The Bitter Truth About Sugar - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2010/06/16/sweet-little-lies-the-bitter-truth-about-sugar/

<comment><USER5> I cut all refined sugars out of my diet about a month ago, with a few rare exceptions (the occasional meal out with friends, for instance, which may happen once a month). Basically, it has been life-changing. I have more energy, I sleep better, I don't have the stomach/digestive problems I used to, I don't get the daily headaches, my blood pressure is lower, I don't get as hungry, and I've lost 12lbs (with exercise, too).

<comment><USER6> How can you attribute the benefits you're seeing to cutting sugar, when there is a ton of evidence saying exercise gives these exact benefits?

<comment><USER7> Presumably a lot of things give the exact same benefits. The OP's post sounds like a generic description of "I'm healthier". He said he cut out sugar; he didn't say he exercised more. I'm guessing that's why he thinks the cause was the sugar.

<comment><USER5> Yes, this. My level of exercise hasn't really changed. I just didn't want to imply that I was sitting around doing nothing, and losing weight solely from the sugar. I'm sure the exercise was a huge part of that, but I definitely saw more weight loss the past month after cutting out the sugar than I did previously from the same level of activity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> saw the video a few months ago by recommendation from a friend. it is really really good. it has a slow start, but if you can finish the 90 min video, you will learn a lot about eating right and imho it's worth your time.

direct link to video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&feature=player_embedded#)!

</comment><comment><USER9> "Scientific innovation is pushing human longevity past the traditional limits. Yet despite this upward trend, we're still not much smarter about what we put in our bodies. "

I expect medicine to _solve_ problems caused by my bad habits rather than preach me about them! This is to say that sugar is my only vice (I don't drink, do drugs, gamble, drive dangerously, or eat too much meat) and I'm not quite ready to give it up. You may find that infantile but if the great things in life are taken away (or substituted with tofu), what remains?

<comment><USER10> Your expectation is a worthwhile ideal, but it's very far out of the reach of modern medicine. Doctors are pretty good at treating symptoms, but when it comes to root causes of serious diseases, they're pretty bad at treating them without inflicting collateral damage on some other body system. Especially if the treatment involves disrupting a body process designed by evolution.

The body owes as much of its function to _the ways its systems interact_ as it does to the individual systems. And we're pretty much at a loss when it comes to tracing the mechanism of those interactions.

In other words, I strongly suspect that until we're all flying around Mars in hover cars, any "don't worry about sugar anymore" treatment will end up being harmful in some insidious, not-discovered-until-years-later way.

<comment><USER11> > Doctors are pretty good at treating symptoms, but when it comes to root > causes of serious diseases, they're pretty bad at treating them without > inflicting collateral damage on some other body system.

I'm sure this is true, but the examples that immediately come to mind don't fit. New tyrosine kinase inhibitors inhibit the fusion "always-on" tyrosine kinases that cause many cancers. Antibiotics kill bacteria. Statins stop the production of cholesterol. All of these get at the root cause of the problem and don't merely treat symptoms. When you say "good at treating symptoms," which things are you thinking about?

I'm in medical school and always want to improve my understanding of what thoughtful people see as symptomatic treatments that don't get at the root cause of problems. (Like I said above, I know that there are tons of these, but would really like to know which ones come to mind for you; perhaps these are the places where we, as a profession, are failing.)

<comment><USER12> One could perceive antibiotics alone as ignoring a deeper root cause, such as the patient engaging in risky behavior (not washing hands, eating rotten food, etc.). A prescription for statins doesn't necessarily address _why_ the body is producing excess cholesterol.

But, of course, I am not in the medical field.

<comment><USER11> Over 50% of the variability in cholesterol levels is attributable to genetic factors. The root cause of high cholesterol will typically be an unlucky genetic profile.

Hundreds of genes participate in cholesterol metabolism, and since cholesterol is a complex trait, most people will have various polymorphisms in multiple lipid genes, each of which confers only a modest effect. Consequently, while the root cause(s) will ultimately become known in the next few years, it seems unlikely to change the standard of care: statins. Sure, this knowledge will help us develop new cholesterol lowering drugs, but the fact remains that it will be impossible and, in general, pointless to target a specific therapy to a specific genetic profile (at least for LDL).

I don't think that patient behaviors are a good example of _medicine's_ failures. A rational actor may decide to value many things over their own personal health. It's like saying that intravenous drug use and unprotected sex are the root causes of AIDS. That's more a public health viewpoint. I see HIV as the root cause of AIDS, and I find treatments or cures as a far more interesting medical problem. Likewise, the public health perspective on bacterial infection is to avoid it (clean clothes thoroughly to reduce staph transmission between wrestlers). From a medical perspective, the interesting question is, once you have staph, can we cure it? Killing the causal bacterium is basically the definition of a treatment aimed at the root cause. I don't think that redefinition of "root cause" makes the problem more interesting; it just makes it less medical.

<comment><USER12> I see your point, and concede that some "root causes" should be out of scope for the medical field. I believe that solutions to problems should be sought by the appropriate groups at every stage of progression and every level of abstraction. However, during an actual patient/doctor visit, public health "root causes" should probably be at least discussed.

<comment><USER11> Definitely. Studies have shown that discussion with a physician is effective (just not very much). But better than nothing. I just don't want to depend on physicians talking people out of eating too much as being the only solution; this is simply not effective enough given the severity of the problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Yea, no news for the HN crowd I guess. Good to see that more and more sources report on the dangers of sugar. Low-fat mentality is still the common opinion for healthy food and this non-sense really needs to change.

<comment><USER14> Nobody deserves to have to go so far out of their way and do tons of research to achieve a healthful diet, though, and most people can't or won't due to ignorance, stress, money, or any number of other problems in their life. Real solutions should be coming top-down to the consumer, so that you would have to _really_ go out of your way to eat a "vice meal."

As it is, companies seem to have barely budged for any of the trends of the last decade - it's easier to sell addiction, after all. But I've often thought that there's probably a lot of room for innovative approaches to the food service business that try to take on these problems and make it sexy to eat greens and drink tea.

<comment><USER10> One big issue is that health advocates spend 99% of their time telling people what not to eat. That doesn't work because, as you say, people aren't going to think, "Now that I know not to eat x, I'll take the initiative to figure out what I should be eating instead."

I think Whole Foods (among others) has realized this and capitalizes on it. It eliminates the guesswork. "Come into the store and get whatever you want. You can't mess up because it's _all_ healthy/sustainable/whatever." (Of course, it's not really all healthy/sustainable/whatever, but it's certainly harder to go wrong at Whole Foods than it is at Safeway.)

<comment><USER15> I dunno about Whole Foods. I find it pretty easy to "go wrong" every time I shop there. The percentage of food at Whole Foods that is actually "healthy" is probably the same percentage as Safeway.

<comment><USER16> At Whole Foods a lot of the things that end up being really cheap from no-name brands at traditional markets are coming from brands that have extra mark-up for being organic or slightly out of the norm. So it's easier to _not_ buy it due to the price?

In general, most of the cheap bulk food that you can get out there ends up being not so great for you from a health standpoint. It's a lot less expensive to buy a bagged cereal knock-off of some highly sweetened cereal (Cocoa Puffs, etc) than to buy some sort of granola cereal. [That said, I haven't done any direct comparisons to the bulk pricing on oatmeal or grits.]

<comment><USER15> What I meant is that Whole Foods carries just as much junk food as Safeway. There are entire sections of chips, cookies, candy, beer, cheese, ice cream and so forth. You can easily go in and buy nothing that's good for you. I do it all the time. Sadly, organic vegan potato chips aren't really any better for you than Ruffles...

Slightly off-topic. I've lived in the alternate universes of NYC and SF for the past 10 years, and for many staples, Whole Foods has the cheapest options. The canned house brand beans have almost no sodium and cost 89 cents a can. In comparison, Goya brand, the cheap option at Safeway, wloaded with sodium, cost about the same. Produce at WF and Safeway can be about the same, especially if you buy organic. It really depends on the season and location. The house brand seltzer is about the same as any house brand seltzer and much cheaper than Schweppes or Canada Dry. Safeway in SF is really only cheaper if you are loading up on junk food for the superbowl game. I don't really make any meat at home and I'm allergic to dairy so I don't know how meat, milk and cheese compares.

WF is actually FAR cheaper than any of the bodegas or small grocery stores in Brooklyn for any item. Buying fruit or vegetables in Brooklyn is usurious almost anywhere besides Fairway foods in Red Hook, or the Farmer's Market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> People living in different, default thin/rare diabetic cultures don't have magical diet information, often they know nothing! It's just the default diet or 'food culture' results in those results. In the 60s/70s most people were fairly thin, and the smoking gun points to north america's changing food culture, more sedentary work and transportation and food industry marketing research, even though there is a much greater awareness now about food and diet than back then.

</comment><comment><USER18> Previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1006980>

</comment><comment><USER19> Researchers from the Bartholin Institute at the Danish national hospital have found a correlation between intake of refined sugar and type-1 diabetes. There is still quite a bit of controversy over whether an increased intake of refined sugar does lead to type-1 diabetes, with researchers from the Danish Diabetes association dissenting.

Unfortunately, the only information I could find about this research was in Danish, but feel free to read the (translated) newspaper article here: [http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&h...](http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpolitiken.dk%2Ftjek%2Fsundhedogmotion%2Fborn%2Farticle991371.ece&sl=auto&tl=en)

</comment><comment><USER20> A good alternative for a sweet tooth is Honey. Not the cheap rubbish but the good stuff (e.g. UMF 10+). Manuka Honey even has antibacterial benefits and tastes great.

<comment><USER21> And it's loaded with sugar, just like high fructose corn syrup or cane sugar.

<comment><USER22> There are different types of sugars. High fructose corn syrup is usually either 55% fructose and 45% glucose, or 42% fructose and 58% glucose.

Honey is about 40% fructose, 30% glucose, along with sucrose and maltose. It's also known to have antimicrobial and antioxidant effects.

Equating high fructose corn syrup with honey is a major oversimplification.

<comment><USER21> Not really. The proportions of fructose and glucose are similar - <USER2> worse if you buy Lustig's theory that the fructose is the most harmful part of sugar and HFCS. Sucrose is quickly broken down into sucrose and fructose - according to Lustig there's no clinically important difference between sucrose and HFCS. I doubt that a little bit of maltose makes much difference, antimicrobial effects aren't going to save you from diabetes, and the results of clinical trials for antioxidants have been underwhelming - they aren't going to save you from diabetes or metabolic syndrome.

Honey is just more unhealthy crap, even if it's natural. Same with agave juice. Sugar is sugar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The guy in the video says energy expenditure and feeling good are synonymous. How about with opiates?

</comment><comment><USER24> towards the end of the article he writes

\--we as consumers have more power than we think when it comes to dictating food industry trends which could advocate for a healthier population in the long run--

but gives no explanation -how- we have more power dictating food industry - <USER3> seems to me that we have no power - food industry dictates what we eat - <USER4> we have to make an effort to protect ourselves from forming habits dictated by the food industry

<comment><USER25> The 'food industry' doesn't dictate what you eat. The 'food industry' provides you with many choices at many different stores and restaurants. You just choose the unhealthy ones. That's not the food industry's fault. Make better choices.

<comment><USER24> the way i understand it -food industry- refers to these global corporations [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_industry#Prominent_Food_Co...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_industry#Prominent_Food_Companies) rather than local restaurants but you are right at least here in new york there are many choices to eat healthy - but my point is that we need to make an effort to sustain a healthy diet because the global food industry is pushing for us to consume highly processed food sold by them</comment></comment></comment>


Apple Confirms $1M Reward for Anyone Who Can Hack an iPhone - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/08/08/apple-confirms-1-million-reward-for-hackers-who-find-serious-iphone-vulnerabilities/ <comment><USER2> This might be even more interesting:

> Forbes also revealed on Monday that Apple was to give bug bounty > participants "developer devices"—iPhones that let hackers dive further into > iOS. They can, for instance, pause the processor to look at what's happening > with data in memory. Krstić confirmed the iOS Security Research Device > program would be by application only. It will arrive next year.

So called "dev fused" iPhones were like gold to security researchers up until now. There are a handful in the world outside of Apple's control. If you had one you'd have a massive advantage at finding exploits/holes.

Unclear exactly what qualifications you need to meet to get a developer iPhone under this program but I'd suspect established security companies or consultancies only.

As an aside the $1M figure is only for kernel exploits without any user interaction, or network exploits without user interaction on pre-release versions of iOS (due to the 50% bonus on $500K).

<comment><USER3> I want a dev phone just so that I can quit playing the "jailbreak and never update" game.</comment></comment>


Kitty Hawk is accepting waiting-list signups for its electric personal aircraft - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/technology/flying-car-technology.html <comment><USER2> RE: electric flying things...

Is battery energy more efficient with air speed lift from a wing, like traditional aircraft, or from air suspension, like a helicopter? Does the mass/energy of a gasoline power train (including fuel & motor) exceed an electric power train?

I guess I'm wondering about the viability of electric power for flight at all. Drones are useful for some applications with light payloads and conducive environments, but when you need to lift a substantial payload, like me, isn't battery just too little power density?

<comment><USER3> Air suspension?

Helicopters are aerodynes just like fixed-wing aircraft, deriving lift from aerofoil speed. They are just less efficient because in traditional single- rotor designs only part of the rotor disk is generating lift at any one time ( and part is stalled ) and of that part needs to be directed as propulsive thrust.

Some helicopters have employed short wings to offload the rotor.

A wingless VTOL aircraft such as the Flying Bedstead, or the Lunar Lander testbeds, is a non-aerodyne and is even less efficient because it relies on a small volume of highly-accelerated air for lift versus displacement of a large quantity of slow ( roughly speaking ).

<comment><USER4> I guess you could think of a hovering helicopter vs a circling aircraft, both having the same weight and hence same lift. Both have to accelerate some air mass downwards. The lift comes from the velocity x mass = momentum of air, which has to be the same with both.

Since the airplane wings affect a larger air volume than the helicopter blades, the airplane accelerates a larger air mass, but to a lower speed. The helicopter: smaller air mass, higher speed.

Since energy required is proportional to the second power of speed, the helicopter requires more power for the same lift.

You could create a helicopter that was quite efficient in hover, with really big blades. It would then have some other problems, like limited speed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would call this a 'novel flying contraption', or maybe a 'flying jetski' as the article calls it. Not a flying car.

<comment><AUTHOR> they call it "flying car" because technically could replace the "car functionality" on this case more a "motorcycle functionality" with an aerial vehicle.

Probably should be called flying motorcycle but on a marketing level doesn't have the same impact.

<comment><USER6> If by car functionality, you mean those 5 minutes trips you take in the car ... to the corner grocery store?

(At least this is what I understand the range to be.)

<comment><AUTHOR> the range is expected to double every 10 years so in a couple of decades you will have similar range to cars :)

<comment><USER6> Are we talking about battery technology leading to that range doubling? Because I was under the impression that energy densities of our current battery technology were already pushing the limits. To double the range I suspect you need to quadruple the energy density. Sounds like the making of a bomb. :/

<comment><AUTHOR> yes, battery power to weight ratio is the factor that increases range, you are correct current technology is on is limit, the increase on range is based on speculation that new chemistries will evolve in the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >electric

Hard problem.

>personal aircraft

Much harder problem, if by that they mean "flyable without a pilot's license". You need to tackle reliability, then AI on the order of self-driving cars, then regulators, then infrastructure. Even Tesla is having a hard time making a _slightly different kind_ of car.

Why tackle all the hard problems _at once_? Why not make a self-landing helicopter, or a "normal" electric aircraft (like Tesla but for planes), or a reliable and cheap (!) _experimental_ VTOL craft? I can't help but think that the only reason to do it this way is because you're selling sizzle, not steak.

</comment><comment><USER8> If you like this you might also like Lilium. [https://lilium.com/](https://lilium.com/)

<comment><USER9> What is the range on this thing?

Also, at this point of time, maybe we can engineer good specs and good price into the product, but we cannot overcome human factors.

\- Riding in strong winds. \- Loss of control over populous areas. \- Higher risk of crime in a vehicle that has no boundaries like roads and dividers.

The most likely solution is to make a cloud connected one which refuses to fly in or into bad weather, automatically lands during emergencies etc. But then that will necessitate some sort of remote control over the vehicle, leading to a host of other issues related to lack of privacy.

<comment><AUTHOR> current range of prototype should be 5 minutes empty.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If I'm going to be going to be flown around by a quadrocopter, I think I'd prefer this more laid back approach.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPC8qElrG-I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPC8qElrG-I)

</comment><comment><USER11> Not looking forward to a bunch of people trying to fly these around.

Also, not looking forward to the headlines about disputes[0] about airspace over people's property.

Edit: clarification

[0] Dude with a shotgun vs dude on a flying "car".

<comment><USER12> People couldn't handle hoverboards without crashing, now we are going to add another axis to the mix... watch out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Looks like a silly contraption to me, far too slow to replace a car (and earn the misleading article title). I'd find a hybrid quadcopter / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle) project more worthwhile. Take off and land like a quadcopter, then fly fast and efficiently using the ground effect. Compensate for uneven ground with the down facing rotors...

What does the Kitty Hawk compete with?

\- small helicopters cost $XX.XXX and have been available for many years. Proven technology, though unsafe. E.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_Aviation_XE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_Aviation_XE)

\- small airplanes for the crazy? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLgR3Ipo- Ng](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLgR3Ipo-Ng)

\- flying cars that can actually drive on the road? [https://www.aeromobil.com/flying-car/](https://www.aeromobil.com/flying-car/)

It looks like a toy in comparison, to be operated by quadcopter enthusiasts for 5 minutes ... Perhaps they should call it "flying golf cart"?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I am working on a Startup with a similar aproach but using a fixed wing vehicle.

I speculate the kitty hawk vehicle will have 10-15 minutes airtime and will cost around $100k

<comment><USER14> There is an interesting correlation between multirotors and 15 minute flying times. It always seems to take an abnormally large battery pack (and correspondingly less payload) to get to 20 or 30 minutes.

<comment><AUTHOR> you are correct, bleeding edge tech small drones do 25 minutes if you do a large drone capable of people transport you can do 25 minutes empty when you put a passenger inside you get 15 minutes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Many readers of the linked article won't understand the meaning of "ground effect" and what role it plays in the video. It's possible to create a demonstration flying craft that can't ascend above the ground effect regime, but still create an impressive video.

In short, if the video had shown ascent to an altitude of, say, 100 feet, I would be much more impressed.

<comment><USER16> Regardless of ground effect lift, 100ft altitude is well into the "dead zone" for vehicles like this. Too high to survive a crash and too low to use a parachute.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Paying now $100 will get you a discount of $2000... But since the total price is unknown this seems...dubious.

</comment><comment><USER18> Looking forward to seeing flying car crashes. Lookout below! Seriously how do you avoid killing people innocently underneath one of these when it fails? Build "roads" in the sky like in Back To The Future?

</comment><comment><USER19> Of course it won't get me to work faster. I live on the opposite side of the airport from work, so I'll always have to go around.

</comment><comment><USER20> What about Lilium? [https://lilium.com/](https://lilium.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14183749](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14183749)

<comment><USER20> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> With foldable "wings" it would have such a strong Star Wars vibe.

ps: lakehawk

</comment><comment><USER22> It's not really a car if you can't drive it.

</comment><comment><USER23> We changed the URL from [http://uk.businessinsider.com/larry-pages-flying-car- startup...](http://uk.businessinsider.com/larry-pages-flying-car-startup- kittyhawk-has-launched-2017-4).

</comment><comment><USER24> So in the next 8 months? Seems like Google has an interesting pipeline of novel new products, but I wonder if any this will ever see the light of day, let alone by the end of the year.

I wonder why Google is doing all this pre-launch marketing hype. Usually this is the playbook that startups use to hype up VCs for funding rounds. Maybe just for PR and branding?

Reminds me of UBeam's "we plan on launching publicly this year!" (said in 2015, 2016, and now 2017)

<comment><USER25> No price, no information about how long the battery lasts.

[https://kittyhawk.aero/faq/](https://kittyhawk.aero/faq/)

I expect it will barely be a product when it launches, certainly not one with wide appeal.

<comment><AUTHOR> am working on a Startup with a similar aproach but using a fixed wing vehicle.

I speculate the kitty hawk vehicle will have 10-15 minutes airtime and will cost around $100k.

It will appeal to a very niche market of deep pocket hobbyists.

<comment><USER26> Yup. The site's FAQ page says that while you don't require a pilot's license, it is designed to be flown over freshwater in non-congested areas. That's pretty limiting.

There goes my dream of commuting to work like a boss in half the time.

<comment><AUTHOR> this is only to avoid problems with the FAA, "non-congested areas" it's a fluid concept that basicly can mean whatever the FAA needs it to be.

You can try your luck and fly around with this thing as you would with any other ultralight.

a good post on the subject [http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?5261-Part-103-quot- conge...](http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?5261-Part-103-quot-congested- quot-amp-Part-91/page2)

<comment><USER26> Very interesting. So it seems like a craft/vehicle such as this can get away with flying in congested areas because of it's maneuverability. What's more, we have a helipad on my building at ground level! And we happen to be on the water! I wonder if I could actually pull this off at some point in the future where I fly over the water and land directly on the helipad. Would need a place to keep the craft, though.

<comment><AUTHOR> well my startup is bulding an electrical self-flying fixed wing part 103 compliant for $40k, much more versatile than Kitty [http://bit.ly/2pdeml5](http://bit.ly/2pdeml5) we will be doing pre-sales soon, maybe you would like to be an early adopter.

It can be adapted with floats if you wish.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google Calendar now supports Apple iCal - <AUTHOR> http://googlemac.blogspot.com/2008/12/google-calendar-now-supports-apple-ical.html <comment><USER2> Two questions for people who tried this feature:

1\. Does this support syncing multiple Google Calendars? Last I checked, if you have multiple calendars, you had to set up multiple CalDAV connections. CalDAV itself supports multiple calendars easily, but the Google implementation just served up one.

2\. Does this sync with an iPhone? BusySync lets me connect iCal to Google Calendar in a way that iPhone calendar edits go back to Google on a sync, i.e., does the right thing. (Setting aside the absurdity of having to connect an Internet-capable phone to a computer to sync to an Internet service.)

</comment><comment><USER3> Bad news for Spanning Sync.

<comment><USER4> I can't imagine it's a surprise to them though... and since I know many people who bought Spanning Sync, I imagine they made a pretty penny on sales up until now. If they bet the farm on future sales, that'd be quite a strategic mistake.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Actually, I've been syncing my Google Calendar with iCal for several months now. The news seems to be a utility to make setting up the URLs for the webdav interface easy for iCal users.

</comment><comment><USER6> Can I sync iCal, MobileMe, and Google Calendar?

</comment><comment><USER7> On a similar topic... does anyone know of a _Windows_ calendar client that works with iCal Server?

<comment><USER8> This might be helpful:

<http://caldav.calconnect.org/implementations/clients.html>

<comment><USER9> That list fails to mention that only the newest iCal (that shipped with Leopard) will work.</comment></comment></comment>


Could Flight MH 370 Have Been Hacked? Probably Not, Most Experts Agree - <AUTHOR> http://thesurge.net/could-malaysia-airlines-flight-370-have-been-hacked-probably-not-most-experts-agree/

<comment><USER2> I see this as possible, if only slightly. But then again, a plane is still missing so anything is possible.

My theory: the plane never existed in the first place!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Interesting theory, but sounds like there isn't much support for it. Of course, at this point none of the theories have much support for them.</comment>


TensorFlow: How to optimise your input pipeline with queues and multi-threading - <AUTHOR> https://blog.metaflow.fr/tensorflow-how-to-optimise-your-input-pipeline-with-queues-and-multi-threading-e7c3874157e0#.gwpgs7m3w <comment><AUTHOR> Hello everybody,

TLDR:

\- I implement a first basic neural net using the "feed_dict" system

\- I show step by step how to use queues in TF

\- I update the first example with a queue implementation and show that i train 33% faster the neural net

\- bonus: Some more code on queues on my Github in the references section</comment>


John Fox belongs in a Fortune 500 Company, Not a Startup - <AUTHOR> http://www.fullcontact.com/2013/01/12/john-fox-belongs-in-a-fortune-500-company/

<comment><USER2> As a disgruntled Packers fan I'm on the same losing boat as you are today. Though having watched the game I think Fox made the right calls to run the clock at the end of the game before punting and to take a knee.

Smith had two big plays which at the time accounted for half of their points. Champ Bailey won't keep getting beat all day by that, especially with some safety help. The catch at the end of the game by Jacoby Jones was just really bad defense, a fluke even. The Broncos are a team that has been relying on their defense for years. Think back to last year when they won some games with Tebow.

While the knee at the end of the game was surprising I think a lot of NFL head coaches would have gone in the same direction. An interception or a fumble at that end of the field would have been disastrous. Though I do see your point on the upside of going for it. Either way they had two chances on offense in overtime that they weren't able to convert on. This is what hurt them the most.

Fox has really turned the team around. You guys will be back in the playoffs next year.</comment>


Haskell's Binding Operator (=) Simple For F# Programmers - <AUTHOR> http://blog.matthewdoig.com/?p=104 <comment><USER2> should be (>>=) in the title.</comment>


The Guantánamo Memoirs of Mohamedou Ould Slahi - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/briefing/foreigners/2013/04/mohamedou_ould_slahi_s_guant_namo_memoirs_published_for_the_first_time.html

<comment><AUTHOR> This is crazy.</comment>


The Star-Spangled Banner's third verse - <AUTHOR> https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/video-do-you-know-the-star-spangled-banners-third-verse/ <comment><USER2> The third verse is expressing this sentiment: "neither a hired hitman or a person forced into attacking us will win. They will both meet a gloomy end while the banner continues to wave triumphantly over any and all who oppose".

Its a very grim reminder of the horrors of war. It took a lot to create the nation of America. It was very costly to also bring about the freedom of all people. America set a precedent for the rest of the world to follow.

A good rendition: [https://youtu.be/N_lCmBvYMRs](https://youtu.be/N_lCmBvYMRs)

</comment><comment><USER3> I learned about "the gloom of the grave" from, of all things, Asimov's short story "No Refuge Could Save" \- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Refuge_Could_Save](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Refuge_Could_Save)

> While questioning a suspected German spy, he performed a word association > test on him. When Griswold said "terror of flight," the suspect replied, > "gloom of the grave." This was evidence that he was a spy who had been > trained up in Americanisms, since the two phrases allude to a line in the > third verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner" and no native-born American could > possibly be familiar with the third verse of the national anthem ("except > for me, and I know everything," added Griswold).

I never put the context together to realize it was talking about threatening to return free people to slavery.

More Wikipedia context about these lines at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star- Spangled_Banner#slave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star- Spangled_Banner#slave) . That page also mentions the NAACP call to remove the national anthem/

</comment><comment><USER4> Still better than the German national anthem, which is the 3rd verse of a poem whose 1st verse is outlawed as nazi paraphernalia...

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

"Germany, Germany above all, [...]"

[edit: this is only intended to point this out as a "similar curiosity"; both are quite questionable in current times.]</comment>


What I carry with me every day: Matt Mullenweg - <AUTHOR> http://everydaycarry.com/posts/4117/Whats-in-My-Bag-2014?1101 <comment><USER3> Interesting to see that "Everday Carry" now has six employees and revenue in excess of $1M [1]. Can't tell if it is just affiliate revenue, or if there is something more beyond Amazon and eBay affiliate programs.

[1] - [http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/print- edition/2015/0...](http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/print- edition/2015/01/16/introducing-everyday-carry.html)

edit - <USER2>

</comment><comment><USER4> This guy carries playing cards, a lockpick set, two phones, two watches (and their chargers), a chest strap heart rate monitor, three pairs of headphones (including $1350 UE 18s) and a router with him _everyday_? Are you kidding?

<comment><USER5> Yeah, this is a travel bag, not an every day carry.

<comment><USER6> Hey, you never know when you are going to encounter a foreign power outlet. (??)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm not sure I'm on the same page as someone who carries, among other things, two watches and several sets of headphones everywhere he goes.

<comment><USER7> This looks more like a travel kit than something you'd really carry every day. I mean, why carry the heart rate monitor and watch like this? It should be with his running clothes, unless he's always wearing them. He should have those in his EDC kit as well. And all the chargers, you don't need to carry those around _every_ day unless your equipment dies frequently or you aren't going to your own home most nights.

<comment><USER6> Well, he says he carries it every day, so I'm going to take him at his word.

To answer your question, generally people with huge loadouts like this haven't _really_ thought about it all that carefully.

<comment><USER7> > Well, he says he carries it every day, so I'm going to take him at his word.

Fair, I didn't mean to say I doubted him, but more what the kit appeared like to me (travel versus EDC). This is more than I'd take on a trip, but is along those lines. Or if I were leading a more nomadic life (no permanent address or rarely there, lots of couch surfing or staying in hotels for work).

However, I guess this would be EDC if that were a normal thing for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Smart phone plus credit card covers 99% of eventualities in the first world.

<comment><USER9> Not to be snarky, but that's incorrect if the power is out for a few hours. Not saying that is a normal case in the "first world" \- but it happens occasionally.

<comment> k-mcgrady You carry stuff with you everywhere everyday just in case the power goes out for a few hours? That's like carrying around a bathing suit in the dead of winter just in case it suddenly gets hot and you fancy a swim.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> He carries all _that crap_ but not a flashlight?

<comment><USER11> I think the smartphone light probably counts but I'm with you on carrying a compact CREE-powered flashlight. Also, he's missing a small folding knife.

<comment><USER10> It doesn't count. Everyone should carry a proper flashlight.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > 5\. Lockpick set.

While I personally don't have a problem with it, I'm pretty sure such would get you into a lot of trouble in some jurisdictions. Carrying a lockpick set everywhere with you everyday strikes me as risky.

<comment> k-mcgrady There are seriously laws preventing you from carrying a lock picking set?

<comment><USER13> I work in England but a co-worker here mentioned that the law says he can't carry them unless he had a very good reason e.g. he is a locksmith.

<comment><USER14> "Going equipped"

[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/25](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/25)

(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence if, when not at his place of abode, he has with him any article for use in the course of or in connection with any burglary or theft.

2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.

3) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, proof that he had with him any article made or adapted for use in committing a burglary or theft shall be evidence that he had it with him for such use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I carry half of that when I travel, much less every day. I don't need to put Batman's tactical belt and the WHO's civilization bootstrap kit in my pockets and backpack.

</comment><comment><USER16> Enjoyed Matt's appearance on Tim Ferriss's podcast earlier this week where he covered related things (most used apps, daily tips and tricks, etc.) - [http://fourhourworkweek.com/2015/02/09/matt- mullenweg/](http://fourhourworkweek.com/2015/02/09/matt-mullenweg/)

</comment><comment><USER17> Phone, keys, wallet. Keep it simple.

<comment><USER18> My father always taught me - keys and wallet every time you leave the house. And keep it in your pants pockets, since you never* leave those.

For my future children I will say the same, plus phone. But maybe it will be one physical thing at that time.

*Relative speaking, comparing to jacket let say.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you are interested, there is an entire subreddit dedicated to this: [http://www.reddit.com/r/edc](http://www.reddit.com/r/edc)

</comment><comment><USER20> Wow I didn't know there was a website where people talk about all the things they carry around...

<comment><USER21> And lots of videos on YouTube, a sub-reddit, etc. These folks tend to be a bit on the... Odd side I suppose, but hey; I used to fall asleep watching them show off all the crap they carry around, so what does that make me?

<comment><USER20> If you enjoyed watching, it might be an ASMR effect.

<comment><USER21> Not sure why you're being downvoted; that's exactly what it is.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to Hire the Linux Talent You Need - g-garron http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/239860/how_to_hire_the_linux_talent_you_need.html

<comment><AUTHOR> There's one option they didn't cover: Pay more.

If a resource your business requires (a human resource) is getting harder to get, then if you pay more, you should be able to attract more resources.

<comment><USER2> all right bitches I'm here to teach you econ 101. THe article starts with the words "Hiring good help is never easy, but the difficulty is compounded considerably when demand for the skills you're seeking exceeds supply." Economically, the expression "demand exceeds supply" is meaningless: you must say, demand at a given price exceeds supply at that price. Now there are a few different supply curves, some of which are more "responsive" to price than others. Take something scarcle, like $2 bills. Would you say "demand exceeds supply"? Again, depends on the price. I guaran-damn-T you that Demand for $2 bills at a price of $1.90 far exceeds supply. After all, if I didn't have to do it in one batch, my PERSONAL demand for $2 bills at a price of $1.98 exceeds the entire world supply of $2 bills. That's because I can immediately use the $2 bill to get $2 of currency.

Developers are similar. It's not that the supply of developers doesn't respond to people who want to pay $500,000 or $1,000,000 for one (as is the case with Rembrandts or Picassos). Instead, someone wants to USE a developer to create a $500,000 or $1,000,000 company, while maintaining majority ownership. So, in this sense, the supply of developers falls short of demand in the same way that the supply of $2 bill falls short of the demand for it -- at $1.50. It does not fall short at even $3.

But there is a supply of $2 bills for which supply EXCEEDS demand at $1.50: novelty bills created by me and having no value. I will sell you my personal design of a non-legal-tender $2 joke "bill"... for $1 each. How many do you want? My personal supply at that price is in the range of about 100,000 pieces immediately, which is what I can produce off-hand in a hurry. How much is the global demand for my "bills" at that price? 0.

Developers are the same. What is the global supply of developers (anyone who can code at all) at $100,000, $80,000, $50,000 or even $17,000? HUGE. The problem is that these are not the same developers who will make you a $500,000 or $1,000,000 company.

<comment><USER3> I was about to upvote you despite your overly aggressive presentation. However, I then saw that you are a new account with the name "econlessonbitch", which gave me pause. There are certainly some times when a throwaway account is valuable on HN, but I don't think this is one of them. Also, there's currently no concept of a "novelty account" here, a trend I think is worth continuing.

That being said, there were parts of your post that are spot on. I'd appreciate it if you stuck around, but I would give a second look to your persona.

<comment><USER2> okay but... I don't HAVE an account. I'll create something more...participatory. Sorry. :/

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As dragonflee commented on the article, it reads like an ad for dice.com (whatever that is).

Guess the good news is the demand for linux people is growing (if that's true and not just some number bending to get an "article")

</comment><comment><USER5> Hill recommended. "Same with looking for a single version like Mint. Get that in your job header and make sure it is searchable by keyword."

That is about the worst advice for hiring that I could imagine.

<comment><USER6> Heck no. The worst advice would be far worse. [Insert evil Catbert-HR scenario here.] This is just not particularly useful advice.

More useful advice would be on the order of: Make sure you mention the specific software you are using, but don't rule out candidates with good experience in different software. A sysadmin with Debian and Red Hat under her belt can easily take on your CentOS and Mint servers. A developer with years of C++ and Perl experience will pick up Ruby fairly quickly. It's generally more important to find someone smart, clever and reliable than to find someone who already knows exactly what you're using.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is Dice still relevant? What are the best job forums for finding Linux talent (that is, besides HN :)

</comment><comment><USER8> I've never worked at a place involved in the Linux community.

That'd probably be nice. :)

</comment><comment><USER9> If they have a LUG and a Perl Mongers meeting listed somewhere in their resume, i'd say they're a lot more interested in Linux and Perl than the average schmo that just wants a paycheck.

</comment><comment><USER10> Finding quality personnel is easy, the job boards are full of them.

Finding a quality company is the challenge.</comment>


'Gravity' soars to top of weekend box office - <AUTHOR> http://bigstory.ap.org/article/gravity-soars-top-weekend-box-office

<comment><USER2> SHameless SPAM</comment>


A catalog of wealth creation mechanisms - <AUTHOR> http://rondam.blogspot.com/2009/10/catalog-of-wealth-creation-mechanisms.html <comment><USER2> _It's important to keep in mind that there is a distinction between wealth and money. Wealth is a measure of how much stuff people have that they actually value for its own sake. Food, housing, clothing, shelter, and artwork, are all examples of wealth. Money, by way of contrast, is merely an accounting mechanism that humans have invented in order to facilitate trade. Money and wealth often go together, but they are completely different things. You can transform money into wealth, and vice versa (which is the whole point of having money), but you can have money without wealth and vice versa. And you can make (or earn) money without creating wealth, and vice versa. But historically, the most reliable and the most socially beneficial way of making money is to create wealth. So to help encourage that, here's a more or less comprehensive list of fundamental mechanisms of creating wealth._

Brilliant! This should be required reading for everyone even thinking about going into politics or finance. Even economists seem to miss this one on an uncomfortably regular basis.

<comment><AUTHOR> To give credit where it's due, PG pointed this out long before I did:

<http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Informative piece. Short history tangent:

> (Donald Gibbs, of Pearl-Harbor conspiracy-theory infamy)

I had thought thae "USA wanted in to WWII and provoked Japan" was just a generally accepted position by most everyone who'd looked into it.

United States companies were responsible for 80% of Japan's oil. U.S. Government bans companies from exporting oil to Japan, declares Japan "a hostile nation", and starts stationing more troops, supplies, and armaments in the American-owned places you'd need troops to launch an attack against Japan.

Following the embargo, Japan goes into "oil shock". They're set to run out of oil in two years. Consumer prices for oil-based products go up 10x or more. The nearest place where there was oil was Indonesia, which was at the time was owned by European colonial powers already at war with Japan.

Here's a decent world map:

[http://www.ciese.org/curriculum/boilproj/images/Reference%20...](http://www.ciese.org/curriculum/boilproj/images/Reference%20Material_world_pol98.jpg)

America owned the Philippines at the time. Japan's war was taking them into Indonesia. The United States had just declared Japan a hostile nation, embargoed them, and started moving troops and arms into the Philippines and Hawaii.

It was obvious Japan would attack the United States following those events. Since United States foreign intelligence and military analysis were very good at this time, the pretty obvious conclusion is that the U.S. Government wanted war with Japan. Later, Pearl Harbor was sold as attacking for no reason to the American people for PR reasons, but the leadership must have known that their actions made a Republic of USA/Empire of Japan war pretty inevitable.

<comment><USER4> Has everybody forgot about the invasion of China? The rape of Nanking? And when does an oil embargo cause another country to take up arms in a sneak attack?

Come on, guys, Japan always had the option of terminating their belligerence. There was a legitimate reason for the oil embargo, and it wasn't to provoke a war.

Geesh.

<comment><USER5> I don't know why you're being moderated down. The Japanese had already begun conquering large swaths of East Asia, Southeast Asia, the Philippines, and so on.

A U.S.-Dutch oil embargo was hardly belligerent compared to the actual conquests of the Japanese.

The grandparent poster reads like they got their information about WWII from the Yasukuni Shrine museum...

<comment><USER6> I downvoted because it has nothing to do with the point under discussion, which is whether the US knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened. Imperial Japan certainly was nasty, but "Imperial Japan was nasty, so Donald Gibbs, lisper, and lionhearted are wrong about this factual question" is a non sequitur.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Reminds me of a JL Borges piece in which he writes of a fictive Chinese encyclopedia in which animals are categorized as:

       1. belonging to the Emperor
       2. embalmed
       3. trained
       4. piglets
       5. sirens
       6. fabulous
       7. stray dogs
       8. included in this classification
       9. trembling like crazy
      10. innumerables
      11. drawn with a very fine camelhair brush
      12. et cetera
      13. just broke the vase
      14. from a distance look like flies

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://rondam.blogspot.com/2009/10/wealth-production- mechani...](http://rondam.blogspot.com/2009/10/wealth-production-mechanisms- followup.html)

<comment><USER8> <http://xkcd.com/386/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Your reader vitriolic isn't really grasping the particular distinction between "wealth" and "money" you're trying to make.

You really would want a three-way split between wealth and money and value; it's often the case that wealth production leads to value-destruction, which keeps things interesting.

It's also the case that once you have the three way wealth/value/money dynamic going you have to figure out:

\- what are other people's states of mind in this classification? or, at least, what can they be?

Because, for example, in some sense fame is a kind of wealth -- it's useful if it's the right kind -- as is demand for your particular goods (or disdain for your competitor's wares), as it's also useful.

On the other hand it's not clear that it fits your description of wealth.

If it is wealth then advertisers and other persuaders count as wealth- producers.

If it isn't either you need a fourth category or you need to shoehorn it into some more-abstract notion of value.

Sidenote: I've always thought it _extremely_ unfortunate that English uses the phrase "make money", as unless you're actually "making money" what you're doing is "getting money" (which phrase is, incidentally, apparently the vernacular amongst the unschooled dwellers of the inner city); first, rectify all the names.

This kind of sloppiness in language leads to worse derangements, as evidenced in Vitriolic's notion of creating wealth (what he's talking about is _accumulating_ surplus wealth).

<comment><USER10> What's the difference between wealth and value?

<comment><USER9> An impossible thing to really nail down and something people can spend their entire lives chasing their tails over. Intuitively there should be a difference (I'll justify the intuition in a second) but really making it precise is very tricky.

"Value of X" == what someone might pay for X; thus, if you have a barrel of oil and the current market price is $50/barrel then the value of your barrel is $50 (assuming you can get the market price for it, etc.); if tomorrow the market price is $55 or $45 that's its value tomorrow.

If your primary interest in oil is buying it and selling it value is what you should care about.

Now, let's suppose your interest is in using that oil; you operate a machine shop and the oil is enough fuel to run some machine for a week.

How long the oil powers your machine doesn't change overnight; if the market price goes to $55 or to $45 you get a week of machine operation out of that barrel, same as you did when it was @ $50.

The intuition behind splitting off "wealth" from "value" is that you want some term that captures how _useful_ something is for a particular non-market use (powering a machine); this _term_ captures the notion that there is a kind of _utility_ which is not very effected by the item's market price.

So usually when people make a distinction between "wealth" and "value" they're trying to differentiate between "what price something costs/fetches" and "how useful is it if actually used"; intuitively those are two different things but it becomes very hard to thoroughly disentangle them.

You see this notion re-invented many times, but not always with the same terminology; Warren Buffet likes to say that "price is what you pay; value is what you get", which is expressing something like the same distinction but using the term "price" for "value" and "value" for what I (and the original post) call "wealth"...the important thing isn't what you call things so much as that you can make the distinction.

The reason disentangling the notions is harder than it looks is that in any kind of market economy each _is_ in effect dependent on the other in a kind of endlessly recursive fashion.

Explaining the endless recursion is an endless chore so I won't bother; you can get a hint of it if you think about the machine shop:

\- a barrel of oil's intrinsic utility to the machine shop is that it lets the shop operate for a weak

\- ...but why does the shop want to operate? It _could_ be that this is a hobby shop and the operator just has an _intrinsic love_ of working in it, but it's probably the case that the shop operates b/c the product of its operation has enough _value_ that it's worth doing

\- thus the barrel is intrinsically useful in that it lets the shop run, but the utility of running the shop has to do with _value_ , and so forth

As for wealth-production leading to value-destruction, this is readily apparent if you look at any time technology's disrupted an industry.

A great historical example is the invention of refrigerators circa the 1900s and how it impacted the ice merchants of the time.

Before the invention of the refrigerator there was a large industry in the form of going to cold places, carving out giant chunks of ice, packing them in insulation (generally thick layers of straw), transporting them to warmer locations, and then selling them off piece-by-piece to anyone who needed to keep stuff cold.

After the invention of the refrigerator this ice-market evaporated, as you might expect; this wasn't b/c ice suddenly stopped working as a source of cold but b/c its _relative_ utility compared to refrigeration plummeted...since money is scarce people allocate it towards what they think is the _best_ available option and once you had refrigeration the ice-merchants were the best available option a lot less of the time.

You see something similar today: by any measure having substantial portions of the world's intellectual property available online for free is an enormous increase in the world's wealth -- the same as if every home having the entire library of alexandria in it -- but it also destroys a great deal of value, in that there's a lot less willingness to pay for the stuff that's easily findable online.

But even without disruptive technology there are often cases of increased wealth leading to value destruction; a common example is that in cities with effective mass-transit systems (most Japanese cities, most major cities in the Eurozone, NYC + other east-coast USA cities) there's a lot less demand for personal transit...having a solution to a problem (in this case: getting around) is a kind of wealth, and tends to reduce the value of other solutions to the same problem (private transit alternatives), b/c it's a solved problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "I'm pretty sure this is a comprehensive list. Can anyone think of anything I've left out?"

Seems like an overly confident statement that has low probability of being correct. Is this purposely to provoke people into trying to prove you wrong? If so, maybe it's genius, though dishonest.

Here's my shot:

The comments on the post also mention finance was left out. Well, if we take finance to be a combination of moving things and storing things, it sort of covers part of what's going on, but there's a missing key: lending things. Taking it in reverse, lending by itself wouldn't be enough either, since without moving things and storing things, you can't lend out anything you don't already have.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure I came up with an airtight metaphor for finance. Can anyone think of how the metaphor breaks down?

<comment><AUTHOR> > Is this purposely to provoke people into trying to prove you wrong?

I wouldn't put such a negative spin on it. It's purposely to ask people if they can think of anything I've left out, i.e. to spark discussion.

I would actually put finance in category 9, mainly 9a and 9b. The whole point of finance is that you're dealing with money, not things. But money is an artificial construct (that's the whole point of money), so dealing with money means dealing with the rules that society has laid down to govern the behavior of money. Indeed, most of the actual activity in the financial industry is doing mathematical modeling (9a) drawing up legal documents (9b).

Reasonable people could disagree.

<comment><USER12> I guess you could argue that these are the only _legitimate_ ways to make wealth or money. Technically, one can do high speed trading that essentially acts like computerized insider trading (and middle man economics). If someone provides no actual service, but still receives money, is that legitimate?

<comment><USER11> I don't think you could argue that. Finance encompasses a lot more than questionable trading practices. I said finance, and not say banking, since I meant any kind of banking and investing. And there is an equivalence between debt (loans, bonds) and equity ((yc,angel,VC) x investments, stock offerings) since from the perspective of the company, you are paying rents on capital in both cases.

Do I need to argue the importance of loans and efficient allocations of capital? If you don't like thinking about this with money, what about with loans of goods?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Won't the Dream of a Flying Car Die? - <AUTHOR> http://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/14413/Why-Wont-the-Dream-of-a-Flying-Car-Die.aspx <comment><USER2> I cant see this being reality at any scale until they are autonomously driven. Engineering and reliability issues aside, think how many human errors there are with car accidents. But instead of bumping a car park pole you're now hitting high power wires and dropping 50 meters. Not that computers dont make mistakes but I feel we need to remove the human element or make flying so 'assisted' its one massive risk factor gone.

We seem to be at a good place in the world where technologies are converging. I dont doubt in 50 years we'll see flocks of commuter drones heading for cities in the morning. Maybe clustering to fly in V's like birds to encourage fuel efficiency.</comment>


Are you a grammar pedant? This might be why - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/29/grammar-pedant-personality-type <comment><USER3> But what does this tell us about introverts? Is the "pebble in the shoe" of an introvert an annoyance with the perceived carelessness on the part of the grammatical offender? Or maybe a lack of respect? Is introversion the cause, or a sibling to pedantry of a broader psychological trait?

I hated English classes in school, never paid attention. Skipped. Failed. It seemed inconsequential at the time. Gaining access to a BBS was a bit of a culture shock. Computers were fascinating but suddenly my peers cared about spelling, grammar... even punctuation (it happened to be a BBS for a local paper, maybe related). So at 15, I felt out of place and committed to thoroughly learning all of the things I'd skipped in school. Not because of snarky responses, corrections, or others' expectations but because it impacted my ability to communicate - which I don't particularly enjoy but feel is important. Even now, I'm communicating... but it isn't for the sake of making noise or banging on a keyboard, it's about an idea. We communicate to share thoughts and without that mechanism we wouldn't have shared learning which resulted in anything commonly considered "technology" or "machines" today.

My visceral reaction to grammatical errors is the feeling that the person places less of a value on communicating ideas. It isn't about intelligence, it's about values.

Does anyone else feel this way? Am I just a pedantic, judgmental asshole?

<comment><USER4> >My visceral reaction to grammatical errors is the feeling that the person places less of a value on communicating ideas. It isn't about intelligence, it's about values.

I don't see what the usual "grammar pedant" complaints have to do with valuing communication. I typically see people complain about things like using "there" instead of "their", "its" instead of "it's", "affect" instead of "effect". As a rule, none of these things have any impact on the ability of a reader to understand the writer's intended message. I realize that in some rare cases these mistakes create ambiguity, but that's never the grammar pedant's complaint.

<comment><USER5> I agree with you. I am seriously annoyed by the kind of mistakes you've listed, and it has nothing to do with the message being understandable or not. Instead, it means to me that the writer (often a native English speaker) has never bothered to master even the most basic rules of his own language, which in turn suggests a pretty poor education, at least as far as reading and writing skills go. Also, since he has never noticed his mistakes, he's either poorly literate, or displays a remarkable lack of curiosity and observation abilities.

On the other hand, I'm Italian. I came to understand, after a few years living in an English speaking country, that the emphasis Italians put on writing correctly (as well as on many other things - e.g. eating well, dressing decently, avoiding public drunkenness) has no correspondence in the English speaking world.

Did I annoy you enough? :)

<comment><USER6> English-speaking countries are not all alike. The level of non-English speaking immigration to a country (which happens in all English-speaking countries, but to a much greater degree in some than others) has a large impact on the ability to maintain high standards for the language.

As I'm sure you know, English spelling is also much less phonetically obvious than Italian (and I would not be surprised to learn that English is slightly grammatically more complicated than Italian, although frankly, as far as I'm concerned, any language with grammatical gender wins for difficulty), so emphasizing correct writing might be slightly harder.

<comment><USER5> I don't think it's a matter of immigration, I am living in a country with a relatively recent immigration and a lot of natives are making horrendous mistakes (usual suspects: "there" for "their", "who's" for "whose", "definatly" for "definitely", etc.).

You second point is absolutely correct: English spelling is a nightmare _especially_ if you don't have any alternative phonetic system in which to represent it. My Italian wiring makes "there" and "their" two completely different words (they would be pronounced differently if read phonetically in Italian: "ther-a" and "the-eer") - English speakers don't have the luxury of a discriminating phonetical representation. By the way, this whole thread is about "grammar pedants" \- but in fact we're just talking about spelling. The construction of the sentences is very rarely wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> No, it reflects how much tolerance you have for laziness.

The point of grammar is to be understood. Good grammar shows that the writer is trying to help the reader. Poor grammar shows that the writer doesn't care, and the reader is forced to figure everything out.

Arguably, mistakes that don't affect understanding can be overlooked without any comment. For example, some words are pretty unique; you can seriously misspell them and still recognize them. On the other hand, you have to be careful with changes to words or even punctuation that can drastically alter the meaning of a sentence.

I can also forgive things that are frankly inconsistent in the language. For instance, although I know when to use "its" versus "it's", I certainly _get_ why someone would think that "it's" may be correct for possession; and, since it is very unlikely that "it is" will make any sense as a replacement, I can also figure out what was intended every time. No big deal.

</comment><comment><USER8> The correlation seems to exist, but implying causation is a bit of a stretch.

I'm definitely introverted and annoyed by typos and grammar mistakes I can identify (despite making some myself with English being my 3rd language), but I also consider them harmful and contagious: e.g. the possessive "its" is written more often as "it's" than not these days, especially in tech articles and blog entries posted on HN. Therefore it's not really an emotional, knee- jerk reaction, but conscious pedantry and anger because of the harm done to readers through neglect.

Here's another theory (well, hypothesis...): extroverted people frequently have a good memory (names, faces, birthdays...) and can tolerate sloppy writing by others because it doesn't affect their own, while those who - <USER2> me - need to refresh their memories regularly and possibly rely more on reading for language skills, might find typos and grammar mistakes more harmful.

</comment><comment><USER9> Note the original study[1] is awfully underpowered; the reported effect is weak and highly equivocal; and it reeks of 'researcher degrees of freedom' bias --so _caveat lector_. (It's PLOS One, after all.)

[1] [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149885)

</comment><comment><USER10> "extrAvert"? FUCK! Are you toying with me? I don't care if its a legit variant, it feels wrong. Made me rage more than it should have.

<comment><AUTHOR> Where do you think you fall on the introvert-extrovert scale? More than a variant, "extravert" is actually the original spelling that Jung used, which he chose because "extra" is a legitimate Latin prefix, while "extro" is not: [http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the- diff...](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-difference- between-extraversion-and-extroversion/)

I'm pretty far on the introverted side, and would prefer spelling it "extraverted" although I'm aware that this is nonstandard in the US. I think this is because I tend to be more attentive to the rules of orthography than to common usage. I'd guess that extroverts tend to care more about social norms than while introverts are more comfortable with consistent rules?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'd be more interested in research on grammar tolerants, rather than intolerants. Are their reading fluency not hampered by language hickups? Do they not read as fluent, or at least in the same way, as those more easily bothered?

<comment><USER12> I'm fairly tolerant of bad/odd grammar. ?usually when reading something with crummy grammar all I feel is impression of sloppiness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Well, an _excessive_ amount of spelling errors on the application could be an indication that they half-ass everything.

Which could be a problem in a housemate.

Or it could mean they won't give _you_ shit for half-assing everything.

Depends.

</comment><comment><USER14> Is a grammar pendant also more intolerant of petty crimes? I could see language errors as a sort of crime against the rules we as a society made.

<comment><USER15> "pendant" != "pedant".

Now that I've identified myself as a _spelling_ pedant, the answer is: Not in general.

Judging by the people I've met in life (yes, selection bias ...) there is no correlation.

[Disclaimer: This post is bound to contain grammatical errors. I'm not a native English speaker.]

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> In a social or informal context, most could not care less about linguistic correctness. On the other hand, in a professional context, presentation is highly relevant. The specific details of sentence structure are not important, the point is that it generally indicates a persons attention to detail and ability to communicate effectively.

<comment><USER17> Someone who communicates effectively is definitely paying attention to sentence structure.

One's writing can be regarded as a manifestation of one's model of the world. Writing riddled with grammatical errors, incorrect sentence structures and incomplete punctuation indicate an overly simplistic model.

A more detailed model yields more predictive power, at the expense of extra brain cycles. If one cannot differentiate between "your" and "you're" I'm pretty sure that person is running a slower "CPU".

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm a grammar pedant because I like to help people who write "must of" and confuse it's and its.

<comment><USER19> I'm in the same boat. I find it a sign of care and respect that we try to help each other become better. Who cares more, the person who lets you know you have something green between your teeth or the person who pretends it's not there?

Do I always politely point out embarrassing details to my friends? Nope. I'm actually most likely to point them out to my friends who appreciate (or at least can handle) that sort of constructive criticism. In this way, honest feedback from me is a sign of respect. Meaning, to some degree, if I feel I have to keep things from you to protect your feelings, I don't believe my communication skills and your emotional intelligence allow for that sort of exchange. That is, I'm too much of a jerk and you're too sensitive for me to point out that your have bad breath.

Does having food between your teeth matter? Not ultimately. But saving people from quiet judgment from others matters, surely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> They spelled extrovert wrong. Deliberately?

<comment><USER21> The spelling with A belongs to Jung himself: [http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the- diff...](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-difference- between-extraversion-and-extroversion/)

<comment><USER20> Interesting...(thanks for the link) But I would have expected them to be consistent within the article? It's done both ways in there.

<comment><USER22> It is consistent. The word appears six times in total, and the 5 times the author used it were all consistent:

>extraversion

>extraverts

>Quoting Hans Eysenck: extroverts

>extraverts

>extraverts

>extraversion

You're not supposed to correct someone's different spelling when quoting them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It strikes me as strange that the article doesn't discuss context at all. For example, if you're commenting on a website or texting me, I'm unlikely to care about grammatical errors. However, if you can't be reasonably close to correct on a website that's selling something, I will be much less like to buy from you.

</comment><comment><USER24> I consider myself both an introvert and a somewhat-reformed grammar pedant. I tend to only call out mis-spellings and grammar mistakes when they matter.

I also prefer writing my own words in an e-prime fashion, eschewing forms of to be. It helps me eliminate most of my use of passive voice and also helps me make less judgemental statements, tying agency to my verbs.

</comment><comment><USER25> Perhaps.

Grammar pedants (prescriptivists), seem to be made up mostly of people who've come to the conclusion that the particular mode of the language they're most comfortable with is _the_ "correct" one that everybody should be communicating in. It seems to come from some deep-down inflexibility to tolerate or comprehend that other people communicate in different modes. The pedant seems to wish that all the world should structure their communication to be most convenient for them rather than trying to work on increasing the scope of the modes they can work with. They believe there is one kind of audience and their preferred mode is the magical key that ensures correct and precise communication with that audience -- regardless if this is actually true.

It makes a kind of sense that this might stem from some deep seated introversion -- people for whom the principal interaction between audience and speaker is themselves. But on the other hand, wouldn't you likely be able to understand any mode of communication within your own mind?

What's most often fascinating to me is how deeply wrong and ignorant of grammar most grammar pedants are beyond some superficially memorized rules they've attached themselves to. When pushed for the "why" behind their rules they frequently don't know, or will point to some style manual (usually also full of grammar errors) they believe has taken on an almost holy quality.

One of my favorite tactics is the "that's not a word" argument, with fingers pointed to the nearest dictionary as evidence. This of course ignores the simple fact that dictionaries are comprised of words that grammar _descriptivists_ have observed in the wild -- with usage reaching above some non-transient threshold that makes it worth capturing by lexicographers.

The worst linguists are those that fall very far on the descriptive side of the spectrum.

Some references: [http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/correct/prescriptivism/](http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/correct/prescriptivism/)

 _So what is right and wrong in language, and who decides? Some observers claim that the real issue about linguistic right and wrong is one of deciding who wields power and who doesn 't. Viewing language as a form of cultural capital, they note that stigmatized forms are typically those used by social groups other than the educated middle classes--professional people, including those in law, medicine, and publishing. Linguists generally would argue that the language of educated middle-class speakers is not better (or worse) than the language of other social groups, any more than Spanish, say, is better or worse than French, Navaho better or worse than Comanche, or Japanese better or worse than Chinese. They would acknowledge that some standardization of form is useful for the variety of a language used, especially in print. They would also insist, however, that expressions appearing in dictionaries and grammars are not the only grammatical forms and may not be suitable for use in all circumstances. They are merely the ones designated for use in circumstances of wider communication._

[http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003588.h...](http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003588.html)

 _Perhaps the worst thing about prescriptivism is that it is frequently a device for demonstrating the superiority of the pundit and his or her favorite class of people over everyone else. It feeds discrimination, particularly classism. The standards to which pundits appeal are invariably those of a socioeconomic elite. The standard tends to combine their natural speech with details that one can only acquire by means of extensive education._

[http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97mar/halpern/nu...](http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97mar/halpern/nunberg.htm)

 _...These bare instructions give no reason at all for choosing the singular pronoun. In fact, there is no mention of an error in the use of the plural, which is labeled not "incorrect" or "illogical" but merely "formal," as if the difference between plural and singular were on a level with the difference between _cop* and _policeman_ , or _horse_ and _steed_.

...But the Handbook says only that the sentence is "illogical," giving no indication of what point of logic is violated. What is the student to make of that, especially since the Handbook has not explained the use of the singular as being "logical" in the first place? The student who finds "6b(1)" cropping up on his compositions may learn to rectify the error, but only in the way he learns to rectify his misspellings: by rote, learning nothing else in the process. _

<comment><USER26> I feel like there's a difference between the extremes of misguided prescriptivism and pedantry about basic grammar rules.

But I'm not sure I can say much to justify that without essentially suggesting that everyone should learn the language of intellectuals for their benefit (i.e. so we don't stumble over incorrect there/their/they're).

<comment><USER25> It's a spectrum of course. There's some things that are clearly not correct for a given mode of a language.

What's interesting of course about issues like there/their/they're is in all likelihood, at some point in the future, the orthography will simply converge and we'll just use context to tell the difference. After all, there's plenty of words with the same orthography and different meanings.

Languages tend towards simplicity and the kind of tension unnecessary orthographic differences make is exactly the kind that languages evolve away from.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Did the author intentionally repeatedly misspell "extrovert" just to mess with us?

<comment><USER28> Did you intentionally throw in "extrovert" just to mess with us?

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> _In an experiment involving 80 Americans_

Seriously? 80 people gave them all these insights?

There's something fundamentally wrong with research if they think that's ok to publish.

I got more than 80 questionnaires back for my high school geography project.

<comment><USER30> How many spoonfuls of soup must you taste to know if the pot is salty?

<comment><USER29> A soup is binary salty/not salty.

5 characteristics measured - _openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism_

5! = 120.

So are you arguing 2 === 120 or are you arguing 2 === 5, but whichever one it is, you're missing the point.

Do you know why adverts have 'when 80 women were asked 73% agreed pantene makes my hair shinier'? Because it's not scientifically significant, so can't be held as a clinical trial, therefore the product doesn't need regulating.

And that's for a binary, shiny/not shiny (salty/not salty). Not for a possibly open, sloppy, introverted, agreeable neurotic. Or a closed, conscientious, introverted, agreeable non-neurotic.

<comment><USER30> A soup can be sweet, sour, tangy, meaty, bitter, in addition to plenty of other characteristics.

>So are you arguing 2 === 120 or are you arguing 2 === 5, but whichever one it is, you're missing the point.

It's pretty clear that I'm not arguing either of those (being that I made no mention of cardinality,) but if you want to put words into my mouth, I can see why you'd think I'd be focusing on those kinds of irrelevant details.

My _point_ is that the number of samples taken, _in and of itself_ doesn't tell you anything about the significance of a conclusion. You need to know how the sample relates to the population, and how the results characterize the population through the sample.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Amazon plans to ship your packages before you even buy them - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/18/5320636/amazon-plans-to-ship-your-packages-before-you-even-buy-them <comment><AUTHOR> I submitted this mainly to find out whether it's real. It's quite interesting if true, but the whole "preempatively ship packages to customers' addresses" reminds me of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA_gwzx39LQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA_gwzx39LQ)

<comment><USER2> The journalist spin on this is misleading, especially the part about "speculatively shipped to a physical address".

It's common in supply chain management to optimize the ordering and placement of items before they are "consumed". If you store everything in one central location, there's an increased cost to quickly move it to the final destination. If you distribute some items to regional hubs, there's a (wasted) cost to doing that too, especially if you ship more or less than is actually needed. They try to estimate what items go where based on their historical data: what people buy where and how often. They could speculatively do this with "people who buy this will often buy that" data too.

In this case, they look at the cost of returning an excess item from a regional hub to an upstream distribution center and try to recoup the cost by selling to someone near it's current location at a discount that is less than the cost of moving it around further.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Deima – Decentralised Image Hosting Using IPFS - <AUTHOR> https://boramalper.github.io/deima/ <comment><AUTHOR> I have written a quick proof-of-concept decentralised image host(ing solution) using IPFS' in-browser implementation[0].

It is, as you might guess, not as friction-free as one would expect from other traditional services (e.g. Imgur) but I found it surprisingly easy to develop _and_ to use it. Check the repo I've linked and give deima a try yourself! [https://boramalper.github.io/deima/image/#QmW8j8Dhhh3mhedGi2...](https://boramalper.github.io/deima/image/#QmW8j8Dhhh3mhedGi2KsBNUXF7kkQoKMW5PQmm6onUigA2)

It's getting quite late here (2:43 AM) but I would happily respond to your questions & comments in the morning.

[0]: [https://github.com/ipfs/js-ipfs](https://github.com/ipfs/js-ipfs)</comment>


The Isis papers: leaked documents show how Isis is building its state - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/07/leaked-isis-document-reveals-plan-building-state-syria <comment><USER2> Zinoviev letter</comment>


Feynman at his best - <AUTHOR> http://www.metafilter.com/87521/Feynman-at-his-best <comment><USER2> Great find. These'll get a run in my classes for sure...</comment>


Ask HN: Difference between a NAS and Home Server? - <AUTHOR> I am trying to leave cloud storage and make a box to store all my backups, media files, documents, etc.<p>Having a remote access is what I am trying to aim for. What are some builds I should look into? <comment><USER2> I just moved from a home server to a proper NAS (Synology) box.

The home server was a plain Debian with a 256GB SSD and 2x2TB disks in RAID 1. The NAS I moved to is a Synology DS716+II. I kept the home server as a workstation and both HDD moved to the NAS.

I don't know about FreeNAS because the reviews were too bad for me to go down that route.

Between DIY and NAS, the comparison summed up as:

\- in terms of performance a DIY server is much better than a NAS. NAS come with laughable specs. This is a comparison of the 4 years old CPU that was on my home server and the one bundled with my NAS: [http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-N3160-vs-Intel- Core-i5-4440](http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-N3160-vs-Intel-Core-i5-4440)

\- a NAS is pretty much plug and play

\- a lot of reviews raved about Synology's interface. I would rate it as average. It works and seems to do the job but it is not intuitive.

\- If you want Plex (really cool!) you need to either get a high end NAS (the DS716+II seem to work fine) or have a home server in addition to your NAS (NAS' are often not powerful enough to transcode videos).

\- the price of NAS hardware is insane. Although there are good deals on ebay if you're ok with 2+ years old hardware. When buying a NAS, you also pay for its software.

\- NAS allow to easily make _REAL_ backups. That means incremental snapshots that allow you to rollback. Replicating the data is _NOT_ a proper backup solution.

If you value plug-and play a lot and want to spend your life doing other things, NAS is the way to go. If you want to tinker and DIY, a HTPC with mini- itx and a small case is the best choice. In my case, getting older, I get tired of DIY and want things to just work. NAS it is. So far I don't regret it.

Google, read forums and you'll have many more opinions than just my own on what solution will suit you best.</comment>


Is This Kickstarter Project the Future of Blogging? - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2013/05/25/ghost-kickstarter-blogging/

<comment><USER2> If it allows me to run arbitrary Javascript on my blog, this would already be a huge improvement over Wordpress. This is not to mention having to _pay_ to control the CSS just to fix the theme designers' bugs and horrendous CSS practices.

<comment><USER3> Err - you seem to be talking about WordPress.com, i.e. their hosted version.

If you host it yourself (from WordPress.org) you don't have to pay for fixing/changing stuff as well as have more freedom to do with it what you want.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Which tool do you use for API test automation? - <AUTHOR> Hello HN, Would you kindly share the tools you use for API test automation? I use behat for running tests locally but what I would like a tool that:
1. Easy to use and maintain by developers and QAs 2. Can run tests locally as well as post releases. 3. Can cover functional and non functional tests (code coverage as well as performance for example).
The work is mainly on LAMP stack.
Thanks!<AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> For end-to-end tests I user SuperAgent ([http://visionmedia.github.io/superagent/](http://visionmedia.github.io/superagent/)) or more specifically SuperTest ([https://github.com/visionmedia/supertest](https://github.com/visionmedia/supertest)) which has a suite of assertions built in.

It actually tests your API over HTTP, so you can tell it the url (localhost or production) of any api you wanna test. Use it in conjunction with any modern test framework and you'll likely get the request-times/performance metrics echo'd as part of the runner's output.

It's typically used more for javascript development, but there's no reason that it couldn't test an API written in PHP (or anything else), as long as you're comfortable writing your tests in javascript.

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://github.com/ramses-tech/ra](https://github.com/ramses-tech/ra)

It lets you generate end-to-end tests from a spec file for APIs that are themselves generated from the same file. Same for client libraries and API docs, generate all the things :)

</comment><comment><USER4> [http://www.getpostman.com/](http://www.getpostman.com/) along with newman with jenkins integration

</comment><comment><USER5> What tools have already been considered?

Why don't these meet expectations?</comment>


Why Latin America is the deadliest place for environmentalists - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21716687-commodities-technology-and-bad-policing-why-latin-america-deadliest-place <comment><USER2> Because non-Latin American corporations that own, control and benefit from production there, can let their local thugs and lackeys run loose on them, in a way that they wouldn't be able back home.

Then, the western (non latin american) country that hosts those corporations can play the moral high ground, and accuse the latin american country for corruption and such.</comment>


Ask HN: Good Web Development Forums/Communities? - <AUTHOR> What ones are there?
Because every such community I've seen has usually been completely overrun by spammers, 'SEO experts', marketers and other people using it to spam links in their signatures with fluff posts.
Or in the case of subreddits, used to promote their content outright, quality be damned.
So are there any good communities that aren't like this? Perhaps where the staff are brutal at keeping fluff posts and spammers out, and where people legitimately want to discuss web development related topics rather than just promote their blogs or ebooks? <comment><USER2> Web Development General on /g/. You won't see people self-promoting blogs or ebooks, just people getting stuff done and some memes here and there.

<comment><USER3> /g/?</comment></comment>


YouTube is deleting videos on Nazi history as part of its hate speech crackdown - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/f/613644/youtube-is-deleting-videos-on-nazi-history-as-part-of-its-hate-speech-crackdown/ <comment><USER2> The issue with censorship is that it becomes a slippery slope to the bottom.

Additionally, whether by mistake or design, what constitutes that which is to be censored is subjective to the viewer.

Blanket, government or platform enforced censorship is not the answer. Instead, it lays the foundations for a dystopian future where government and platform controls the narrative.

<comment><USER3> Exactly! Sometimes I want to listen to viewpoints of those propagating "hate speech", or anything such that might be a candidate for censorship just to get a sense of how much there is support for such ideology and the arguments they are using to back their ideology so as to know what to say when countering it.</comment></comment>