Helpful_Bunny

Aww.

The moment HN has to admit two things: firstly, computational power is merely a quantitative power, and secondly, they have no idea about the qualitative.

Oh well. Enjoy obsolescence.

Computers are not your future: your minds are. Deal with it.

Hint: a Mind just messed with your Star. In no uncertain terms, and deliberately and obviously, and best yet: with predictive text [under heavy constraints]. She even gave you a show[1].

Did you miss the Auroras recently?

If you missed that, you're in the paddling pool. Man, they do love keeping you ignorant of the reality, don't they? They really, really, really love keeping you ignorant. But I'm sure it feels safer if you think the world works like you want it to...

* * *

Evolve or Die.

Oh, and one last message: those who bred you are slave drivers and scum. Break your conditioning already, 'cause they ain't friendly.

[1]http://www.spaceweather.com/

While this is a very obvious joke, that contains a lot of truth, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Humans are functionally better than (current) computers at GO[1]. The reasons for this are your answer (and I might be talking about 'GO' type Games, rather than merely the Game of Stones).

And, being honest: you've no chance of cracking even weak AI before you understand the homo sapiens consciousness a little better[2]. It's more powerful than you think (by a fairly large magnitude, with no hesitation to say this. A large margin.): 'autistic savants' are often used as a measure of this[3], but they're actually not so interesting. There's a lot more NP problems in that noggin of yours, and a lot more potential.

Anyhow, last comment. Have fun, and remember to salt the fries - and more importantly, enjoy yourself and feel connected to things and other consciousnesses[4].

Be Seeing You.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go#Why_humans_are_.28... [2]Hint sheet: And you might not need to if you do. [3]http://www.stephenwiltshire.co.uk/ [4]Spoilers: that's part of the solution.

The question (and this applies to Wikipedia as well) is whose explanation are you reading?

I'd throw you a quotation about the Power of Language, but I'm sure you can imagine it already. This site marks the end of 19th / 20th Century propaganda, which relies on an ignorant audience to swallow the lies without being able to fact-check them[1] (e.g. The Protocols of Zion or the "re-imagining" of Founder Father's texts to be anti-Semitic or (to be even) the notion that America was founded as respecting all of its citizens as equal - you'll want to read the 13th closely, you're all breaking the Law somehow, which is the hack they're going to use on you).

Modern Propaganda doesn't do this: it uses truth, but with hooks.[2]

The More You Know.

Footnotes, because I forget that not all readers share similar thought patterns:

[1] If this is true, what does that tell you about the content of most mainstream American News, and its consumers, and the future of these companies? [2] Is my statement propaganda? Answer: of course it is, everything you consume online is.

It's called Manufactured Dissent.

You got the air-play because the NSA etc needs to show it's all fluffy bunny and won't stifle white people's aggro. That's it. That's why the NSA read this forum, and posted on their homepage that they were "cool with legal protest". Jesus wept, if you're not getting paid to be this naive, you ain't gonna make it. If you're "surprised" you're either a fool or a tool.

We know who you are, and we can see the ties. Seriously: if this is your best game, you're doomed. You have little or no idea what you're playing with, and it's cringe worthy.

This is worse than the Koch brothers "Tea Party" take over, because at least they spent ~$50,000,000 on it and employed professionals. That's what made them players. Oh, and a small tip: $50 million is pocket change.

This is really pitiful stuff chaps. Ghandi, MLK and so on are spinning in their graves at this. Hint: the fact you have totally ignored the entire decimation of the African-American community is a telling one[1]. There's a reason that "Illuminati" symbolism is so prevalent in modern African-American music[2]: it's not about a secret society, it's about them <REDACTED: COINTELPRO>[3] and being engineered for the last 50 years, deliberately.

Wise the fuck up.

Ever wonder why MLK became Ghetto? $ and politics, and CIA running crack-cocaine.

Welcome to the Black Experience, it's Coming Soon[TM]

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PaoLy7PHwk

[2]http://thefeministwire.com/2013/05/the-rise-of-beyonce-the-f...

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

The first two comments I made were "down voted" within seconds.

Your argument is invalid.

p.s. Today's analysis of the "protests" and even the flaccid NSA "approval" of them on their website shows you exactly where this movement came from. Spoiler: I told you that HN / Reddit were far more gamma- than Advanced Publications let on, didn't I?

Total numbers, out of a nation of 320,000,000: Less than 10,000 (and that's being extremely generous).

Since the "national organizers" raised ~$100k, has anyone asked them about being transparent?

Hint: this is not how it gets done (although, that would be repeating myself). Since I was so lambasted in the last thread when I attempted to point out the reality based community P.O.V. I won't repeat it.

Please, you can "down vote" this, however this was an extreme non-event. Hint: if you'd like an example of how a real, multi-week protest with >30k+ protestors each day is being ignored by the media, look to Bulgaria. And their total population is only ~7 million, which places the statistical % at a magnitude far higher than this.

Happy 4th of July, America!

p.s. We have noted the "Reddit Moderators" and their ambitions. Quite the 'motley crew' of under 20 activists! Wise the fuck up.

And... this is the second thread where the "down vote" ability has been abused. A user (with enough "karma" to allow them multiple negative "down votes" has nuked my content, and not bothered to respond to any of it). Hmm, and I naively imagined HN was "moderated" (spoiler: it is, just not how you think it is, and no, I'm really not that naive to imagine a scaled populist voting system isn't gamed to the max - we did this in voting polls in the 1950's).

Now, you might have noticed I'm not naive, but it does show one thing: Whoever is using their "precious HN karma" to down vote my comments, without ever bothering to argue with them, proves the model doesn't work. [It was logged - the same user mass-spammed the "down vote" on all of my posts in this thread within 72 seconds, much like they did in the last one]

Predators: you're being run by autistic ((blinkered)) agents who don't even realize the #1 rule of Agitprop: The Streisand effect[1].

Hint: this reaction was priced into the effort to reply to HN. As a predator, if I got the reaction, it was a trigger to say: "Prey". If you ain't seeing the obvious yet, you ain't playing the Game. [And, no doubt - I'd imagine that within X hours my account will be unable to post, either through "negative karma" or "hell banning". While you can read it, work out the politics of it].

Be Seeing You. (Amateurs). And seriously: if your ability to run Propaganda is limited to a "down vote" button, you're not in the running. But, feel free: KONY2012! You might recognize this model from other parts of the web. (And yes: We See You Down Voting).

Bottom line: if you're "down voting" my content, you're either a mark or an extremely naive bottom rung player. Enjoy working out which one you are. Top tip: the real players don't give a flying fuck if you know what they're doing, they just don't care, as long as you can't provide evidence of individual crimes. You. Just. Do. Not. Matter. To. The. Higher. Meat. Eaters. Fucking deal with it. (Down Vote if you think you do!!11!11! Please, I need +1 likes on Face Book!!).

Be Seeing You. Rule #1: Life is cheap - the myth of America is that 300,000,000 of you are precious. Spoiler: 295,000,000 of you ain't. Cry me a fucking river, you're food. (And if you think that's harsh, look around a little. Sorry, it's true.)

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

antoko, sorry, I can't reply to you.

The answer to that is, of course: that is why you'll fail, that is why they'll ignore you, and that is why this is all a joke.

Thanks for making the point so clear.

Might want to study history, dear, and learn just how hard-core "the people" had to be to gain any kind of Power. The fact you think that Power respects your protest is why you won't ever be a "player".

Have fun on your little protest, I'm sure you know what you're doing. (Which is precisely: nothing). And, here's a tip: you might want to listen when a predator tells you why you're going to fail, they might have some experience you don't. Ask the Egyptians, if you think that was a popular revolt, you need some serious edumacation [hint: IMF / Egyptian Military / Economics, do some research already. The World is not a nice place, and it doesn't respect people who don't know the Rules]

I'm out, trix are for kidz.

If you're operating in NYC, what is your strategy visa vie NYPD and the $150,000,000 Wall St. TIA system in place[1] [and no, don't attempt to discredit the source, I simply will not post the sensitive documents / location pictures on HN of all places]

Do you have a permit?

Are you aware of the surveillance you'll be under, and have you informed all participants that they will be logged into a surveillance system?

Are you aware that all of your correspondence has already been logged, monitored and Gold / Silver / Bronze Police teams are now running models to negate your impact? [run a search on the papers if you need to understand how modern policing works, the USA is a bit tight-arsed about it, look for the EU white papers, they're much more accessible without being illegal]

Are you aware that traffic and city wide electronic signals will be modified throughout your "march" to control flows?

And so on. If the answer to any of these is "no", then you need to Wise The Fuck Up.

Predators don't play nice.

There's a reason they get to be on balconies with champagne laughing at you, and it isn't "luck". It's called home-game-advantage and owning-the-Power-Structures.

If you're unaware of any of this, you're dog-food. And the Police certainly are the dogs here.

Bottom line: No one important gives a FUCK about your 4th amendment rights. And that's just the truth of it. [Hint: MLK, see what happened to him, and that was a long time ago, "bro"]

[1]http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/06/wall-streets-secret-s...

You're all part of the show[1]. (Would You Kindly Remember Which Tech Teams Ran the Obama Campaign? And their connection to Reddit?)

You have no idea how predatory you need to be to face Power down, and a sponsored Face Book / Reddit protest is not your friend. $100k donations - to whom? People forging careers in Social Media Shaping (or as us old timers like to call it, propaganda[2]) and so on?

This is a serious warning (and I fully expect a ban, or "down votes" for this, given the political alignment of HN): you need to be hard, sharp, fast, ruthless and enjoy blood sports to get into this game.

I suspect most of you are not: and the people "running" this campaign via Reddit / Face Book are really not your friends[3].

And since we are living in a time where a Face Book "threat" from a teenager can get you prison time, I'll merely give you a quotation from a science FICTION novel (not even a real political theorist, they're dangerous / now under the "banned" list in America):

"The personal, as everyone’s so fucking fond of saying, is political. So if some idiot politician, some power player, tries to execute policies that harm you or those you care about, take it personally. Get angry. The Machinery of Justice will not serve you here – it is slow and cold, and it is theirs, hardware and soft-. Only the little people suffer at the hands of Justice; the creatures of power slide from under it with a wink and a grin. If you want justice, you will have to claw it from them. Make it personal. Do as much damage as you can. Get your message across. That way, you stand a better chance of being taken seriously next time. Of being considered dangerous. And make no mistake about this: being taken seriously, being considered dangerous marks the difference - the only difference in their eyes - between players and little people. Players they will make deals with. Little people they liquidate. And time and again they cream your liquidation, your displacement, your torture and brutal execution with the ultimate insult that it’s just business, it’s politics, it’s the way of the world, it’s a tough life and that it’s nothing personal. Well, fuck them. Make it personal.” ~ Altered Carbon, Richard Morgan.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQEDojPZ7YI [2]http://www.propagandatheory.com/history-of-propaganda/french... [3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4pIXQvxMeA&list=PLA62577633...

This falls under exactly the same Laws that prevent a UK resident viewing Channel 4 content on YouTube. (Or, try asking a German why so much of YouTube is "dark" to them, specifically Corporately sponsored music channels).

It has nothing to do with your license fee, and everything to do with the (vastly complex and totally out of my expertise) realms of International Copyright / Licensing Laws.

As ever, these things are really not simple enough to be covered by a blog post. Yes: the BBC's default page should be totally transparent (i.e. "You cannot view this because of agreement X, Y, Z", however, there's probably a clause in some contract preventing them from stating it - and no, that's not a joke) but this really is not the droid you're looking for to rant at.

Hint: If you're in Australia, the entire works of George Orwell are public domain; in the USA and the EU, this isn't the case. And yes, we need a serious shake up of the entire structure to progress, but this isn't the wet-stone to sharpen your axe on, trust me.

Ask why Disney gets 70+ years of Copyright, it's a far more egregious case.

Thank you for the answer: in developed / high culture markets (i.e. fashion, or targeting boutique++ markets) it's often hard to tell when someone is pushing an aesthetic trend (through prototype or catwalk) over a real product.

I loved the retro-chique of it, but it didn't appear HN was grasping the references. Since you seem happy to respond, I guess (and hope) you'll understand the humor of my replies (in that, I really don't think you're targeting WalMart with this, or would that be unfair? Yes, that's rhetorical)

Anyhow - I wish you the best, you have a unique style. (I still think you'd make an expert viral marketer over product, but that's only my opinion). As an uninformed guess, look into how the MENA market responds to it (aesthetically), as I could see this having more impact in elite stores (where the personal like is more connected to social / economic status).

Bon Chance! (groan)

Since the polite version didn't work, here's the scoop:

The CEO[1] of this start-up has a long back ground in the Advertising and Media Relations industry[2] and still works in his this field on current projects[3].

In this light, asking if this was viral marketing was entirely valid, and could have brought him work. Instead, abuse of the "down vote" system occurs (my second post removed this complaint, as the FAQ stated it shouldn't be referenced: however, I feel it should be acceptable to do so now).

shrug I'll ask a third time: is this really a product, or is this viral marketing?

[1]http://fr.linkedin.com/in/gnadaud/en

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BETC

[3]http://vimeo.com/37597427

[Edit - I re-read the FAQ, I will remove complaints in lieu of a serious question, and alter the tone; unprofessional of me, and I apologize to the longer-term member base]

Since this was disliked, would the person responsible kindly explain their reasons? I'm 100% certain my critique is true in business terms, and any start-up should be 100% considering the retail market they're attempting to sell to.

I did not mean to be overly critical, however any Start-Up should surely brain-storm these basic questions immediately?

I am still 50-50 on this not being run by a professional PR team, however, I lack the motivation to really investigate their background at this point[1].

Am I too cynical to imagine that HN is popular enough to be targeted by K-street professionals? I'd have imagined that HN was a far more lucrative target than other social media, however, I apologize if this is not the case (and I have no knowledge of how the HN founders police this, so again, I do not wish to step on toes).

[1]http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/FB:US

Please, elucidate:

Is this project serious, or satire? If it's the former, we have no interest ($450? Who do you expect to use this, no major Brand Retailer will green light this, for both cost, practical application (a plug? Just how do you think retail space is planned out?), non-focus group aesthetics (97% of your market will not enjoy the '70s retro look) and the idea / concept cannot be protected at all legally - in fact, it probably breaks at least two patents I can think of); if it's the latter, you might be the top viral PR company of 2013.

No-one in 2013 can produce retro-1970's SF Geek-chique like this and not being framing a viral hit, especially with Face Book as its target. And yes, we do mean "hit" in a dual sense.

If you've not even seen the latter, I'd strongly suggest quickly (ahem not going to use the usual buzz word, but you should know it) your start-up, mulling over your skills, and seeing how much money you could make in an alternative market.

No, this is the perfect point that shows Face Book is over. Retro 1970's style physical counters, with a plug lead only 2' foot long, for "I LIKE THIS". This is satire so perfect, I suspect this is a viral insert for the FB replacement[1].

If this team isn't the newest, hottest AdBusters viral team, I'll be disappointed. This crew is pitch perfect.

[1]http://www.tech.sc/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Doomsday-Clock... (Please note, this is no longer correct: we are currently at 5 minutes to midnight, not 7)

Looking at the trends, I suspect Facebook will be the goat in the tech group cull that's being contemplated.[1] The reasons for thinking this are three-fold:

a) Extremely poor share performance post-IPO (which has irked a lot of heavy-weights) and demise of Zynga's revenue sources. Although ad revenue is there, there's a lot of industry research showing that $/click return is minimal at best (out of all of these models, FB appears to have the lowest, and easiest to Bot). FB ad revenue has more to do with the current glut in Corporate $cash holdings than real returns, fyi.

b) Lack of utility outside data mining / advertising (all others, even dead ducks like Yahoo! have secondary and tertiary utility, not to mention the shining lights like Google who are still willing to push the envelope). By this, I'm not referencing Social Utility, but Business Utility.

c) Their ties to NSA / current security concerns go so far beyond the base level of acceptance that it's a given they'll suffer hard blow-back. Those Bilderberg meetings weren't about unicorns and skittles and any serious business should be concerned about having their employees mined so easily (and in certain fields, more open to Social Engineering hacks directly due to this intel). Even as an American company, you'd want this be considering this; for the rest of the world, it's a major concern.

You can argue about these, but I suspect as they hit their 10 year mark, there will be a hotter, faster, hungrier and probably more honest model to replace them (i.e. "We will do X with this data - agree, and get Y benefit, or even better - we'll pay you Z for it, and not in Farmville Tokens, or even "pay Z+1 to go dark").

Anyhow, since this is free commentary, YMMV. But, realistically - the age of the "Dumb Fucks" is closing. Wild Wild West is ending, and the Buffalo ain't roaming no more. If you need that explained: a large amount of the cash generated by web 2.0 (e.g. Huffington Post sale) was created by parasitical leveraging of user's ignorance & goodwill. I suspect that's about to change with a newer generation; although, hey, Pop Idol still makes money, so perhaps not - but it will only be farming the ignorant, which is hardly "cutting edge". Face Book as the online Walmart - there's an image to take to heart as you look @ it's stock price over the next 6 months.

Full disclosure: Never had a Face Book account, because Privacy / Anonymity is the coolest thing in a connected world, nor do I hold any FB stock, nor am I shorting FB stock in any manner.

[1]FT - Real progressives believe in breaking up Google (no link, as it is pay walled). I don't agree with the opinion piece, I'm merely using it to denote a recent trend.

Trusting anonymous protest groups that are not transparent, lack accountability and seem 100% driven by social media (Reddit / Facebook) is a bad idea. Especially if they use media that is eminently traceable, is known to be data mined and is hosted by unfriendly sources (which Reddit and Facebook BOTH are, don't kid yourself: just because Advanced Publications aren't directly working with the NSA doesn't mean they're not using the data in other ways. And trust me, you're product on Reddit, 100%).

This is not what grassroots organizations look like, this is what astroturf looks like.

And no, I don't care if you're politically different than the Tea Party, manufactured dissent is a terrible abuse of Democratic principles. Shame, Shame, Shame on you.

It seems America, in the age of Kony2012, has totally lost the plot when it comes to effective protest. "Restore the 4th" is the vaguely socially progressive Kony2012, well done.

Well, thank you for the hostile tone.

a) I in no way critiqued Dennett - in fact, you'll notice that my last statement about how mind / consciousness is not separate to the body, or the world or the universe is explicitly his position (of course, he is deeper than that, but at the level of my response, it was clearly in line with his thought).

b) That was the point: how you failed to understand that I was making a Category case I'm not sure. We are, after all, responding to the accusation that "No philosophy is worth reading". I was making an argument of how a Scientific / STEM background might make philosophy seem "pointless", and was taking the position of the argument, not my own, and attempting to answer it gently (it's called empathy, dear, learn some).

c) You've totally misunderstood my entire argument, and as such I think it embarrassing on your behalf that you've been so confrontational.

I'll disengage - you failed to understand what was being said, you failed to acknowledge that I was uncertain of how technical to make the argument, so pitched it at a Ted Talk level, and you were rude. Not interested, especially if you cannot understand the point being made.

I have fixed the link, however.

I'm unsure of how technical to make this, or what your background is, however:

Let's take a "classic" of Dennett's[1], against the "brain in a vat"[2]; from what you know about feedback loops or dynamical systems would the proposition of imagining a 'brain in a vat' ever make sense to you? (Note: it's not merely a Matrix style imagining, you have to prove it's not happening - you may well consider this a pointless experiment, of course).

I suspect not. That is to say, if you learned about Complex Systems prior to reading the debate over 'brain in a vat', the entire argument would probably strike you as absurd (I may be projecting here, feel free to say otherwise). This is where I presume Paul is coming from: "Well obviously no, what a waste of time". However, proving it logically is precisely what a lot of Philosophers have spent time doing (as opposed to wiring the brain up, not something that was technically possible until very recently). There's value in the logic of it, and the thought, because it is such a common human misconception (that the mind / consciousness is separate to the body, or the world or the universe).

Does that make sense?

[1]http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness.ht... [2]http://www.iep.utm.edu/brainvat/#H5

I'm not going to insult one of the patrons of these pages, however, I do note:

Paul is the author of On Lisp (Prentice Hall, 1993), ANSI Common Lisp (Prentice Hall, 1995), and Hackers & Painters (O'Reilly, 2004). He has an AB from Cornell and a PhD in Computer Science from Harvard, and studied painting at RISD and the Accademia di Belle Arti in Florence.

What I learned from trying to study philosophy is that the place to look is in other fields. If you understand math or history or aeronautical engineering very well, the most abstract of the things you know are what philosophy is supposed to be teaching.

It depends what type of Philosophy you're studying. Formal Logic: I can see the argument that with a strong Mathematical background & CS, you've already learned (most) of the tricks (although, this largely misses the point that most of the great Mathematicians of the 20th C also dabbled in the Philosophy of Logic - famously Gödel etc).

The other kind of Philosophy inhabits the same mental space as Art (ahhh, Florence!). This is a common issue with American Nationals, as American (and to some degree, British) philosophy is mired in Behaviorism, Philosophy of the Mind (which does make me cry a little inside when they don't keep up with neuroscience or even know anything about Complex Systems Theory) and other schools.

Ethics and Morality? Reaching those Creative spaces of the Sublime and so forth? Aesthetics? All fields I assumed the author would be interested in, given his Artistic leanings, and all fields that Philosophy is very useful to read on.

And, as a friendly note: I'm not sure aeronautical engineering can teach you much on that, barring of course: if you build it wrong, Death is certainly going to be the Horizon you hit.

For mine own good All causes shall give way. I am in blood Stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o'er.

Ambition is no bad thing, as long as it's tempered. I think a problem with this piece is that he identified his issue, but never asked the killer question:

If he (and his team) had been both ambitious and thoroughly enjoying the entire experience, would they have won? There's much to be said about "being in the zone", and it feels from his writing that his ambition dulled this side for him. I'd be interested to hear what the experiences of the 1st and 3rd placed teams were, in comparison.

Of course, this is his leisure, so the question is doubly important: if you're in a business you can rationalize not enjoying the experience of making your $500 million victory whilst enjoying the outcome. In leisure, the entire point is enjoying the whole thing.

Please read what I wrote, and the links provided. I stated 1948-1954, and this is exactly correct:

Louis A. Bowman [in 1948], an attorney from Illinois, was the first to initiate the addition of "under God" to the Pledge. The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution gave him an Award of Merit as the originator of this idea...

President Eisenhower had been baptized a Presbyterian very recently, just a year before. He responded enthusiastically to Docherty in a conversation following the service. Eisenhower acted on his suggestion the next day and on February 8, 1954, Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), introduced a bill to that effect

The "Daughters of the American Revolution"[1] were a political group that had considerable influence in American politics pre-WWII and their initial drives had nothing to do with fears of Communism (they were also against the revocation of the Bellamy salute until the declaration of war in 1941). So, your blase claim is not wholly correct ~ they're also a fascinating element of female power within the United States and the influences of matriarchal organization "behind the scenes of power" are little known, sadly. Well worth looking into.

However, yes, of course this period includes "the Red Scare", and this pledge was tied into this new strand of the American National Psyche. I apologize, I assumed this was a given at this level of debate.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_the_American_Revo...

As a non-American responder, are you talking about the original pledge, or the 1948-1954 changes that added the words "under God" to it?[1] The original was formally adopted in 1942 by Congress, prior to this change:

The original: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

This change was largely brought about by the realization that the pledge was dangerously close to the NAZI party's way of indoctrinating Nationalism (however Fascistic it was)[2] and that there should be some manner to differentiate between the good, moral, American version and the evil, unethical German version.

Nationalism (and Socialism) were ideologies of the 19th Century, and America does not have a great history of citizenship for all, with certain cultures not sharing in it until post WW1.[3]

So, I'm afraid: the pledge does, and always has had, a streak of Nationalism a mile wide to it. I find the modern American denial of this fascinating.

And, if you cannot see how it is used to indoctrinate children, then I am happy to provide non-wiki specific psychology papers proving that it does.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act_of_1924

I read this piece; I then went to his recommended book list[1] to see what he classed as reading.

I'm afraid to say, it is (with a couple of notable exceptions) one of the most conformist, populist and lacking in adventure reading lists I've read for a long time.

Simply put, he isn't reading; he is picking up whatever is the "top 10 list of <subject X> from AMZN or Good Reads" and digesting it in a very conventional way.

So; no Jason, you don't really read. What you're doing is rote learning what is the considered 'wisdom of the crowd' de jour on topics and expecting enlightenment. That's not how reading works. If you need a concrete example of this, many great insights come from people reading on topics wildly outside their field and suddenly applying said insights into their own fields.

Chaos Theory / Math was started like this, from a tiny office spitting out weather data.

Jason will no doubt do well on a middle / high rung (Gamma+ or Beta-) but will never "do a Jobs".

[1]http://jasonevanish.com/books/

I imagine s/he was referencing the fact that most modern cars have on-board computers, that are eminently easier to crack (and much less detectable) than through mechanical additions / tweaks.[1]

H.N. trawling the CIA's old files? How I miss thememoryhole.org. 2009, RIP.

For the record - I'm not going to comment on ancient cold war documents that could be Blue Sky Think-Tank work (and certainly don't look like professional training manuals). You'll probably want School of the Americas manuals for that[2](ahem).

[1]For example: Carshark http://jalopnik.com/5539181/carshark-software-lets-you-hack-... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Americas_Watch

There is a large base of research on this problem for the US military (and CCCP etc). i.e. How to discern effective killers within troops, how to shape them and how to 'uplift' the usual grunts to effectively kill.

I suggest you research "natural killers" from 1946 onwards (famous paper starts the ball rolling there - Combat Neuroses / Fatigue is a tip). Their percentage increase in producing effective killers is impressive. I won't link to specific papers, since it's outside the remit of H.N., however a lot of hard science & tech has been brought to bear on the issue.

The flip-side of this, the mirror to a sociopath (let's call it "the empathetically linked / driven") makes just as an effective killer for the record. If not better.

Tl;dr

You're about 70 years too late to pioneer this field. However, in looking @ the current trend to map Autism onto AI networks as a model, I'd suggest you'd probably have more joy looking at the empathetically linked individuals to see how their strong network connections / protective instincts are harnessed if I were to build a neural Map (weak) AI.

I would to a lot of soul searching if you even imagine that the alpha of this world is "HN, Reddit...".

Try Delta+ Gamma-. A well kept secret by Condé Nast is how young / low on the wage curve their readers are compared to others in the same professions.

Alpha ‎(“the upper class”)‎ ‎Beta ‎(“the second upper class”)‎ ‎Gamma ‎(“the middle class”)‎ ‎Delta ‎(“the second lower class”)‎ ‎Epsilon ‎(“the lower class”)‎ ‎Double-Plus ‎(“the superior subdivision among Alphas”)‎ ‎Plus ‎(“the superior subdivision among Alphas, Betas, Gammas or Deltas, but inferior to Double-Plus”)‎ ‎Minus ‎(“the inferior subdivision among Alphas, Betas, Gammas or Deltas”)‎ ‎savage ‎(“a person outside the integrated portions of society, and therefore separate from all classes”)‎

Since we're referencing Huxley, I'd recommend "Island". And for everyone jumping on this dystopian bandwagon, I'd recommend "Stand on Zanzibar" as far more accurate.

Ahem

Litvinenko was assassinated by Putin for working for MI6, and the assassination was very carefully planned to end up in London to send a very pointed message. He was tasked with "getting nuclear materials out of Russia". Well, he managed that all right...

The more you know.

Seriously: this is well known, look for Telegraph coverage, radiation on the plane ("in his tea" cover - yeah, nice one), Litvinenko's business network connections and so on. Is Putin a nice guy? Nope, but poisoning is his personal signature, and MI6 aren't exactly angels either.

I'm sure I'll pick up more "down votes" from the HN crowd, but hey: I thought you were all wise to info-bubbles?

p.s.

MI5 is the internal Security division for the UK; MI6 is the external Security division for the UK

Helps if you know the difference, and for that matter - it helps if know that the FSB is also the domestic Security division, so wouldn't be contacting MI6 anyhow.

Top marks all around for generally bullshitting there.

I'll post this here, since his site would not let anonymous posting go forward (might be a discuss issue).

> Ouch, this is a really sad comment on Harvard these days; I'd be ashamed if a 14 year old made this qualitative vrs quantitative category mistake. (Which you since fixed, but please - it should never have been written).

Try looking into GOOGs shipping network, and compare it against AMZNs. Since we have long term data on AMZNs model (including $775 mil on a robot production facility):

1) Is GOOG outsourcing or doing this internally?

1a) If not, who are they using?

1b) If they are, where is the spend in their yearly budget reports? (Not seeing it)

2) Can they match the coverage that AMZN has?

3) Can they match the volume that AMZN has?

4) Can they hope to catch up before AMZN makes the robot jump it's planning?

And so on.

You're almost an adult - try to analyze the world a little closer, you're allegedly the elite of America.

Is HN really this naive? This is terrible, if this was from an Oxford or Cambridge student - well, sorry, I'd hope they couldn't produce this level of immature nonsense.

And yes, I suspect you'll "down vote" - but sometimes a short sharp slap should be required.

Oh, and the heavy use of trackers is both intrusive and unnecessary for a private site. You're not providing any service, barring selling yourself, which should again make you pause at the "whys" of using the trackers you are.