Why Teachers Won't Be Replaced By Software - <AUTHOR> http://blog.trinket.io/teachers-wont-be-replaced/ <comment><USER2> This "fire bad teachers" thing is stupid.

You can't compare a teacher that has a class of 15 native english speaking, upper middle class, 2 parent house holds kids to a teacher with a class of 32 english as a second langurage, poor, hungry, cold, kids that are children of drug addicts, drunks, refugees especially using test written in English.

Mark said something like poor comunities have a problem with bad teachers. WTF? How about poor students have a problem learning regardless of who the teacher is.

software could work for the motivated learner. But so would an abacus or a pen and paper.

<comment><USER3> >>>You can't compare a teacher that has a class of 15 native english speaking, upper middle class, 2 parent house holds kids to a teacher with a class of 32 english as a second langurage, poor, hungry, cold, kids that are children of drug addicts, drunks, refugees especially using test written in English.

Nor should you, but hopefully no one is seriously suggesting comparing those two groups directly. What you can do is compare teachers to their peers in similar schools, and see whose students improve more over a given year. If an average student in Teacher A's class goes from reading at level x to x+2 in the course of a year, that's better than going from x to x+1.

<comment><USER4> This is making the assumption that a sample size of 30 kids in one school year doesn't have anomalies that will skew the average and that the testing for reading levels such as the DRAs are foolproof?

<comment><USER3> To your second point, I wouldn't test only reading levels - I'd test whatever we want/expect students to improve in. Reading, writing, math, social skills, happiness, physical fitness, whatever. And sure, we need good solid methods for testing these things, so let's get started on it.

To your first point...maybe 30 kids isn't a big enough sample. I'm not suggesting this be implemented tomorrow as the absolute standard on which to judge teachers. Maybe they need to be observed over 3-5 years, maybe we can try to control/adjust for other variables. What bothers me is the idea that because measuring teacher skill/success is difficult, we shouldn't try at all and just use seniority (or absolute test scores) as the single deciding factor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you look at the vast majority of MOOCs, they frankly kind of suck. Usually they're just a collection of poorly edited videos with maybe a forum where students can comment. They're on a fixed timeline where assignments need to be done linearly at set intervals, just the same as you would get if you were taking the course in person.

Compare that to something more dynamic like Khan Academy, where the subjects all build on each other like a directed graph. Students learn at their own pace, and gamification techniques get them to come back for more. Subject mastery isn't based on tests, but is constantly checked using heuristics which can determine whether a student needs help in a particular area. Oh, and grades get thrown out the window since everyone achieves complete mastery in the subject.

If you think of replacing teachers with a traditional Udacity style MOOC, yeah, I can't really see it happening. The only benefit they offer is that you don't have to be at the course in person. Could something like Khan Academy replace teachers? Clearly not entirely, however there are so many more benefits to learning this way, that it certainly is in the realm of possibility.

<comment><USER6> at the same time, MOOCs haven't even really started yet. Think about the first video games compared to what we have now.

Now think about the MOOCs we have now, and imagine what the 8th generation of MOOCs will look like. I can't imagine that. But I can imagine that it will possibly be more effective than the average teacher out there.

One of the greatest things about a MOOC is that your teacher can be a feynman caliber instructor. For a student that is willing to put in a lot of effort and has the desire to learn, what is going to better for you, a year's worth of pre-recorded feynman, or an average physics teacher? that might be up for debate, but personally, i'm going with feynman every single time.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Feynman caliber instructor

Feynman was brilliant, and I have a set of both his lectures for freshman and the ones he did on gravitation. But he was not a gifted teacher. He was a gifted learner. Those of us who can follow him can see an amazing mind at work. But gifted teachers will look into students minds and help them build new understandings.

<comment><USER6> The feynman lectures were aimed at the smartest students at caltech to keep them interested in physics. You have to consider who the audience was. If Feynman made a series of lectures for physics 101 where the majority of students had no physics experience (or a physics 101 for the general public), then he would make the material different. You can't look at one set of materials by Feynman for one group of students and conclude that he isn't a gifted teacher. There is a reason he is called the "Great Explainer." There is a reason people called him the Greatest Science Teacher while he was alive.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXtnYnoutKk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXtnYnoutKk)

<comment><AUTHOR> Don't get me wrong; as I mentioned above I've found his lectures on both introductory physics and gravitation to be extremely enlightening, as did many of the Caltech students he taught (who were, by the way, just normal intro physics students, albeit at a selective university). His teaching can be highly effective when matched to the proper audience.

But that's just my point: there is no 0 to 100 scale of 'goodness' in teaching. And Feyman, regardless of his brilliance, doesn't sit at the top of hierarchy of teaching excellence. It's about fit between the student and the delivery the instructor. The Feynman lectures in video form can not be the pinnacle of physics instruction because they're fixed, not adaptable to the needs of different learners.

<comment><USER6> How am I getting you wrong? You said above that "he was not a gifted teacher."

You said "his teaching can be highly effective when matched to the proper audience." I disagree. He famously could teach extremely effectively to any level of audience.

You said Feynman "doesn't sit at the top of hierarchy of teaching excellence." Many people would disagree. Many people consider him the greatest physics teacher ever.

In terms of just the Feynman lectures in video form, Yes, I agree that they are limited. But I brought up Feynman because I believe a feynman caliber instructor alive today with the existing possibilities in software and video would definitely be able to make something very adaptable to many learners and easily more effective than the average teacher.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Teachers weren't replaced by books either. Who on earth thinks that they will be replaced by software?

I learnt from books and was guided by my teachers. I expect my kids will learn from books, videos and software and still be guided by teachers.

And as someone who has spent a fruitless day googling for how to do a relatively simple task I can confidently state that mentoring by an accomplished human beats software any day of the week.

<comment><USER8> _Teachers weren 't replaced by books either. Who on earth thinks that they will be replaced by software?_

I don't see how that follows. Horse-drawn vehicles weren't replaced by trains, but they still were eventually replaced. I don't know if teachers will be replaced by software, but the fact that they weren't replaced by previous technologies is hardly strong evidence against it.

 _And as someone who has spent a fruitless day googling for how to do a relatively simple task I can confidently state that mentoring by an accomplished human beats software any day of the week._

Well, let's look at the evidence. Since that event, have you stopped using Google and hired a teacher to follow you around to you can ask her/him stuff?

Assuming you haven't, then clearly Google is a better solution, whether it is due to cost, breadth of information, availability, etc.

Now, of course, learning a syllabus is hardly the same as searching for information on random tasks. But then again, so would any software designed to "replace teachers"; clearly no one will suggest using Google for the task.

Personally, I don't think teachers as a whole will be replaced, but I can see it allowing teachers to take on bigger classes, allowing administrators to cut costs by firing a few.

<comment><USER7> >>> Personally, I don't think teachers as a whole will be replaced, but I can see it allowing teachers to take on bigger classes, allowing administrators to cut costs by firing a few.

So we agree - teachers won't get replaced :-)

but books allowed teachers to take on bigger classes too - and what happened is more people went to classes and we needed more teachers. Maybe we shall see something similar just less classrooms?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Teachers _are_ being replaced by software.

And the reason we need to fire the bad ones is that, unlike software, you can't just replicate their product wherever you need and let the bad ones wilt away through neglect.

<comment><USER10> I've worked with various online homework systems in mathematics for five years. They have not improved demonstrably in that time.

I've taken a couple MOOCs, and have not been terribly impressed with the mechanical grading algorithms.

Teachers may be replaced by software, but I don't believe the substitution is of equal for equal.

<comment><USER9> I was thinking of the internet, rather than a specific scholastic tools.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> IMO, this whole discussion is flawed as it assumes that the answer is teachers OR software. This is not a zero sum game.

The answer, like the answer to most things, is likely in the middle. Software including but not limited to lecture content from subject matter experts will enhance and modify the way the classroom interacts allowing local "teachers" to focus on their students.

</comment><comment><USER12> Everything you can learn in an undergraduate cs course (and so much more) has already been written in a hundred different books all available on amazon for a considerably lower price and shipped right to your door. If information was _all_ that teachers (and educational institutions) offered, they would have been replaced a long time ago.

And I'm saying this as someone who prefers to learn from books. So what else is there? Individualized attention? Community and networking? Human interaction? Motivation and structure? Signaling? Probably some combination.

Any _real_ replacement needs to address all of these; video lectures, digital notes, and online questions are just reinventing what I can already pick up at the book store.

<comment><USER13> I'd say motivation is a big one. It takes motivation to push yourself to learn from books. I prefer to learn that way myself. But plenty of students don't have it or don't see the value. A teacher or mentor can make a huge difference to students in that situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Apropos of nothing, one internet guy's unjustified personal opinions on the future of teaching and software: The one-to-many "lecturing" interaction should be replaced by software, in order to give teachers more free time for the one-on-one interaction with students. One-on-one personalized feedback on progress is extremely valuable to students, and more difficult to automate, so it seems to me the best use of teachers' time.

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here, and I think I agree with what you've written. Lecturing and textbooks are both means of conveying information. Students can seek out information on their own time, but the act of teaching is helping someone else construct an understanding. That's the key thing software can't do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> No. Teachers will be replaced with mentors, who will help guide the students learning. Or teachers will become these mentors.

However, the One to Many lectures WILL be replaced by Software.

Just Watch.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed that lectures need to die.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think the thing that is most often missing from educational software (and most online course delivery formats) is the most important thing: motivation.

The teachers that I most fondly remember weren't the ones that taught me the most material, or ensured that I got the highest test scores. They were the teachers who inspired me; the ones who unlocked a deep curiosity and desire for learning inside me.

The current system doesn't care that much about motivation (although it is changing). You take classes largely because you have to. You learn so that you can pass a test.

Openness in teaching is a big piece of the puzzle, but it isn't the end of the road. In software, for example, I would argue that by becoming more open, motivation to improve was increased among developers (I don't want to be the one with the terrible code on Github). Of course, in software, the target of openness and the one who needs to be motivated are the same person; you. This isn't the same in education. Increasing openness among teachers will undoubtedly have an effect, but the customer for education isn't the teacher.

We are essentially circling the problem by saying "students aren't learning, let's change things around with the teachers." I think that teachers are very important, and I definitely don't advocate mass firings. I just really hope that we find a way to rephrase the goal to something more along the lines of "students aren't learning, how can we work with the student?" If this is teaching basic stuff largely through online methods and having teachers spend more time with students, great. If this is increasing transparency surrounding schools, great. Personally, I hope that some combination of better software that automates basic stuff and allows teachers to work one on one with students more often, more information, and more training will do it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Absolutely- I agree wholeheartedly. Motivation to learn is the raw material that a good teacher can induce forma student and use to prompt learning. Software can be a part of increasing how often this process happens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Teachers won't be replaced by software in environments where human discourse is necessary or valuable.

But research professors who either can't lecture or don't try to lecture well? It's almost inevitable. Lectures are a commodity that can be recorded and broadcast at a massive scale. Individual or small-group instruction isn't a commodity.

<comment><USER18> >Teachers won't be replaced by software in environments where human discourse is necessary or valuable.

that's true ... until discourse with AI becomes more valuable and efficient investment of time.

In the meantime, discourse with a good teacher in China for example may be more valuable then one with a bad teacher here.

<comment><USER19> If discourse with AIs is more valuable than discourse with human beings, humanity is on its way out anyway. Why would anyone teach a human being anything in that case? It would be AIs teaching each other.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Relevant article: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7030778](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7030778)

I think the author is spot on. I think the idea of firing all teachers to get the results you want undermines the profession as a whole and I really appreciate his analogy to firing the "bottom 10%" of programmers. There is just so much more a teacher has to do to reach "success", especially when dealing with low-income communities, students with disabilities, or even different levels of aptitude/learning styles. I don't see teachers replacing software with the current solutions.

Credentials: I'm a former TFA teacher turned software engineer and I tutor web development in 1-to-1 sessions on nights/weekends.

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here. Thanks for the kind words. Udacity's pivot is a shot across the bow for Startups that can't figure out the difference between teaching and media. Their coaches are a good start- step in the right direction. If they had perfected that with academics they might not have had to pivot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It doesn't matter whether robots or humans are teaching your kids, if the whole approach to education is wrong:

Current model of education: Multidisciplinary, value-free, with an emphasis on standardized tests.

Compare this to:

Alfred North Whitehead's reform model: Transdisciplinary, values-laden, with an emphasis on the importance of imagination. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead#Views_on...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead#Views_on_education)

Note that _multidisciplinary_ means teaching small parts of a large number of disconnected subjects, whereas _transdisciplinarity_ means teaching a few important ideas that organically link many different subjects and that apply to real life.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm the founder of an edTech where we are using software to _IMPROVE_ teacher training. Teachers, especially new teachers, need a lot of support, not just from in school peers, but outside of school. They also need constructive feedback on their practice (from peer teachers, parents, and students). Current training is one size fits all and not personalized. Current evaluation only focuses on test scores.

</comment><comment><USER22> Yes they will.

Same incorrect argument people always pull out about with automation. Prove you need some => then you need all.

Software will make teachers 10%+ better then they'll fire the bottom 10% (or just 10%)

As it is class size mattering is a myth. A good teacher can teacher quite a large class. Studies don't show a small class makes a lot of difference.

<comment><AUTHOR> [Citation needed.]

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The teaching of a good teacher can't be replaced by software.

Unfortunately, a whole series of public policy decisions have forced teachers of multiple levels to teach badly.

And there's no reason not to replace someone lecturing to a 200 person class or someone merely prepping for standardized tests with software.

</comment><comment> vezzy-fnord Teachers won't be replaced entirely by software, they will be augmented by it.

However their influence and once revered role in society as educators, proliferators of knowledge, will be dethroned by a growing increase of digital information and autodidacticism.

</comment><comment><USER24> I don't know where you work, but at every company I've worked at they _do_ fire bad coders (as well as good coders who are hurting the team for some other reason).

</comment><comment><USER25> Every job will be replaced with software (and hardware for jobs with a physical component).

The only question for each profession is "when?".

<comment><USER26> Not every job... _somebody_ has to make the money from automation otherwise what's the point?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Until they are.</comment>


Ask HN: UK or French Startups Considering YC Fellowship ? - <AUTHOR>

Are any YC Fellowship applicants near London or Paris interested in forming a local group ? Please get in touch.<p>For me, this would be a prerequisite to put forward a YCF application. I'd like to hear from founders who think the same ! <comment><USER2> Out of interest, why do you feel the need for other UK or French start ups just to apply? I understand the desire to be able to bounce ideas off of others but isn't the whole point of the remote office hours, that YC will be trying to find ways to make it work from a distance? This IS a tech community after all, so whilst personal contact can be key, temporary distance- communication should be workable I think.

<comment><AUTHOR> YMMV, but I believe the hybrid model (YC remote office hours + local group dinners), could be many times more effectual than just remote YC.

<comment><USER2> Don't disagree that in-person is better but the OP said it was a pre-requisite to applying. I just wasn't surewhy someone would make it a pre-requisite rather than a preference....

<comment><AUTHOR> (I am the OP) All I was saying is that, personally, I don't think I could have a successful YCF without the in-person element, and therefore would not even bother applying in that case. But I'm sure other startups would feel differently about this ;)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google blocked Acer's rival phone to prevent Android "fragmentation" - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/google-blocked-acers-rival-phone-to-prevent-android-fragmentation/ <comment><USER2> troll

<comment><AUTHOR> FTA: "Update: Alibaba has contacted us with the following statement criticizing Google: "It is ironic that a company that talks freely about openness is espousing a closed ecosystem. Aliyun OS is not part of the Android ecosystem, so of course Aliyun OS is not, and does not have to be, compatible with Android. This is like saying that because they own the Googleplex in Mountain View, therefore anyone who builds in Mountain View is part of the Googleplex. Will someone please ask Google to define Android?""</comment></comment>


Ultra-dense optical data transmission over standard fibre with a single chip - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16265-x <comment><USER2> Wow. Impressive.

> 25% increase every year

Is there anything like Moore's law for optical cable bandwidth?

<comment><USER3> More so when you work out how much data is inflight, maybe we see fiber reels used as storage/memory. Kinda like what we had in the early days of wire memory. May well see that come back into play with speeds like this for some uses cases.

<comment><USER4> The speed of light works against you in that case. Even at the incredible 14Thz line rate achieved here, 1km of fibre can have ~146kbits bits in flight at a time.

<comment><USER3> Yes, though in this instance they pulled of 44terrabits rate per second, so with that you would be looking at 156 megabits inflight over a 1km cable if my napkin maths are correct. Thats 18 megabytes, sure error rate etc and correction would limit that a bit as nothing works as ideal, but sure does seem like may have some uses come into play.

<comment><USER4> 46 megabits at 3.34µs per kilometer[1], however error correction brings that way down. Regardless 1KM of fibre is quite substantial, we're talking densities far lower than even 70s technology. Worse if you try to up the cable length for larger storage latency will increase with it.

1: [https://www.m2optics.com/blog/bid/70587/Calculating- Optical-...](https://www.m2optics.com/blog/bid/70587/Calculating-Optical- Fiber-Latency)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What kind of wacky unit is the spectral efficiency of bits/sec/Hz? Isn't that the same as 'bits'?

I mean, I'm guessing it's just saying the bit rate depends on the signal frequency, but it's still funny to see canceling units.

Related: a "spacing" measured in GHz.

Again, it makes sense, but it struck me that someone could write a total spoof paper with nonsense units and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference!

<comment><USER6> It's the normal unit/measurement of spectral efficiency. You have X Hz bandwidth, and you multiply it by the spectral efficiency to get the data rate.

The fact that the time-unit cancels out just shows that spectral efficiency is independent of any sense of time one might have.

Measuring "spacing" in GHz makes sense if you consider the way heterodyne mixing shifts the signal around, without affecting the spacing of sub- carriers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Imagine having your CPU linked to memory or data-bus over a single fiber connection instead of complicated multi traced connections. One day perhaps.

<comment><USER7> Don't the electronic:optical and optical:electronic transitions introduce quite a bit of latency? I've seen estimates of around 500 microseconds per conversion. That's not enough to matter for networking, but RAM chips have internal latencies measured in nanoseconds.

Of course, "one day perhaps" this could change.

<comment><USER8> The laser and detector only introduce ~1 ns of latency and the serdes might introduce a few more ns (e.g. OpenCAPI Open Memory Interface claims 4 ns).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Impressive stuff. I think the BER is appallingly high. Current applications want pre-FEC BER on the order of 10^-12, not 10^-2. TANSTAAFL.

<comment><USER10> 10^-12 _before_ FEC strikes me as outlandishly low.

Why would applications even care about the BER before FEC?.

<comment><USER9> FEC does not perform miracles. It only trades off some throughput for a few orders of magnitude in BER. FEC can also be defeated by common types of distortions. If you get a spike of alien crosstalk then you aren't going to just get one bit error, so you really do need that high fidelity connection if you don't want your link to shit the bed in the real world.</comment></comment></comment>


Apple Monitoring Blood Glucose - <AUTHOR> https://mondaynote.com/apple-monitoring-blood-glucose-9e6f7bb0b467 <comment><USER2> As a type 1 diabetic I'm super excited to see apple working in this space, even if they're focusing it on type 2 to start (a logical move, considering there is something like 30x more type 2 diabetics in the US). I think making it easier to track glucose levels in real time is the number one thing that can be done to improve quality of life for _both_ types of diabetics.

The "CGM" (continuous glucose monitor) has really come into it's own over the last 10 or so years, and I would encourage all diabetics (but especially type 1) to use one. Currently the only 2 real options on the market are:

\- [http://www.dexcom.com/](http://www.dexcom.com/) \- Connects directly to your phone using bluetooth and will send glucose warnings etc as notifications.

\- [https://www.medtronicdiabetes.com/products/enlite- sensor](https://www.medtronicdiabetes.com/products/enlite-sensor) \- Designed to work with Medtronic (who is a market leader) insulin pumps.

Both these options are expensive (even with insurance for many), invasive, and not really tailored towards "casual" glucose monitoring. I think if Apple enters the space with a non-invasive tool it'll be a huge boon for causal glucose monitoring. I also think it could be a more accessible option for people who are interested using a CGM to treat their diabetes but can't/won't use one of the existing options due to cost or inconvenience.

This seems like a win win and I'm excited to see where it goes.

<comment><USER3> My partner is type 1 diabetic, and CGMs were a game changer for her (they started rolling out in Switzerland last year).

She's been using the FreeStyle Libre ([https://www.freestylelibre.co.uk/libre/](https://www.freestylelibre.co.uk/libre/)), which uses NFC and on select markets has an Android app available, but here we still have to use the handheld reader.

<comment><USER4> > they started rolling out in Switzerland last year

Wow, do you know why this is? The Dexcom G4 is already 5 years old and is absolutely a life-saving system.

<comment><USER5> That's because there are so few of us Type 1 diabetics and not enough political pressure to get the new stuff faster. There are some activist doctors and nurses that help in Germany, but we also got the G4 for free only on last November.

The insurance companies are conservative and see the systems as very expensive investments and the technology is something scary in a country which is still very suspicious about Internet and computers in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One of the linked articles has some more technical details on how non-invasive blood sugar measurement works (for the GlucoWise device currently in development):

The glucose levels are extracted by a non-invasive technique which transmits low-power radio waves through a section of the human body, such as the area between the thumb and forefinger or the earlobe. These areas have adequate blood supply and are thin enough for waves to pass through the tissue. These signals are then received by a sensor on the opposite side of the GlucoWise device, where the data about the characteristics of the blood within the flesh are collected and analysed.

The other non-invasive technique that has received a lot of press is, of course, Google/Novartis' contact lens. That device measures blood sugar from tears.

Most other blood sugar measurement systems require either blood draws from a pin prick or a sensor attached to your body that measures sugar content in the subcutaneous fluid as a proxy for blood sugar.

</comment><comment><USER7> Apple's recent obsession with health monitoring is weird from a branding standpoint. Losing appeal with young people is the nightmare of any technology company, becoming known as that gadget for geriatrics is another level of dejection.

I read that this focus is particularly driven by Tim Cook's fascination with the space. It sort of confirms my idea of him as not a very image conscious CEO, especially in contrast with Jobs who was a legend at imbuing Apple with coolness and desirability.

<comment><USER8> I don't have any data on hand to back this up, but I don't think younger people are necessarily averse to monitoring their own health. I think personal health monitoring devices fit well with the devices the younger generation already uses to help maintain their identity and concept of self.

I agree if it's poorly implemented or marketed it won't be adopted, but Apple probably has a shot at getting it right.

<comment><USER9> I agree. I've only seen middle aged office workers wear stuff like Fitbit, posture correction, sleep tracking type of things. Young people don't have to worry about 'sitting is new smoking' .

<comment><USER10> There is a nerdy segment that loves tracking all of this health data forever and ever.

There is also the segment that just wants to lose weight, and that can apply at all ages. A continuous glucose monitor is also a great way to monitor keto diets or similar. Keep yourself under a certain glucose level continuously and your body will be forced to use fat sources!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Research labs have been trying this for years with every spectroscopy known to man - the signal is just too weak. I don't see any reason to think Apple has figured something out that labs of optics experts can't do on the benchtop.

<comment><USER12> I think machine learning coupled with increase in sensitivity of the signals could make a difference.

<comment><USER13> Why would machine learning be able to overcome a lack of statistical power?

<comment><USER12> Did you miss the part about sensitive sensors? A single sensor may not be enough to classify accurately but multiple sensors measuring different things can sometimes work. Such sensor fusion has worked incredibly well for IMU's and also in self-driving cars.

<comment><USER14> That's how the Glucotrack claims to work. From their site:

 _GlucoTrack uses ultrasonic, electromagnetic and thermal technologies to non- invasively measure glucose levels in the blood. GlucoTrack is intended for use by Type 2 and pre-diabetics.

GlucoTrack combines the following technologies:

Ultrasound (speed of sound change within the tissue);

Electromagnetic (conductivity of the tissue);

Thermal (heat capacity of the tissue)._

It's not approved by the FDA, but it appears to be selling in Australia, New Zealand, Spain, China, Korea, Italy and some others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _Apple appears to be working on blood glucose monitoring as a way to address Type 2 Diabetes._

Either the article is very wrong, or Apple is doing something very cute here.

Type 2 diabetics do check their blood glucose -- occasionally. For non- insulin-using diabetics (aka. most type 2s) medical plans typically cover less than one test per day, because the evidence is that testing more frequently doesn't accomplish anything. (Blood glucose testing in T2D basically answers the question "is the treatment working, or do I need to talk to my endocrinologist", while blood glucose testing in T1D is essential for answering the question "how much insulin should I inject right now".)

So the idea of a continuous glucose monitoring system for type 2 diabetics is pretty much nonsense from a medical perspective; sure, they'll get pretty graphs, but those graphs won't provide any medically actionable information. So my first instinct was to think that the article was very wrong.

But maybe Apple is being very cute. The reason we don't have any non-invasive blood glucose tests is that nobody has managed to make them _accurate enough to meet FDA requirements for tests to be used for diagnostic and treatment purposes_. But if Apple markets this as being for type 2 diabetics... well, they can perfectly reasonably put a sticker on the box saying "for entertainment purposes only", since that's the only thing type 2 diabetics would be using a continuous glucose monitor for anyway! FDA requirements circumvented -- and once Apple gets a large installed used base, they get a huge pile of data which they can use to help them develop a later version which _is_ accurate enough.

<comment><USER16> > testing more frequently doesn't accomplish anything

totally anecdotal but I test aprox 10 times per day and have reduced an A1C of 8.2 at diagnosis to 5.5 (non diabetic). I'm extremely sceptical that you can optimise your plan sufficiently with a test once per day, it's a akin to having a speedometer on your car that only gives you a speed once during the entire journey.

<comment><USER15> Are you T1 or T2? I was specifically talking about T2s; testing multiple times a day can be useful to get a sense of daily patterns, but those patterns will tend to persist from one month to the next so there's no need to test many times a day every day.

<comment><USER16> I'm T2. I use the levels to make small adjustments throughout the day.

Some examples: In the morning I go for a cycle, I use the levels to decide what distance to do and also during the ride to ensure I don't hypo (I'll eat some fruit if my levels are getting too close to 70). After lunch I go for a walk, depending on how my level is looking it will either be 3km or 5km. In the evening I generally check my level about 10pm, if it's looking too high then I'll add an additional walk in.

There are many other details where I use my levels to adjust my behaviour, at this point it's all automatic but I couldn't do it without knowing what my level is at any point in time (needless to say I'll be queuing outside the Apple store if they do actually release an Apple Watch with a glucose monitor).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As a type II diabetic I would love it if Apple got in the continuous monitoring field; namely because it will help the field as a whole get better. It is largely dominated by one company with an invasive method.

As an aside to the article Type II is caused by diverse reasons; not just weight. Weight is deffinately a factor; but there are other genetic and physiological factors that contribute to how well your body uses/produces insulin. The article doesn't help mitigate this by referring to Type II as a "Lifestyle" i.e. Shaming disease.

Diabetics have a enough to deal with then to be rudely told it's their fault and they simply have to 'exercise'. A little compassion goes a long way.

</comment><comment><USER18> This article talks about type 2 diabetes, but I'm wondering why a non-invasive continuous blood glucose monitor would not be just as useful and desirable for type 1s as well. A friend of mine has type 1, and more than once, she's expressed hopeful anticipation for a future combined non-invasive blood glucose monitor and insulin pump -- effectively an external artificial pancreas to take over the functionality of her broken natural one.

<comment><USER19> It would be very desirable, but all of the many companies who have tried to get accurate results non-invasively have failed. With Apple's resources, perhaps they'll lick the problem, but I wouldn't bet on it.

So to answer your question: Probably because if a Type 1 Diabetic uses a non- invasive glucose monitor to determine their insulin dosage, much of the time they will overdose, and possibly fall into a coma or die.

<comment><USER20> A co-worker of mine is doing a similar kinda thing but with circulating tumor cells, so I have some 3rd hand knowledge of these kinda tests.

Fact of the matter is that the human body is, chemically and pathologically speaking, fucking bulletproof. Our bodies are just super freaking good at maintaining homeostasis. This means that a lot of tests like blood-glucose, cancer diagnosis, etc that are trying for non-invasive blood testing just have a HUGE parameter space to contend with. Apple's idea may work with calm light- skinned office workers, but will it work with sweating dark-skinned day laborers? African Americans are the population most at risk for DM-II. How about if your blood pressure goes all wonky? What about someone going through a growth spurt? Does it work when you put your arm in motor oil? What about people without arms? Lives aren't 'edge cases'; your device MUST cover all those real people with families and children. I'll believe their device when it passes FDA approval and the clinical data is out there for us all to see and argue over.

<comment><USER21> > your device MUST cover all those real people with families and children

Are you talking from a regulatory standpoint? Why couldn't Apple (or anybody) make a device that works on a limited range of skin colors? If you can't help everybody, does that mean you shouldn't help anybody?

<comment><USER20> Regardless of the soundness of the logic of your reply, the way that idea would be seen by darker-skinned communities (especially like the African- american community in the US that is highly affected by DM-II) would be something like "Apple made a racist product and wants black people to die". Additionally, if the device only works on non-sweating, not moving, healthy, white/asian office workers out of bright sunlight who have not recently eaten nor have gone more than 5 hours without eating, it's not really something that helps anyone who would need it.

<comment><USER21> People with darker skin aren't idiots. Current products like Fitbit trackers already work poorly on dark skinned people, so it's not anything new. I don't think that community is going to call Apple (or, more generally, physics) racist.

Also, I think you underestimate the market size of light skinned office workers with significant disposable income that don't _need_ blood glucose monitoring but _want_ it anyway. I'm one of them.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple launched multiple devices. The $500-$600 watch would give blood glucose trends or some other derivative information. The $2000-$3000 watch would be the one that gives a medically useful measurement. They could iterate quickly on one and work through the ponderous regulation with the other. Maybe they would even license the technology to Medtronics or some other medical device company and let somebody else deal with the headaches.

<comment><USER20> Wait, why would you want blood-glucose monitoring that is not medically proven to work or be reliable?

Like, yeah, maybe it works in a very limited set of situations, but that's the same as a broken clock that only tells the right time twice a day; you'd never know when the monitoring device is working 'correctly'. It would be a random number generator, effectively, if it was not proofed.

Besides, if you aren't a diabetic, why would you care? The human body is highly variable, from person to person, and even inside of a person after meals. All it would do, _if_ it were accurate 'enough', is say some number that you can't control. Like, you aren't gonna take any insulin shots to mess with it, that would likely kill a normal person. I can't see any actual use for a healthy person. Trying to 'game' that (assumed reliable) number would just put you into a coma; we're supposed to have spikes in the concentration, that's how vertebrates work. Playing 'what-if' games with number would be like Russian Roulette, each experiment may kill you.

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

[http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/daily-control-17/slideshow- blo...](http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/daily-control-17/slideshow-blood-sugar- swings)

[http://www.everydayhealth.com/type-2-diabetes/symptoms/surpr...](http://www.everydayhealth.com/type-2-diabetes/symptoms/surprising- causes-of-blood-sugar-swings/#02)

Also, I'm not saying that people with dark skin are idiots. I'm saying that the 'optics' of Apple releasing that thing aren't 'good' as a large percentage of their 'customers' that have DM-II are dark-skinned, though not all by any means.

<comment><USER21> Perfect is the enemy of good. My Fitbit counts steps, but it isn't all that accurate from an absolute standpoint. Still, I find the day-to-day variances interesting.

Same goes for blood glucose monitoring. I'd like to see if I can find correlations between my mood, productivity, sleep, fasting, etc... and my blood glucose levels. Like step tracking, the absolute number doesn't matter.

Cook has already said that blood glucose measuring would be useful for people _before_ they have diabetes. That's what makes me think it isn't necessarily a medical device they are building. At least not for version 1.

The last article is one of the things that would be super interesting for me to see. How do blood glucose levels change when I drink a diet soda vs water, for example.

<comment><USER20> The problem is that the number you are getting is useless, there is _no_ relative measure. Yes, maybe for you and for your particular fitbit recently, you may believe hat it 'works'. But you are very likely an outlier, there is no reason to believe some device like the glucose one will work for you or just about anyone else. The tech is essentially vaporware.

Also, giving people even psuedo-medical diagnoses is just irresponsible; either it works or it does not. You can't tolerate psuedo-random number generators with health in any way. This is why 23andMe has to licence their genetic counselors on what the results mean, as the data can be very easily misunderstood by even very well educated people.

Harvard just released a study on the fitbit, even the best of them were far off on something as simple as calorie counting: [https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2017/05/fitness- track...](https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2017/05/fitness-trackers- accurately-measure-heart-rate-but-not-calories-burned.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I really can see an ever increasing shelf in Apple stores that stocks medical monitoring devices, compatible with the Apple Watch and iPhone.

And if I'm to be almost offensively practical, this is a huge business opportunity. We're all hypochondriacs to some degree, and it's a market that's currently being served by some pretty dodgy outfits, offering magic bullet solutions. And the incumbents are making a ton of money. It's probably not a good idea to give people tools to self diagnose themselves on a daily basis. But it's inevitable, and a logical path for the consumer electronics industry to follow.

</comment><comment><USER23> While a lot of comments revolve around the efficacy of accurately monitoring for T1/2 diabetes and the past noninvasive trials and tribulations thereof, consider that the market for such a product is very limited by Apple's measure (10's of millions for an addressable market, versus billions for phones/watches). It seems much more interesting if they were chasing a general metabolic health or pre-diabetic application where the annoyance and lethargy of the FDA/medical community can be skipped entirely.

</comment><comment><USER24> Cross pollination between life sciences and consumer electronics will deliver amazing opportunities for chronic disease patients. Non-Invasive blood analysis can deliver new treatment opportunities for diabetes patients. This is an amazing field to innovate in indeed.

My startup enigma.bio is working on low power laser spectroscopy blood analysis techniques inside the tympanic canal for the last 3 years. Seeing interest in the field from large players is exciting.

</comment><comment><USER25> Are there any uses for this information for "normals", people with no particular danger of diabetes?

For example, I am interested in calorie tracking, but the various apps out there mostly seem to cover franchise food. They can't accurately say anything about the sandwich I made in my kitchen.

<comment><USER26> Well yes. You might not know it but these days there is sugar (in any variation) in almost all our food. Increased blood sugar levels over long time lead to diabetes, tracking might help people to understand the risk their diets might impose.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I can imagine wearing bracelets for each metric you want to monitor, it'll be a sign of health and wealth and be as popular as those snag bands you kids used to wear in the playground.

<comment><USER28> You think visible medical equipment is a sign of _good_ health?

<comment><USER21> It depends on the equipment. There's a spectrum from things like oxygen tanks one on end to fitness trackers on the other end. I think a glucose measuring Apple watch would be clearly on the fitness tracker end of things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Loyal to Dexcom for the night and day changes their product made to the quality of life for my mother. But very glad to see Apple putting a foot into these waters.

</comment><comment><USER30> This is all well and good, but is it accurate?

Don't Theranos us Apple.

<comment><USER31> That is key. I don't see how. At first I thought maybe a sweat related method? Perhaps some odd electronic field trick no on has tried? Unlike heart rate I doubt a camera and bright light would suffice.

I do know I would buy them for my parents immediately once they are shown to work. Would not even pause. Blood sugar is spooky and you are toast if it goes low and no one is around to help

anecdotal section : My mother has been taking insulin since the 80s, she uses a pump currently. The real danger in blood sugar is when levels get low. She has caught her self in the low 40s but if it had happened at night she would be in real trouble. You just simply go to sleep and never wake from it. High numbers while dangerous are sustainable and your conscious throughout.

She has had a few episodes where it went out of control (600+) that took a hospital visit days to get under control with a drip. Same routine, you go in and tell them your level. They don't believe you. They test three times then freak out. You are in heart ward and even then they cannot get it back and turn from blaming your diet to going "We don't know". The point is, even highly regulated/monitored things happen and doctors don't know all the whys.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Astro Teller of Google X used to do that sort of thing at BodyMedia. It wouldn't surprise me if Google also has some projects in the works.

<comment><USER33> Verily (formerly Google X Life Sciences) has several projects they are working on in this space, including miniaturized CGMs and glucose sensing contact lenses.

[https://verily.com/projects/](https://verily.com/projects/)

Disclaimer: I work for Verily, but I know nothing about these projects.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> If this device is covered by insurances, this could become a potential cash cow.

<comment><USER21> Even if it isn't, I think it would still be a cash cow. I've never owned an Apple watch before, but if they got this working, I'd buy one in a heartbeat (assuming it's less than $1500). FWIW, I'm not diabetic, I just want the data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I'm sure it's helpful for diabetics, but it won't be long at all before Apple is selling that data to your health insurer - who will f you.

<comment><USER36> Any reason to believe they'd actually do this? Apple are one of the few companies that seem to genuinely value customer privacy[1]; They make their money selling your products, not selling your personal information after all. If this were a Google or Facebook product on the other hand...

[1] I could point to numerous examples of this (removing APIs used to track individual iOS devices, fighting the government on proposed encryption backdoors, etc), but I think the onus is on you to rather provide evidence to suggest this is something they would do :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> > I'm excited to see where it goes.

BREAKING NEWS FROM THE FUTURE (Reuters):

Hundreds of thousands Apple users die within hours after IoT glucose measurement + insulin pump device overdoses insulin during WannaDie cyberattack. Apple urges all surviving users to update the system immediately. Surviving users and family members of deceased will get 10 year full Apple subscription and special $20,000 memorial gift card after signing settlement agreement online. update: WaPo reports that CIA has been aware of the vulnerability for 5 years.

<comment><USER38> Thank goodness, specialist embedded systems are immune from Malware.

<comment><USER39> I honestly cannot tell if this is sarcasm.

<comment><USER38> Here you go - /s

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I have a Garmin right now. The heart rate monitor gives more reliable readings, the battery is better etc.

If apple makes an Apple Watch 3 with an optional blood glucose monitoring band, I'd switch back though!

</comment><comment><USER41> I think the term "consumer base" is not heartless but in fact pretty accurate.

Why not spending the probably huge amount of money in a cure instead of monitoring devices ?

Well, because why kill the Golden Egg Goose ? Millions of people who have to take pills every day are good recurent money. If you cure them, no more cash.

(Well it's the middle of the night, I can't sleep and fill a little bit bitter...)

One more thing. I'm a bit scared with all the private companies collecting personal medical datas. But maybe I've read too much science fiction.

<comment><USER13> I think this idea is pretty odd. If someone had a cure for diabetes, you'd bet they'd charge an arm and a leg for it. The patents alone would be incredibly valuable.

From a non-monetary standpoint, dehumanizing companies is always a bit frustrating. They consist of people, like you and me. Most people aren't sociopaths and the idea that business leaders are entirely sociopathic is worth challenging. I don't think most people would want to withhold a cure for recurring revenue. Charge for it, yes, but not withhold it.

<comment><USER42> Also, withholding cure for a big disease is not necessarily a stable equilibrium on the market - the first company to release such a cure would mop the floor with their competitors.

<comment><USER43> This is only true if a one-off sale of the cure is significantly more profitable than a reliable income stream from products that help manage the disease without curing it.

For that to be true the cure would have to be more expensive than management by at least an order of magnitude - assuming monthly refills for management and an annual reporting cycle - but still not so expensive that it became unaffordable.

<comment><USER13> Can someone provide links to examples of companies withholding cures in exchange for profit? If not, the idea of this is nothing but conspiratorial.

If it's true, though, it's worth knowing.

<comment><USER43> I wasn't being conspiratorial, so much as adding some detail to a market-based model.

As in the other post below, I don't believe magic bullet cures are possible for most diseases.

Following that economic logic further, it's much cheaper and easier to produce a not-very-effective but marketable palliative than it is to aim for a Nobel- winning medical moonshot.

I don't know of any suppressed super-cures, but evidence confirming the limited effectiveness of (e.g.) SSRIs is easy to find and hard to argue with.

Similarly questionable outcomes have been noted in other fields. E.g. novel anticoagulants:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabigatran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabigatran)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, RPerl v1.2 - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/wbraswell/perl-5-optimizing-compiler-rperl-v12 <comment><USER2> I am the creator of RPerl, and I am more than happy to answer any questions and provide free technical support to open source Perl programmers! Please find our team on IRC: irc.perl.org #perl11 @willthechill</comment>


Ask HN: Why shouldn't I drop out of college to do a startup? - <AUTHOR>

College is interesting, but creating stuff is more interesting (now), making college work frustratingly difficult to do. What's the argument(s) against just dropping out now and starting something up?<p>It's a very scary notion to "put my best foot forward", but I think I'm ready. A lot of my friends here are saying "no don't do it", though, so I thought I'd ask a crowd that might give me an answer I like more. (Admittedly, asking college students about dropping out of college is a little backwards.) <comment><USER3> Ok. Your in college. In theory, you have more time now than later, when you might need a real job, to start a business.

Don't drop out until you have an income from your new business. If you are truly passionate about starting something, and it's obsessing you, you shouldn't need to 'drop out' to get it going.

And even then, when you have INCOME from this endeavor, you'd just be taking a break. It's insurance, really. A degree, however not worth it's weight in paper, will open doors for you.

But so would a hit startup. You could have the next facebook in you. So make it happen, but try, as long as you can, to hold on to the most unique time in your life, the experience of undergrad.

Cherish it and respect it. Leave it when your new venture makes it so clear it's no longer a question you would ask a group.

Leave it when it's obvious.

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem: this wonderful time of college is being dragged through the mud by my resistance to doing the work required (less for the CS, though). It's incredibly painful, not to mention cutting significantly into time to do anything at all. You can't let yourself go out and meet people - or hack - when you really need to do this assignment for tomorrow.

I do need to drop out to get the startup going, because trying to make myself do the work takes up all my time - and since I'm not willing to just do college work and nothing else, I'm in between a rock and a hard place.

And, the reason why I'm asking HN is to check that I haven't missed (even more) obvious pitfalls. And to see what everyone has to say, gather advice, etc. (Thank you all btw.)

Edit: why the downvote?

<comment><USER4> _"The problem: this wonderful time of college is being dragged through the mud by my resistance to doing the work required (less for the CS, though). It's incredibly painful, not to mention cutting significantly into time to do anything at all. You can't let yourself go out and meet people - or hack - when you really need to do this assignment for tomorrow."_

Sounds like you need to work on some self discipline. If you can get your social life, studies, hacking, and business efforts under control, THEN I would suggest you should go for the monumental jump and "drop out". If you think you'll have more time when your startup takes off, think again. If you are interested in VC funding at some point, then you might find it challenging when they step in and start calling shots and start telling you directly what you need to do in order to make things successful - some of it might be stuff you will resist in the same way you seem to be resisting your college work.

You sound like a young, intelligent, and energetic guy...see if you can get yourself organized such that every aspect of your college life is organized to the point of efficiency. If you can accomplish that, then you surely will have the management mettle to make a startup successful. Self discipline is an extremely important quality when undertaking something ambitious such as a startup. It seems to me that you should acquire self discipline and other important skills that are not directly related to the technical aspect of doing a startup before dropping out.

<comment><AUTHOR> Could it just be that college doesn't really fit me?

I have learnt some self-discipline, actually. I'm sitting down, but I'm not working. Everything takes 10 times longer than it should, and every minute is very painful. I can count on two hands the number of times I've gone out and partied. I don't hack when I have stuff due.

I've had the 'perfect point of efficiency' vision in my head for a while, but I'm stumbling on the first block. I have a pretty good head for being organized, but the execution is lacking. I also have ADHD, apparently (I've learnt an awful lot about software engineering by failing to (be able to) follow through plans to do assignments, actually). So in some ways I'm trying to get around the executive functioning problem by doing something that I clearly want to do, instead of something I'm doing because it's what you do when you finish HS.

Of course, it might just because I'm dumb. Other people seem to think I'm smart, though (case in point above), and that's the only measure, aside from schoolwork, that I've witnessed.

I'm not dropping out to buy time, I'm dropping out to buy a task that I'm more willing to do.

<comment><USER4> My grandfather has a saying - "The mind is like a diamond in the rough and education is polish for the mind". It's very well possible that college doesn't fit you or that you don't fit college. At the same time please consider that if you hunker down and slog through it, you might have a large awareness for opportunities that make themselves apparent by the time you finish with college. If you drop out consider that your awareness to what's hot might be confined to what you are tuned into at the moment; I will not discount that you might possess the ability to spot what's hot in a few years from now, but I will say that having an education will definitely help with this skill.

Consider taking a quarter/semester off or perhaps even a year off, but don't commit to fully "dropping out". I would also recommend talking to a counselor (somebody with a PhD). This is going to sound funny, but try to get in touch with your feelings about your current situation.

One thing that should be a concern for you is that you have asked a fairly well known community for reasons why you shouldn't do something, yet you seem to have plenty of counter arguments/responses to people's postings. Sometimes people are going to tell you things you don't want to hear. Does this mean you should follow their advice? Not necessarily; however you should think about it and give it some more thought.

For real dude, I wish you the best. Just think about it before actually committing to it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm taking the summer quarter off from Monday, so I'll see what happens. I definitely agree with your grandfather, though - I have been in college for two years, and I've witnessed the polishing on myself.

I've been talking to a lot (4+) of people with PhDs, both counselor and not, regularly for over a year now. I think I understand what you mean by getting in touch with my feelings. It's difficult to do it myself, and since I have so many theories, difficult to do with anyone else, as well.

I've been a little obsessive in the replying. I certainly don't mean to be rude! I think I'm too impulsive, and trying to have the wrong kind of conversation here.

Thanks, though, for your time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Having done what you're thinking about doing, I could probably write pages on the pros and cons, but I'll boil it down to probably the most important reason:

It's hard to go at it alone.

I say that if you don't have a solid cofounder who has your back, an idea and implementation that you're willing to bet your career on, or an extraordinary opportunity that won't be there when you graduate, you should get your degree first and hack in your spare time until then. If you don't have connections, a job with your name on it, significant coding experience, a compelling product, or funding, you're going to have a hard time finding work or even in convincing people to work with you.

That said, programming jobs and startups are much more forgiving in the education category than just about any other job. If you've got the skills and have something to back it up, then you've definitely got a shot.

It's not impossible to succeed, but if you don't have a way to support yourself, it's that much harder. Just know what you're getting yourself into. While you will learn a lot if you drop out and do a start up, know the opportunity costs of what you are going to do.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think I have the skills. And I have some runway to burn (savings, that is).

I actually have an idea that a friend and I have been working on for a while. I'm not satisfied with it yet - but it's getting closer, with each mulling, I think. It's college-related, so we're launching it for Fall term. I'm pretty sure he'll drop out of college with me for the idea, esp. if it works or if we get YC. There's also a hacker friend in princeton who I might be able to convince to drop out with us.

I've thought a lot about going it alone, and it's incredibly scary, but I think I've got the guts for it, too. Of course, I'd rather go with the plan above, until it falls apart, anyway.

Edit: This was very devoid of replying content, sorry. I think I've just had enough of college and want to try something else, mainly because I don't have any spare time. I only barely have a few of the things on your list though - so the real question is, should I still take the jump, and what should I look out for?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> _What's the argument(s) against just dropping out now and starting something up?_

As someone currently on indefinite leave from college to work on my startup... I think you have the order backwards. Get something going first, and when it is going so well that it would be foolish _not_ to work on it full-time, _then_ take the plunge. College is an excellent (and safe) place to throw a bunch of ideas at the wall and see what sticks.

<comment><AUTHOR> What if you have no time to throw ideas against the wall because it takes all your effort + time to do college work? It's a safe place, but very, very painful to be in.

I'm in the process of throwing an idea against the wall right now, we'll see if it sticks.

Edit: (I'm not trying to be rude/argumentative btw - I'm sorry if I was. I'm a little confused now, and will go think more.)

<comment><USER4> If you're going to play the "startup lottery" then you better damn well have something that is worth more than the time you'd spend towards getting a degree.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think I'm more idealistic than that - I've spent a lot of effort trying to get a degree, and I just don't see the point in it. When I don't win the lottery, the tentative plan is to hang around and badger startups until they let me do stuff for them.

When that doesn't work, I suppose I could always come back to college, financial aid willing.

<comment><USER4> Dude, you are in a unique opportunity to hammer out a fantastic work ethic. You do seem to have a drive to get somewhere, that is for certain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sometimes a decision you make isn't black and white. Remember, you can use logic to rationalize decisions that other parties may see as illogical (e.g. your well-meaning parents). They say if you want to buy something really badly - wait 30 days and then see if you want to buy it. I'd like to suggest the same - wait at least 30 days before deciding.

College, in short, is a basic requirement to get a white-collar type job in the United States. If you drop out of college, you are differentiating yourself (in a bad way) from getting hired at a typical company. Startups are more flexible when it comes to hiring.

I would have lunch with a mentor who is at the stage where you would like to be in 2-3 years and ask them for their honest opinion. If you don't have a mentor, focus on finding one this summer. You can even email people you don't know but admire for their advice - asking doesn't hurt.

</comment><comment><USER8> Totally agree about the work. My theory on CS work was that as long as I was learning something on a computer it didn't matter if it was for class or not. That ended up being a good theory that's served me well.

When I was at Odeo we did a survey of the office to see who had degrees. I'm pretty sure it was just me and the other middle manager. That's pretty sad, since the fun part of a startup is either being the decider or the doer. Of course both of us went on to start companies, so maybe it doesn't really matter.

Yeah, that's what I want to say. It doesn't matter in a general sense. What does matter, and I've found this to be very true as a founder, is to do things your way. There's no one set of magic advice so you just have to figure out the things that work for you. If school doesn't work for you and startup success is more important than the college social life, then drop out and go for it. If you're more methodical (like me) then graduate, join a startup, learn some lessons, then found your own company.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think 'doing things my way' probably defines me as a person - if anything, college has shown me that I absolutely flat out will not do it not my way - <USER2> least, without some serious, serious self-grinding.

The CS classes have been good, but pretty mindless, unfortunately. It's a good school and a good program, but I think I could do most of the classes in at least half the time. Except the math ones. Granted, I haven't taken that many higher-level ones yet, because I've had such problems fulfilling the first- year requirements.

Really, I'm just throwing the question out there and seeing what comes back :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> As someone else on this site said once, getting into college in the first place is actually more influential on the rest of your life than graduating. You can always go back.

Then again, college is to a certain extent what you make of it. You have opportunities there that you're unlikely to get again. Another option you should consider is changing majors. Astronomy or Egyptology or something that's just _interesting_ with little or no direct practical application. After all, you've already got the skills you need to earn a living.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm a CS and math major already, but I'm at a liberal arts college. I've learnt a lot forcing myself to write english literature papers, but I think I'd have fared better, academically, if I just went to MIT.

<comment><USER9> MIT has compulsory English Lit etc too, AFAIK.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh. Well, I know nothing about MIT. I was discouraged from applying there because they don't have good financial aid - for international students. It turns out I'm not international after all, but who knew.

I quite liked english literature, actually. I just like hacking more... much more.

The thing is: I find liberal arts a very good idea, almost in the stereotypical way. I think by comparing perspectives, and doing lots of different disciplines seeds one's mind with lots of different ways of looking.

<comment><USER9> Maybe you should have gone to college in England. 3 year Bachelors programmes, but you pretty much do only what you're majoring in, which you decide in advance (i.e. when you're still in high school, which we call 6th Form). I did Mech Eng and I think we had the _option_ of doing one course a year (out of 6-8 courses/year total) outside the department, and quite a few people didn't even do that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup - I've heard that I would have liked Oxbridge very much. Apparently they just give you the syllabus and a reading list and meet you once a week to keep you on track? If I had known that when I was choosing colleges, I'd have jumped at it immediately.

I didn't consider the English system (though I'm somewhat a product of it) since I didn't want to specialize. It turns out not specializing was more excruciatingly difficult than I thought it would be, so now I'm deciding whether to run in the opposite direction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As someone who is trying desperately to get back into school, do as brianr said.

Stay in school, throw ideas at the wall, see what sticks, go from there.

By all means though, try to finish your degree though.

Even the greatest of minds can fail due to circumstance, when it comes to things like a start-up.</comment>


Craigslist cracks down on apartment listing aggregator Padmapper - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/23/3112025/craigslist-padmapper-cease-desist-order

<comment><USER2> Please don't editorialize in the link title.</comment>


Carrier IQ: The Real Story - <AUTHOR> http://vulnfactory.org/blog/2011/12/05/carrieriq-the-real-story/

<comment><USER2> 5 votes (including mine) for the blog post by the guy who actually took the time to reverse engineer CarrierIQ. How many votes for the Wired and Betanews stories that were just guessing at what they did?

<comment><USER3> It's near the top of Techmeme, and I had to search for it here on HN. Surprised..</comment></comment>


Show HN: Strider – test deployments and bake AMIs from Python - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/mpdehaan/strider

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi everyone,

I wrote a Python program to test automated deployments in VMs (like Vagrant) in order to catch up on boto, and then realized it was a very small step to teach it to bake AMIs (like Packer). The win is you have one file and program that describes your configuration rather than two, and it's all written in one language that can share code.

Strider only supports AWS and the 'shell' provisioner at this time (which is fine for running ansible and I imagine masterless Puppet/Chef as well), but I'm very open to pull requests to add new plugins.

The included "shell" provisioner example rsync's some ansible content to a remote system and then runs it. It's not abstracted in the least, it exposes every single CLI flag when invoking ansible, but that also makes it a bit easier to customize, which I like.</comment>


Codecademy Adds Beginner Languages HTML and CSS - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2012/04/02/codecademy-css-html/

<comment><USER2> I wish HN users would submit the actual content, rather than having to click through Mashable or TechCrunch. I'm not going to enrich them by clicking on their ads, anyway. _Just point to the original content_ , thank you very much.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3789022>

<comment><USER3> Frustratingly, Mashable doesn't directly link to Codecademy. It instead points the hyperlinked name to another page on its site, and obscures the relevant URL behind what you might naturally consider to be another Mashable page.

They should try showing less contempt for their readers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Anyone else cringe when they referred to HTML and CSS as programming languages?

Other than that, great to see a potential replacement for W3Schools.

<comment><USER5> A little, but I cringed more at this:

"New programmers typically learn how to use them before any other programming languages..."

<comment><USER6> I'm just graduating with my BS, and I just know general tag usage in html like <img> <video> etc and absolutely no CSS, because I have never made a website or tried to.

My only attempts at javascript were demoing webgl and then I wanted to throw my screen at the wall.

So something like this is nice - I should know how to make web sites, if only to say I know how. Its a good skill.

<comment><USER5> I completely agree. If I were getting started now, I would probably start learning JavaScript as my first programming language. Along with that I would want to learn HTML and CSS, but to say that most new programmers get started using HTML and CSS as their first languages seems a stretch to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Codeacademy is really good, it's helped me brush up on my Javascript for one thing.

But as for creating and contributing content, their terms [1] are a bit draconian. They specify complete ownership of anything you contribute to the site, and aside from your right to delete your contributions, it appears that there's no way to export content.

I'm no lawyer, perhaps someone here is: do their terms prohibit reusing my own contributions in another venue?

[1] <http://www.codecademy.com/terms>

<comment><USER8> I'm not a lawyer either, but as I read it the rights are similar to many other User submitted content sites. They aren't required to make it easy for you to get your content off their site, and any content you leave on the site they have a free license to use on the site. However they do not claim ownership of code you may have written when used/hosted elsewhere. I find it difficult to believe that anything you write on there would be something that would take you more than 15 minutes to recreate in a local editor... but that may just be me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> CodeSchool already has something like this and it's great: <http://www.codeschool.com/courses/css-cross-country>

I took a quick look at the Codecademy one and it seems a bit dry. I think they should pick something other than Codecademy to talk about. [http://www.codecademy.com/courses/week-3-html- project/0#!/ex...](http://www.codecademy.com/courses/week-3-html- project/0#!/exercises/3)

<comment><USER10> Codeschool is awesome, they really nailed the video segments into code part. Makes it way more intuitive and interesting than codeacademy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why not focus on a general purpose language like Python? Oh well, this is still great progress and I'm sure they'll add more languages soon.

<comment><USER12> Python is coming real soon as well as Ruby :)

<comment><USER13> I don't know if you agree, but I think that there could be multiple-language lessons where you have the same task to complete in different languages at once, or maybe a multi-part thing where the output from one is used in the other to complete a single lesson.

I think that might attract some of the more seasoned folks as well.

Just a thought.

<comment><USER12> Yes definitely. You could do that now using our course creator tool (<http://www.codecademy.com/creator>), where different sections could be teaching a different languages.

Also related to that is teaching one language in terms of the other "Introduction to X for Y programmers".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I gotta ask..what took so long?

I remember when they launched people submitted a ton of content...and in all this time, all they came out with is the most basic of languages</comment>


For the first time in history more than half the world is middle-class - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13063298 <comment><USER2> "In China, for example, $3,000 a year may be enough in Chongqing or Chengdu, big cities in the west, but not in Beijing or Shanghai. So defining the middle class in absolute terms is hard."

Which is why articles like this are mostly crap.

</comment><comment><USER3> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=482717>

The automated filter for detecting duplicate submissions doesn't always work.</comment>


Is LibrePlanet Safe? - <AUTHOR> https://wwahammy.com/on-safety-at-libreplanet/ <comment><USER2> The article links to a video where RMS argues with some event organizer about the need to end a talk at the scheduled time. RMS argues that

1\. He's in charge of the event.

2\. There is nobody else using the room, so it isn't necessary to leave if they don't want to.

I don't understand the complaint.

<comment><USER3> Well, other people using the room aren't the only consideration. He eventually gets interrupted (after ~2 minutes) by someone saying that "the final keynote is about to start", so at minimum the speaker will have to hurry to the final keynote; if that person hadn't happened to come in with the reminder, the speaker might have been held longer and been late to the keynote. Of course, she could have excused herself, but it would be awkward and risk rudeness to do that while someone is in the middle of asking you questions (especially once he made an issue of being allowed to ask them).

<comment><USER2> Fair enough then

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is dangerous garbage. Anyone who would attack LibrePlanet and RMS this way is an obvious enemy of Free Software. We need to keep LibrePlanet safe against the attacks of these puppets.

Of course LibrePlanet is safe - Don't embolden or empower these people.</comment>


Ask HN : What are some great books an aspiring entrepreneur should read? - <AUTHOR> Over the summer, I've read several great books including "The Lean Startup", "Thinking, fast and slow", as well as design and marketing books.
During the next year, i'll try to follow up with a "challenge" : A book per week. Above all, I want to learn stuff concerning startups, computer science, design and marketing, but I'm willing to read just about anything as long as i'll learn something.
I've found several great lists, and started to cross-compile them for the best references. However, I felt like asking might yield interesting results.
So, what are, in your mind, the best books any aspiring entrepreneur should read ? <comment><USER2> Founders at Work by Jessica Livingston

It's a collection of interviews with founders who started successful companies.

<comment><USER3> There are several other good books in the "X at work" series as well. _CIOs at Work_ , _Venture Capitalists at Work_ , _Coders at Work_ , etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> _The Four Steps to the Epiphany_ \- Steve Blank

 _The Art of the Start_ \- Guy Kawasaki

 _Crossing The Chasm_ \- Geoffrey Moore

 _Business Model Generation_ \- Alex Osterwalder

 _The Personal MBA_ \- Josh Kaufman

 _Blue Ocean Strategy_ \- W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne

Also, see:

[http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-must-read-books-for- entre...](http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-must-read-books-for- entrepreneurs)

[http://www.quora.com/Business-Books/What-business-books- must...](http://www.quora.com/Business-Books/What-business-books-must-an- entrepreneur-read)

[http://www.quora.com/What-are-3-books-you-would-suggest- any-...](http://www.quora.com/What-are-3-books-you-would-suggest-any- entrepreneur-make-their-top-3-must-reads)

and

<http://personalmba.com/best-business-books/>

</comment><comment><USER4> Have you checked out the handful of books listed on the YCombinator "Startup Library" page (<http://ycombinator.com/lib.html>)?:

Dale Carnegie: How to Win Friends and Influence People

Edward Tufte: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information

Paul Graham: Hackers and Painters

Jessica Livingston: Founders at Work

<comment><USER5> Dale's book is definitely a must read. Matter of fact, I would argue that you should read that first before anything else

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The Startup Owner's Manual

</comment><comment><USER7> MJ DeMarco: The Millionaire Fastlane

Regardless of what you read, you'll prove that you learned something if you do something with this stuff beyond reading.

</comment><comment><USER8> Pricing for Profit

Startup Owners Manual

Made to Stick

Getting Real (37signals first book)

</comment><comment><USER9> Surprised no one mentioned these..

Do more faster

Ultralight startups

</comment><comment><USER10> Rework

</comment><comment><USER11> The E-Myth Revisited</comment>


Steve Jobs Watched iPhone 4S Launch Live From Home - <AUTHOR> http://www.cultofmac.com/121999/steve-jobs-watched-iphone-4s-launch-from-death-bed/

<comment><USER2> That's a creepy article. We don't need to know what their "source" thinks Jobs was eating at the time.

</comment><comment><USER3> I still can't believe he passed the day after the presentation. At a loss for words</comment>


Disturbing Aerials Reveal Canada's Vast Tar Sand Mines - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2016/06/stuart-hall/ <comment><USER2> Google Earth view: [https://www.google.com/maps/place/57%C2%B001'12.0%22N+111%C2...](https://email@example.com,-111.4753109,84001m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d57.02!4d-111.65?hl=en)

I don't know if there are other big mines outside of this view, but I didn't see any obvious ones when I zoomed out.</comment>


FSF announces publication of two new books by Richard Stallman - <AUTHOR> http://www.fsf.org/news/rms-newbooks

<comment><USER2> Two minor points. 1\. The are not really new books. Both are new editions of older books. 2\. One of the books is not by Richard Stallman, it is his biography written by someone else.

<comment><USER3> definitely, both worth reading also especially for the historical context. I found the whole section on the Symbolics machine quite interesting as I was working on one at the time and was completely unaware at what was happening at the Mit lab.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've downloaded and converted the PDFs to .mobi so I can read them on my Kindle.

<comment><USER5> What's wrong with PDF support on Kindle?

<comment><USER6> PDFs are just a terrible eBook format. They bake in a fixed page size, usually 8.5x11 inches.

The Kindle's screen being physically smaller than that, your display options are limited to scaling an image of the 8.5x11 page down to fit into 4.8x3.6 screen, at which point fonts are generally too small to read, or attempting to reflow the PDF's contents on-the-fly, which is noticeably slow and typically only gives acceptable results if the PDF contained an absolute minimum of formatting.

<comment><USER7> Kindle DX should display a 8.5x11 pdf correctly. I haven't used one personally though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> J-L There's a bug in the online shop - the "add to cart" button for the first book doesn't work (second one does).

</comment><comment><USER8> I think Richard Stallman would be more effective at getting his message across if his personal appearance was more in-line with the preferences of mainstream society.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, man looks at the outward. Unfortunately.

I suspect that RMS's message would be rejected however he dressed: it is antithetical to many/most forms of business as we know it in the US.

Actually, from what I've read of RMS, I'm not even sure how he envisions successful business to operate.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure what you mean, are you saying one can't make money using GPL software? Are you saying programmers can't charge for their labor? What message are you referring to?

I see many successful businesses, for example IBM, making money hand over fist using Linux. Linux of course is "free software".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is there a sufficiently free license under which we can modify and republish the text?

<comment><USER11> I dug around for a while looking for this as well, since it was absent from the main announcement. But the ordering page for both books allows you to download a PDF immediately, without charge.

It looks like Free as in Freedom 2.0 is under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3, and Free Software, Free Society allows verbatim copying by anyone, and translation by those who have been approved by the FSF (i.e. it is not a free documentation license)

Not sure how you get at the actual manuscripts, you may need to contact FSF for that.

EDIT: Here are the links to the PDFs

<http://www.gnu.org/doc/fsfs-ii-2.pdf> <http://static.fsf.org/nosvn/faif-2.0.pdf>

<comment><USER10> _Free Software, Free Society allows verbatim copying by anyone, and translation by those who have been approved by the FSF_

Thank you for sharing what you found.

I can't, in good conscience, read a book that only allows modification and redistribution by those in a privileged class.

Our basic liberties are under assault here!

<comment><USER12> To be fair to Stallman, he has always distinguished between "functional" works, such as technical manuals and encyclopedias, and works which express a specific person's opinion.

In the former case, Stallman believes that it's useful to modify works: You might want to update a technical manual for a new version of the software, or you might want to fix articles in the encyclopedia.

But in the latter case, you're generally not inconvenienced by the fact that you can't edit someone's written opinions. So in these cases, Stallman tends to favor licenses which allow copying, but not modification.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Let's hope he can write better than he speaks.

edit: Oh come one downvoters. Stallman has done great things, and his scriptures are as interesting as the next guy. But he should stop trying to give conferences in French (and probably conferences as a whole). See the open letter someone wrote him recently - it was spot-on.

<comment><USER14> Your comment is maliciously intended and adds nothing to any conversation.

Further, if you genuinely wondered as to whether he is a better prosodist than speaker, Stallman is a prolific author with many essays and articles available online which you could read & judge.

(My own take, having read the originals of both books covered by the OP, is that Stallman is a perfectly readable writer. He will never win awards for his style, but he does not grate on the ear.)

<comment><USER13> ma·li·cious /məˈliSHəs/ Adjective: Characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.

I don't think my comment qualifies as malicious. It might be an uncomfortable truth, that he's really not that fit for public speech and that his time is better spent writing programs and literature.

(Also, what does <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prosody> has to do with writing free software ideology? Last time I checked, he wrote in prose.)

<comment><USER14> Your comment was not meant in a spirit of helpful critique, saying either that Stallman could work on his oratory or should optimize and spend his time writing more. I'll quote your original comment: "Let's hope he can write better than he speaks."

(As for 'prosody', yes, my bad. I was misled by 'poesy' and 'prose'.)

<comment><USER13> Well, you do make a point.

My original comment would've been funny to anyone having seen him give a speech in French. But it wasn't really helpful indeed. The open letter from Alexey, though was helpful <http://alexeymk.com/dear-dr-stallman-the- aftermath> \- but it's not like Richie is going to listen anyway (his response was a pirouette, and not subtle at that: <http://alexeymk.com/dear-dr- stallman-the-aftermath>)

Oh, also, for people downvoting me purely because I'm touching their idol, fuck you. Fanaticism is harmful and I have no sympathy for it. Of all the people you could've chosen to adore, he's really not the best choice. Some of his ideas about freedom are interesting, indeed, but the man himself is the opposite of tolerance, doesn't listen to anyone, and is generally a wreck to manage (truth be told: when he comes to give conference, he has at least one person dedicated to "managing" him. I understand celebrities have that treatment but he's unnecessarily picky about things like temperature, air flow, etc., etc. You should really see his list of conditions..) When he came to Geneva in a panel of speakers he kept interrupting everyone, eating pretty much anything while he spoke and correcting people everytime they said "closed source" instead of "proprietary"... he's done a lot of good to the software community but maybe it's just time he retires?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>