mahranch

"Schooled" is a bit of an exaggeration. They just place bets on the outcome of physics from time to time.

One thing is strange though, they're conceding bets on outcomes that are far from conclusive/decided. For example, the bet about the black hole & information paradox. There are many different ways both of them could be wrong/right. One such possible answer resides in string theory. A few string theorists put forth the idea that black holes may not have a singularity at all (thus, no paradox). Let me explain:

Massive enough stars collapse into neutron stars when they die. A neutron star is made out of neutron degenerate matter. Basically, when a star dies, gravity rips apart/compresses/implodes everything down to neutrons. The gravity is so strong that helium, hydrogen etc. cannot exist within the star, it immediately gets broken down into more fundamental components. It gets ripped apart and turned into this "neutron degenerate matter". This is because neutrons have enough energy or "strength" to resist gravity. This is why a neutron star is stable. But if a star has enough mass (more gravity), it's possible for even neutrons to break down and succumb to gravity. Some people have hypothesized that they can break down into quark stars but we have yet to see them. Instead, we currently believe they form singularities (a black hole) since there is nothing more fundamental to hold back the force of gravity.

Massive enough stars collapse into black holes/singularities because after neutrons/quarks, there is nothing more fundamental to break down into. But in string theory, there is. In string theory, strings are the fundamental component of the universe. A few (not all, it's pretty fringe/new) string theorists have hypothesized that a black hole could be simply a "fuzzball". It's basically a star made out of strings. It would behave and have the exact same properties that current black holes have (light cannot escape, no limit on size, extreme gravity, etc) but it resolves 2 of the paradoxes -- no singularity (no invoking infinity & breaking QM) and no information paradox.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzball_%28string_theory%29

If string theory is correct, and fuzzballs are the true description of black holes, the bet itself is wrong. It would be like betting whether the sun was made out of cheese or wax. The answer would be neither.

That's really the next step in the evolution here. Content creators/producers and publishers need to make money. They're not going to make all that content for free if ads (their revenue) suddenly disappeared tomorrow. Sure, you'll still have a few donation driven sites, and a few subscription-based websites, but 80% of the internet (probably more) relies on ads. Without that revenue stream, the content goes poof. Not to mention, all that innovation and the innovation yet to come. The next youtube, reddit or facebook would not get invented.

Anyways, yeah, some ad companies are starting to do exactly this. They're serving ads up from the domain/website the ads are displayed on. Host files are completely ineffective here unless you've already previously spotted the ads and manually blocked them (and provided they haven't changed the file name of the ad/picture since your last visit).

But the ad companies doing this are tiny. It's quite likely you've never been on a website that has enacted this method. Most ads on the 'net are served up from google's adchoice/adsense program. Once Google themselves start doing it, it's game over for adblockers and for host blocking. I heard through the grape vine that they're actually working on this very issue (the issue of ad blockers).

> no multiverse theory has yet been put forth that is experimentally testable

Just to be clear here; that's because there is no theory for a multiverse. Not yet, anyways. Nobody has put one forth yet. When you hear "multiverse" come out of physicist's mouth, it's because it's a concept indirectly related to other theories. The current popular theory which involves a multiverse is string theory. When string theorists do the math, there is some evidence that a multiverse is possible.

However, that doesn't mean much. Even if string theory was correct and little strings are really the fundamental component of everything in the universe, the multiverse part of string theory could still be wrong. The theory isn't reliant on it, it just doesn't forbid it.

I also wouldn't say that it's entirely untestable. There are a couple things that could be indicative of a multiverse that some physicists have looked for: http://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.h...

The source isn't the greatest, but it shows that we can look at the CMB for indirect evidence. With higher resolution scanning years in the future, such a theory may be testable. I only mention this because the way your comment reads, it sounds like you're saying a multiverse would be inherently untestable.

> I've got better things to do with my time. I'd rather walk into the Apple store and replace my MBA or my iPhone when I've got a problem.

I don't get the comparison.

It's like apple users think the only options are buy apple (expensive, but "allegedly" rarely needs fixing, works 99% of the time, lasts a long time, etc) and a PC ("allegedly" breaks all the time, requires more maintenance, requires more time to keep up with, "cheap", etc...)

Those are not the options -- it's a false premise. There are laptop PCs which have the exact same performance & reliability as apple, but for a fraction of the price. I've gone through 4 PC laptops since 1996. My first 2 laptops, I admit, I spent a lot of time repairing but that was due to my own youthful tinkering, experimenting and the general instability of earlier OSs (DOS, Win95, Win98/ME, etc).

But my last 2 have lasted me 7+ years a piece. And I only decided to upgrade because they were beginning to show their age (slower compared to newer stuff). You can buy PC laptops with the same "just works" fidelity as apple. More options open up, and you can save yourself a fortune, if people would just eschew their brand loyalty.

> Why is it SOP on HN to downvote/chastise those who claim US economic numbers are fabricated, or post zerohedge/shadowstats links, yet fully embrace the notion of the PRC is doing it?

Because even if the U.S was doing it, it would be minor fudging. If China is doing it, it's almost wholly fabricated and un-reflective of reality. The U.S has plenty of independent verification of its numbers, and tons of channels for oversight. China literally has no oversight. Their government is the end-all, be-all. The alpha and omega. They don't have any oversight whatsoever. Their government runs the media (that's not an exaggeration, they literally own the news agencies) as well, so you don't get for-profit news organizations who would love nothing more than an economic controversy of that scale to come out so they could report on it and make loads of cash.

Basically, the entire premise is silly if you just use a little critical thinking.

China's economic growth simply isn't sustainable, and that's even if it was true growth. There isn't a top economist alive who believes China's self-reported GDP numbers aren't fudged in one way or another (source: http://www.businessinsider.com/economist-reactions-to-chinas...). Either one of those situations (an economic slowdown, China fudging the numbers, or the more likely situation: a combination of both) makes hedging against the Yuan a pretty solid bet.

People and foolish investors think, "Well, China has more than a billion people so it will eventually have a robust and rich economy!" Only, it doesn't work like that (cue the "That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works" lady). Population size is only a tiny facet of a much larger picture. And it's not even a particularly important one, relatively speaking. There are some economists who are now starting to think that having a massive population size may have the opposite effect; it helps you reach a certain point but then your massive size begins to act as an anchor which keeps you from growing further.

> Ads have crippled innovation on the Internet, not promoted it.

The internet itself wouldn't even exist without ads. So your premise is wrong. Ads are the biggest driver of innovation on the internet right now. Inherently so. Because people want to get paid so they get more and more creative. Everything from youtube videos to web content, to science articles. They all flourish and exist because of ads, not because of your make believe hypothetical solution. You know, the one that is still not invented, nor have you even explained it. If such a solution was possible, we'd be using that instead. Until then, let's stick to reality, thanks.

You're missing the point, perhaps missing the scale. You don't understand just how vital ads are to the internet.

Content itself wouldn't exist for you to view. There would be very little (nothing at all) for you to P2P. The internet would essentially be the IRC. People don't write in-depth articles for the hell of it. They expect to get paid.

> a solid pro-ad argument, but I've yet to find one.

That's because there is no argument to be had. Ads subsidize the vast majority of content on the internet, full stop. Just as they did TV stations before cable. That content wasn't free, those ad companies paid for their ad spots, which paid for those television shows. The same is true for the internet, without ads, the internet would look very, very different. Without ads, there would be no innovation, and a hell of a lot less content, 80% or more less. We're talking going back to the mid 1990s, and not in a good way.

So I guess if that's your ideal internet, sure, that's not an argument for ads. But for me, I prefer the current internet. I like my websites like reddit, facebook and youtube. I like having the news at my fingertips. I like being able to watch any TV show I want.

It's a butterfly effect on a massive scale - you remove ads from the equation, the majority of what we know as the internet goes with it because they're directly responsible for the bulk of the innovation.

As someone who tangentially works in the industry, you couldn't be more wrong. Ads literally subsidize the vast majority of content you consume on the internet. More importantly, ads subsidize and promote innovation. Without ads, we wouldn't have sites like youtube, facebook, reddit or pretty much every website that doesn't rely on donations (wikipedia, etc).

It's interesting just how much of a disconnect young people have with this topic (in my experience, older people are skeptical of all the free content on the 'net. My grandmother thought she was going to get a bill from youtube for watching so many videos and not having to pay anything up front). Perhaps it's one of the reasons why they call our generation "the entitled generation". We've always had free content on the internet so we don't appreciate or understand how the people who create that content get paid.

Keep in mind it's "usually", not "always". Some people take that law to mean "always", especially here on hackernews.

I live in Florida and was deep in the pill mill culture for a time (not a user, but as a councilor). I can tell you this right now, most prescription pill ODs weren't people taking too much of one thing, it's because they mixed their prescriptions. People taking Oxycontin then taking a Xanax and then never waking up. That is the most common way to OD on prescription pills. Very rarely (almost never) do you hear of someone just ODing on a single substance. In fact, I can't recall or remember someone just taking too much oxycontin and dying from it.

I'm not saying it can't or won't happen, it has happen, and will happen, but that it's so uncommon compared to what is actually killing people (mixing prescriptions/drugs/alcohol).

Another reason for a large amount of overdoses is drug mixing - people taking oxy and then xanax and then they're dead. But I think your comment and the guy above you both refute hapless's claim that most people who die from an OD are simply misjudging their own doses. In truth, I believe very few people misjudge their own doses. Drug addicts are notoriously good at knowing the exact amount to get them high. Why? Because too much is a waste (they try to extend their supply as long as possible) and too little won't have the desired effect.

In addition to your reason for ODing (use after a period of abstinence), the recent rash of ODs in my state are because dealers & suppliers are cutting their dope with fetanyl and other stuff that the drug user isn't/can't account for.

> Unless you do this all day, there's no way it would take 10 minutes to research all the components that go into a PC and put it all together.

No, this isn't true at all. The first time you put together your own computer, sure, maybe, it may take a bit longer. But the next time and the time after that, it becomes quicker and quicker because you already know the basics. It only takes 10 minutes to see what new GPUs or CPUs have come out.

Hell, if you didn't know anything about PCs, it would only take 5 minutes to look up all the parts in the latest Mac and order them off newegg. You could build your own exact copy of the latest mac and the research time would be negligible since you already know what parts you need since they're listed right there on the Mac SPEC sheet. And you'd save yourself hundreds of dollars.

> Last two times I got a new computer, it took me 2-3 days before I could work on them at full speed.

My 64 year old senile-ish father without any background in PCs put together his own PC and had it up and running in less than 4 hours. I don't buy 2 days at all. That's either an exaggeration or an outright lie.

> I'm a power user

A power user that cannot put together his own PC in under 2 days? I'm not sure I buy that. It's like a MLB player not being able to hit a ball that's traveling over 65 MPH. Even the pitchers are well enough versed to get hits occasionally.

> When time is scarce, you start to prioritize things that are really important to you.

It takes me ~10 minutes to shop online and buy the parts I need to put together my own PC. When I receive it, it takes me an additional 15 minutes to unbox it, and put it all together. Then another 30 installing the OS and all the programs I will need.

That's less than an hour. Given the price difference between a Mac and a PC with the same exact equipment (same CPU, RAM, HD, etc), we're looking at ~$250 USD on the low end and ~$550 USD on the high end. Unless you're making $250 USD (or more) per hour, it's most definitely cheaper time-wise to build your own PC.

> the field of Republican candidates they do NOT argue in favor of inequality.

That's because they are, and have been completely fine with inequality. They have done nothing, absolutely nothing which indicates they are concerned with income inequality and propose no solutions. So when you say they do not argue in favor of inequality, you're correct. That's because they completely ignore it. They pretend it doesn't exist.

> The BBC is state-funded, but it's output is not state-driven.

It's amazing how many people don't understand this fact. You'll see people on reddit compare the BBC to RussiaToday or Xinhua. The latter two are literally government run agencies that specifically exist to push their country's narrative of world events out to the rest of the world. The BBC is government owned but not government ran, there's a massive difference.

> It amazes me what our justice system can do to people and not be held responsible.

Just to play devil's advocate here (and I understand this goes against prevailing opinion), but he did break the law. That much isn't in dispute, they had a video of him entering the MIT network closet. And he didn't commit misdemeanors, he committed a half dozen felonies (actually more, but the prosecution dropped a few of them).

The prosecution was offering a meager 6 months in a low-security prison (for multiple felonies, that's peanuts) for his crimes but he rejected the offer (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Arrest_and_prosec...).

I understand what he was fighting for and agree with him and his ideology. I support Open Access, but let's not kid ourselves or delude ourselves - he wasn't innocent. He did commit crimes. I don't think this is the justice's systems fault. They were going to go extremely light on him but it was he who chose to fight.

> You don't need global consumer brands when your country is the size of China.

Need? I guess not. But I think the point is that those things manifest themselves in a healthy market/economy/society, a healthy innovative market. If you're not advancing technologically, then you have no hope for your future. And that's what companies like Samsung, Toshiba, and Sony all do (in the electronics industry). They innovate. That innovation breeds more innovation and lays the groundwork/framework for future innovation.

That's China's biggest problem right now; they relied so much on theft of IP that they lack the infrastructure to innovate on their own. They're stuck on a ledge and can't go any higher without either technological handouts or stealing more IPs. Unfortunately for China, companies are becoming much better at protecting themselves having learned from past mistakes.

China is essentially the world's factory. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. That's all they will ever be until they climb down from their ledge and start climbing up again (starting over from scratch).

> They have 15% of the world's population

And? not sure how this is relevant. If anything, it's even more incriminating; they have that many people but so little to show for it. So little genius, so little innovation, so little advancement... It's proof that their current social, economic and political system has been a failure. They should be trouncing everyone. But they aren't.

> Corruption is being cleaned up

Their "corruption clean-up" has been just lip service. You'll note it was published first from China's own government-ran news agencies (Xinhua).

If you look at transparency international's corruption index (here: https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results) you'll see that they actually dropped 20 places from 2013 to 2014. Their corruption actually got worse, not better.

> we've never seen what happens when a large country "awakens" in the age of globalization.

Unfortunately, China's a long way from awakening.

It's excellent methodology because they asked indirect questions. Coming out and asking someone "Hey, are you a racist?" wouldn't be effective.

Asking someone in an unrelated economic experiment something like "Would you mind if your neighbors were black?" is more accurate because it tricks people into revealing their true biases.

> What do you think about the alleged xenophobia?

The only times you will hear this, is out of the mouths of Chinese/Korean nationalists looking to bash the country (their own bigotry), or Gaijin blogs from young white (usually affluent) kids who are/were upset they weren't treated like kings when the got off the plane. They were upset that the girls didn't throw themselves at them and that people didn't rush to attend their every whim.

If you look at actual scientific studies, you'll find Japan is on-par with the rest of the world when it comes to their racism. Japan is actually less racist than France and equal to places like Finland or Germany.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15...

> This seems a bit crazy when the famous person is someone you respect and trust

Bingo. Just because the person in question may even be the topic of the article, it doesn't mean that person can't be biased or want to spin things a certain way. By requiring citations and sources, you're providing some validity and "proof". Granted, sources can be faked too, but the level of separation works to minimize much of that. The faking of sources isn't something that would be very common anyways.

It sort of falls back on the Perfect Solution fallacy. You can never have a perfect solution so you have to choose the "least bad" option. The option with the least drawbacks or negatives.

> "VestedContributors think the rules can be bent for them because they've been around so long and done so much good work."

But is that inherently a bad thing? The way you state it, I'm getting that you're implying that it's bad 100% of the time. If you're looking at it in terms of black and white, I guess just hearing "rules can be bent" is bad, but I don't think it's that simple.

I think there are times where the rules can be bent which creates an outcome that is beneficial to all. Times where the rules don't account for certain variables/situations and those incidents need to be handled differently (or with care). I think it's a complex problem and it may need a complex solution.

The best, and I mean absolute best volunteer teams I've been a part of have always had a leader at the top with absolute authority. However, he or she never abused their power, and rarely flexed their absolute authority, preferring to take up the mantle of "benevolent dictator". In those cases, some amazing things happened. We got our work done ahead of time, group moral was sky-high, and the projects were a massive success. Things "just worked".

> But then, all laptops and tablets are manufactured in China, right?

Nope, we're not (mostly) talking about devices that are just assembled there, but China's own brands (the ones that are designed in China). I'm sure companies like Samsung have strict controls in place to make sure China isn't messing with their products.

> Sort of the same end result, with the two being in bed with each other.

No, not really the same at all. When the companies have all the political power, they do what's best for their shareholders - their bottom line. Whatever helps them acquire more profit and revenue. Here, it's all about the money.

When the government controls the companies (As it is in China), the government does what's best for the people in power (the government). And that usually means doing whatever helps them hold onto or increase their power by way of strict authoritarian rules & laws, censorship and all the indirectly related things that go along with it.

Their goal is to keep the population under control because that means they get to stay in power. China's biggest fear is a revolution or an uprising which is why they're so strict when it comes to public demonstrations, censoring things like Tienanmen square, and cracking brutally hard on rights activists and the leaders of these "change-bringers" (Source: http://world.time.com/2011/02/26/chinas-fear-of-a-jasmine-re...). The last and absolute worst thing that could happen to China is a revolution. They will commit atrocities like you can't even begin to imagine to keep that from happening.

In the west, you don't have to worry about that. Why? Because it's bad for business. Not good for profits and not good for revenue. The best environment for capitalism and for businesses to make the most amount of money is one of peace (Source: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/jan/22/iraq.economy)

> neutrinos could travel faster than light, as spotted by the Italy-based experiment OPERA in 2011; another came after the discovery of gravitational waves using the South Pole-based BICEP2 telescope in 2014.

I hate, no, I loathe how they conflated these two things. It's inaccurate and misleading. I expected better from Scientific American.

The FLT neutrino discovery was proven incorrect and the result of faulting connection/wiring. The BICEP2 findings were not thrown out, and could still be correct. The only thing that happened with them is the confidence level was lowered a bit so it's still inconclusive. The people who are on the project still believe they spotted gravity waves but they need to further work to disprove/discount some other factors which could have accounted for their results. Basically, they're still working on it.

Conflating the two makes it seem like both were flat out wrong. Only one was flat out wrong, the jury is still out on the other.

Not OP, but "capitalism" in China isn't like it is in the west. The government literally runs everything, and can demand literally anything they want from companies. If China's government wanted Lenavo to start making blow up dolls, that's exactly what they would do. China's government has absolute authority and total control. People like to compare the U.S government to China's, but these people are fedora wearing neckbeards who almost never leave their parents basement. As someone who has lived in China for a brief stint, expecting any device built, designed and manufactured in China not to have some sort of back door is like expecting the U.S not to spy. At this stage in the game, it's understood and expected.

If they're requiring backdoors on technology imported into the country (source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/05/obama_criticises_chi... ), why wouldn't they require them on their own technology that they build themselves? It doesn't make sense from a purely logical standpoint. Of course they're not going to come out and admit it, but we're also starting to see evidence of it:

Example 1: http://www.zdnet.com/article/former-pentagon-analyst-china-h...

Example 2: http://www.geek.com/chips/spy-agencies-shun-lenovo-finding-b...

Example 3: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2860742/chinese-android...

Is it really so hard to believe? Especially when the indirect evidence and logic is so overwhelming? I'm no tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy nut, but come on here... It's China.

> the most rigorous safety regulations but Fukushima still slipped through

The Fukushima plant was overdue for a complete upgrade. The seawall was also supposed to be raised. It was an ancient 50 year old plant that got hit by not just one of the largest earthquakes Japan has ever seen, but also a massive, catastrophic tsunami. The fact that it took all those factors to knock the plant out gives me great confidence in nuclear power. Newer plants would not be susceptible to those kinds of issues. Short of a meteor crashing down on one (or an actual act of God), newer plants are completely safe. Safer, in fact, than any other.

> Most nations will do whatever is convenient for them.

Most nations do not renege on trade agreements made with other nations.

> GOP says they will cancel the Iran nuclear deal

"Says" and "do" are two different things, they won't because it's unprecedented. The U.S doesn't renege on massive trade agreements, or with the WTO.

> Not tue, ex: Hong Kong democracy

Ignoring the fact that I have no idea what you mean by this, I do know that it is not a trade agreement, nor is it a financial agreement with another nation. You're comparing apples and oranges.

> You just described all the other countries apart from developed countries

That was kind of my point?

> Every country does it.

Apples and oranges - no "big" country reneges on trade agreements, or reneges on deals with the WTO that were years in the making. Those things are completely unprecedented. I think you, and those who agree with you, fail to grasp the scope and what those deals meant. They literally ripped off the U.S. The U.S delivered on its end, then when it was time for India to live up to its end of the bargain, they ran off. Literally. (See here: http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/us-launches-ne...)

> If investors don't invest in India or China due to inherent risks then they might loose out in the long run

Speculation. China's economy is slowing down and India's is pretty stagnant (relatively speaking). Other than having a lot of people (over a billion each), neither country has much going for it. There is no innovation coming out of either country. Look up any "most innovative countries" on google and see if you can find China or India among them. Those countries investors may risk losing out on - countries like South Korea.

> from developed world will not be great

Just having a lot of people (big population) doesn't mean there is money to be made. Especially when the government in question (China, for example) is about as authoritative as it gets. They can literally take your business away from you and kick you out of the country and there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do about it. That's not opportunity, that's a minefield. And it's why foreign investors are staying away anb/or pulling their funds out.

Edit: I just noticed in a prior comment you said you were from India, a farming village. Don't you think you're a little biased on the matter?

> laying up stereotypes based on a couple of anecdotes

I linked actual, HUGE trade deals that were important, worth billions, and between 2 nations. You linked me to empty search results.

Find me a single example of Russia or China reneging on deals with the WTO or with massive trade agreements between the U.S. There is a huge, massive difference.