Content moderation at scale is impossible to do well (2019) - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191111/23032743367/masnicks-impossibility-theorem-content-moderation-scale-is-impossible-to-do-well.shtml <comment><USER3> Score Voting notably defies Arrow's Paradox.

Score Voting (= Range Voting) is where candidates are given a score from, say zero to 99, and an average is taken. Effectively the same style as in figure skating. Yes, a once-every-four-years global aesthetic athletic event is the only place to get voting right.*

*what do you mean by "right?" Well, there is something called Bayesian regret and you can minimize it by having Score Voting (=Range Voting) or by having the magical harry potter wizard hat choose the perfect candidate. Other voting systems have more Bayesian Regret and the current First-Past-the-Post voting style has quite a lot, actually. [https://rangevoting.org/BayRegsFig.html](https://rangevoting.org/BayRegsFig.html)

<comment><USER4> Any voting system that incorporates mean scores will in no way be immune to strategic deviations. (imagine a tie between your second ranked candidate and some other one, you simply inflate your score of your second ranked candidate by one) Also isn't achieving the lowest regret trivial, as the other voting systems never report anything cardinally?

<comment><USER3> In regards to your first statement, that's absolutely the point of Score Voting, to have a clear leaderboard with 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so forth. With regards to your second statement, "because we cannot access data means the data never existed?" Bayesian regret exists in all elections with all candidates, just because it's not "reported" doesn't mean it's not statistically there. The point is that Score Voting is a superset of all voting systems, and everything else is a blurrying of the detail that is available only in Score Voting. Bayesian Regret is just used to demonstrate that it will yield the highest rated candidate overall, which is logical given how it works. Nevertheless, examine the science for yourself and I believe you will soon find that all voting systems are some sort of blind or ignorant form of Score Voting. Means or averages are convenient, but you could simply take the greatest total score as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Obviously right on the numbers but I have to disagree with the notion that reporters and people are just making a lot of noise over the 0.1% of inevitable "bad calls".

Usually only notable popular accounts get coverage over their censorship (or lack of). The number of such accounts is a few orders of magnitude smaller than the general userbase. Any network would want to protect these accounts from arbitrary bans and they probably do.

Most big stories about social media censorship often include comments from company reps who stand by their decision. Stories ending in "Oops we made a mistake" tend to be much less common as far as I can tell.

As such I'd say people are actually pretty good at identifying the cases that aren't just a "bad call" but a contentious matter.

</comment><comment><USER6> Centralized moderation at scale is impossible to do for the same reason that centralized planning of economy is impossible to do: which is that goals, knowledge and resources are not known to the centralized authority that is supposed to handle the task.

But it is possible to give everyone tools to modereate for themeselves [https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and- moderati...](https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and-moderation- system-for-the-decentralized-web/)

<comment><USER7> > _The first obvious issue is the creation of echo chambers or online cults, > where instead of choosing truth and seeking the best information, people > trust those who confirm their existing beliefs.

This can be somewhat mitigated with the ability to set a trust filter level to a low level, even in the negatives, to see posts and opinions one may not usually be exposed to. This again is up to the end user if they wish to expose themselves to differing opinions or not.

It is up to individuals to determine what's best for them. Of course, one would hope they make good choices, but it is not society's job to save people from themselves. It's far better to have this freedom and the power to use or misuse it, than to allow companies to build the echo chamber behind closed doors._

That's a nice dogma - which breaks down as soon as one of the cults/echo chambers starts harrassing or doxxing or otherwise hurting someone they declared an enemy.

This whole concept is based on an assumption that if someone bothers you online, this is always a personal issue that can be resolved by you pretending they didn't exist. By now we have enough experience with online communities to know that things don't work that way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I always look at these things from a parochial perspective, i.e. how does it apply to HN.

His first two points ("moderation is likely to end up pissing off those who are moderated" and "content moderation is always going to rely on judgment calls") are true of all moderation and certainly HN. They have nothing to do with scale though.

His third point is more interesting: at scale, even 99.9% accuracy is going to leave hundreds of thousands of mistakes a day. No one will care about the 99.9% you got right, only the things you missed. Reporters will call public attention to these.

That's a good point and not widely understood. But he stops there. All that shows is that content moderation is impossible to do perfectly, which we already know because of points 1 and 2. More interesting would be the part he didn't write: given that a large number of misses is inevitable and reporters will call attention to them, what follows next? Probably that the public image will be that moderation sucks. That's rough, but it doesn't necessarily follow that content moderation is impossible to do well.

<comment><USER9> Surely the 'scale' issue's answer is for a community to moderate itself. That way, the community should be happy. That's what Slashdot did (does?). All users take part in moderation [if they wish], and take part in meta- moderation.

Using a statistical consensus, and correction of outliers, but doing so through the userbase such that as the community grows so too does the base of moderators.

Making it statistical means that no one moderator can have undue influence (other than site owners).

HN does some 2nd order stuff, flags/vouches from trusted users i think are weighted (?) but doesn't go to the next level of then decreasing the weight of votes for those whose votes were meta-moderated as 'wrong' (ie contrary to community consensus).

In theory that should handle brigading, for example, because you don't know what you'll moderate before you say yes, and you can't choose to moderate - the site chooses you.

Slashdot also had several dimensions to it's moderation and allowed users to choose to consume content contrary to the community norm - eg you can choose to see more humour, even if the community in general doesn't like to view humour.

Still the best system, on paper (I have no idea if they have to constantly fix things!?!) that I've seen.

<comment><USER10> _> Surely the 'scale' issue's answer is for a community to moderate itself. That way, the community should be happy. _

Self-moderation is basically what Stackoverflow is and a lot of users are not happy with the outcome. Most of the votes that close questions as "duplicates" and "not constructive" are done by _fellow users_. I tried to explain this previously[0] but unhappy Stackoverflow users still insist there's an "us vs them".

And consider that Stackoverflow's userbase is a much smaller scale than Facebook.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23977165](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23977165)

<comment><USER9> Under a Slashdot style system the "closed-duplicate" questions would be downgraded for those users who choose; you might like dupes and so you could choose to boost dupes for yourself.

The community provides a default position (duplicates closed), provides the information ('this is duplicate'), but under a Slashdot style system you can choose that content that others 'hide'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Not impossible at all. Divide the subject matter into thousands of specialist areas, and let each area be moderated by it's own community moderators/editors. It only becomes a problem when you try and publish every comment on every subject through a single organisation.

<comment><USER9> Doesn't that reinforce extremes and encourage enclaves: which is why Reddit end up closing whole communities (the good and bad in those communities). You're just putting off moderation of extreme content that doesn't confirm to a community consensus at all by hiding it in a corner and letting it grow without control.

<comment><USER11> Are the readers of 'Nature' or 'The Economist' extreme? Quality curation and editorial control are possible at those levels. I can write a letter, or indeed an article or paper for either, but it only gets accepted if it is good enough.

<comment><USER12> > I can write a letter, or indeed an article or paper for either, but it only > gets accepted if it is good enough.

Sure. With a maximum bandwidth of what, dozens a month?

<comment><USER11> Sounds like a feature

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've always been curious about "content moderation." Theoretically, if you could perfectly allow only content that was Legal in the jurisdiction, wouldn't every website allow everything Legal and be able to just point at the laws and say, "if you don't like it, change the law"?

If so, is the crux of the problem that 1. we don't know what is legal, 2. We can't perfectly allow it, and or 3. Something else.

If 3, is it that websites don't really fear legal repercussions, but fear bad PR, thus alienating users/revenue? If so, doesn't it follow that the level of content moderation will track the projected cost of losing the projected users/revenue?

<comment><USER14> The crux of the problem is that limiting moderation only to allowing content which is illegal and banning what is illegal still allows content many people may find objectionable, spam, trolling, racist and hateful speech and off topic content.

Not every online community wants to be a 4chan or Voat, which is what that sort of hands off moderation inevitably leads to.

<comment><USER15> What if you just give each person a way to censor the content they don't want to see?

Something like show dead posts on hn.

Although, why host content that isn't profitable?

<comment><USER14> > What if you just gave each person a way to censor the content they don't > want to see?

That works to a degree, but it isn't foolproof because it still requires people to see that content to begin with. It isn't proactive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> my approach:

let everyone rate content on multiple relevant criteria. Eg, quality, grammar, agreement, sexuality, violence, hate, etc.

Make some default filters that choose societally acceptable settings for each filter, and hides new content that is unrated.

Enable individuals to tweak the filters to any setting they wish, for a totally custom view, including viewing unrated content.

Enable individuals to share their filters with others.

Voila! A system that allows _any_ content to be posted, but shows only "safe" content by default and allows individuals to bypass the filters if they wish.

<comment><USER17> At least for voting, the fix is simple and I don't understand why both Reddit and HN (with the default settings) don't do it: make voting invisible. That is, you sort the comments by the vote value they have, as is done now, but you don't display the value. Reddit displays the value directly, and HN by gradually greying out comments. The problem with doing that is that it leads to bandwagoning. If I'd had to hazard a guess, a solid 50% of downvotes are people blindly ramming the downvote button because that comment already has a negative vote value.

<comment><USER14> >the fix is simple and I don't understand why both Reddit and HN (with the default settings) don't do it: make voting invisible

Because part of the purpose of voting/karma is operant conditioning - <USER2> marking certain comments as "low quality" and others as "high quality" and to encourage commenters to prefer creating and engaging with the latter over the former through the constant feedback loop of reward and punishment.

> If I'd had to hazard a guess, a solid 50% of downvotes are people blindly > ramming the downvote button because that comment already has a negative vote > value.

That's the system operating as intended, ruthlessly separating the signal from the noise. I don't particularly like it either but Hacker News isn't about _free_ discussion so much as _curated_ discussion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This title is sarcastic right? It's doable just not well because there is no way to create a totalitarian panopticon without having your state first be a totalitarian panoply of optics and cons.

</comment><comment><USER18> Given the "impossibility theorem" headline, I was hoping for at least a sketch of a formalizable argument. I wasn't really _expecting_ one, and maybe this is a silly thing to be annoyed about, but I think it's better to be clear about what exactly you have backing up a particular argument.

</comment><comment><USER19> Can GPT-3 be re-purposed to do automatic content moderation?

</comment><comment><USER20> Moderation, even at scale, is a decades old solved problem, and not even a particularly hard one. The reason places like FB etc say it's 'impossible' so they don't open themselves up to legal liability.

<comment><USER9> Perhaps you could expand on that with details of a solution you have in mind, references to a moderation system using that solution would be useful too.</comment></comment>


8tracks.com - Legal (legally sharing music) - <AUTHOR> http://8tracks.com/legal

<comment><AUTHOR> >"An objective of the compulsory license is to ensure that a listener's experience is similar to traditional radio and essentially non-interactive (i.e., you can't hear a specific song when you want it), so as not to substitute for music purchase."

If the legal environment that these laws (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) are trying to create is actually going to be, this sounds like it could be a great idea.

Otherwise, it seems like obeying the law is trying to win a swim race in shackles.</comment>


Linux 3.14 out - <AUTHOR> http://lwn.net/Articles/592543/ <comment><USER2> Not updated yet, but here it goes: [http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.14](http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.14), with the caveat that:

> /!\ /!\ /!\ WARNING /!\ /!\ /!\ : This page is not complete and it's missing > lots of critical information.

Also: [https://lwn.net/Articles/581657/](https://lwn.net/Articles/581657/), [https://lwn.net/Articles/582352/](https://lwn.net/Articles/582352/), [https://lwn.net/Articles/583681/](https://lwn.net/Articles/583681/), [http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTYzNDg](http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTYzNDg) and [http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/21sxiw/linux_314_rele...](http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/21sxiw/linux_314_released/).

π

<comment><USER3> [http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.14#head-72b295b09fea85de2e8...](http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.14#head-72b295b09fea85de2e80f0b7850048264fed887e)

zram swap has really sped up my workstation laptop, so I'm pleased to see it in 3.14. I've been running zram in place of a swap partition for about three weeks now. I notice Vim opens faster, as do Chromium bookmarks.

Right now I'm having to use an unofficially supported shell script to get zramswap [1]. Hoping official support is on the way.

1: [https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/zramswap](https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/zramswap)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hey, the first kernel release with a patch from me in it! It's just a typo fix in a comment, but hey, it's a start.

<comment><USER5> At least you can put "Linux Kernel Contributor" on your CV now.

<comment><USER6> Ah, you've seen that comic come by on reddit too, eh?

[http://i.imgur.com/6KQCx89.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/6KQCx89.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Excellent! My code will now finally work as intended! I used: `uname -r` * r * r and 2 * `uname -r` * r .

<comment><USER8> `tex --version` may be a better choice.

<comment><USER9> This should've been in my never-ending history:

      $ tex -v | head -n1 | awk '{print $2}'
      3.1415926

but it wasn't (I distinctly remember using this line to prove a point a few months ago).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wonder if this means that 3.14 will make it into Ubuntu 14.04. Would be nice not to have a franken-kernel for a LTS release.

<comment><USER11> I would assume that 3.12 would be used instead since it's the latest long-term stable release of the kernel.

<comment><USER12> FWIW I'm already using 14.04 beta2, and the kernel there is 3.13.0-20. This means the stable version will be 3.14, doesn't it?

<comment><USER13> Why would you conclude that?

<comment><USER12> I remembered odd versions were unstable, but looking at the kernel info, 3.13 is a stable version. So I'm guessing they'll stick with that.

<comment><USER13> > I remembered odd versions were unstable

this stopped being true very long ago (with the beginning of the 2.6 series)

<comment><USER12> TIL :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The first change:

> make prepend_name() work correctly when called with negative *buflen

Reminds me a lot of a different article in this week's LWN: [http://lwn.net/Articles/591959/](http://lwn.net/Articles/591959/)

which I would describe as exceedingly disconcerting. An excerpt:

> So areas like huge pages, page migration, and the mbind() system call have > been fertile ground. In the case of mbind(), it turned out that all callers > were going through a user-space library. That library did argument checking, > so, naturally, the system call itself did not.

</comment><comment><USER15> Finally good kernel for docker with AUFS.

<comment><USER9> Also, we're possibly one step nearer to Plan9's portable /bin concept (where each user overlays her binaries with those provided by the system).

<comment><USER16> So I tried looking around for info on this but my Google-fo is kind of weak. If you are still following these comments can you expound on this? It sounds very, very interesting.

<comment><USER17> Try this to start:

[http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/names.html](http://plan9.bell- labs.com/sys/doc/names.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is it me or they accelerated the pace of Linux kernel releases ?

<comment><USER19> It's because our silly little brains think there is a bigger difference between 3.12 and 3.14 than between 2.6.30 and 2.6.32.

When really the prefixes 2.6 and 3 are equivalent in meaning, and the real difference between 12 and 14 and 30 and 32 is also exactly the same.

Human brains seem to be evolved to think about numbers in a logarithmic fashion. We stop to think for a long while to debate whether to spend 50 or 75 bucks on a piece of clothing, while we can't perceive the difference between spending 50,000 or 50,025 thousand on a car. The difference would have to be 50,000 to 75,000 thousand for us to perceive it equally.

<comment><USER20> > We stop to think for a long while to debate whether to spend 50 or 75 bucks > on a piece of clothing, while we can't perceive the difference between > spending 50,000 or 50,025 thousand on a car. The difference would have to be > 50,000 to 75,000 thousand for us to perceive it equally.

A bit off-topic, but I've read about this irrational thought pattern before, and it strikes me that it's not that irrational. In general, one buys a car far less frequently than one buys a piece of clothing, so saving 25 bucks every time one buys a piece of clothing is going to add up to a lot more than saving 25 bucks every time one buys a car. The expense of a purchase correlates with how rare that type of purchase is, so it seems sensible to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I always like Linux kernel names, but can't find this one. Does it have a name?

<comment><USER22> Shuffling Zombie Juror ([http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.g...](http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=38dbfb59d1175ef458d006556061adeaa8751b72))

From the RC1 announcement ([http://lwn.net/Articles/583929/](http://lwn.net/Articles/583929/)):

      I realize that as a number, 3.14 looks familiar to people, and I had
      naming requests related to that. But that's simply not how the
      nonsense kernel names work. You can console yourself with the fact
      that the name doesn't actually show up anywhere, and nobody really
      cares. So any pi-related name you make up will be *quite* as relevant
      as the one in the main Makefile, so don't get depressed.

      Besides, any self-respecting geek will know pi to twenty decimal
      places from their dorky youth, so 3.14 isn't really *that* close, is
      it?

<comment><USER23> Aww, it could at least have been named "Shuffling Zombie Pie"!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> A round of congratulations pies around!

</comment><comment><USER25> Does this mean that all future Linux releases will have version numbers converging towards Pi, like TeX?

<comment><USER26> No, the next one will be 3.15!

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Did this reach HN's front page due to it being "Linux π", or is there some particular significance to this realease?

<comment><USER28> 3.14 = pi which is always a special number. Who knows.

Besides Linux powers almost everything on the internet, (almost) all of the world's smartphones and tablets, routers, NASes, millions and millions of embedded devices, not to mention desktops, Chromebooks, clouds and developer machines.

If you raise your focus up past your hipster Macbook and decaffed latte, even a small Linux release is a pretty big thing.

<comment><USER29> > (almost) all of the world's smartphones and tablets

Almost none of which will ever run this particular Linux kernel release.

Given the regularity of the kernel release schedule, it seems to me that a release would have to include something particularly interesting (not just support for yet another processor and yet another file system) in order to qualify as newsworthy on a general interest news site like this one.

<comment><USER30> If you think that Hacker news is a "general interest news" site then you clearly have no idea what the general public is actually interested in.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Which is better? Python or Ruby - <AUTHOR>

To make it simple and concise, which is a better choise for a programmer experienced with C-like languages (PHP, C, Java) to start learning and (of course) using? Easy to learn, easy to work with, great support and a stupid amount of free libraries for any purpose. <comment><USER2> I disclaim I'm a Ruby nut, but all four apply to both. They both have qualities that can be seen as pros _or_ cons by their respective fans. You'd need to be more specific with your requirements.

It is no big deal to learn enough of each to make a reasonable comparison in several hours.

</comment><comment><USER3> I guess the logical correct answer would be: Yes ;-)

</comment><comment><USER4> They're both easy.

Python is more broadly useful, while Ruby has Rails. What do you want to do with it?

</comment><comment><USER5> Do you like whitespace? ;)

</comment><comment><USER6> which is better: a hammer or a screw driver?

<comment><USER7> A hammer or a different brand of hammer?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What food problems exist that only need a programmer to solve? - <AUTHOR> Its pretty apparent that there is a severe shortage of programmers and that there are plenty of problems that still need solved.
I have an interest in solving food problems, time expense or monetary expense.
Calories Per Dollar and Protein Per Dollar, has already been solved.
What other problems can a programmer improve in food? (for consumer, not industry) <comment><USER2> Interactions between foods, supplements and drugs. Doctors are only taught drugs and some foods. To have a questionnaire that patients could complete online at their health care provider that might warn them or their doctor about risky combinations could save a lot of lives.

Later versions of such a thing could potentially even factor in genetics and / or ethnic background and / or health history and pre-existing conditions.

</comment><comment><USER3> Shall I have the pork-flavored ramen or the shrimp-flavored ramen?</comment>


On ad-supported websites from a developer's perspective - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/thoughts-on-media/how-ad-supported-websites-really-work-4bf3efb83fdd <comment><USER2> I worked for 4+ years at a company that was supposed to help publisher create enjoyable reading experiences on touch devices. We could have succeed doing that, except no publisher is interested in their reader's experience these days.

A big part of my job was making sure IAB standard ad tech worked on our platform, and it was always a losing battle. Advertisers don't care about making the readers' experiences the worst it can be, as long as they click on those goddamn ads. As an UX designer, that's the worst of nightmares.

Now, I don't want to work on anything that it's ad supported ever again in my life.

</comment><comment><USER3> The sanest way to manage tags is really quite simple: use google tag manager or Opentag from Qubit. Give any third party partner the ability to write tags and rules. Do NOT give them Deploy access. Then the dev team gets to use the sandbox debugger to test and profile, and then publish. Because GTM has immutable snapshots of config, rollback is painless.

We were working with an agency serving a large software company in the Seattle area. They have a site dedicated to competing with other companies that make productivity software, among those a company that also has a search engine. We outlined the above workflow and successfully deployed Google Tag Manager on the site in what may be my career's biggest -#ironywin to date.

Marketers have highly complex rules for when customer events turn into when tags should fire. This is best left to them as rules and platforms are always in flux. We even sometimes use GTM variables to split test tags from different inventory sources.

I would love the future to allow for tag management to be done on a seperate web server that uses a single proxy tag that sends event streams to a service that routes the event data to all 3 party tracking. No document writes, one tag to load. Anybody know if that is or isn't possible?

</comment><comment><USER4> So the article first describes where a developer in a media company sits inside the pipeline, then goes to describing politely and in a lot of corporate speak how media companies build advanced equipment for managing the radioactive waste they later unleash on users, and then concludes by noting that the websites would be _much_ better if someone was to keep those pesky marketers from touching the code.

And I totally buy the last point. The flip side of designing systems allowing managers and sales to add scripts optimizing "company specific performance indicators" is that they _will_ add those scripts, which ends up in a lot of problems for the website. This stuff should be managed by developers, but it's hard - if your boss buys Ad Optimizer X, and the Ad Optimizer X comes only packaged with Tracker X, you will have no choice but to add it anyway.

I've been in that boat (and fortunately managed to abandon ship). The boss comes and says "just add this tracker code to the project". Oh, so he hired an external ad agency and set up a whole large plan, and the dev team gets to know about it only when they're told to start including random third-party scripts. I wish there was a way to push back, or at least to get info beforehand.

Some people actually talk about unionizing. I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I'd love for us to have some leverage to push back against absurd or plain immoral demands of the management. On the other hand, I worry it'll pave the way to the professionalization of development - where in order to use a general-purpose compiler you'll have to have an engineering license, or something.

<comment><USER5> The author's right, though, in that this is the competitive advantage 800lb gorilla aggregators bring to the table. When some clueless manager demands Facebook include some tracker as part of an ad buy, Facebook's answer is "no, take it or leave it", and after a few rounds of increasingly petulant emails with FB's bottom tier support staff, he relents, because he never really had the option of not buying Facebook ads in the first place and he was just posturing.

At most media companies without the market power or willingness to use the power they have, the request would reach his counterpart on the sell side and they'd be off to the races out-stupiding each other against the mutual interest of their host companies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The seeds of planned dissatisfaction are planted early. It goes from best interests...

> _Writers spend time researching stories and write on captivating topics. And > editors and producers spend time preparing and shaping stories for their > overall audience._

... to making sure the reader is distracted from content as much and as often as possible:

> _Billable impressions require a rendered ad to be have at least 50% of the > creative in-view to the user for at least 1 second._

No wonder clickbait flourishes. If the entire "content" (and I use the word here with derision) of the article can be digested instantly, larger fraction of time between page loads can be used to flood the viewer with ads.

I wish there was a proper way to boycott advertisers. Not just to block all the radioactive waste[+], but clearly state back that "due to your actions, I have made a conscious decision to avoid you and your products".

+: I picked the term from TeMPOraL's post. It's a good one.

</comment><comment><USER7> > "unnecessary overlapping functionality"

Luckily I didn't do much work with ad-supported publishing sites, but I still experienced some of that pain. It wasn't unusual for a marketer to ask for 6 or more tracking/analytics scripts (that all claim to do the same thing). The scripts were usually archaic and baroque, and unable to handle common web patterns like Post-Redirect-Get or AJAX without worakarounds.

They usually had lots of parameters so that you could specify exactly what data you wanted when an event happened... But for marketers who didn't really know what they were looking for, and therefore couldn't specify, the results were of course insufficient. So the natural solution was to add yet another 3rd-party script that promises to do magic.

Of course, when you're talking about a database-backed web application whose very nature is to store data and do queries for reports, most of these scripts are obviously more than a little redundant. If the specs for the site included what needed to be tracked and what reports were needed, then the 3rd party scripts wouldn't be needed at all (except for the ones that track you across multiple sites or inject supercookies). But it's quicker and easier just to try adding more 3rd party snake oil.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm the author of this and only noticed this post through the Medium referral traffic.

Thanks for reading!</comment>


Freenode is being DDoSed - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/freenodestaff/status/779759172518866944 <comment><USER2> Thanks for the info. Haven't been able to get on free node all day. I don't like DDoS kids. Grrr...</comment>


Ask HN: Any good resources, case studies about bootstrapped Hardware startups? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> May not be exactly what your looking for but bolt VC posts some really interesting content around starting hardware companies. [https://blog.bolt.io](https://blog.bolt.io)

Theres a whole series on the hardware process: [https://blog.bolt.io/ideation/](https://blog.bolt.io/ideation/) [https://blog.bolt.io/design/](https://blog.bolt.io/design/) [https://blog.bolt.io/engineering/](https://blog.bolt.io/engineering/) [https://blog.bolt.io/validation/](https://blog.bolt.io/validation/)

They also have a bunch of great posts on strategy and business models.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hewlett Packard[0] is interesting. I'm sure one could find companies for which the place was called _Silicon_ Valley.

You could also check out Shenzhen and ask Andrew Huang.[1] Apparently, hardware startups there move really, really fast.[2]

He also has a book entitled "The Essential Guide to Shenzhen", here's a thread about it.[3]

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett- Packard#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett-Packard#History)

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Huang_(hacker)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Huang_\(hacker\))

[2]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGJ5cZnoodY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGJ5cZnoodY) [Vice report with Andrew Huang]

[3]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21817656](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21817656)

</comment><comment><USER4> Depends on what experience you have in the field you target, and more importantly how large (in physical dimensions and technical complexity) the hardware product you want to develop is?</comment>


Work surfers more productive: 20% of your time on Internet = 9% more productive - <AUTHOR> http://trueslant.com/ryansager/2009/04/03/surf-away-at-work/

<comment><USER2> Grr...I typed out three or four _hilarious_ jokes about humans not being robots, but none of them worked, here goes:

I can't find the link, but there was an article a while ago about a positive correlation between mental instability and creativity. The reasoning behind it was that people who are mentally unstable do not have the same sorts of inhibitions about "radical" ideas. They'll allow their mind to drift further away from the norm than what is...the norm.

This, I think, is the reason why it's so hard to come to the solution to a moderately abstract problem if you're concentrating on trying to come up with a solution (at least if you're doing it alone...working in groups with a big ol' whiteboard and some mental lubricant [beer] can help too)...

You need to let your mind wander a bit so that it stops over-analyzing everything...I don't know what you guys would call it, but whenever I code something that needs to "guess" a bit (image processing, for example), I code in a "fudge factor", that is: change this a bit up and down from what you read and see if it works.

Letting your brain wander off to something unrelated to the task at hand, to me, is like letting it increase the "fudge factor" on whatever it is you're working on. You "don't care" as much about your task, so you pay less attention to making sure that it falls within norms. This helps you come up with more creative solutions (which are sometimes required).

Is this making ANY sense at all? Probably not :(

What I'm saying is that distracting yourself (by internetting) will help you find the solution to the problem that you're working on, and increase your productivity.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd guess the productivity increase comes from the extra hard work that results after the sense of guilt for having wasted so much time surfing. :)

<comment><USER4> Maybe I'm alone in this, but if I _don't_ take a 'breather' after a code burst, my quality goes to shit.

And seeing as I find it essentially impossible to turn my brain off from work- problems while I'm not strictly 'on the clock', I have zero guilt about time I might spend not doing work 'on the clock'.

Less than zero guilt, really. At several jobs I've felt my clients/employers didn't _nearly_ appreciate the 'free overtime' they got.

<comment><USER5> How much better am I at solving work problems if I have some sense of perspective? Technical perspective, that is. I'm now reverse engineering a grammar to monitor the interactions with a legacy system. ANTLR is cool, but I wouldn't have known about it unless I had spent a lot of time web surfing over the years. How many people do you work with who have no clue about what's going on in their profession except for what they're told by their bosses to work on?

Edit: Learning of any sort provides perspective, but it's the technical perspective for which I have the most direct evidence of employer value.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Extrapolate--> 100% of your time on Internet = 45% more productive. Woo hoo.

<comment><USER7> Mandatory XKCD reference: <http://xkcd.com/605/></comment></comment>


Review HN: RewardLevel - Increase conversion on your forms by offering rewards - <AUTHOR> http://RewardLevel.com

<comment><USER2> Something is fishy on HN. This story was #3 and then immediately jumped to #38 (on the second page). Was it secretly penalized or something?

<comment><USER3> Maybe a mod flagged or something? I have seen stories dropping off the homepage just like it and have no clue why that happens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So I tried signing this up and throwing it up on my site, and I got some reward for a free coupon to UserTesting.com. I am mostly confident my customers will have zero interest in this reward. The $5 gift card at Amazon though would be great.

I was wondering if it was possible to configure the rewards offered. I actually tried playing around with the snippet of code you give your publishers:

<iframe src="<https://www.rewardlevel.com/plugin/index?plugin=XXX> width="100%" height="60" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>

XXX is an integer, and I was able to get different rewards to show up by changing its value.

I assume this isn't intended and my value for XXX is supposed to be static indicator of my account ID. But how do you plan on configuring the rewards offered by the publisher?

Shoot me an e-mail if you want talk to more. My site gets quite a bit of traffic and I'd love to offer some easy incentives and this is way more streamlined to use than anything I've tried with TrialPay et al.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm a little confused now that TechCrunch has a story up. It seemed from the discussion here that you were only making money from your affiliates, but you also charge upon conversion?

"Reward Level charges $5 per conversion, but if the company offering the reward is also a publisher with Reward Level's widget installed, they only have to pay $2.50 per conversion."

Is this accurate?

If so, I might find it hard to justify paying $5 per conversion, especially for a .2-30% conversion rate increase. This means I'd be paying for _every_ conversion, essentially spending what I'd normally spend and then $5 for each and every signup on top of that? No thanks. While this might make sense for some, it probably wouldn't make sense for those following the freemium model. Sounded great when it was "too good to be true," though.

<comment><USER6> The conversion rate increase appears to speak to the publisher, ie the company with the landing page being incentivized and not the company offering the reward.

According to the tech crunch article the company offering the reward pays the $5 and the publisher gets the widget and offers the reward to their potential users for free.

<comment><USER5> It's a little unclear to me. The problem is with "the company offering the reward" language. I took that to mean the company that presents the reward for the signups, but you're saying it's the company actually offering the deal, e.g. Amazon. That makes more sense. So that company not only offers their reward but _also_ pays $5 to Reward Level?

<comment><USER6> That's the way I interpreted it.

It looks like RewardLevel is set up as a broker. They get publishers to install widgets on the sign up forms, that data is then passed to advertisers (the reward offerer) and RewardLevel makes a commission on the conversions at the advertisers end. I would also guess that while the advertiser may be giving out a reward to each sign up on the publisher site (discount, voucher, coupon, gift etc) they may not be paying $5 to RewardLevel each time. There's probably separate language that defines what a conversion is for the advertiser such as a signup or enrollment in service with the company providing the incentive in addition to the initial sign up on the publishers landing page. We'll have to see if Noah speaks to how advertisers sign up as it's been asked a couple of times.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This looks like a great idea.

I think it would be great to use as an incentive for participating in a site after signing up. For example on my site, Scribophile, I don't consider a user 'converted' until they 1) sign up and 2) post a critique. Just signing up is useless to the site unless the user also participates.

Looking at the way you've implemented the widget, is there a way I can make the above scenario happen? So say there's a message after you sign up for Scribophile that says something like "write a critique within 5 days of signing up and get xxx reward!"

Also, how do you target these rewards? Again, for a site like mine, users wouldn't want a Kissmetrics account. They'd want something writing-related, like an Amazon.com gift certificate, or the like. Is there a way to choose specific rewards?

<comment><USER6> You'll find that users only looking for a reward are more than happy to jump through one or two hoops to get their reward. An incentivized user is often no better than no user, especially when the reward is tangible like a gift certificate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The language on the home page around 'too good to be true' made me pause before signing up. It almost sounds like you're saying 'there's a catch!'

I think being a little more clear about your business model will go a long way to allaying concerns among users signing up for RewardLevel.

<comment><AUTHOR> Aaron.

Awesome feedback. Should we include how we make money in that paragraph?

<comment><USER8> Ideally, yes. Maybe you could say something like "Sound too good to be true? It isn't: Reward Level is completely free for you and your users. We make money through our partner referrals."

Except that what I wrote is terrible, but hopefully you get the idea :)

Edit: and please put this above the fold.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea, pretty terrible :P

Let me think of something. Don't really want to push changes live but tonight or early tomorrow.

Please keep the feedback coming!

<comment><USER8> Sounds good, I look forward to seeing it! Plus, I did sign up, and I'll let you know offline if I have any more feedback.

This product looks awesome, btw!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Interesting idea, Noah. But there are two questions in my mind:

a) How are you going to monetize this? (You say on website it is free for companies using it, but you must have thought of some monetization strategy)

b) You incentivizing users signup for a service just to get that exclusive offer under the signup box. Aren't those users going to be no better than "no- users"? I mean, if the only (or part-of) reason for a user signing up for a service is because he wanted to get that exclusive offer, chances of him becoming a long term customer are pretty low. Right?

<comment><USER6> After three years of working with an affiliate marketing, lead generation and advertising company I would say that incentivized traffic is the worst kind of traffic. This is after seeing thousands of offers and processing millions of leads.

The problem with any type of incentive on a signup form (not checkout, that's different) is that it changes intent. You end up with two groups of people: those interested in your product and those looking for a reward. Differentiating those two groups can be very expensive. If you are sending out a news letter or other marketing material you also should expect to see higher unsubscribe rates and spam complaints from incentivized sign ups. These people will often not remember where they signed up or what it was for and that leaves you dealing with problems at your ESP or wasting money on increased numbers of mailings. I've seen offers for services where an agent calls the person signing up to complete the process and those are even more fun. Then you have to deal with people that are pissed they are receiving a call from a "telemarketer" even though they signed up to receive a call. There are also other factors working against incentivized forms such as forums set up for the sole purpose of detailing places you can sign up for something for free and receive a tangible reward in return.

Other types of incentives for the check out page of a pay service or store selling goods can work really well. The best example are check out pages that have free shipping thresholds. If you prompt the user "Hey, spend $X more and you get free shipping." You have a great opportunity to upsell or to push smaller items that might have more markup. Additionally a reward like this site seems to be offering might push people to finish the check out process if the reward is good enough.

Having been down this road I would be very skeptical of the quality of the signups as a publisher in this system and as an advertiser I'd want good terms on what qualifies as a conversion as well as well defined return policies on leads. It doesn't look like advertiser information is available yet (did I miss it?) so hard to say what terms they are getting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Love the idea! Just some design suggestions/thoughts from my first look around. Because of the heavy contrast between the white in the upper portion and the blue on the bottom, I get the impression that the bluk of your relevant content is in the lower section.. when in reality of ease of adding the 'Reward' feature to the form seems like it should be your focus.

When looking at your signup form, it's not really obvious what I'm supposed to do, because the reward button, question button, and submission button are grouped so closely and look so similar. I would tone down the yellow of the input boxes a bit and change the colors for the reward info buttons - example: <http://i53.tinypic.com/29mt4l5.jpg>

Also, I think if they click in the reward box it should only check the box, not check/uncheck like a label.

Great idea though! I Apologize if you don't like my thoughts, just some quick first impressions!

</comment><comment><USER10> So any raw figures on conversion rate changes?

<comment><AUTHOR> We've seen .2% up to 30% increase. Varies by website and still a bit early as we are adding more rewards to the system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Really like the idea. At first, I thought you were building a funnel for your other venture, but this application has much bigger vision. My one primary turn-off here is relevance of the reward to what I'm signing up for. I'm sure this is what you're going after and hasn't materialized yet due to lack of offers to pass around. But I'm curious how you're planning on solving this in a way that scales well.

PS: Tidy up those "Reward Detail" popups! Keep it up!

PPS: The email link on the about page is "protected" (hi [at] rewardlevel [dot] com) whereas the email link at the top is not.

<comment><AUTHOR> Mike,

Appreciate the feedback.

We will solve it with inventory and the algorithm, just takes some time get it all right.

Redesign for pop-up and hopefully js version with roll-over coming shortly.

Yea, hopefully google apps can do its job at protecting spam.

<comment><USER11> What I was trying to point out about the email link is if you're going to share it as a link in the top nav, you should do the same in the about page. (At least for consistency/convenience.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is there any way to stop the service offering competitors products?

<comment><AUTHOR> Great question. Yea, go to profile > block rewards

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I see it's easy to sign up to put the rewardLevel code on one's website but nowhere to sign up to become a reward offerer? I assume it's only for a handful of known clients for now, will this change and eventually allow any business to offer it's products/services to be shown in the rewards network?

</comment><comment><USER14> Can I select the type of offers that can appear on my site? for example, financial products/services

<comment><AUTHOR> We tried to enable that and saw worse results than just letting the algorithm decide. We'll test more of this in the future.

For now you can block sites you don't want showing on your profile link.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> In the long term, as a publisher, what is preventing me from getting my own deals from the same vendors?

Are you getting me any exclusive deals with these vendors?

<comment><USER6> There's probably nothing stopping you from getting these types of deals set up. The problem is that you then go from working on your core business to managing relationships as a lead seller.

The novelty of this approach is that RewardLevel acts as a broker and manages all those relationships and then their algorithm supposedly shows the deals that work best on your site. That leaves you with higher signups and in theory more revenue, and RewardLevel's advertisers with more leads. RewardLevel makes money by sitting in the middle and managing that pool of advertisers. You would have to weigh the cost of having someone manage those relationships for you versus the supposedly free increase in conversions on your landing page by having RewardLevel do it for you.

I would caution anyone planning on implementing this that while it is "free" to place the RewardLevel widget into your sign up forms there will be costs associated with those people that sign up for nothing more than the reward. The balancing act is to find offers that only really appeal to your core market to begin with and that is in the hands of the RewardLevel algorithm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> How does this work on non-US websites? Do you geo-locate offers or only offer US-specific offers at this time?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good call on the geo-location. Coming soon.

Right now the algorithm optimizes to the rewards that work best for your site.</comment></comment>


Dropping Out Is Probably Not for You (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://jacquesmattheij.com/Dropping+out+is+probably+not+for+you

<comment><USER2> This article comes off as judgmental and out of touch.

I dropped out of school because I didn't like it and was miserable. I was in school because that's what people do at 18.

Five years later I had a lot more life experience, a clear goal in what I wanted to get out of school, and went back. Maybe I'm in the minority of people in that I'm highly motivated to learn things independently, but I'm still not totally convinced it was the best use of my time and money, and I live in Canada where it's a lot cheaper in the USA.

I think people should follow their hearts, be ready to pull themselves out of ruts, and to find their ambitions.

</comment><comment><USER3> >The thing that I don't enjoy is when people ask me if they should drop out of school or university to 'start their own business'

Amazingly enough, it's not a binary decision. You can stay in school and start your own company. In fact, your school may even have an incubator program to help you. Being is school is probably one of the best times to start a company since you have free o cheap access to many resources that are expensive outside of school, and you have fallback when your first few ventures fail.

With that in mind, I'm always amused at the subset of programmers who rail against degrees. The most recent example I found was this: [http://nickjanetakis.com/](http://nickjanetakis.com/), where the author thinks a degree is a fancy piece of paper. A degree in computer science or software engineering can only help you in your career, and it probably has one of the best ROIs for any degree program.</comment>


More Americans Than You Might Think Believe In Conspiracy Theories - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/2014/06/04/318733298/more-americans-than-you-might-think-believe-in-conspiracy-theories

<comment><USER2> "With this [CIA] memo and the CIA's influence in the media," author Peter Janney wrote in a guest column on our site last fall, "the concept of 'conspiracy theorist' was engendered and infused into our political lexicon and became what it is today: a term to smear, denounce, ridicule, and defame anyone who dares to speak about any crime committed by the state, military or intelligence services."

Janney, whose late father Wistar Janney had been a high-ranking CIA executive, continued: "People who want to pretend that conspiracies don't exist -- when in fact they are among the most common modus operandi of significant historical change throughout the world and in our country -- become furious when their naive illusion is challenged."

<comment><USER3> There's a difference between believing conspiracies exist (which they obviously do) and taking for granted that any random conspiracy theory is probably true.

For instance - no amount of Snowden revelations will make it more likely that FEMA death camps are waiting for us under Denver International Airport, or that HAARP is being used to control the weather, or that NASA is covering up their occult demonolatry regarding the ancient Egyptian hyperdimensional network between Earth and Mars -- all of which are a;sp conspiracy theories which people believe.

I'm reminded of a quote by Alan Moore:

        "The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is
        that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because
        that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it
        is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not
        The Iluminati, or The Jewish Banking Conspiracy, or the
        Gray Alien Theory.

        The truth is far more frightening - Nobody is in control.
        The world is rudderless."

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> "A conspiracy theory is where you believe in a theory where no matter how much disconfirming evidence comes in, you somehow convert that disconfirming evidence into part of the conspiracy."</comment>


Dead Sea Scrolls Now Available Online - <AUTHOR> http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/project

<comment><USER2> It confuses me somewhat how they can claim copyright over documents that are thousands of years old :S

<http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/terms_pg>

 _Copyright in the digital images of the manuscripts, created by the Israel Museum and displayed on this site, is held by the Israel Museum. Reproducing these digital images in any manner other than for research or private study requires prior permission or licensing._

The Wikipedia crowd are (rightly) griping about this; we've long held that faithful digital reproductions of 2D copyrighted work simply inherit the copyright of the original. It's sad to see such a nice thing marred by a silly approach to copyright.

As if they are scared people are going to, what, misuse the material and make a fortune out of it?

<comment><USER3> It's how copyright works unfortunately :( The creator of the content/picture own that picture unless they state it otherwise. Considering the nature of the document, it should be considered of public domain due to the broad public interest the document has.

<comment><USER2> Not necessarily. In the US, for example, this is not true (and this is the only place I know of it being tested in court). It was ruled that faithful reproductions of 2D works lacked _originality_ (even if they required work to produce) and so PD work does not become copyrightable :)

See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp).

So in the US, certainly, I doubt this is copyrightable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Other online Bible manuscript projects I'm aware of:

<http://www.aleppocodex.org/> \- complete Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), dating from about 930 AD

<http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/> \- Greek Bible (includes complete New Testament)

<http://www.greek-language.com/Manuscripts.html> \- links to a ton of Greek Bible manuscripts

It's unfortunate there isn't a better clearinghouse for this. There's a tremendous wealth of data out there.

<comment><USER5> <http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlcodex.html> \- The Nag Hammadi Codex. Gnostic scriptures, some of which are of the Gnostic Christian varieties that were circulating around the time of Jesus and after. These offer a fascinating counterpoint to the officialized, hierarchical Christian dogma the ideas of the time were honed into.

<comment><USER4> Gnostic and other "non-canonical" writings are also of interest. www.earlychristianwritings.com/ is another quite fascinating source, with lots of letters and such. (Neither site seems to have manuscript scans, unfortunately.)

I would love to see a good source on the "circulating around the time of Jesus" claim. I've never been able to track down anything credible on that front.

<http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/Pagels-Gnostic-Gospels.html> notes the existing manuscripts date to 350-400, that "some" must date to somewhat prior to 180 AD because Irenaeus speaks of "other gospels", and cites a Harvard professor who speculates that the Gospel of Thomas " _may_ include some traditions even older" than the official gospels. Those are fairly weak claims; do you have support for your stronger claim?

<comment><USER6> _> I would love to see a good source on the "circulating around the time of Jesus" claim. I've never been able to track down anything credible on that front._

Me too. The earliest writings I know of are Paul's letters and possibly the Didache, and neither of them were written until a couple of decades after Jesus' ministry.

<comment><USER7> I thought Mark was written around 40 years after Jesus.

<comment><USER8> Mark was written about AD 50, so about ~16 ish years after Jesus.

<comment><USER9> I believe the general consensus is that Mark were written around AD 70, making it closer to 40 years after Jesus.

<comment><USER4> There's some disagreement. Some date Mark to around 50 AD; others to between 65 and 72 AD.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Dates_of_composit...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Dates_of_composition)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Definitely still worth seeing in person if you can. Many people are unaware they were written by an estranged puritanical sect of the ancient Israelites that were not accepted by the mainstream community, which is why the scrolls were found in Qumran, and not Jerusalem.

Another important related issue is that the Dead Sea is losing one meter of water/year and will shrivel to the size of a small lake in 50 years if we do nothing.

[http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,71715312001_20...](http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,71715312001_2016083,00.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> Created in partnership with Google:

[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/from-desert-to-web- br...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/from-desert-to-web-bringing- dead-sea.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> I hope this will be a model for all archaeological literature. It's a real shame how controlling scholars sit on caches of the world's cultural heritage not for years, not for decades, but for generations (in the case of the Oxyrhynchus papyri), dolling it out to the public only as they reconstruct and interpret the fragments. If humanities scholars aim to rise to the level of the hard sciences, let them emulate XArchive.

<comment><USER12> I should have called it _literature archaeology_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> no spoilers for those of us that haven't read them.

</comment><comment><USER7> Pretty neat, I'm most interested in Daniel.

Prior to the dead sea scrolls people would speculate the prophecies in Daniel were written after the fact.

The carbon dating in the dead sea scrolls seemed to prove otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER14> What's interesting to study is the difference between the dead sea scrolls and the "current" or canonical version of the old testament. See more on <http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/dss.htm> and [http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums/1st/papers/Anderson9...](http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums/1st/papers/Anderson96.html)

Think that Judaism, Christianism and Islamism, and a big part of world culture are based or influenced on that.

</comment><comment><USER15> Archive.org also digitalizing old Bibles. And you can download them too! For example: <http://www.archive.org/details/novumtestamentum00eras>

</comment><comment><USER16> The DSS have been online for a while now, and this is only a few of the scrolls. However, it is very nicely done, and clearly the best online edition of these particular scrolls.

</comment><comment><USER17> Clever implementation. Pay attention when browsing the Isaiah scroll to how the rolled up ends of the scroll change in size as you scroll it left to right.

</comment><comment><USER5> Does this make seeing the real dead sea scrolls more or less impressive I wonder?

</comment><comment><USER18> OK, I'm no Google fan (far from it), but this is pretty goddamn cool.

<comment><USER19> Not really that cool, when you see how they've ensured it will be available only as long as the web site and the institutional support continues.

If there was a download link for the whole thing, documents and UI+backend source, now _that_ would be cool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's about time.

</comment><comment><USER21> as an aside, for a great book discussing the evolution of the current bible, you should read Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehram

<comment><USER4> Ehrman's book mixes fact with a great deal of speculation. I would not recommend it as a starting place.

For a more factual treatment, I'd recommend starting with the wikipedia article on "textual criticism" (the process of reconstructing documents from imperfect copies). Its section on the New Testament has a list of the major textual problems, most of which have their own wikipedia articles.

If you want to get into books, David Alan Black wrote a fairly nice introduction to New Testament textual criticism. Bruce Metzger and Kurt Aland's books are both pretty widely respected as well. If you want to see the changes passage-by-passage during study, consider using the NET Bible (net.bible.org) and watching for notes marked "tc".</comment></comment>


'Origami robot' that can be ingested - <AUTHOR> http://www.tribonet.org/the-origami-robot-that-can-be-ingested/ <comment><USER2> Wonder if they used any techniques from here:

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

</comment><comment><USER3> That looks horrific to pass when the time comes?

</comment><comment><USER4> Wow this headline does not do it justice at all

</comment><comment><USER5> any video of the thing actually moving? Thanks!</comment>


Tapering of SSRI treatment to mitigate withdrawal symptoms - <AUTHOR> https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(19)30032-X/fulltext <comment><USER2> I discovered this when coming off Citalopram. The waking nausea and discomfort were unpleasant, but the worst part was undoubtedly the lucid, extraordinarily intense and violent nightmares that would begin the moment I fell asleep and continue, for hours at a time, for the entirety of my sleep.

After trying to quit cold turkey a couple of times, I researched about tapering strategies online, bought some pill cutters and started a very gradual dose reduction. So long as I only halved the dose every 2-3 days, I was fine. But I had to go down to a minuscule fragment of a pill before I could quit completely. Until that point, missing one of the reduced doses would still induce withdrawal symptoms just as intense as the full one had.

<comment><USER3> It's really interesting to hear someone else say this. I too have suffered occasionally from intense, violent nightmares. They don't necessarily continue all night, but the imagery is extremely disturbing, like a Hellraiser movie. I also took SSRIs like Paxil and Celexa in my early to mid twenties.

Recently, I've also begun experimenting with microdosing. I know almost nothing about the science of psychedelics but I've heard that they mimic the chemical structure of serotonin. I've also had a couple of intense nightmares recently. I wonder if there's somehow a connection between the effect of serotonin or things like it and the tendency to experience intense imagery in dreams.

Perhaps it's not exactly the quality (negative or positive) of the content but the intensity that is magnified. I think I could just as well say that I've had a number of intensely positive dreams while taking these substances but I can't speak objectively about it.

<comment><USER4> Serotonergic signalling is a really important regulator of sleep architecture, and this is why psychiatrists are increasingly prescribing trazadone as a sleeping aid. It was previously used as an antidepressant, but lower doses and it is a remarkably effective sleeping pill. 5-htp has similar effects, and this is why its sold as a sleep-aid supplement.

In my experience, all of these drugs can bring on intense very visually pleasant trippy dreams, with the occasional intense violent nightmare. Aside from the mood and sleep architecture effects, I wish I knew more about the neuroscience separating the positive from negative experiences.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, I take GABA before sleep to induce intense dreams. It works all the time for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was on sertraline for almost 15 years. It took multiple tries to get off. I finally slowly tapered off. The worst withdraw symptom was the zaps for me.

I wish I had never started to begin with. I feel like a part of me is gone now. It is hard to describe.

<comment><USER7> How long ago did you finalize your tapering and stop altogether?

<comment><USER6> It has been about two years now.

<comment><USER7> I know someone who was on diazepam for only a year and he says that it took him longer than a year from the point of final dose to start feeling himself again. I know diazepam is not the same class of drugs, but hopefully the same is true for you - the longer you go from the final dose the more yourself you feel.

<comment><USER8> Well for one, you're not supposed to take benzodiazepines longer than a few weeks. Benzo withdrawal can be life-threatening if you're accustomed to a high enough dose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Strangely, I've gone cold turkey off of SSRI's and with the exception of Paxil, have never experienced the Brain Zaps or extreme withdrawal symptoms others report. I wonder why it would vary?

Also, sample size=1, CBD oil for me appears to have many of the anti-anxiety affects that the other SSRI's have provided me, with much less side affects. Although, the dosing is all over the map and varies from manufacturer, so that's a challenge. But it does seem to provide me some relief. I just hope I'm not doing long term damage..

<comment><USER10> What dose for cbd? Does it get expensive?

<comment><USER9> It is expensive. Usually 45-60 dollars for a months supply.

I've used the American Shaman water soluble full-spectrum and Medterra isolate CBD oil. Both were effective for me with a slight preference towards the Medterra isolate.

It's about the most "normal" feeling I've ever had. Definitely by far the most effective treatment I've had for anxiety, and that's including the SSRI's. Probably beats Lexapro because of the near non-existent side effects for me. But again, sample size 1.

The /r/cbd group is a good starting place.

<comment><USER11> CBD isolate by itself can be a lot cheaper. The cheapest I've found is online from Fully Activated, around $20/g. You should be able to mix your own tinctures with liquid coconut oil, and optionally sunflower lecithin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Patients have been saying this for literally decades. I remember blogs written by people who learned to do this themselves without any support from their medical professionals, networking and sharing info with each other on the best way to do it, in the early fucking naughties.

Also, it took decades for studies to be done on minimally effective doses for SSRIs leading to uncounted (and unlitigated) cases of people suffering and dying needlessly.

I hope people here are aware of the sheer number and scale of issues in this industry, from bribing prescribers to false advertisement and covering up of studies, with vast wings of the companies dedicated to 'PR' "managing" these issues.

The explanations I've heard from medical professionals of "why" these drugs work are comically full of holes. They don't really know what's happening with them, and this institutional arrogance, and the 'incidental' buckets of money, are why it's taken 5 decades for this basic, basic, basic fucking research to begin to come out.

<comment><USER4> The currently best-accepted theories to why antidepressants work involve slow but measurable changes in grey matter densities in key parts of the brain. We haven't had this kind of high-resolution MRI technology for very long.

<comment><USER12> A, that doesn't actually explain :how they work:.

And B, that hasn't stopped these guys from coming out with ridiculous stories as to how they work, speaking them with the utmost confidence, which is what I took issue with there specifically.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Someone I love had to stop an SSRI and I helped her hack her capsules. I bought empty capsules online and we counted out the beads to allow her to taper mg by mg. Basically this but about 10 years ago: [https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140106-people-are- hack...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140106-people-are-hacking- antidepressant-doses-to-avoid-withdrawal/)

</comment><comment><USER14> I am excited for the day when we can fully understand just how the gut-brain connection actually works and where depression/anxiety come from. Giving people real genuine long-term relief over the course of their life.

[https://www.genengnews.com/news/depression-and-gut- bacteria-...](https://www.genengnews.com/news/depression-and-gut-bacteria- link-strengthened/)

</comment><comment><USER15> Some of the comments on here are scary. I've been using Sertraline on and off for 13 years and have never suffered any ill effects other than minor nausea and tiredness. This is, according to the vast body of research done, the majority of people's experiences. Most importantly, I feel better when I take it. If you're thinking of taking SSRIs, please don't let the comments here scare you. They can have a massively positive effect.

<comment><USER16> Exactly. I never understood why is there such a witch hunt against SSRIs and not only on HN. I have a strong suspicion alternative-medicine folks are just pushing it.

<comment><USER17> There may be, but on this forum I just see people sharing shit that happened to them. It's a self selected group. If you see a headline and some bad stuff has happened to you, it's only natural that you may want to tell about it.

<comment><USER15> True. Well this is me diluting it. SSRIs saved my life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> SSRI discontinuation is really horrible and most doctors don't tell you up front the hell that it is. To me, its a sin up there with not telling opioid patients what that'll be like to stop.

I've been with two partners that stopped SSRI's after a long time. The brain zaps lasted for months, and the memory, mood issues, and sex drive changes were also severe. Both times it left an irreparable change to our relationship.

<comment><USER15> For the majority of people, this isn't the case. The body of evidence backs this up. I'm sorry you and your partners had a bad experience, but comparing it to opioid withdrawal is an unfair comparison and could discourage people from getting help who need it.

<comment><USER18> I'm willing to concede to evidence, but it wasnt just those two stories. I must know a lot of bad luck people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Many folks are on these drugs not because of depression or anxiety.

I got put on SSRIs because it was the only thing that helped my IBS after getting some kind of GI infection while traveling in Europe.

<comment><USER20> IBS (at least some types) are very likely closely related to anxiety disorders (but with a visceral motor component). Low FODMAP has been shown to help, though it's not clear that it is treating the psychomotor cause , but one of the best interventions is increase in physical activity... similar to GAD.

<comment><USER19> I want to nip this falsehood in the butt as I am studying this for my PhD.

IBS has many causes one main of is people having an autoimmune disease due to the bodily production of anti-vinculin from molecular mimicry of the toxin causing food poisoning anti-cdtb.

The remaining causes are related to MAST cell destabilization, SIBO, etc. Anxiety is thought to play a role in symptom management in the same way having being anxious about a broken foot will make you foot hurt more.

<comment><USER21> I have IBS because of severe social anxiety, but I don't have any anxiety because of IBS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I hope someone can help me. I was slowly tapered off Effexor (started at 225mg and then slowly to 125, 75, 25). I was overcome by an existential dread that colored every living moment. I landed up in the hospital - only to resume. Has anyone had experiences like this to share? I want to get rid of this medication again this year but am afraid to start. I am well-balanced and happy at work and life atm.

<comment><USER23> Just curious - you do you - but if you are well-balanced and happy on the meds why do you want to taper off?

<comment><USER24> Flip that around: Why would you want to be continually reliant on a designer drug for the rest of your life just to feel normal?

To me, that defines a dystopian nightmare. I'd sooner go without than be shackled to the pharmaceutical industry.

<comment><USER25> Whether or not you want to be, maybe you are. And if it helps you function better, why is that bad?

I'm continually reliant on prosthetics for the rest of my life just to see normally. Other people are forever reliant on wheelchairs or pacemakers or medication that stops their immune system from tearing up their organs. And that's ok!

<comment><USER26> Because then you're not human, you're a chemical zombie.

<comment><USER25> Do you say that about people taking daily heart medication, or people with cochlear implants?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Can someone explain what the 'proper' treatment plan is supposed to be for SSRI?

Doctors mostly advertise it as a tool to help get a leg up in overcoming depression with the idea being that it helps you get your shit together and somehow become not depressed. But when you actually get diagnosed, they just prescribe an SSRI and move on. If you ask what you're meant to do, they'll recommend therapy if you're lucky.

And then we come to posts like this and comments like here, about people who have become dependent on SSRI just to have the same quality of life as they did before ever touching it. But now they have to go through hell to get off it.

What's the idea here..? Is there an actual success path for SSRI? What percentage of patients lands on that success path?

<comment><USER28> As I was given to understand it, the first line should be CBT or something similar (ie a therapy that doesn't involve drugs that will help you live your life). On top of this, unless you get referred directly to a psychiatrist (for example because you have made a suicide attempt) you get referred to a psychologist that will try a bunch of different "soft" approaches that will help you deal with your problems. The medication comes during this process, if it is indicated.

Even if you do get medication first, the path that I expect is that you get "soft" treatment as well. The medication is supposed to get you through the really rough seas that you might succumb to otherwise, with other therapy helping you in the long term. If you go to a doctor and they just give you medication and send you on your way, you need to get a second opinion.

<comment><USER29> There's no reason medication requires therapy.

Therapy has its benefits(like a great side effect profile), but it's good to remember that therapy has a lot of drawbacks too. It expensive(SSRI $3/month vs therapist $500/month), it requires a flexible schedule, and the evidence of effectiveness isn't quite as clear as medication.

<comment><USER17> Both cognitive therapy and classic "shrink" therapy is on some level, you just talking about shit going on in your life. At the very least, if you are at the end of your rope with no (constructive) talking to be found amongst your peers in life, I am dead certain talking to a therapist is a good thing to try.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Wow. I'm quite interested in how many people at HN seem to have experience with SSRIs.

I'd be interested if people drawn to tech were for whatever reason more likely to be on them - or if there is some other casual relationship that works in the opposite direction.

<comment><USER31> A quick google search told me that ~15% of American's take anti-depressants. Depression is quite common among the general populace. I think tech sector people have access to the health care they need to get the help they need.

I'm not saying you are, but to destigmatize that statistic a bit, ~60% of Americans need corrective vision of some sort, and 33% have high blood pressure. Just because someone needs help for something doesn't mean that anything is fundamentally wrong with them.

<comment><USER4> I'll add to this by saying that going on zoloft a year ago has been like the best nootropic experience of my life. In many ways, the first 6 months were like a persistent 24/7 microdose on MDMA ..... it was incredible. I also turned my life around and accomplished some of my life's most impressive work, all while not trying to kill myself anymore!

Beyond solving a massive sudden depression, it was actually quite enhancing. I felt like I was in the movie limitless. Given the pathways SSRIs target in the brain, I'd say they have similar benefits to all of that SV legacy around psychedelic use....

Sadly, things normalized and the burst of awesome tapered off. Now the medication is the new normal, and skipping doses brings the depression back, just not nearly as bad as it was. Hopefully some day we will learn how to tweak it so the immensely positive experiences last forever.

These days, I no longer think of antidepressants as any kind of crutch. If anything, it is another tool in the transhumanists toolbox allowing the human body to perform better than nature has provided.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Tapering to mitigate discontinuation syndrome is standard practise in country of publication and has been for a long time, why is this news.

The suicidal ideation listed as a side-effect on packets of SSRI's is almost entirely due to people deciding to go "cold turkey".

</comment><comment><USER33> Reading about the withdrawal symptoms I have to wonder why people arent up in arms about it as with the so called opioid crisis. Different to opiods, SSRI are meant to be taken for long periods. The SSRI withdrawal seems to just be accepted as a part of the treatment.

<comment><USER34> Having experienced antidepressant withdrawal syndrome and having lost a friend to opioid addiction. I would say that comparing the two is preposterous.

<comment><USER33> Thats comparing the effects on friends an family with the effects on the user. Which in turn, is a bit unfair. It wouldnt be much usefull to talk about people who got suicidal because of SSRI side effects either. It is a rare side effect that might happen and not something that apparently happens regularly like withdrawal.

edit: I am not looking for a moral equivalence here but didnt have another example where addiction and physical withdrawal is accepted beforehand for a treatment.

<comment><USER34> Sorry I don´t follow you.

<comment><USER33> If you take properly prescribed opioids it is unlikely you get addicted, withdrawal symptoms or die. Those are issues stemming from miss use. Personally induced or by a careless physician. The exception is in palliative care and chronic pain where it still beats the alternative.

Apparently you get SSRI withdrawal from normal prescribed use. And its not surprising if you consider how long people have to take antidepressants.

I am a bit shocked, that something as commonly prescribed as SSRI have such severe withdrawal symptoms from normal use. Of the top of my head, i dont know of many kinds of prescription drugs that cause a withdrawal once you finish your regiment.

<comment><USER34> You view of these things don't converge with my experiences at all. The flue- like 'withdrawal' from ssri's is not nice, but it is peanuts compared to drugs with a misuse potential like opioids. Opioids rewrite your brain's reward system, the withdrawals are excruciating, and your former addiction will be a part of you for the rest of your life.

As I wrote having first and second hand experience with both kinds of withdrawal I think talking the danger of opioids down while talking ssri's up is wrong and dangerous.

<comment><USER33> And I think its wrong and dangerous to lump together the side effects of opiod miss use and the side effects from proper prescribed regiments. By all means, Opiod miss use is dangerous. Nothing new here, we as humanity have known that for centuries by now. But I think its only reasonable to point out, that withdrawal being an expectable side effect of a SSRI regime is extremely scary. That there is a insane panic about even medical use of Opiods while no one blushes an eye about that kind of severe expectable side effects is worrying.

Sure they are not comparable in risk, but the hurdle for a SSRI prescription is also quite a bit lower then the one for Opiod prescription.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I was super depressed until I discovered Ketamine, so I took my credit card and started getting Ketamine sessions which costs roughly 600 dollar per session.

I was shocked to see how much it benefited me for chump change sum of 600 dollars.

SSRIs never worked for me to begin with. I did many other illegal drugs like Amphetamine, Weeds, Meta amphetamine they helped but only in short term.

<comment><USER36> How long does one "ketamin session" work? Is it normal for this to be so expensive?</comment></comment>


Your customers react to colors based on their culture - <AUTHOR> http://www.whatmakesthemclick.net/2011/01/12/100-things-you-should-know-about-people-51-you-react-to-colors-based-on-your-culture/

<comment><USER2> I can't for the life of me work out why that infographic is in the shape of a wheel, instead of a list with the actual meanings written next to it instead of numbers and a key.

<comment><USER3> A matrix would be much more usable indeed, but maybe the author thought colors should always be shown in 'color wheels'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The colour wheel is interesting. Although, I wonder about "Asian" being distinct from "Japanese" and "Chinese", and I wonder why they didn't at least put these adjacent to each other, and Eastern European adjacent to Western/American.</comment>


Ask HN: Recommendations for artifacts repository management – other than Nexus? - <AUTHOR> We have been looking for a self-hosted repository management software for managing our (Maven) artifacts. We had heard good words about Sonatype Nexus[1] and a few days back we decided to check out their paid version of product. The impression and the experience dealing with their support team while trying to do that has been underwhelming. For one, their product page doesn't clearly say what each product does (other than some highly abstracted words). We had a few questions about the products they offer and the features, so we sent them a mail to the email id they listed on their page. The questions were pretty basic. Their response to it was to first ask for a phone number to have a phone conversation with us. We explained to them that we prefer email conversation and then they wanted to know what company we work for etc... All we wanted was a clarification of a few questions that we asked about their product features.
Not really happy with this experience and we don't really want to end up dealing with this kind of conversations if/when we run into important issues that we might need help for, after we buy the product. To be clear, this is more about the way they tried to deal with the questions we asked, than the product itself. It was as if they were more eager to try and get more information of how big a company we were instead of trying to answer straightforward questions we asked. They did ultimately send us the answers, but it took a while to get it out of them.
We haven't yet decided whether or not to use Nexus and would like to see if anyone here has any experience with other self-hosted repository management software (especially when dealing with Maven artifacts) or even their experience dealing with paid Nexus product.
[1] https://www.sonatype.com/products-sonatype <comment><USER2> Artifactory is a great alternative

[https://www.jfrog.com/open-source/#os-arti](https://www.jfrog.com/open- source/#os-arti)

</comment><comment><USER3> We use Nexus. Artifactory is the only alternative I know of.

I don't know what your requirements are, but we've gotten by just fine with the free version of Nexus and just reading the documentation. Aside from the occasional upgrade we never have to touch it.</comment>


Startups: would you sponsor a netbook? - <AUTHOR> http://ouriel.typepad.com/myblog/2009/06/startups-would-you-sponsor-a-netbook.html

<comment><USER2> I'll pay about $1 for that guy to put a FairSoftware sticker on his laptop. That sounds like the most I'd spend.

Multiply that by the space on the laptop and he could make a cool $15.

Somehow, the million-pixel homepage had more potential!

</comment><comment><USER3> I would if you were Leah Culver: <http://leahculver.com/laser-etched-laptop/>

I expect that one was viewed a lot.

<comment><USER4> Like the million-dollar homepage, this is an idea that won't work a second time. Especially for a less popular blogger with cheap-looking stickers on a cheap netbook.

<comment><USER3> That is why I said I would only do it if he was Leah Culver ;-)

I think for tech celebrities it would work again and again, though. If you know somebody tends to be in the spotlight, and tends to drag a notebook around, it seems like a good way to advertise.

Maybe if the guy created a web site that presents target bloggers, and advertisers could decide who they want to sponsor, it could work? Some of those bloggers might be able to make a convincing case. Then again the ones who go to all the conferences and are popular there can usually afford their own netbooks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> No. The likelihood of someone seeing it, remembering it for later, going to your site, and using your product is slim. I can't see a decent (read: any) ROI coming out of it.

</comment><comment><USER6> As a matter of principle - I don't pay to advertise my start-up.</comment>


Pressure mounts on aviation industry over climate change - <AUTHOR> https://m.phys.org/news/2019-06-pressure-mounts-aviation-industry-climate.html <comment><USER2> They claim aircraft lands light because it spent all fuel. Normally that's the case, but aircrafts are designed to land in emergency with fuel onboard, so that shouldn't be that big a problem.

</comment><comment><USER3> I would totally pay more to fly a carrier that used biofuel for its aircraft.</comment>


Super Dad 3D Prints $10 Prosthetic Hand for His Son on a MakerBot - <AUTHOR> http://on3dprinting.com/2013/11/24/super-dad-3d-prints-10-prosthetic-hand-son-makerbot/?utm_source=feedly

<comment><USER2> What strikes me about the video is how cool the kid is.</comment>


Ask HN: Where do you go to get your technical blog posts / articles proof read? - <AUTHOR> I'm starting to try and be more diligent about blogging: learn new things, be forced to understand them well enough to write about them, etc.
The thing is, though: I don't have a good barometer of whether or not what I'm writing actually does make sense.  I wish I could post it somewhere, ideally somewhere related to the target audience, to have it proof read and suggestions made.
Where do all of you turn to in order to get your technical posts polished up? <comment><USER2> I'd suggest have a co-worker read it.

Other than that I'd suggest a writing class or private tutoring. The other obvious recommendation is to use tools like spellcheckers, etc while composing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I'm worried about both the technical aspect -- did I correctly understand and explain this algorithm? -- and the quality of the writing -- do you understand what I meant here as I described doing a "depth-first search" on a binary tree? -- and trying to think of the best place to get both of those examined.

It feels like getting the quality down implicitly depends on getting the technical veracity sorted, but I don't write enough to really know which one is more important, hence my dilemma. :D</comment></comment>