High demand for Text Mining tools? But why? - <AUTHOR>

I got this email from TextMinr.com:

   At the moment, we are seeing extraordinary
   demand for our beta. To manage the growth of
   the user base and scale without melting down,
   there might be a wait of 3-6 weeks before we
   can send you an invite. We are very sorry for
   the wait, but you will get your invite as soon
   as possible, and we operate a "first come,
   first served"-policy, so your place in the
   queue is assured.
 This is good news but I'm surprised. This means people see great value in text mining but why? It's not intuitive how much data can be scrubbed from text. How do you even know it's doable. OK, someone is making money out of Twitter sentiment but that's done. What will you make?
Another question is if TextMinr.com is up to the task. Text mining is not like any other data mining. It MUCH more difficult. Google prediction API is just silly because there is no control over feature engineering, feature selection, instance selection, or model selection. This leaves a lot of untapped market for predictive modeling startups IF (big if!) the demand is for profit not for fun or not for academics. <comment><USER2> In the immortal words of Cave Johnson, "Why not?!" :-) Dealing with structured data is easy compared to unstructured data, but there is a vast wealth of unstructured content just waiting to be tapped. I suspect there is so much interest BECAUSE TextMinr seems like a tool to explore a topic most folks find difficult to grasp. I'm a search engine architect and it's not a "solved" issue by any means. I think there is a lot of curiosity and a lot of untapped content that has yet to be leveraged. I'm certainly interested. :)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm kind of working on something similar but in Java but so far I have just written text mining things that meet my own specific "wants", just scraping google alone presents a vast amount of data that can be extracted and evaluated to match against certain parameters. Its really something that is "need-driven" though so its all about finding the specific need and then going from there.</comment>


The rise of community-owned monopolies - <AUTHOR> https://blog.khinsen.net/posts/2020/02/26/the-rise-of-community-owned-monopolies/ <comment><USER2> > Why is all stable software technology old, and all recent technology > fragile?

Sounds like survival bias [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias) I don't want to be overly simplistic, but the fact that this isn't even considered is a problem.

Sure, some C89 and FORTRAN-77 code persists today, but how much has been lost/discarded? I'm sure we can find plenty of code written for non-standard C compilers that you couldn't even _attempt_ to run today. It is likely that 100 years for now, running Python 2 code will be easier than running some (most?) proprietary toolkits used in the 90s (the ones he didn't mention).</comment>


Heroku app to browse every animated GIF on Wikipedia - <AUTHOR> http://wikigifs.herokuapp.com

<comment><USER2> Careful browsing this at work. I saw something that cannot be unseen.

</comment><comment><USER3> this is really cool.

<comment><USER4> Thanks!

All the source for this app is online.

If you want to build your own app: I also made a simple little JSONP webservice that hands out random GIFs (<http://wikigifs.herokuapp.com/random?callback=foo>)</comment></comment>


.de root-servers are down, *.de TLDs do not resolve (german) - <AUTHOR> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/DNS-Fehler-legen-Domain-de-lahm-999068.html

<comment><USER2> Then how was it possible to read this story on the heise.DE website?

<comment><USER3> The problem is presumably being solved right now, some sites still don't work, though. Try <http://www.sueddeutsche.de/>

<comment><USER2> Works for me. But then I'm in Warsaw, so it's not _that_ far away ;)

<comment><USER3> Hm, I'm in Germany and it doesn't work for me. Seems to have something to do with provider caches lagging behind (as is alluded to in the article).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> DENIC explanation: <http://www.denic.de/typo3temp/pics/i_64bbbffdb3.jpg>

<comment><USER5> The resposible registrar does actually use exactly that image to advertise its domain services: <http://www.denic.de/domains.html>

So while not exactly a brilliant joke, it is not a -4

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> google.de works

<comment><USER7> It didn't for me for a little while.</comment></comment>


Body cameras sees complaints against police 'virtually vanish', study finds - <AUTHOR> https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/use-of-body-worn-cameras-sees-complaints-against-police-virtually-vanish-study-finds <comment><USER2> Interesting article. I hate when someone comments only to quote a paragraph of the article, but I'll make an exception because reading only the title may be polemic:

> _Researchers say this may be down to wearable cameras modifying behaviour > through an 'observer effect': the awareness that encounters are recorded > improves both suspect demeanour and police procedural compliance. > Essentially, the "digital witness" of the camera encourages cooler heads to > prevail._

</comment><comment><USER3> Can't wait for the amazing mental gymnastics that some police union will pull to not have them made mandatory.</comment>


Why Did My Patient Leave Me? - <AUTHOR> http://cancer.nautil.us/article/201/why-did-my-patient-leave-me <comment><USER2> In my case,

\- reluctance to diagnose and treat the ailment instead of the symptoms and

\- simply refusing to hear what the patient says.

I had an oozing rash break out behind my knees. The dermatologist said "That'll go away easily if you put some OTC corticosteroid cream on it." Wrong! The rash flared up within hours and nearly ate the flesh off the back of my knees. I happen to know that this indicates a fungal infection so I stopped the steroids and applied an OTC antifungal regularly. Slowly it began to heal.

A week later I had a minor bout with detergent dermatitis around my jeans pockets (happens every winter if I use a strong detergent).

Next time the dermatologist sees the residue of my scarred legs behind the knees and the "jeans-pocket" rash, I tell her that her steroid recommendation was absolutely a wrong call, what happened and how I treated the problem.

Rather than take a culture from the back of my legs (and later possibly prescribing an antifungal), she then prescribes not a tube, but a 1-pound _tub_ of corticosteroid cream and tells me to put it on all rashes (behind knees and on "pocket" rashes) for six weeks!

So I figure either she's deaf, has a serious learning disorder or flatter myself that she is trying to kill me. In any case I won't see that dermatologist again.

On the upside: I have an unopened pound jar of steroid skin cream in my refrigerator.

<comment><USER3> no disrespect to doctors but you really don't have to be that smart to become one. It's more about being willing to take out 300k in loans and stay in school until you are 30+ years old.

<comment><USER4> Mate, you couldn't be more wrong. Doctors, on the whole, are just about the smartest folks out there. Are there bad, less intelligent doctors? Sure. If you think it's as simple as "taking out 300k and staying in school until you are 30+" you're delusional and frankly don't know what you're talking about. Math, statistics, physics, chemistry, biology and on and on. These are just some of the areas doctors need to be well versed in.

<comment><USER5> While I don't think doctors are not smart, the amount of physics, math and statistics they actually learn is laughable and does not really go beyond what they already learned in a good high school. Just like in any profession over time they develop deep expertise in very specific problem areas, but that is not much different than in any other profession.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The primary reason I have left healthcare providers has been the poor quality of their administrative staff.

There are too many qualified doctors in the major metro area I live in to put up with ones where I can't quickly and efficiently make an appointment, can't get an appointment in a timeframe that is useful to me, and where their staff can't seem to successfully process routine insurance claims with major insurance providers.

Also, randomly billing me for stuff weeks or months after an appointment with cryptic explanations thoroughly pisses me off -- even it if is only $15.00 (going to get a new podiatrist over that one...).

As for actual "doctor specific" reasons for leaving a doctor, not explaining the reasoning behind his/her recommendations for me to get certain medical tests or procedures done will get me to look for another doctor. I don't actually need to fully understand the reasoning (I'm not, afterall, a doctor), but I need to know there is a reason beyond "hey, you said your elbow hurt and I think I can get the insurance company to pay for an MRI!".

<comment><USER7> > Also, randomly billing me for stuff weeks or months after an appointment > with cryptic explanations thoroughly pisses me off -- even it if is only > $15.00 (going to get a new podiatrist over that one...).

This part gets me a lot as well, and having experienced other pay-for healthcare systems, it's extremely frustrating remembering just how much I would pay in the US even when I had fair insurance through my employer. Getting a simple biopsy done on my leg resulted in a $250 upfront new patient fee, $2300 for the biopsy, then an additional $400 for lab fees some months later. Aside from the new patient fee, I had no idea or indication about any of the other fees until a bill arrived in the mail, despite asking and persisting about it throughout the visit, and since I had to take time off of work to get an appointment, I was at a loss as to how to "make a stand" to get such information.

Compared to where I've been abroad where it's been an upfront fee for walk-in visits. Appointments were needed, but it was a day or two in advance. And when I got insurance through my workplace, it was equally simple.

<comment><USER8> So 3000$ for a biopsy: ticket to Greece and back to USA : let's say 1000€. Biopsy procedure if it's ultrasound guided around 300€. Lab fee for examining the biopsy:around 200€ max, maybe less. Hotel room for 2-4 days in Thessaloniki 120€-150€ in a decent hotel. Total:1500€ or even less. All these can be done by highly and well educate medical doctors, treatment in private clinics is very good(since you are paying in cash you always get vip treatment) and o course you can enjoy a good vacation. I always said that medical tourism is the future

<comment><USER9> Obviously, the problem with this strategy is uncertainty. Part of the point of healthcare is that other people worry about it so you don't have to. Better the Byzantine, inefficient healthcare system you know than a system you don't know at all.

That said, I consider myself lucky to have been in Japan when my lung collapsed. The surgery itself was $80!

<comment><USER10> I love that japanese medical care is mostly inexpensive compared to the USA but at least 1/2 the doctors and dentists I've visited here over the last 20 years were complete quacks and would not be qualified to practice in he USA. No training to certification is required to be a nurse here. And, if you need special treatments like surgery it's common wisdom you should do your research on your own to find a good doctor a and then pay a several thousand dollar bribe to see them. (of course thats still cheaper than the USA for the same treatment)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I abandoned an orthopedist last year because I felt that he was using hard- sell tactics on me to get me to agree to surgery for my broken ankle. Basically, he had a surgery slot open in a few days and it seemed like he wanted to book it, with increasing discounts (including exploding offers!) on the surgery as I kept demurring. He was a referral from the urgent care clinic that I went to immediately following the accident, and I think they recommended him solely because he was in the same doctor/hospital network (although he did _not_ take my insurance!).

So I spent several hours doing research on orthopedic surgeons and went to visit one of the best ones at the best hospital in the city (who also happened to be in-network). He looked at my X-rays and recommended against surgery, saying that the break wasn't that bad and that it would heal fine with just the cast I was already in! He was not as personable and a bit more robotic than the other guy who was giving off the salesman vibes, but I trusted him because of my research rather than the first doc who was essentially just some random referral through happenstance.

A year has gone by now and I'm glad that I didn't get the surgery, because my ankle healed perfectly without it (the second doc was right). I would've been walking faster with the surgery, it's true, but I also would've had permanently implanted metal hardware (which can cause lifelong irritation issues), and which could have necessitated a second surgery for later removal. In hindsight I regret nothing, and of course not having the surgery was also much, much cheaper.

So if that first doctor were to ask me why I'd leave him, I'd just say that it seemed like he was placing profits above the best interests of the patient, or, more charitably, that since he's a surgeon he thinks of surgery as the solution to every problem, even when it's not necessary.

<comment><USER12> Things I have learned about orthopedists: \- they have only one tool and it is surgery. If you don't need surgery, you need to see a physical therapist. PTs know far more about soft tissue injuries and rehab than orthopedists.

\- orthopedists make money from each surgery they do. Many orthos are honest, but some areas of US have orthos who run joint replacement factories to maximize profit. In the past few months I've gotten two junk mailings from orthos advertising joint replacement. If doctors are advertising, you know their financial incentives are wrong.

<comment><USER13> Physiatrists. Physical Medicine & Rehab doctors. They're the non-surgical equivalent of orthopedists.

PT's... are fine folks. But if you want to avoid surgery and need a proper injury evaluation, you go to PM&R.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've done this, without feedback. The reason was that doctors seem to come in several varieties when it comes to bringing their ego to work and my doctor had a serious case of that. I was dehydrated after an operation and when he asked if he could do something for me I asked for some water, the doctor then ordered someone else not in the room to come and get me a glass of water. He couldn't be bothered to walk to the sink and do it for me because that sort of thing was beneath him, he was a doctor after all, not some lowly nurse.

That would have been hard to argue as sufficient reason to switch but I figured that if his primary worry in a situation where a patient has clearly expressed a need is his perception then he shouldn't have become a doctor in the first place and likely that would get in the way of him providing care.

I've talked this over with a nurse friend of mine and they totally confirmed that this is normal, doctors, especially in a hospital setting, are on top of a hierarchy that tends to self-reinforce their importance. And yes, they are important. But in the end what is most important is that they realize that the only reason they have a job is because someone else is in trouble and that some humility goes a very long way towards establishing real rapport.

The one thing that stood out for me on this subject that I read about a while ago (not sure if it was in a book or online) was that actually being in the hospital as a patient immediately made doctors a much better doctor for their patients.

Dogfooding works, even for doctors.

Another reason why people don't leave feedback: they don't want to get into an argument, they just want to switch and they already have enough on their plates and fortunately in many places they have that right.

<comment><USER15> Regarding your first point, that's especially striking in the USA. There seems to be at least 4-5 assistants (nurses, secretaries...) for each doctor. Assistants check you in; you're left waiting in a room; after a seemingly random period of time, the doctor suddenly barges in, diagnoses you faster than the Flash, and leaves just as suddenly; assistants check you out.

I get that it's very efficient to work this way, but I'm not sure I'll ever get used to it. My father, now long retired, used to be a family doctor back in France. He shared his office with 4 other family doctors + 1 secretary that they paid with their combined income to take care of their appointments. He used to spend 20 minutes in average with each client. One of his colleagues routinely spent 30 minutes.

I should ask him about his churn. :)

<comment><USER14> France has some of the best healthcare in the world. A family member was involved in a horrific truck/passenger bus accident in France near Metz and I spent the better part of a week in and out of their intensive care department visiting. I've never seen a hospital that I liked better.

Everybody was so unbelievably nice and caring it was a huge improvement over what I'd seen elsewhere.

[http://krant.telegraaf.nl/krant/archief/20020319/fotos/bin.v...](http://krant.telegraaf.nl/krant/archief/20020319/fotos/bin.venster.metzsectie.jpg)

It was a pretty bad accident (5 dead, 55 wounded of which 3 critical one of those criticals was my family) with lots of beds suddenly occupied by people not speaking French and a large multiple of that in foreigners roaming the corridors and yet they dealt with all that with grace and understanding.

<comment><USER16> I do question the sustainability of the french system though and that of many other european systems.

Its important to remember that in a state economy where healthcare is free or semi free it's operated as a cost center and thus has budgets that are politically mandated not determined by market demand at least not directly.

This leads to a number of limitations on what kind of care patients can get what machines they can buy, what medicine etc.

Not saying the US system is better but all systems have drawbacks.

<comment><USER14> Good point. I'm not too worried about France, they seem to have their priorities straight there, other countries are less stable. Especially in former Eastern European countries there are disasters happening right now, and many Western countries will have to come to terms with the cost of health care and attempting to take commerce out of it.

NL had a very good system which got replaced by something much less efficient, ostensibly because the 'market' would have been better at making things efficient where the only real change is that healthcare is now much more expensive and options are as limited as they were before.

Personally I feel a good society should take care of its sick, poor, elderly and inmates even if it costs but that's an opinion that seems to be out of fashion.

<comment><USER16> My personal suggestion for a good balanced system is that most people pay most of the cost for normal healthcare costs like going to the doctor for a checkup, most of the cost for one of things like a broken leg but that society pays for more serious and longer term situations like cancer, heart surgeries where you are supposed to stay at the hospital for a longer time.

I.e. no one should be bankrupted because they get a serious illness.

With regards to France healthcare system here is an article who seems to think it wont survive though.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-01-03/frances-h...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-01-03/frances- health-care-system-is-going-broke)

<comment><USER17> The problem is that people then tend to forgo preventive care & routine checkups if they don't have to (especially poor people), and in the long term end up costing a lot more when they do get treatment once their situation is far worse.

<comment><USER16> No thats actually not true which Denmark has lots of data to show.

It's 100% free to go to the doctor yet a lot of people don't go for checkups it's not a common thing to do.

Furthermore the situation is even worse for men over 50.

So access to healthcare has very little to do with that.

<comment><USER18> Earlier you write:

      > Its important to remember that in a state economy where
      > healthcare is free or semi free it's operated as a cost
      > center and thus has budgets that are politically mandated
      > not determined by market demand at least not directly.

and later write:

      > My personal suggestion for a good balanced system is that
      > most people pay most of the cost for normal healthcare costs
      > like going to the doctor for a checkup, most of the cost for
      > one of things like a broken leg but that society pays for
      > more serious and longer term situations like cancer, heart
      > surgeries where you are supposed to stay at the hospital for
      > a longer time.

But here

      > It's 100% free to go to the doctor yet a lot of people don't go for checkups it's not a common thing to do.

you allude to Danish data that show prospective patients do not take advantage of healthcare even if that cost is 100% subsidized.

So which is it? Does healthcare that is 100% subsidized distort demand so that people seek unnecessary care, or is demand so inelastic that people and populations who would benefit from it decline to use it?

EDIT: add third in situ quotation. Add comma in last sentence/question. Change pronoun to conjunction in last sentence; pluralize noun.

<comment><USER16> Not sure exactly what you are confused about.

I was responding to a post who claimed that if there isn't free checkup for all then people wouldn't go to get checked.

I simply pointed out that even in a country like Denmark which is 100% free people thats not the case.

So you would have to show causation between general checkups and cost of healthcare I don't think you will be able to find that.

<comment><USER18> My confusion comes because in my first two citations you suggest requiring patients to pay for most of their basic/non-life-threatening healthcare. You say this, if I'm not mistaken, because "free or semi free" healthcare is "operated as a cost center". That is, by requiring patients to pay for most of their basic healthcare, that cost center will be reduced because patients will be discouraged from seeking "unnecessary" healthcare.

On the other hand, in Denmark where basic healthcare is free, the data you allude to (but do not present) show that even then "a lot of people don't go for checkups [because] it's not a common thing to do." Additionally, you write "Furthermore the situation is even worse for men over 50."

So my confusion comes from your contradictory assertions about the effects of fully subsidized basic healthcare. Either free healthcare generates cost overruns because people seek out unnecessary treatment, or free healthcare does not generate cost overruns because people do not seek out even necessary treatment.

Your assertions about the effect of free healthcare are paradoxical, hence my confusion.

EDIT: fix typo, recast first sentence of penultimate paragraph. Remove redundant prepositional phrase from last sentence.

<comment><USER16> I am saying that because then they start paying for when they go to get treated or for checkups which allow for more money being possible to use on more serious situations.

I am not sure where you get that I want less people to go to the doctor. I just want to be able to pay for the situations you can't afford by asking for money in situations where most people can. And yes if you don't have any money then you should get help, but for people who make enough it should cost something.

So there is nothing paradoxial going on here. You just assumed I wanted fewer people to go to the doctor which I never said anything about.

<comment><USER18> That makes better sense, but covering costs of extraordinary care isn't an issue in state-provided health insurance (single payer), nor is it an issue with private healthcare insurance.

With single payer, taxes cover the cost of care for everyone. With private insurance, the costs for more expensive care is covered by the premiums of healthier individuals, which is sort of like what you suggest but does not financially punish people who get sick.

What you propose may not be workable (or humane, for that matter) because it distributes the costs of extraordinary care to people who already have more- than-routine care. Presumably these people already have paid their premiums and now would shoulder most of the cost for maladies such as broken bones.

EDIT: add missing word "workable".

<comment><USER16> It actually is an issue in both systems which is why in state-provided systems there are limits to what kind of treatments at what stages etc and in privet insurance systems there are limits to coverage.

The main premise of this discussion is that it's not possible to pay enough for healthcare. I.e. even if you taxed people 100% there still would be things they couldn't get because it has to be available to everyone and there are always new treatments being developed, new machines, new drugs.

Whether you find it humane or not is based on what you consider the end-game of healthcare.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is an interesting read. It seems doctors really believe they have a conversation with their patient whereas most patients feel that the doctor just rushes in and gives his standard recommendation without deeper thought and generally doesn't listen to them. Do doctors go to other doctors when they have a problem? Do they get more respect by other doctors? If they went to a doctor and got the same treatment as their patients typically they should see that something is going wrong.

<comment><USER20> This is definitely more at the specialist, chronic care level. Like anything else, if you have a weekly contact with them, you are much more significant than a once or twice a year visit.

<comment><USER19> Probably correct. My girlfriend just had a few surgeries. I was shocked how little time these specialists gave their patients. I bet most of them spent less than an hour thinking about the whole case. There are exceptions but we had several surgeons who stopped by a few minutes before the surgery and didn't remember anything about the case or confused cases. Then they took 3 minutes to get up to speed. They also often don't look for feedback after the surgery. Some don't even call and when you tell them that it didn't work they disappear. Also, they rarely talk to each other. So every procedure starts from scratch and the patient has to explain the case history.

I can't imagine how bad software development would be if we acted like the medical system.

<comment><USER21> I was following you until... > I can't imagine how bad software development would be if we acted like the medical system.

...which made me laugh. Until I realized you weren't sarcastic (I think).

<comment><USER22> ..but I understand his broader point - these are not deeply introspective, gifted individuals. A front line GP (and probably many 'specialists') is an auto mechanic who replaces an awful lot of ECM modules unnecessarily along to way to actually fixing the problem. In an aggressively supervised service field many of these people wouldn't make it. Doctors may get flagged when they kill enough people over a local threshold, but qualitatively dismal performance (empathy, followup, even a solid fundamental knowledge of the subject matter) is tolerated quite nicely in the system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> In my field when a customer has an environment with a problem, he or she files a ticket describing the problem to the best of their ability. Some of these customers are quite expert in accurately framing the issue, what they've done thus far, and they frequently provide addt'l information answering what would have been my next questions. Other customers are inexpert in stating the problem. Regardless of the customer's level of understanding of the issue, once we take a case (yes, we call them that) we understand it is _our responsibility_ to resolve the issue.

Doctors today are literally too busy to care. They never 'Hold the Paper' to the issue. It isn't enough for a patient to manage to have the proper insurance and reach out to a primary care physician; it's now incumbent on you to continually identify the specialist areas which may be germane to your issue and make the appointments and interpret the resulting data. You, are _the_ integral component to saving your own life, as no doctor or other medical professional is there now to provide continuity, or put any of what's happening to you into context.

I honestly think there is an opportunity for yet another layer to be inserted into American medicine - that of the patient's advocate, who is smart enough the carry the day, and who simply gives a shit.

</comment><comment><USER23> Years ago, I had a truly great primary care doctor. She had her own practice, which was typical at that time. She was caring, but above all, extremely competent. After she retired, I've yet to come across a situation remotely as good.

I think she was so good because she was allowed to be directly engaged with her patients and that resulted in some sort of feedback loop where she was always striving to stay on top of the state-of-the-art.

These days, those sorts of practices are hard to find. There's the doc-in-a- box places that dominate, and they seem surprised if you want to see the same doc rather than whoever can just see you.

There's also someone else in the room these days - the government and (practically the same thing) insurance company. The doctor / patient relationship is now more like the doctor stooge snooping on the patient relationship.

Just look at how many doctors no longer will prescribe medicine for pain due to the war on drugs. They're scared of losing their license. The collateral damage is the poor people who need strong pain management but find it increasingly hard to get it.

<comment><USER24> > Just look at how many doctors no longer will prescribe medicine for pain due > to the war on drugs. They're scared of losing their license. The collateral > damage is the poor people who need strong pain management but find it > increasingly hard to get it.

Doctors haven't stopped prescribing opioids because of the war on drugs. They've changed prescribing because opioid meds are not effective to treat long term pain, and certainly not effective in the way they were being prescribed.

People with long term pain given opioids will quickly develop tolerance to those meds, and need to increase the dose. They quickly reach dangerous levels of opioid use, often with multiple meds, and they're still not getting relief from their pain. So now they're still in pain, and they have an opioid addiction.

People with long term pain need rapid access to specialist pain clinics, with a full range of treatment including physiotherapy and prescribing, and -if needed- carefully prescribed opioids.

<comment><USER25> > Doctors haven't stopped prescribing opioids because of the war on drugs. > They've changed prescribing because opioid meds are not effective to treat > long term pain, and certainly not effective in the way they were being > prescribed.

Watch the documentary "Dr. Feelgood" ([http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5192362/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5192362/)) for a couple of very extreme, living and breathing refutations of that claim. It's not nearly cut and dried one way or the other.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think it's great for doctors to solicit feedback from departing patients to see if there is anything they could be doing better.

But on a related note: I'm not sure about the value of using patient satisfaction surveys to evaluate physician performance generally. Patients will love doctors who tell them what they want to hear, over-prescribe antibiotics, over-prescribe powerful pain killers, go along with non- vaccination, prescribe homeopathic remedies or similar nonsense.... I think most people are not in a good position to evaluate the quality of care they're getting outside of things like bedside manner, so I wouldn't pay much attention to reviews for doctors.

<comment><USER27> I saw a study of patient satisfaction across the entire healthcare field which showed that overall patient satisfaction was the highest for massage therapists, and the lowest for oncologists.

The former deliver no bad news ever, and treat to make you feel good and relaxed, the latter deliver nothing but bad news, but they probably save your life.

So what happens is that people mistake their subjective feelings for the objective quality of care, and discount the value of being alive immensely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It ain't perfect in Canada either.

I remember losing my hairs and getting patches of super smooth bald spots. Super embarrassing for a kid in a bad neighbourhood and bad school.

Went to the doctor she looked at my charts and said I was super low on iron so low that I might even die if it continues to lower. I was given iron pills.

Two months after I went to the doctor again and said my hair patches are not fixed. She looks at my chart again and said... hey you don't have low iron you have perfect iron and I never told you to take any pills.

Then upon investigation it was noted that the staff gave her wrong chart; of a pregnant woman who had a similar "feminized" version of my name.

Edit: Addendum: finally I was sent to a skin specialist who injected me with steroids for months until my patches were fixed. They said I had alopecia.

I was furious what if the said person had cancer and they started chemo on me?

Same doctor once injected my mom with the wrong fluid. To this day we don't know. We filed a complaint but she then resorted to personal attacks in her report and the "college of medicine" or whatever it's called didn't do anything. Till this day my mom has a red/purple bump on her arms.

Finlly, most other docs don't even check me out they listen to symptoms and say it's nothing, it will go away, etc while looking miserable (no doctor should watch House MD lol). Other times they solve the symptoms by tossing prescriptions at me. Said symptoms always keep coming back and I keep getting more of the same prescriptions.

Thanks for the free health"care" Canada.

<comment><USER29> Bureaucratic mishaps and mediocre care providers are bound to occur in any sufficiently complex system.

<comment><USER30> Have you looked at the work in the 2000s on preventing medical errors, e.g. [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/31safe.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/31safe.html)?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I don't know if my doctor would notice. She sees so many patients it's hard to get in when I need to, so I end up seeing whoever is available anyway. That seems increasingly common,large systems with overworked generals and huge administrative headaches. And it's not like we can switch, we've got insurance.

</comment><comment><USER32> I don't bother explaining to doctors why I switched.

Every time I did in the past they got personally offended and refused to address their flaws, so why bother?

Also I am almost convinced good medics in certain fields (endocrinology for example) are almost nonexistent.

<comment><USER33> Most endocrinologist only ever see diabetics and people with thyroid disorder. They are often quite lost when they get to see something else.

<comment><USER32> I have thyroid problem... Endocrinologists even then failed to help for most part.

I found only one willing to help, and only in an half-assed manner. I still go most for formality and legality reasons, but I am mostly treating myself as I want now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I have luckily been very healthy in my life, but I have always believed that the relationship between a doctor and a patient is a collaboration with the aim being to help the patient make the most appropriate decision for their needs.

Too many doctors seem to be of the opinion they know best and the patient should just do as they say - even if they are correct technically it is not their life that is on the line. The patient is always right.

<comment><USER35> Not sure the patient is always right but the docs are often wrong. Collaboration probably works best. The docs have more medical knowledge but the patient may know more about their particular condition. I recently went to a dentist with a broken tooth and he wanted to do a root canal not because their was any evidence it was infected but because he thought it might be and why not from his point of view. From mine I'd rather wait and see if it was - it wasn't. That kind of stuff seems quite common.

<comment><USER19> There may also be quotas to fulfill for certain procedures. I often get that impression from dentists when they push for something that doesn't really make sense.

<comment><USER36> Quotas for procedures is a very interesting topic. Doctors (in the UK at least) carrying out appendectomies consider a negative appendectomy rate (NAR) of around 20% to be optimum. The NAR being the proportion of appendectomies where it turns out the appendix wasn't the cause of the symptoms.

The reason this is considered optimum is that a doctor hitting 0% NAR (which you might naively assume is best) is most likely being overly conservative and missing some genuine cases of appendicitis, which as we all know can be life threatening if left untreated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The author of this article is living in the some 'It's a Wonderful Life' twilight zone. Medical professionals now, generally speaking, don't care about you. Actually they care about you moderately for the time you are positioned directly in front of them, so if you've got an easily treatable malady there's hope for you. But if you are frightened and have an abdominal issue you know is not normal, then you're cast out into the Wilderness of Specialists who put you through a series of diagnostics and if these tests don't flash positive for something, you are on your own. Doctors don't care and are not your friend; a majority are goobs with no troubleshooting skills at all. They know to prescribe the blue powder for this condition, and the red powder for the other thing. They do not understand, nor do they care to. The Chinese physician of 600 years ago may well have served you better. Marcus Welby is dead; actually he's a fiction, he never was.

</comment><comment><USER37> I'd say in a bar to this author dr

1\. Kittens die

2\. You have a unique position to help people.

1\. If you have ever cared for 4-7 week kittens then you know sometimes they just die. Don't be surprised when they do. They simply do. One moment they seem healthy and the next-they are gone.

Your patients will not come back. They just won't. Don't be surprised when they don't come back. It happens. You will not know why. It's part of life like kittens dying.

2\. You help people. You give them their life back. You are One of the few people who can make someone better. You improve. You prolong happiness. You give hope. It's often invisible to you. Yet it is real. It's real when your patients can travel, cook, walk, earn a living, hug grandchildren, breathe another breath.

I can't do that. Most people can't do that. But you do. Every day.

So who gives a ### that you don't know why the kitten left your practice. It never changed all the good you did and all the good you can and will do.

So... Forget the kitten.

<comment><USER30> You are correct to forget _this_ kitten, but that doesn't in any way mean you shouldn't research ways to stop kittens dying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> In my case it was because we weren't making progress towards turning a long list of symptoms into a diagnosis, compounded with some rather ill-informed and slightly offensive remarks about LGBT people and HIV/Aids.

</comment><comment><USER39> We've created a patient feedback software ([http://www.repcheckup.com](http://www.repcheckup.com)) that allows doctors to automate their patient feedback by sending email and text rating/review solicitations.

On average, less than 5% of all patients seen will leave feedback. When prompted, we've seen this jump to 10-15% of patients seen, although we do have a few who have much higher conversion ratios.

(This is likely due to the doctor introducing the feedback concept at the end of the consult.)

What has been most interesting to see, contrary to the story, is that most doctors and healthcare professionals are still on the fence about implementing these sorts of feedback loops.

We find often times that buy-in does not occur until the professionals can see "comparisons" as to how others are doing.

There are also a ton of hurdles to implementation of these types of feedback loops, due to HIPAA and other requirements that often makes things near impossible.

This makes the whole thought of introducing this into a practice daunting for some and that's why usage of feedback loops like these are not already widespread.

Hopefully, as legacy practitioners give way to a new generation of medical and Heath professionals, patient feedback will be more widely solicited and used.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is a growing and very important aspect of value-based care, and really factors into the discussion of quality that will be more a part of reimbursement than it ever has been. The article focused mostly on the provider him or herself, but patients also take into account the entire experience, including office staff, scheduling and billing procedures, etc.

Shameless self promotion: this is the exact problem my co-founder and I are working to address: [https://www.perspexilabs.com/](https://www.perspexilabs.com/) (site currently looks broadly-focused, but we're targeting medical).

We're finding patients are actually _very_ happy to give feedback, especially when given a neutral medium to discuss their experiences and when doing so very quickly after an interaction. The super-tight feedback loop not only makes everyone more satisfied, but it also has the chance to improve quality of care too.

<comment><USER24> People interested in this might also like the "Friends and Family test", which is used extensively in the English NHS.

[http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/Pages/nhs- frie...](http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/Pages/nhs-friends-and- family-test.aspx)

[https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/pe/fft/](https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/pe/fft/)

<comment><USER40> That's virtually the exact same thing as the question we're asking, which is virtually exactly the same as NPS (net promoter score). Thank you for the links, I hadn't seen those ones before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Not that the author of the linked piece will see this thread, but my experience has been that those patients who leave for personal reasons, as opposed to logistical reasons, e.g., changed insurance, moved away, etc. are usually not missed. My office staff will say, "We sent Ms. So-and-so's records over to Dr. Xyz" I'll say, "Gee, that's too bad." Almost invariably the reply comes back, "No, he can have her. She's impossible." (Of course, they're nice to me, but the office staff gets a more realistic picture.) So it tends to be that people who appreciate my style and personality hang around.

</comment><comment><USER42> As someone who deals with chronic joint pain, getting opiod pain relief right now is a fiasco.

It is funny: prescribe pain relief, then act like I'm an addict? Give me a break. Who is selling the opiod epidemic story ad nauseum?

<comment><USER43> I have had severe chronic pain for many years as well. I use opioids but for a very short duration. It is a huge pain to get off them when you take them for a while. Max dosage of medical marijuana (cbd and indica not sativa) and synthetic opioids like tramadol not used daily works best for me. Current political climate is a no no to all opiates which is why it's so hard to get them now and it is awful for those with lots of pain, but doctors really did prescribe them too much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> it can be more rewarding to ask happy customers what they like about you.

</comment><comment><USER45> > "Why Did My Patient Leave Me?"

I'm seriously wondering how many doctors will ask themselves this question, or even notice that their patient is gone.

</comment><comment><USER46> So, in this sense, vaccination should be an individual choice? This is something which concerns the individual, but has consequences for society as a whole.

<comment><USER14> > So, in this sense, vaccination should be an individual choice?

Emphatically: YES. Bodily integrity is something that is very high on the list of things that a person should have a say over. Whether they do it because they are mis-informed, dumb, irrational or religious doesn't matter, they _still_ should have the final say over whether or not they get a specific injection or not.

There are many things that concern the individual that have consequences for society as a whole, in fact, it is very hard to point at a single thing that concerns an individual that has absolutely no consequence for society. And many of those things are regulated to benefit society. But your body is yours and yours alone and that's a good thing even if there are negative consequences for society.

Fortunately the anti-vaxxers are a small minority instead of a large majority so the risk is somewhat controllable and fortunately the only people at risk are those that have not been vaccinated yet (a risk that for many diseases is extremely small) so the consequences for society as a whole are manageable.

If that should change dramatically then this should be revisited but for now I'm pretty happy to support this even though I would never apply it to myself or my children (who, ironically, don't get to chose because the argument isn't really framed right, it's not an individual choice but in almost all cases a choice for a parent about their child...). This also ties in with religious freedom, and as an atheist you might find it surprising that I'm a big proponent of that, I don't believe in any of this but I will definitely defend the right of others to believe in whatever they want, including in things that may make them make sub-optimal choices when it comes to their own health or the health of their kids.

If you start to take away those rights you will end up with a very unhealthy society, far more unhealthy (and unhealthy on a different plane) than the society that has to deal with some actual health issues in a small part of their population.

<comment><USER47> > the only people at risk are those that have not been vaccinated

Remember that this set includes people that _cannot_ receive the vaccine because of e.g autoimmune disorders, serious allergic reactions, _etc_. These people need the herd immunity to keep the general risk of infection low. As long as the number of anti-vaxxers is _very small_ , they similarly benefit from the herd immunity as "free riders".

Once the number of free riders crosses a threshold[1], non-linear effects can rapidly amplify the spread of the disease among the population. Preventing any disease from gaining a "critical mass" in the population is an important part of how they work.

> Fortunately the anti-vaxxers are a small minority

Unfortunately that isn't really true in some areas.[2]

> so the consequences for society as a whole are manageable.

That management has already started to fail in CA (and other areas), where the rapid decrease in vaccination rates cause measles and whooping cough outbreaks[3].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Mechanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Mechanism)

[2] [https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6341a1.htm?s_cid...](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6341a1.htm?s_cid=mm6341a1_w)

[3] [https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2014/09/30/in- wealth...](https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2014/09/30/in-wealthy-la- schools-up-to-of-parents-exempt-kids-from-vaccines)

<comment><USER14> Sure. That's all true. But just like you could have a perfect society without any unsolved crimes by monitoring everything and everybody even in their homes there is a balance to be struck between the right to self determination and the obligation to partake in certain things that society will impose on you by way of force if necessary.

I believe that that line is drawn pretty accurately at the moment, there is a strong push towards vaccination, there is education and there are all kinds of programs to make sure it happens. And yet _we can not force this onto people that don 't want it_. I'm sure that there are plenty of people that would rather see this resolved 'for the greater good', I'm just not one of those people and I feel quite strongly about this even if it is a right I myself would never make use of because I disagree with the basic premises of those that want it that way.

But I recognize their rights and will defend them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Ok, now this is just being obtuse.

Parent post said single payer encourages checkups.

You said "but there are still people that don't get checkups in Denmark".

Those two points are completely orthogonal. Single payer encourages checkups, yes. Still some people won't get them, yes.

Drop the sophistry.

<comment><USER48> This breaks the HN guidelines against being uncivil and calling names in arguments. Please don't do that, regardless of how wrong someone else is.

We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14120716](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14120716) and marked it off-topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> A good doctor should always tell the patient how his disease could have been prevented.</comment>


The Best Hardware Is Not A Perk - <AUTHOR> http://mcdowall.info/the-best-hardware-is-not-a-job-perk

<comment><USER2> Actually, more often than not 'Best Hardware' would mean that your CEO is an Apple fan boy. And you would end up with a glossy screen and an 8GB Macbook.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't agree at all. Maybe it shouldn't be categorized as a perk but many companies purchase standard equipment and expect exceptional performance. There's nothing wrong with telling people you recognize that they need exceptional tools to do an exceptional job. It certainly doesn't mean they aren't valued.

</comment><comment> not-giving-up _You are expected to work 8-12hr or longer days,_

If you're working 12-hour days (and not getting a C-level equity slice to compensate), month in, month out, then it doesn't matter what hardware you'll have, because you'll be reduced to an unproductive puddle of flesh after enough time, anyway...

</comment><comment><USER4> 'pro' is what you should expect. best is marketing lingo.

<comment><AUTHOR> A very good point.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why is Bitcoin so volatile? - <AUTHOR>

Why does this happens? Large amount of BTC moving? Is this a manipulation by the large marketplaces such as Mt Gox, etc?<p>What are your theories? <comment><USER2> Thin market. Market depth is easily overlooked.

Imagine you have 1M shares of your smallish company's "public" OTC stock, last traded at $0.10. Nice, you've got $100K right?

Usually that is until you try to sell. Your first sale might go off at $0.09 due to the spread, 1000 shares later and it's already $0.08, 10,000 shares later $0.07, etc or worse. You've chewed through the bids quickly and ended up with a lot less money that you thought you were going to get. The solution of course is to use a limit order - it won't guarantee you get a sale, but it will guarantee your price won't be compromised on any sale that occurs.

This can quickly happen on the buy side too; an increase in demand can lead to a rapidly increasing price. That's why "penny stock" newsletters are fertile ground for pump and dump schemes.

As a currency, bitcoin fits the "penny" category. Major currencies transact perhaps trillions of dollars per day. Bitcoin market participation is microscopic in comparison.

</comment><comment><USER3> For one thing, the price was almost completely driven by speculation. That's not a problem in itself, betting on the future of a new technology is something this site is devoted to. But the excitement got way ahead of the actual adoption in this case, so the price has nothing meaningful supporting it.

Bitoin (or more accurately cryptocurrencies in general) are a revolutionary technology that will change the way we do business. But the network isn't there yet. It will be, someday, but someday is down the road. It's not overnight riches, though some were treating it that way.

Another factor is that mtgox, the main exchange platform, simply cannot handle large loads. So when there's a panic, it's made much, much worse by Gox's inability to keep up. People can't see what's really happening, and they panic sell at market rates, which just sends the price down further.

If Gox were perfect, we'd still see big swings, but they'd probably be a fraction of what they are now.

I think (I hope) that the gold rush mentality will be quieted now. Then Bitcoin can grow at a more reasonable rate for a while. It might fail, but we all win if more cryptocurrency infrastructure is figured out and built up.

</comment><comment><USER4> Yes, there is manipulation of the price via DDoS. MtGox has said so. But the exchange rate would still be highly volatile and momentum-based without that manipulation. Almost all of the current exchange rate is speculation, not intrinsic value. It is the first successful cryptocurrency, and no one knows what's going to happen.

</comment><comment><USER5> When the stock market drops more than 10%, trading is temporarily halted. This addresses technical issues and stops a potential panic. Bitcoin has no such controls. It looks like a grand social experiment. For everyone clamoring for a completely unregulated, decentralized free market, you got it with Bitcoin. Enjoy.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think the volatility is a product of uncertainty about security and (recently) massive speculation

</comment><comment><USER7> I think the volatility stems from people misusing the currency.

Bitcoin was designed to be a currency, a means of immediate exchange, however it is becoming more and more apparent that people are using it as a short term (possibly long term) investment.

</comment><comment><USER8> Too many people rely on MtGox for the price of BTC and obtaining BTC. So when they have a 10 second lag on orders people go crazy and start to dump. Which in turn snowballs down to the rest of the economy because they are locked on MtGox priced BTC'

</comment><comment><USER9> Aside from the fact that nobody knows how to value BTC?

A large number of early adopters probably have no experience trading large volumes of any security, and the of Bitcoin is likely to look very different from any existing currency/commodity.

</comment><comment><USER10> Anyone know what their systems look like? What hardware, what databases, OS'es, what language is their order matching engine written in?

And do they have any systems & developers on staff who know what they are doing?

</comment><comment><USER11> Someone thought it'd be cool to hack some popular exchanges and info sites. And now everyone sells in panic.

Most probably the hacker is short-selling BTC (or, dumping off stolen BTC from an attack)

<comment><USER12> > Most probably the hacker is short-selling BTC

How? Where can you short Bitcoin at the moment?

<comment><USER11> Convince someone to lend you BTC, or use coins you stole in an attack or otherwise illicitly acquired.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Maybe because the market has weak infrastructure and also the majority of investors (ie. mutual funds and institutions) are effectively barred from participating. Just guessing though.</comment>


"A sizable fraction of the world's crops" are from mutations induced via radiation - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28crop.html?ex=1345953600&en=c68632f9888cfb2c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

<comment><USER2> This is a really terrible description for this article. The term "mutant" simply means that it is a strain with altered genetic material. A mutation is not necessarily detrimental, and it doesn't mean that it will glow green, or sprout legs, and it certainly doesn't carry any radiation. Mutants are extremely useful for a variety of reasons, mostly for doing genetic studies. Obviously, the best way of producing mutants is to irradiate wild-type strains.

(I'm working on a PhD in the biomedical sciences)

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't understand. Given the definition of "mutant" you have provided the title strikes me as entirely true to the article. I read (and wrote) "mutations" in the sense you describe.</comment></comment>


Making Money on the Web, the How-To Way - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/technology/23howto.html

<comment><USER2> So, Metacafe payments start at $100 for 20,000 views ($5 CPM?) and YouTube is doing $1,600 for 2 million views ($0.80 CPM?).

Does anyone know the rates of other sites, and why does YouTube pay so little?</comment>


Old Military Planes Could Drop 900,000 Tree-Bombs a Day - <AUTHOR> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/10/old-military-planes-drop-900000-tree-bombs-day.php

<comment><USER2> Hmm, I wasn't under the impression that there was large areas of land in need of tree-planting. I though most de-forestation was to free the land for agriculture (in which case you'd probably need to mix the trees with land mines if they are to have any chance of actually growing)..

<comment><USER3> The other cause of deforestation is for paper and lumber.

It uses a lot of trees. Visit Washington or Oregon sometime and drive through the mountains; the earth looks scarred.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure this is correct, I think for the industry to work they have to replant trees.

<comment><USER5> A bunch of trees is not necessarily a forest.

<comment><USER2> Well, "tree-bombing" won't help much with that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would like to see pictures or schematics of these tree bombs. it says they are metal cones, but that the metal is designed to rot away. i'd think we could make a corn based plastic that has fertilizer in it or something now, which would disintegrate and not leave traces of metal everywhere. right?

I think if this had a better name like "Aerial Seeding" rather than tree- bombing, it would stand a better chance of getting off the ground (pun intended). Someone should call up lockheed and see what happened to this 11 year old plan.

</comment><comment><USER7> Why did you change the title from "could drop" to "to drop"?

<comment><AUTHOR> The original article had 'to drop' when I posted... I changed nothing except to erase the treehugger tag stuff. If any moderators read this, please change the title to 'could drop'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The original story is from 1999. It doesn't seem to have worked out.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, seems like a slow-news-day sort of article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Discovery tried this approach in their Project Earth show, [http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/project-earth/lab- books/reforest...](http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/project-earth/lab- books/reforestation/reforestation-guide1.html)

Their attempt was not successful. If I recall correctly the main problem was that it takes more force to embed the new plant in the soil than the plant can survive.

<comment><USER11> Depending on the seed. They didn't use plant seeds that were particularly impact resilient. Nuts are extremely impact resilient, using them in these pods could not only provide re-forestation, but also provide an economic source.

However, IMO the best thing we could be doing is taking areas of desertified land and fighting it. Place moisture traps connected to irrigation pipes and grow grass, just plain old grass to bind nutrients. Spread the grass and in desert areas you'll be catching dew every morning in the traps and the grass will itself.

Once you've spread the grass, spread shrubs. The Caragana arborescens is a miracle plant for these purposes. It traps moisture, it acts as a windbreak (stopping desertification), it provides a food source (peas), it's fast growing, it's a dense-spreader. Another benefit is that it can support honey bees, which again provide food but also could increase fertility of any future farm plantations.

<comment><USER12> This geo-engineering reminds me of this article on Darwin's terraforming of some volcanic islands.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11137903>

It is a really good idea. I wonder how well it would work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> A trained up tree planter can do between 1500 and 3000 trees a day, day in day out depending on the terrain. My friend did this for her summer and filled me with stories that I was too drunk to remember properly. Here's an reddit iama on the topic.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/d8a0t/iama_former_tree...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/d8a0t/iama_former_tree_planter_i_have_planted_nearly/)

<comment><USER14> Yes, but you can't extract money from the military-industrial complex that way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This would kill a human if it hit them. Can't see it ever being used in a non war situation.

</comment><comment><USER16> What??

</comment><comment><USER17> This is such a great idea. Let's just hope no one on the ground gets hurt!!

<comment><USER17> Wow... why so many downvotes? Not that I care about karma.</comment></comment>


Stranded at the airport? Don't forget Rule 240 - <AUTHOR> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22900119/

<comment><USER2> Actually, as it turns out, the Rule 240 has been phased out over the years, as the carriers are no longer required by regulation to maintain one.

[http://www.smartertravel.com/travel- advice/rule-240-fading-f...](http://www.smartertravel.com/travel- advice/rule-240-fading-fast.html?id=2350024)

And, ultimately, you should look in the detailed "contract of carriage" on the airline website (or on the back of your paper ticket, if you have one) to see what the airline's obligations truly are.

Also, "weather" can happen anywhere in the country and still affect your flight, even it's not where you're traveling. If your flight requires an aircraft that is arriving from another city where there is a weather problem, or even if there was a weather problem earlier in your city and now the backlog of flights is greater than the number of arrivals and departures that an airport can handle, the delays can stack up over multiple cities. The airlines can't afford to keep equipment (and crew!) buffers at each airport to absorb these delays.

<comment><USER3> Did you read the whole post? The first part of what you said almost mimics what the author said.

<comment><USER2> I will admit I did not read the _whole_ post. I've seen so many of these "reporters" do their little bits about Rule 240 that they all sort of blend together for me.'

Also, everyone should read <http://dir.salon.com/topics/ask_the_pilot/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Before anyone downmods hhm for a 'non-relevant' post, consider this: you're flying into Mountain View (San Jose or SF) for the YCombinator interview the day of. Say your flight gets delayed because of the 'weather' but another airline is flying on schedule to the Bay Area.. you will remember Rule 240 and thank HHM. :)

Too bad I couldn't use Rule 240 to argue my way into a free flight on my way back from Novembers YC interviews.. I can picture the airline agent look all smug and say "but sir, your flight was yesterday". Oops!

</comment><comment><USER5> Point is: Airline employees have some freedom to do some things to help you that you might not have thought of. Ask nice and you never know what you might get. I've been "240'ed" twice now without ever knowing this "rule", just by asking nicely.

<comment><AUTHOR> I had heard this before. I know a guy who commented jokingly to some of the employees that it would be nice to sit on a first class seat (he was with another person), at some time before entering the plane. When the time come to enter the plane, he and the other guy were sent directly to first class service, no further questions, nothing at all, by this employee.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Yep, I invoke rule '420' when stuck at an airport

</comment><comment><USER7> 240 is easy to remember, just swap the two first digits of 420</comment>


The 1,000-hour rule (2009) - <AUTHOR> http://www.pgbovine.net/1000-hour-rule.htm <comment><USER3> I have my own take on this - if you triple-Pareto the 10k hours rule you end up with 80 hours of work responsible for 51.2% of your skill. I round it up and call 100-hours rule: if you put one hundred hours of actual practice into something it might not make you an expert, but you'll be proficient and/or good enough to impress people around you.

I started applying this to random things, and I think one could cut it down to even 10 hours for things one would just want to have a familiarity with. It's surprising how much progress can you make in few initial hours of practice. I could never toss a coin without it landing in completely random places or hitting someone. After just 3-5 hours of practice total over span of few days I learned how to toss various coins and catch them with one (the same) hand, and I could even spin them in ways that make or don't make sound on demand.

So my take is: apply 10-hour rule to random stuff you fancy, things that could make good party tricks, etc. Apply 100-hour rule to things you end up caring about enough that you want to be proficient in them.

<comment><USER4> If we combine your rules of thumb with the original essay and the 10,000 hour rule, we get a rough order-of-magnitude scale of work and levels of ability:

      * 10 hours: familiar
      * 100 hours: proficient
      * 1000 hours: good
      * 10000 hours: expert

Not perfect, of course, but it's sort of intriguing in its simplicity.

<comment><USER5> Ha. The marketing/consultant's version.

1 hour = familiar (heard of it) 10 hours = proficient (1 day) 100 Hours = "good" (2 weeks) 1000 Hours = "expert" (6 months)

Although a general rule of thumb (that is true) is 3 months of full time work on a topic makes you "conversant"\--good enough to pass yourself off as an expert to the unsuspecting. OF course, YMMV.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Given the 10,000 hour rule as generally true (at least in spirit), what's very difficult and seldom discussed is just how hard it is to get there at anything worthwhile once you're passed a certain point in life.

Why? Because job.

Having gone through college and taken work terms between years, I saw this first-hand: after you're done 9 to 5 for that paycheck (+food, +commuting, +exercise, +social life), _good luck_ finding 4 hours a day for building your skills at something meaningful - or starting a side project. You have to sacrifice a ton, or say goodbye to full-time work. While a lot of graduate students won't outright admit it, I get the feeling this is a big motivator for a lot of people "delaying the real world".

(BTW, 4 hours a day means an actual 4 hours of high concentration and high output, which can take a full working day as anyone with a day job will attest.)

And then you get people who look down on you for "delaying the real world", and so many people who do anything other than a 9-5 after basic college feel guilty for doing so. I used to look down on those people too quite frankly (lazy bums, you don't get to learn interesting things while I fix this bullshit Perl script). But now I get it.

To me, this is the best argument for basic income, although I'm still not sold on it. How can we have a passionate society of master craftsmen and artisans when we're busy inventing bullshit jobs for people to fill, so they can support themselves?

A big caveat is if somehow the stars align and your work contributes to mastery at your craft. The odds actually aren't nearly so bad if you're in tech. As I alluded to above, they didn't work out so great for me, at least initially. Web and app development, I found out, isn't my thing.

As some final anecdotal data, it's fairly well-known that the Dutch have a disproportionately high amount of world-class DJs ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dutch_DJs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dutch_DJs)). In examining this anomaly, one finds out that the Dutch offer disproportionately more grants and funding for music and the arts. So people can take those years they would have otherwise spent in typical 9-5's and instead focus on DJ-ing.

</rant from someone who would rather not be job hunting>

<comment><USER7> It's interesting you didn't mention family at all. Having kids is a huge commitment of time.

I think a good take-away from your rant (plus the consideration of family) is that we need to be talking more about making time for things. Too often we talk a great deal about what can be done in a few hours a day, but when it comes to making that time, we just say, "If it's important to you, you'll make the time."

We should be looking at ways to maximize the use of very small chunks of time. I may not be able to commit even a single hour of dedicated time per day... but I can certainly do something for a few minutes here and there throughout the day which adds up to an hour. How can we make that kind of practice more effective?

<comment><USER8> Being involved in raising your kids takes a huge amount of time.

BUT - the best way to raise kids is to bring them _into your life_ , not leave your life to do kid things, so that huge block of time is not "lost" to your kids at the cost of your own interests.

Obviously not all projects are suitable to sharing with a 4-year-old (learning HTML? probably not), but more than you might think (getting exercise? yes. learning an instrument? yes. learning a foreign language? oh yes. photography, sketching, painting, sculpture? yes. training a seeing-eye dog? yes. house repair kind of things? many of them, yes).

Even pretty little kids can learn to work with dangerous tools (they'll be _really_ good about following safety rules when they realize how much you'll let them do as long as they're safe).

I see lots of parents who think spending time with their kids involves sitting and watching some loathsome cartoon with them. Honestly, if you're creative about bringing them into your world, instead of you going into the (artificial, invented) childhood world that's been set up for them, it's better for everyone.

<comment><USER9> When I was a small child my dad taught me how to take apart motorcycle engines, while my mom taught me QBASIC and getting around in DOS.

You'd be surprised at how much children can learn even at a very young age if you don't make it look harder than it is.

<comment><USER10> Or even simply because you do it. Not making it look harder than it is is a step up from simply having a lack of fear of getting your hands dirty and trying things. Taking your time, having a notebook and/or a digital camera and you can pretty much take anything apart with a reasonable chance that you can put it back together again.

I first got my taste of powertools when I was 12, visited a friend of my moms who didn't bat an eye at letting me use his big electric drill _after_ showing me how dangerous the thing was. Proper respect for tools is half the battle, after that you'll make sure you hold them well instead of half-assed and have the business end pointed where it can do no harm.

Two days with that guy did more for my sense of shop safety than a few years cumulative after that. The level of trust both increased my abilities and my responsibility. After that it was back home where none of that was allowed.

I let my 11 year old roam the workshop at will after some instruction and I never regretted it.

He built me a custom bike a week ago, so I guess that paid off well :)

<comment><USER9> That is awesome!

I was only 4 years old when my dad trusted me around scary things like torque wrenches and lathes. It wasn't until I was 10 that we were able to put together the whole engine again.

I feel like it is kinda cheating at life to have really, really good parenting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I like the doable attitude of this - and the words hold true. Very few 'inspirational' things I read actually manage to break things down to something reasonable. Once the teacher strikes here (In norway) stop, I start language classes. The teacher doing the initial questions told me I have 550 hours of required language classes - but then made sure I know I get up to 3000, with the note that 550 hours really isn't enough to learn a language and be good. Just enough to survive. The same principle applies here - that first 1000 hours of instruction will be absolutely priceless for me. I'll get good.

<comment><USER12> 1000 focused hours for most European languages is really good, see for example these quotes:

 _Deutsche Welle suggests A1 is reached with about 75 hours of German tuition, A2.1 with about 150 hours, A2.2 with about 225 hours, B1.1 with about 300 hours, and B1.2 with about 400 hours.[5]

Cambridge ESOL said that each level is reached with the following guided learning hours: A2, 180–200; B1, 350–400; B2, 500–600; C1, 700–800, and C2, 1,000–1,200.[6]

Alliance Française has stated students can expect to reach CEFR levels after the following cumulative hours of instruction: A1 60–100, A2 160–200, B1 360–400, B2 560–650, C1 810–950, C2 1060–1200.[7]_

([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_R...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages#Relationship_with_duration_of_learning_process))

For those who don't know about CEFR, C1 is basically fluent. It might take a bit longer to learn Mandarin, Russian or Arabic, but it's just by a reasonably small constant factor (based on FSI numbers that I can't find right now).

They key is to make the practice good practice, and not just mindless repetition.

<comment><USER13> > They key is to make the practice good practice, and not just mindless > repetition.

This - it needs to be emphasized more. I feel a bit pedantic when I make this point, but I really think it's crucial.

If you read the original research, it's not 10000 hours of just practice. There is a reason many people can play golf for 30 years (and probably accumulate 10000+ hours of play), but still never even get close to shooting par. The term they use in the research is _deliberate_ practice. The quality of the practice is just as important as the practice itself. Practice does not make perfect, practice makes things a habit. If you develop the wrong techniques in an area, you'll reach plateaus and hit a point where you can't progress. Deliberate practice requires tasks that are designed to stretch you in specific areas and have fast feedback loops so you are able to correct mistakes quickly. This is easier to apply in some domains (music, sports, etc...) than others.

<comment><USER14> Absolutely right, Anders Ericsson has called Malcolm Gladwell out for misinterpreting his results for this exact reason. Not sure how widely available this is for playback but "More or Less" did a great podcast on this earlier this year: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01sqly1](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01sqly1)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Slightly tangential, but the latest You Are Not So Smart podcast is about practise and how it changes your brain, particularly with regard to the 10,000 hour 'rule'. It's well worth a listen (and so are all the previous episodes if you've not heard it before).

[http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/08/14/yanss- podcast-030-how...](http://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/08/14/yanss- podcast-030-how-practice-changes-the-brain-with-david-epstein/)

<comment><USER16> Thanks for posting that. One of the best things I've ever listened to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is a pretty solid rule.

I've taken a similar approach with my kids, but they're not really old enough to report back any results. I didn't round down to 1k hours or look at 10k seriously.

I've been trying to teach them that it's important to take the journey to get actually good at something. You pick up a lot of things on the way to becoming proficient.

I let my oldest pick something to get good at this year. She went with fast pitch softball. (she's 8)

She's threw about a thousand pitches the first month with me having her get out there. Since then (I thought that was too much) she's been the one to get me out there to catch her and that number has settled on about 500 a month.

With how many pitches you get in a normal little league (farm league softball) game, she basically pitched about 5 years worth of seasons over summer.

It'll be fun to watch this next season. I don't think anyone will expect a 4' 50 pound girl to throw as hard as she does.

<comment><USER18> I don't know about softball, but I played baseball from the time I was 4 until I was 19 and the biggest change in youth baseball has been monitoring pitch counts for youth pitchers. If I remember correctly, Softball pitchers usually have trouble with their knees while baseball pitchers have arm trouble. I still have arm trouble and I had parents who put my safety first and did the best they could to take care of my arm. Please do some research on the topic to make sure your daughter doesn't hurt herself. I only speak up because I saw it happen over and over again growing up. Youth sports are awesome, I got to travel all over the country playing, but I still have issues almost 10 years after quitting.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, I cut back significantly after talking to a cousin of mine who played college ball.

At first I was a bit frustrated because she was really interested in pitching, as was roughly half of her team. So when you play 3 games a week for a 4 month season, if you spread it around (like you should at a young age - <USER2> everyone a chance) you have each kid throwing about 2 innings a week. (6 inning games, ~8 kids who want to pitch on a 14 player team)

What's your thoughts on the right amount? Maybe a game a week and really concentrate on form and technique? (No fancy pitches, just straight with accuracy.)

<comment><USER18> It's difficult for me to say. After I wrote the first comment, I remembered hearing long ago that the reason softball pitchers typically don't have arm trouble is that the under handed motion is a natural motion, while overhanded is very unnatural. With baseball you typically don't want to do anything that causes extra tension on the elbow (i.e. curve balls) at a young age. So, I only threw fastballs and change-ups until I was in middle school. You actually can cause a lot of ball movement with altering grip pressure. (but that's off topic.) I'd recommend talking to an orthopedic specialist if you have access. I had a bad case of tendonitis in my early teens and I remember seeing an otho doctor who had dealt with a lot of sports injuries. Also, reach out to a local college coach and ask. As always, be careful with advice off the internet, people are idiots. I know that from middle school on, we had very structured "bullpens" that would increase in pitch count as we got closer to the season starting up and that helped a lot. Unfortunately, it's been a long time and my memory is fuzzy. I also know that it's not one-to-one with softball. I found this pdf for Babe Ruth pitching rules[0]. If nothing else, I wouldn't exceed what they say.

[0][http://files.leagueathletics.com/Text/Documents/5200/27001.p...](http://files.leagueathletics.com/Text/Documents/5200/27001.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think the order of magnitude scale is a good guide for most things you can learn. Obviously these are rules of thumb. "Practice" can vary in quality, prerequisites and starting points matter. YMMV based on a huge number of factors. That said, the order of magnitude scale is usually a greta way of looking at things.

1,000 hours will get you to entry level "professional" level.

1,000 hours is also 20 hours per week (of deliberate practice) for one year. An hour will get you a definition (different keys play different notes. This is a note. A scale. A chord). 10 will get you an overview of a subject (This is what mean, median, variance and variance mean) and perhaps a usable tidbit. At 100 hours knowledge starts being functional in a limited way (write code that generates a sales report). 1000 hours is entry level professional.

Learning to read

      1 hr: Understand that letters represent sounds
      10 hrs: practice reading and writing all the letters. read simple words like cat
      100 hrs: know all letters, most common words and can sound out most words
      1000 hrs: functionally fluent
      10000: achieve your potential as a poet or novelist

Judo

      1 hr: Overview of that martial art's approach
      10 hrs: Understand basic vocabulary of the style: stances, throws, etc
      100 hrs: Can perform a limited number of techniques effectively.
      Would be advantageous in a self defense situation
      1000 hrs: You are eying that black belt.
      Consistently overcome most untrained opponents.
      Very useful in a self defense situation.
      You can ref a match, teach Beginners or invent some moves.
      10000: achieve your maximal potential as a competitor or instructor

10,000 hours in an interesting thinking tool. In my mind it represents the level of practice required to maximize your potential. 1,000 hours is another useful tool. To me, it's a more liberating concept because it's achievable without dedicating your life to a thing. Put in 1,000 hours and you will be able to code that app, play in a band or terrorize your husband with a flying triangle choke.

<comment><USER20> It should be noted that in the context of martial arts, especially Chinese ones, that the number 10,000 has special significance because it's a sort of colloquialism for "many" or "infinite".

For instance the phrase commonly attributed to Bruce Lee: "Fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once. Fear him who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."

In this case you could substitute any large number and the phrase retains its meaning.

Similarly, "The Classics" (an important illustrated text in Tai Chi, also studied in several other Chinese martial arts) and Taoist texts will occasionally mention "the ten thousand things", which should actually be read as "everything in the universe".

So in other words, when a translated Chinese text talks about practising something 10,000 times, it should generally not be interpreted literally as the number 10,000, but rather as "as much as is possible within a lifetime".

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Do people really need to be told "Find something that you enjoy doing and then keep doing it"? Really?

I do the things I enjoy, um cause I enjoy them.

I also don't (or try not to) do the things I don't enjoy.

Nobody gave me that stunning advice. It's nature's built in reinforcement loop.

How about; "Do something you suck at (but want not to) or are afraid of. Stick with it at least until you don't suck or are no longer afraid."

</comment><comment><USER22> Is the 10,000 hour rule even true? I know this was popularized by Gladwell's book 'Outliers' but I had heard the study referred to in the book might not be accurate. Is it that 10,000 of practice is common to experts or that there are no experts without 10,000 hours of practice?

<comment><USER23> I take it as similar to the rule of thumb that you should walk 10,000 steps per day. It was made up for marketing a pedometer, and most experts I've heard from say it's not based on any facts, but it's close enough that merely striving for 10,000 steps per day is a good goal to set.

It might not be accurate, but it's not bad in terms of setting a goal for yourself. It helps you to focus on the right thing (get more practice, take more steps, etc).

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> 10,000 hour rule is a bit strange. I've been programming for 8 years doing so at work and at home. Working full time there are roughly 2,080 work hours in a year. 2,080 * 8 = 16,640 hours of programming. Now there is also all of that time spent programming in classes, on homework, on hobbies, and doing freelance work. That easily brings the amount of hours spent programming to 18,000. To account for all the time spent on hacker news, reddit, etc... instead of actually programming I'll drop that number to 16,000 total hours programming.

By all accounts I should be an expert. I'd imaging there are many on here with a similar hours, many with more. I don't feel like an expert though. Do you?

<comment><USER25> The 10,000 hour rule is often taken out of context. In Outliers, it is made clear that Gladwell means 10,000 hours of focused practice with the intent to improve. A small percentage of day-to-day programming fits that criteria (unless you're a researcher, or something along those lines). So you may have 16,000 hours of programming, but still be significantly short of the 10,000 hour rule.

<comment><USER26> If you're a CS researcher who actually codes as part of their research, much of the time you'll be banging out barely functional proof of concept code to get some results you can take to conference.

I'm not sure there's any group that actually does focused practice coding for a significant number of hours on a regular basis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> How about 20 hours? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MgBikgcWnY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MgBikgcWnY)

The 10k hours thing is based on how long it took athletes to become the very top of their field. The very top of their highly specific, highly competitive field. It doesnt even mean becoming an 'expert' (whatever that means), let alone just being good at it. Anyway, check the TED Talk above, 20 hours to proficiency.

<comment><USER16> Actually, Gladwell has specifically said it does not really apply to sports.

<comment><USER27> i was referring more to the original 10 000 hour rule proposed by K. Anders Ericsson & co.

I would also say that in Outliers, Gladwell seems to implying that while 10 000 hours of practice is common in such 'outliers', simple luck is an equal if not greater part.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I like this submission a lot. It is consistent with the "expert performance" research literature pioneered by K. Anders Ericsson and his colleagues in that it points out that lots of competent, gainfully employed adults are not "experts" (as rigorously defined in the expert performance research literature)[1] but are capable journeymen. We may as well all resolve ourselves, and all advise young people, to find something that we enjoy doing anyhow in our free time, something that is useful in solving problems other people experience, and practicing how to do it well enough to trade with other people for resources we can use to solve the problems we can't solve on our own. Better that we be competent journeymen rather than unknowingly incompetent.[2]

I like too that he links to Paul Graham's essay "What You'll Wish You'd Known,"[3] which everyone should read before finishing high school.

[1] [http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/D...](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/DeliberatePractice\(PsychologicalReview\).pdf)

[2] [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolved- primate/201006/w...](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolved- primate/201006/when-ignorance-begets-confidence-the-classic-dunning-kruger- effect)

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702783/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702783/)

[3] [http://www.paulgraham.com/hs.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/hs.html)

</comment><comment><USER29> The rule? Solid. In practicality how many will follow this? Few. It's like telling someone how to get rich. You can literally tell someone but few will do the action required to get the results.

But then the few that do end up like Drew Houston or Aaron Levie when they apply their skills to business and if they fail they're more experienced than the average 20 something.

</comment><comment><USER30> I've been wondering if there's another level to be reached after another factor of 10--in other words, is there a "100,000 hour" rule?

Which at 8 hours per day would take over 30 years, so there's not going to be a lot of them.

Maybe Jiro from Jiro Dreams of Sushi?

<comment><USER31> That's what I thought when I first started innovating in the mature technical field of petro/chemical analysis.

It would require a lot of self-dedication.

Since I was already a young performance leader, I stuck with it and avoided the institutional path where they only accomplish a few hours of progress a day, take breaks, have useless meetings, etc.

Similar to a musical instrument, industrial instruments are never truly mastered, and proficiency declines once the hands are removed from regular use.

This also worked to my advantage since gifted PhD's with high aptitudes seldom can keep their hands on the gear for even one whole decade before they are needed to fill a place on the corporate ladder.

Now after 30+ years, I do not look at ordinary researchers as loafers, there are some brilliant workers and wonderful experts I can draw upon when needed. Normally you are only allowed to do a limited amount before you run the risk & woe of making co-workers look less productive.

By comparison, I now have "60years" experience compared to what would have only been about half as many accomplishments if I had been employed by an oil or chemical company over the same 3 decades. Plus I own my own technology for decades now.

Not trying to toot my own horn but it is an unfair advantage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I believe there are three factors to consider:

\- what you are trying to learn

\- your ability to learn things on that particular area

\- how you measure [familiar/proficient/good/expert/impress people]

The time it takes to get to those levels can vary a lot and you can't really use the same rule for all. It is almost like saying that if a group of people spent 5 years in college together and by the end of it all of them have the same level of expertise. We all know it doesn't work this way.

I think these X-hour rules are flawed unless they are very specific on the three factors I mentioned. The 10k hours probably works simply because it is a lot of time... not because everybody learns the same way.

EDIT: formatting

</comment><comment><USER33> I have the constant conversation with my kids of just finding an interest - any interest and trying it. It's great when your kids like sports, etc, but when you have one's that find it very hard to come up with any interest they want to explore, I'd be thrilled with even 2 hours worth.

For now, it's us getting them trying things and they're middle/high school age, so they should be coming up with stuff on their own. I only hope someday it clicks and they find things they want to explore on their own.

</comment><comment><USER34> > > [http://www.pgbovine.net/oldpages/fourth.jpg](http://www.pgbovine.net/oldpages/fourth.jpg)

Wow...

<comment><USER35> hey, that was state-of-the-art in 1998!

<comment><USER36> I love it, it appaer cheesy in hindsight, but it was pure gold back then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> A detailed an well argumented framework to be found in

Chapter 1: Five Steps from Novice to Expert

 _Mind Over Machine_ by Hubert Dreyfus

[http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Over-Machine-Hubert- Dreyfus/dp/00...](http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Over-Machine-Hubert- Dreyfus/dp/0029080614/)

</comment><comment><USER38> I consider myself a expert in .NET/C# development, and it did not take no where NEAR 10,000 hours. 3000 hours is a fair estimate. 4000 to be on the safe side.

I was good after 1000 though, so I'd have to agree with this "rule".

</comment><comment><USER39> On a tangent: could you consider centering the content on your site? Right now I have to turn my head left by about 30 degrees to read your blog, on a widescreen monitor.

margin-left in <body> of 25% makes it much better to read.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is exactly my plan with most of my hobbies. Just continuously do it now and then and you ought to get better at some point. It still needs dedicated practise, though. Just "doing" it is not enough.

</comment><comment><USER41> "If people knew how hard I worked to get my mastery, it wouldn't seem so wonderful at all." \- Michelangelo

</comment><comment><USER42> 10k hours rule is not general to a topic, and is quite specific -- 10,000 hours of a skill-based, feedback giving action in which productive practice takes place is different from, "spend 10k hours learning about history and you become a history master."

And 1k hours is _completely_ unsupported by experimentation.

Why do people think they can just randomly throw nonsense at a wall and expect it to stick?

<comment><USER43> Such a poor attitude! This isn't Science magazine. The entire article -- a hypothesis anyway -- is prefaced by "words I would have wanted to hear as a child". Were you expecting him to run experiments for this piece?

<comment><USER42> "This isn't Science magazine." Finish that thought.

This isn't Science magazine so... we can just make things up and say whatever we want, even if it's blatantly and provably untrue?

<comment><USER43> This isn't Science magazine; an _interesting_ or _thought-provoking_ idea is just as valuable as a repeatable experiment.

<comment><USER42> Yes, in the same way a good fiction story is. "Wouldn't it be nice if life were so simple as I'm about to describe?"

But this doesn't present itself as a fiction, this presents itself as true, when it's clearly the case that the author has no idea if it's true or not, having not done the requisite legwork to verify.

<comment><USER43> > to become good at something, which __I think __requires far less time and > dedication.

> __I claim __that it takes roughly 1,000 hours of practice

It presents itself as neither fiction nor reference. It presents itself as a thought and a claim.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


MPAA Worries About Pirating U.S. Soldiers in Iraq - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-worries-about-pirating-u-s-soldiers-in-iraq-100515/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak%29

<comment><USER2> Good God, this is ridiculous - this should be a bigger news story, show how MPAA respects noone.</comment>


Gigster sued :-o - <AUTHOR> https://www.scribd.com/document/342226605/Andreesen-Horowitz-backed-Start-up-Gigster-s-Lawsuit <comment><AUTHOR> Andreesen-Horowitz funded start-up, Gigster, led by Roger Dickey hit with 12-count lawsuit in federal court in Chicago. Can't say we didn't see this coming.</comment>