matthudson

HN search has been one of the most helpful resources (among many) to my personal and professional life. +1 for that alone. It sowed the seeds for a career path (went from a yoeman replaceable scripter to a guy with a reliable paycheck that can comment with angst on HN.) HN-algolia is snappy. I've been developing a behavior where I default to searching HN before I search google (for better or worse).

Also, I really apologize for this but, please don't say things like: "Time for me to get down voted to oblivion".

You've spoken your mind (and helpfully so) with the end of your comment (which is otherwise good).

Self-referencing how one expects comment voting to go is a behavior that I wish people would refrain from. It makes the comment "about" itself --- rather than the content. It's a primer that stems from perceptions about how it will be interpreted by the community, which in turn manipulates voting behavior about the comment. (<insert-discussion> voting systems on community forums. is voting itself a good system? </insert-discussion>).

Call to action: Machine learners, you'd better start tuning your sarcasm classifiers.

A large portion of my comment was a response to the tone. I shouldn't have done that.

Something about the original comment really bothered me. And I can't quite put my finger on it. I'm not a good enough writer to flesh out what bothered me without responding to the tone.

I do feel pretty strongly that it's wrong to casually talk about mentally ill people as objects of fascination. And then to advise against engaging them because it might be a liability to yourself, as if that's the only concern. e.g.: "...[if they happen] to commit suicide a week later and mention you in the note."

I think I'm perceiving a lack of empathy in the linked article and the top comment. Or something. I think I just need to stop commenting.

I've thought about it, one part of what "shocked" me about it was the hubris inherent in the statement: "...someone I could save by argument.". As though those that cannot be "saved" are merely a passing fascination, not to be bothered with for fear of liability.

I wasn't "shocked" by the way. However, I was largely responding to the tone- which I shouldn't have done.

>"...most notably the ultrarich like the Zuckerbergs, would think it's not even worth their time to deal with 'crazy people'"

I don't know the Zuckerbergs nor any other ultrarich people, so I suppose we'll have to take your word for it.

> "Life is all about making compromises and finding the right balance. Looking out for yourself can be, and should be a part of the process when you're deciding to help out something."

I mostly agree with this.

I want to make it clear that I was responding to the attitude I saw in the comment (or at least what I perceived to be the attitude) that the mentally ill are objects of fascination until they expose you to civil liability.

I think a bit more empathy is in order.

> "I do think you should take a little bit of break. :) Be well, and take care!"

Yeah, I think I'm done commenting on Hacker News. Take care, as well.

> "I would recommend against having dealings with the obviously mentally ill. I'm not sure in what sense you might be legally liable (for a civil suit) if they happened to commit suicide a week later and mentioned you in the note. ... Leave the clearly crazy to the professionals."

> "Though if this is your first real crazy caller I could understand where the fascination came from. ... It took me a while to get that this was not someone I could save by argument."

Here's a bit of Hacker News "empathy" that I find fascinating. Likely in the same sense that you find the mentally ill fascinating.

The comment reads like some kind of bizzaro water-cooler advice on how to deal with that neighborhood "crazy caller" problem. Like when someone commiserates with Jane from accounting when she tells them she's worried because she can't keep the neighborhood kids out of the family pool.

On the surface, it's empathetic: "If this is your first... I can understand..." In fact, the comment does (correctly) assert that professionals are better inclined to help the mentally ill than the lay-person. But underneath, the comment reeks of an unseemly attitude that suggests the mentally ill are a burden to be cast aside at all costs (with the requisite sigh).

Perhaps it's a bit unfair of me to parse out those bits of your comment and infer so much. But, seriously?

Have we really reached the point where we are calculating the likelihood of "sav[ing] someone by argument" vs. the risk of civil liability?

Are these people merely objects of amusement and fascination?

I wish I were a better writer, so I could flesh out exactly why your comment bothers me. I think it has something to do with the clinically detached tone and the casual implication that the mentally ill are at best a passing amusement; and, at worst, a liability to be avoided.

Maybe I just need to take a break. I must be misunderstanding your comment.

All of them, because it is ridiculous to assume that you know what every person in a particular group of people is like in real life based on the actions of a subset of that group on a message board.

Some celebrities "get" reddit, and some don't.

Some answer three questions and leave, and some stay for days.

Some see it as a promotional tool, and some are actually part of the community.

Some participate anonymously, some have AMA accounts, and some have both.

Most of all, even if you did know a good portion of them on and offline, you can't possibly extrapolate what the rest of the group is actually like in real life.

The idea that you can encapsulate an entire person into a couple dozen comments (on average) that they leave on a message board is absurd to me.

Going on to extend that abstraction to an entire class of people is even more ridiculous.

How can you possibly know that without knowing one of the celebrities personally, and then extend that as a general rule?

> "...it is widely believed by experts and, more importantly, stakeholders..."

What sources would you recommend reading to learn more about that? The 9/11 Commission Report? I'm embarrassed to admit that I haven't done much reading on inter-agency relations pre-9/11.

(I hope this comment doesn't read as snark, I'm genuinely interested in learning more.)

I think that can be a feature as well.

Also, are the contributors anonymous in the sense that you have no way of knowing the identity of the contributor? Or, anonymous in the sense that the contribution originates from a particular pseudonym?

Have you already modeled it? If you're comfortable leaving an email address so I could get in touch, I can send you a few prints of your design.

You should probably start with the Adafruit guide, it's a good survey and starting point. It doesn't delve deeply into actual prototyping, but it covers the 'due diligence' aspect.

The first half is run of the mill startupy stuff, but the second half has a lot of useful information to consider.

I'm not sure how helpful the blog links will be at this point.

Re: External Casing- If you have access to a 3D printer, I highly recommend trying out a few iterations of the casing yourself before you try to outsource.

Once you have everything working, you can find companies that do limited runs of PCB and casing.

This seems like a good place to start:

http://learn.adafruit.com/how-to-build-a-hardware-startup

I don't know if you want to do a startup, but there is good information in the guide.

Here are some other blog links that might be good starting points for further reading:

http://octopart.com/blog/archives/2013/10/electronic-compone...

http://octopart.com/blog/archives/2013/11/what-every-hardwar...

http://pinocc.io/blog/open-source-hardware-business/testing-...

By the way, Octopart and Adafruit are really great.

I was being somewhat facetious with that last line.

However, I don't think that it is outside the realm of possibility that relatively small entities, on the order of a small-cap corporation or private laboratory, could eventually create a weapon that has far more global destructive power than a radioactive dirty bomb.

This would afford the entity more leverage at a global bargaining table- as opposed to a negotiation with a single government. Combined with the relative anonymity one may be able to maintain when releasing the virus, these entities might see a higher expected value in engineering a virus.

It would be "DIY" in the sense that you wouldn't need the backing of a large nation state to produce an ICBM, or opportunistically steal some radioactive material to create a dirty bomb.

Also, a virus is implicitly cheaper to distribute: with a longer incubation period and an exponentially increasing rate of propagation, a virus could reach critical mass before there's time to react.

In a sense, this makes them more effective than other types of WMD- which may have lower singular chances of successful detonation, have high per unit capital costs, tend to have local area effects only, and are generally difficult to produce far removed from military industry at scale.

Personally, I think the world is more likely to end with a bug than a bang. I honestly don't know which is more terrifying to me.

> "The question I always think of when people raise fears like this about bio-weapons is what what motivations are there for 'bad guys' to release indeterminate killers like a bio-engineered virus?"

I'd imagine the threat of release would make for a pretty compelling bargaining chip. Potentially, you could gain a lot of leverage without having the backing of a sophisticated military-industrial complex (unlike nukes).

It's kind of like a DIY WMD for the millennial, "maker"-terrorist generation.

> If you're employee #30 and your share is 0.05%, that might be fair if it's a biotech that has already taken a $100M infusion from the venture capitalists (who'll typically take 90%, in that case).

Could you point me in the direction of some sources that back up the "90% [in the typical case]" claim? I'm genuinely interested in learning more.