely waste the bird.

The net result is that in Angry Birds I feel like I'm spending most of my effort concentrating on how best to attack the puzzle of understanding the physics of the level so as to efficiently get through it. In CTC I'm concentrating on the reflex game of clicking at the right point in the trebuchet swing. The former is simply a much more engaging game.

PS: I disagree that CTC is not about killing the people. There are levels with people outside the castle. Take down the castle but leave some of those people alive, and the level is not over. Killing the people is the victory condition, so I'd say the game is about killing the people.

<comment><USER2> > _Killing the people is the victory condition_

True, but do you really _want_ to kill those people? They don't even behave like people -- more like "statues that bleed".

> _A huge difference is the controls. In CTC you aim by timing the release > during the swing of the trebuchet. This is tricky_

I'm not so sure. I find operating the trebuchet more intuitive / simple than pulling the sling in the right direction with the right amount of force to send the birds in the air.

BTW, birds fly; they don't need a sling to be airborne... Those "angry birds" are in fact chickens.

Chickens vs. pigs: a simple farm image that speaks to everyone and draws on childhood memories?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _Why do the houses containing pigs shake ever so slightly at the beginning of each game play sequence?_

I assumed that it's because the initial positions of the objects in the game are slightly off the equilibrium state, so when the physics is switched on they slump a little bit.

<comment><USER5> It's to show you that the house is an object which can be moved/destroyed.

<comment><USER6> You're both right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd wasted enough time on Angry Birds to feel qualified enough to write about it.

1\. The splash screen shows a high degree of polish compared to all other games. Every time I start it, it stands out heads and shoulders above other apps.

2\. The whimsical characters mean that there are no scruples with killing real pigs.

3\. The ability to advance to the next level quickly, but at the same time, there is a higher three star achievement for finishing a level with some finesse.

4\. There is an element of luck and timing involved, and this makes for addictive gameplay. It is also very difficult to get the angles exactly the same each time on a small device. Every time you play, you think "this is going to be the perfect game".

5\. The matter of waiting for 2-3 seconds makes for exasperating play, which again is pretty addictive.

<comment><USER8> What do you mean by point 5?

<comment><USER9> It's like teasing. To draw a ridiculous analogy, its like foreplay to sex. It makes it better.

Less ridiculous is this comparison. It's like that slight twitch you get watching the "starting in 3..2..1" dialog before a round of Starcraft or Halo or something... but even more frequent. Anticipation is everything. You get addicted as much to the anticipation, as the moment itself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "This question pops up when products become massively successful based on their user experience design – think iPhone, iPad, _Google Instant Search_ , Nintendo Wii, Microsoft Kinect."

Google Instant Search?

While I'm working on an app with vague similarities to Google instant and I like the idea of it being a wild success, I can't see evidence that it's anything like a "run-away success" given that it was simply a make-over of an already successful interface. Google had most of the market before and after so what could you say about this. I don't remember it getting good review either.

</comment><comment><USER11> I realized it while playing the game, and to a greater extent after reading the article, but it's a very meticulous game. The amount of detail and thought into all the aspects of the game are top notch. I really respected the architecture of some of the more complicated levels in regards to all the little angles, small blocks scattered, combination of material types, etc. In my opinion it's what the game is centered around. The fluff - sounds, visual cues, appealing characters, would not stand on it's own merit without the excruciating detail put into the level design. If it takes half an hour to an hour to complete a level, it must be exponentially more to design the level.

<comment><USER12> Angry birds reminds me a lot of the gameplay and level design of Lode Runner for the Apple IIe. Simple concept, artistic levels that were pictures or boats or houses, and totally addictive gameplay.

Now all we need is a level editor for angry birds...

<comment><USER13> My current aspirations of real full time game development can be traced back to designing Lode Runner levels on my first computer, a Mac 512k. I used to design levels in MacPaint and pretend to play them, because I didn't know any better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A very interesting analysis, that still seems to be a bit off the mark. I felt like it was pointing at one media and saying "See! This works in all cases!"

It feels a little like when, working in a large supermarket, they force-shoved the "FISH!" video down our throats, even though the business model didn't have any flexibility in it. We couldn't apply the principles but they management team hoped that simply being exposed to it would work.

Most of the experience I've had with enterprise product design has demonstrated that "Being engaging" is very VERY low on the product design list, because corporate companies don't care how engaged their staff are.

Developers, however, are loud and wonderfully obnoxious (No, really, I love it) about their tools, so I see a lot more room for engaging behavior, BUT I imagine a developer will also be a lot more annoyed at any perceived duplication of effort (No matter how clever you 'wipe' their short term memory).

</comment><comment><USER15> This is best description of Angry Birds I've read:

 _The game involves employing a sling shot to propel small cannonball-shaped birds with really bad attitudes at rather fragile glass and timber houses populated by basically catatonic green pigs._

</comment><comment><USER16> Angry Birds taught me that the deep gameplay I value does not always make a good casual game. As a current casual and social game developer, I'm always fascinated by casual interest in games, and reading stuff like this really helps me understand why people are drawn to these types of games. It's something I need to be be better at in order to make better games.

</comment><comment><USER17> What I don't understand is how Angry Birds became so popular, but other similar (almost exactly the same) games failed (eg: Crush the Castle). Those games also tackles most of the issues that's talked about in the post.

<comment><USER18> Crush the castle doesn't look fun to play, graphics are very boring. It's way more fun to drop birds at pigs, than rocks at small statues.

<comment><USER19> I personally found Crush the Castle a lot more fun than Angry birds; you don't get stuck in a linear progression, and it feels a lot more "tactile" to me as bits slam into other bits and people scream and die.

<comment><USER20> _as bits slam into other bits and people scream and die._

hmmm, perhaps this appeal isn't as strongly felt by the general public as cute birds slamming into pigs?

<comment><USER19> I think the market has once again made it clear that my opinions differ from most people. I can rant about how terrible modern popular books, TV shows and movies are for a while if you'd like. :-)

<comment><USER21> what books, movies do you currently find interesting? If you don't mind me asking.thanks

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Interface - Using your finger to use the slingshot is very intuitive and fun. This game was made for the iPhone. It wouldn't have been as successful if people had to use a mouse.

Character - You're not shooting rocks and bombs, they're birds! They are colorful and they squawk! And you're not shooting targets, you're shooting pigs! Pigs who smugly smile when you don't hit them.And there's fun music.

Puzzles - Some of the levels are difficult but overall the puzzles can be solved quickly. And there are plenty of them. A series of fun, quick puzzles: the perfect game for 5 minute breaks.

It's interactive and just fun to play. Move your finger, release, shoot the bird, it makes a sound, maybe touch again and the bird does an ability, then shit falls down. And it's you who's doing it. Who doesn't like to knock down dominos?

You're constantly touching the phone and the phone is reacting to you. There's sensory feedback and an addicting rhythm.

</comment><comment><USER23> I don't think it's the cute visuals. I have struggled with compulsive gambling for over 15 years. I normally hate casual games, but immediately had the same addiction to Angry Birds that I do to gambling (which is good because it costs less :) ). The same thing occurred with Tiny Wings. In fact, I've been able to predict both the rise and fall of several game titles just based on my initial reaction to the game. I guess I am hyper-sensitive to any addicting elements that exist.

Anyway, if you want to design an addictive game, look at the characteristics of casino games and design games around those. Maybe all game companies should take copies of their games to Gambler's Anonymous meetings for vetting :).

</comment><comment><USER24> I hazard that its not so much the game itself but the climate within which it was launched and advertised. Saying that, i imagine there were probably enough similar if not identical games that would have failed miserably, in which case Angry Birds set it self apart with simple gameplay, story line and characters.

I do find it depressing that this is the only thing people can bloody go on about though.

</comment><comment><USER25> 1\. Polish.

2\. Funny storyline/characters.

3\. Simple. Can get in and out. Can play for 1 minute or 30 minutes.

4\. You can play the same level over and over and it's different every time due to the mechanics of destroying things that have their own physical properties. It's hard enough to get you to try again but not so difficult that you're driven away.

Points 1 and 2 are what I would call The Draw. They bring you in.

Points 3 and 4 and what I would call The Keeper. They bring you back.

This is why I think it's a good game. There are lots of good games that aren't popular. The reason why it's popular probably has more to do with word-of- mouth advertising and then media coverage. There are probably a high number of addicts (myself included) that go on to evangelize the game to other device owners.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think they did a great marketing job. They released in December (good timing for Christmas) at the cheapest price point. Probably great timing to help it into the top 10 initially. Then they made sure they looked after their users by consistently giving new levels for free for the first 6-12 months. Heck they are still giving free updates now! People love that, in turn the more users took the time to give it good reviews which then helped sell to more people & keep it in the top ten.

</comment><comment><USER27> I think that AB success comes not only from the perfect execution, but also from being able to occupy previously under-served niche: casual iPhone game that can be played in small increments. One game round (successful or not) takes around 30 seconds, after this you have a choice to continue or to stop. If something more important comes up, you stop, if you are still waiting in line, you continue. Then you are drinking coffee and eating croissant, played few round, back to sipping coffee, played few round more.

It's easy to start and easy to stop, and you don't feel that you loose something if you _have_ to stop at this particular moment, and this is really import for the casual game on the phone.

Look at the Cut the Rope. It copies AB concepts verbatim - short engaging levels, three starts, cute character (and candy! :) It became quite a successful game. I don't think Tiny Wings will hold position 1 in the charts long - it's cute, but game progress becomes very difficult quickly and "start- stop model" is not as good. The main reason it is (most likely) not going to stick to position 1 is that there is no way to add incremental value by adding new levels and thus rekindling interest and pumping the rating (another ingenious thing Rovio invented or borrowed and perfectly executed).

</comment><comment><USER28> I think there is something else going on as well. The characters in the game cheer, snicker and scream, but are otherwise incapable of volontary movement. As players we have to carry out all their actions for them. This deeply rekindles with how we play/played with toys as kids, but we dont have to act out all aspects of the game like the physics and voices of the characters.

It is much more the perfect play, rather than the perfect game.

</comment><comment><USER29> I love projects that add a vim-like interface to browsers and other GUI applications. But adding an Angry Birds-like interface to enterprise applications would boost productivity even more. It's strange how rarely gaming metaphors influence business software, and I've often wondered why CMS software doesn't adopt the same type of interfaces you find in RPGs, making them more intuitive and engaging.

<comment><USER30> Quite a few companies are working on this around the world. A concrete example coming to mind is Entellium, that makes a CRM which is largely driven by game mechanics.

Problem is, good game mechanics are very hard to do. But even worse, using such mechanics makes it very easy to accidentally promote wrong behaviour.

For example, score 2 points for sending an email to a prospect, score 5 for calling. 3 emails will give you more points, but any salesman will tell you one call is worth more than 3 emails. So if the "game balance" in your biz app is off, you might thus end up with negative productivity for your users :-)

It's all very interesting though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I must point out that these types of non-predictive analysis can be misleading. One can always point out different merits of a very successful product, but we cannot prove or disprove that these merits has actually led to the success. It could be any point that is missing from the list, and no one can prove or disprove that without extensive comparison analysis. So, please do take caution.

</comment><comment><USER32> For me, it resembles Microsoft's Basic Gorillas <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorillas_(video_game)> and Worms <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worms_(series)> . Both used the same simple and addictive formula.

</comment><comment><USER33> I don't understand how this is a cognitive breakdown of Angry Birds. Trying to relate short-term memory to the success of the game really misses the point. There is so much more that went on the contribute to the success of the game. I guess the question I would want to have answered is how can I attribute qualities that make a game fun and playable to my own games. If there was a direct and single answer to this question I believe no game company would fear losing money on any of their triple A titles.

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm glad I read this because these concepts can also be applied for gamification to boost user engagement. I was already planning on using some game mechanics, but the ones mentioned in the article are subtly executed which should provide for a more seamless integration.

</comment><comment><USER35> An even _simpler_ game that's doing very well in the app store is Little Wings. All you do is touch the screen to fold the little bird's wings, so he falls faster. Just goes to show casual games don't need much complexity to be fun.

</comment><comment><USER36> Angry Birds kind of reminds me of that old Artillery game on early Macs, which was really engaging with 2-people--if only Angry Birds had such.

At any rate, that game's success has been monumental and I am in awe of the creators.

<comment><USER37> It seems to me that Angry Birds is essentially a modernized re-imagining of the classic DOS game, Scorched Earth. Perhaps that's what you're remembering? I don't recall if there was a Mac release of Scorched Earth though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Angry Birds is a poster child for the way "modern indies" design there games:

      * evergreen mechanic
      * cute visuals
      * generated content

<comment><USER39> Not sure what you mean by generated content here.

In Angry Birds, all the levels are _designed_. Not generated algorithmically (as opposed to a game like Canabalt, where the entire level is generated on the fly).

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> And there I was thinking that AB's success and CTC's failure was that the former doesn't finish after a mere handful of levels...

</comment><comment><USER41> The catapult touchscreen physics is enormously satisfying, as is the scale change when you pan between catapult and target.

</comment><comment><USER42> I think the sounds are cool. I mean yeah, the gameplay, but the sounds are fun.

</comment><comment><USER43> no doubt angry birds is well developed game for touch devices....but does it really have any competition?

</comment><comment><USER44> Here's an interesting take on Angry Birds:

<http://blog.munchonme.com/?p=59></comment>


FOSDEM 2017 schedule - <AUTHOR> https://fosdem.org/2017/schedule/ <comment><USER2> Also track side events to come at

[https://fosdem.org/2017/fringe/](https://fosdem.org/2017/fringe/)</comment>


'The Demise of Guys': How video games and porn are ruining a generation  - <AUTHOR> http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/23/health/living-well/demise-of-guys/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

<comment><USER2> I think its easier to shout "bollocks" about this than it is to consider that there is probably truths as well as over-exaggerations in this article.

I do believe that the plethora of instant stimulations is having a major impact on our cognitive processes. Some good, some bad. The bad I see is that it seems that people have a much more difficult time quieting down their minds or enjoying peace. If you watch people, there is a subtle but strong constant desire for stimulation. In fact, its almost odd to see someone waiting for anything without pulling out their smartphone and poking at it.

How this is impacting everyone on a macro level - not entirely sure but hopefully were not on an unstoppable road to the idiocracy scenario.

<comment><USER3> Get your pitchforks, everybody! He criticized the internet! (For the record: at the time of writing, this comment is -1 or -2, judging by the color.)

I've become genuinely disturbed recently by how many people simply cannot stop using their cellphones. You'll be talking to someone, and every 45 damn seconds the thing is out to reply to someone else. This isn't one or two people - this is maybe a third of all people I know.

"Bollocks" this article is, but there's no doubt in my mind that the generations growing into universal electronics are developing different (probably in a bad way) cognitive processes.

I've solved the problem for me by cutting myself off, as much as possible, from the world of electronic communication. I avoid my cellphone (which is a dumbphone, and will so remain), I don't use IM or IRC, and so on. (I can't believe I'm writing this paragraph on HN, of all places. The shame! The hypocrisy!) I now have the self-control to go without constant stimulation, and to relax and let my mind wander. Most people I know, sad to say, do not. I don't think it will turn out to be a good thing, and I think it's something we should, in fact, be worried about.

<comment><USER4> Nah you're just addicted to meditation. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Unbelievable alarmist crap we've been hearing forever. Is it even newsworthy that CNN is pedaling this junk? Also kind of sexist. Girls can play video games and watch porn too. Why are "guys" so special and only their demise news worthy? This article could just as easily read "The demise of people".

Replace "Video games and porn" with X where X has been: Rap, D&D, Rock and roll, premarital sex, alcohol, drink fountains, teenage necking (kissing), dancing etc

<comment><USER6> Agree that the article is crap but at least regarding the internet porn part, it has all the requirements to become destructively addictive. And all stats show that men watch most porn so it's not unjustified sexism.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU>

<comment><USER7> Beer, cigarettes, and gambling have all the requirements to be destructively addictive. Yet while I've known alcoholics, a couple of smoking-related deaths, and one or two people who have hurt themselves financially by gambling, the generations they are sampled from have lived longer and one the whole more comfortably than the generations before them.

<comment><USER6> These are all regulated and continuously up for debate, because, in the end, all addictions become a social/economical problem. Plus beer, cigarettes or gambling certainly did not contribute to prolonging their lives. Porn is not regulated in the west. I m not saying it should, but let's keep a watchful eye.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If I may provide a better, though more cynical headline:

"How huge student loan debts, lack of good jobs, and high gasoline costs are leading to the young impoverished formerly middle class to resort to filling their free time with cheap entertainment, namely video games and porn."

</comment><comment><USER9> It is true that some games and most porn are produced with the intention of exploiting additive behaviour. There is certainly an issue here. This article sheds practically no light on that but instead takes a rambling, anecdote- strewn approach that starts with a conclusion which it scarcely even bothers to try and support.

There is no evidence given of an actual problem existing on a significant scale in society. There is no mention of any other changes in society which might also account for the supposed phenomenon. Addiction is viewed purely as a cause and never a symptom of depression and social exclusion.

I would love to see a proper assessment of the impact of these industries on society. I would love to see more recognition from the more reputable producers in these industries that some unscrupulous companies gain financially from having an addicted consumer base. And I would love to see constructive and practical ideas for how to improve the social impact of these industries in the future. I'm getting none of that here.

<comment><USER10> I agree. OP offers a rant with no constructive solution or even asking helPful questions. I actually agree somewhat that porn is a net negative

I view porn and to most addictions as symptoms. Society is not providing us with what we need to feel fulfilled and meaningful. If we all had deep relationships, a connection to our community and worthwhile goals to aim for I doubt most addictions would occur

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> At least this article isn't written by a female -- those always concludes that dudes are being overtaken females based on idiotic stats like how many people graduate college with a degree (implying that all degrees are equal) and how many finish high school, not taking into account that the high school environment has essentially striped away any posibility to use ones hands.

But this article doesn't present anything new or even noteworthy. Instead it is just more conjecture, more bullshit and nothing that take into account what is really missing from guys life.

This article series on the art of manliness ([http://artofmanliness.com/2011/05/09/the-cure-for-the- modern...](http://artofmanliness.com/2011/05/09/the-cure-for-the-modern-male- malaise-the-5-switches-of-manliness/)) does a much better job at hinting at the truth.

We don't go to video games just because they are fun -- we go to them to get a challenge to over come and prove ourself.

We do this not because video games are stimulating, but because there isn't much place in left in this society for doing and creating (computer programming and especially start ups are the exception, but most people don't live in the valley) things and because the traditional manly role of a provider and protector is essentially gone and there isn't a new distinct one that we can take on (if we are simply the same as the females, how do I prove my manhood?).

<comment><USER12> "if we are simply the same as the females, how do I prove my manhood?"

Why do you feel the need to?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've never seen so many specious generalizations in a single article.

</comment><comment><USER10> "No, don't watch porn! And don't you dare have lust towards girls in the start of a relationship! And how dare you use a sex toy! Vent your stress elsewhere... Thank you.. oh wait.. not video games either! Do something constructive with it! What can you do? Don't ask me, I'm just here to tell what you CAN'T do!"

<comment><USER14> Try an experiment, don't look at porn for 40days straight.

As sensationalist as this article may be (haven't read, not bothered) porn has become one of our most loved.....vices(is that even the correct word?).

I would say that most men who currently view porn on the net (which is to say, probably the majority) would not be able to stop viewing it for 40 days straight. Does this not tell you something?

<comment><USER11> Why not look at porn for 40 days? Just to prove I am not addicted?

It is stupid/silly, like not eating meat for 40 days. Sure you can do it, but why? I don't have any sins I need to atone for.

<comment><USER14> > It is stupid/silly, like not eating meat for 40 days. Sure you can do it, > but why?

You say you can do it, but really, could you? No porn for 40 days, as an exercise in self control. I think the majority of porn using men could not. There is an entire subreddit(/r/nofap) dedicated to this one task, and if you read you will see how difficult it really is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The real travesty is that those kids are still playing Nintendo 64

</comment><comment><USER16> What a horrible article. Technology has admittedly introduced new forms of addictions, but they make the leap to "the demise and ruin of a generation" based on... what, exactly? Starcraft guy in 2005, and Anders Brevik? And apparently the N64, which was a disappointing console but not enough to ruin men for life. Men like stimulation and sex (and stimulating sex). Not news; not the demise of anything.

</comment><comment><USER17> How did this get any votes on Hacker News? Terribly written article with ridiculous link bait for a headline. I used to play Call of Duty quite a bit, and haven't gone on any mass murdering sprees recently. Oh wait, that guy is CRAZY. His video game playing habits have nothing to do with it.

</comment><comment><USER18> I wonder who picked the picture for it and what their intentions were. I mean, an N64 controller? Really? The language screams of bias. The severity and implications of internet/porn/video game/etc addiction are certainly up for discussion, but this article is pure troll bait.

</comment><comment><USER19> I liked the part where they used generalizations based on people who are arguably psychopathic to indicate an epidemic of addictive demise.

</comment><comment><USER20> I found this article to be completely non-stimulating.</comment>


Executive Order – Protecting the Nation Against Attacks by Foreign Nationals - <AUTHOR> https://www.scribd.com/document/337545704/Draft-Executive-Order-To-Limit-Entry-of-Muslim-Refugees-and-Immigrants <comment><AUTHOR> This is a different memo than the one describing the revival of "black sites" discussed recently; the Huffington Post seems to be the first to have picked it up. Brief snippet of their discussion:

 _UPDATE 1 /25/17: HuffPost obtained a draft of the executive order. Read it below._

 _WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump is preparing to issue an executive order dramatically restricting refugee admissions to the U.S. and denying visas to individuals from countries his administration deems high-risk, according to congressional and advocacy organization sources briefed on a draft._

 _The executive order could still change before Trump signs it, which could happen this week. According to sources, administration officials are considering:_

o _Blocking refugees from war-torn Syria from entering the U.S. indefinitely._

o _Suspending all refugee admissions for 120 days while the administration determines which countries pose the least risk. Temporarily suspending visa issuances to people in countries where the administration considers security screening inadequate ― meaning people from those countries couldn't enter the U.S. at all._

o _Capping total refugee admissions for fiscal year 2017 at 50,000 ― less than half of the 110,000 proposed by the Obama administration._

 _Sources briefed on the draft executive order said the list of countries targeted is not yet finalized, but those under consideration ― Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen ― are all Muslim-majority nations. Trump vowed last year to suspend immigration from "terror-prone regions" as one of his first moves._

...

 _Former intelligence analysts have pointed out that a policy that specifically discriminates against Muslims perpetuates the narrative that the U.S. is at war with Islam, which serves as a powerful recruiting tool for jihadist groups like the so-called Islamic State and al Qaeda._

 _"I ask Allah to deliver America to Trump," one ISIS spokesman wrote in August._

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-muslim-ban- refugee...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-muslim-ban- refugees_us_58877244e4b096b4a2349927)?</comment>


Despite What Your New Phone Says, There Is No Such Thing As 4G - <AUTHOR> http://www.motherboard.tv/2011/10/11/despite-what-your-new-phone-says-there-is-no-such-thing-as-4g <comment><USER2> let's not call UMTS w/ HSPA+ 4G. let's call it ~3.75G.

4G LTE will use ODFM.</comment>


Ask HN: What health insurance company do you use? - <AUTHOR>

We're a small, angel-funded company of three. Two are still insured from school, one is uninsured. Does anyone know of a reasonable small group policy? Or should we consider something like tokic.com for each of us individually? <comment><USER2> It's in your best interest to contact a broker. They can advise you as to the best way to go and it doesn't cost you anything extra to use them.

<comment><USER3> What sort of broker?

<comment><USER2> A health insurance broker. You can find one on local.google.com.

I'm assuming you're in California, if you're not (or you're having a tough time finding a broker) I can probably find a broker to refer you to. (I'm in the insurance industry on the brokerage side of the fence.)</comment></comment></comment>