Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn't work long hours - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/46/balance/darwin-was-a-slacker-and-you-should-be-too <comment><USER2> I suspect if you counted the hours they were thinking about their work, the conclusion would be the exact opposite.

Granted, we are talking about "thinkers" here. We can think sitting on the toilet or taking a shower, and maybe even better than staring at a book.

Walking to get your juices flowing surrounded by clean air and a soothing environment would make any hiking trail a great office for any scientist or philosopher.

"It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer. "

― Albert Einstein

"Richard Feynman was fond of giving the following advice on how to be a genius. You have to keep a dozen of your favorite problems constantly present in your mind, although by and large they will lay in a dormant state. Every time you hear or read a new trick or a new result, test it against each of your twelve problems to see whether it helps. Every once in a while there will be a hit, and people will say, 'How did he do it? He must be a genius!"

\- Gian-Carlo Rota, Indiscrete Thoughts

<comment><USER3> Yes indeed! From TFA: "Yet when you look closely at their daily lives, they only spent a few hours a day doing what we would recognize as their most important work. The rest of the time, they were hiking mountains, taking naps, going on walks with friends, or just sitting and thinking."

"Just sitting and thinking" sounds like part of their work, and the article deploys a sleight of hand to define this as "not really work" so that it can discover that these guys didn't work very hard.

<comment><USER4> But I still think the articles conclusions are meaningful: namely that, in our overly hurried world, we need to make space to breathe, to think, and to rest. If we're constantly racing off to the next thing, or sitting at our desks trying to force a solution, or sucked into TV or our various devices, we leave no room for our minds to percolate on problems, explore solutions, etc. And we tend to worship those who sleep as little as possible. How radical would it be if we started admiring people who take naps, who go on long walks, who sit and leave space for thinking without pulling out their smartphone or turning on the TV?

Before smartphones came along I did some of my best thinking on the toilet. Now it's become time consumed with reading drivel on my news feed. And I don't sleep enough, and personally can see how my productivity and emotional health is impacted. Tough times which require greater self discipline, I think, than times past.

<comment><USER3> I quite agree with you. We should generally spend more time working without seeming to work, which is part of the problem. I get a lot of work done staring out the window, taking showers, etc. I don't recall any particularly great ideas while on the can...

I think the appearance of doing work is now very important. So sitting and thinking has the problem that you might be thinking about the problem or who knows what? Possibly there's a causation problem here - if you are already a famous scientist, you can probably be trusted to "sit and think".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Scientists who spent 25 hours in the workplace were no more productive than > those who spent five.

Anecdotally this is a concept I've run into in many areas of life, the most overt one being school, I suppose because it's so easily quantified.

You can do a moderately acceptable amount of work on any given assignment and get a C+, work hard for a B/A or work your hands to the bone for an A+, but at the end of the day all three students graduate.

At a certain point you get diminishing returns for working harder. On the flip side being able to be productive for those few hours consistently without burning out nets you long term growth.

<comment><USER6> > I suppose because it's so easily quantified.

I wonder what's being quantified.. intelligence or obedience.

This would be like rating a strong-man competition by how much time was spent in the gym and how much unnecessary pain was self-inflicted.

It's like there's a culture of "pain enthusiasts". They do things like talk about running until it hurts, they tend to get injured often, and of course they have nothing to show for their dedication.

I'm realizing that there's a mentality about these people. The idea of working smarter and not harder literally offends them. The idea that the amount of work is less important than the effectiveness of work offends them. These are often the same people that voice their concerns about working from home and why it can't work. My suspicion is because their value is measured by "time in the gym" rather than tangible real-world results.

<comment><USER7> Given that students are almost always graded on how well they do on assignments/exams rather than how long they studied, your strong-man competition analogy doesn't make much sense.

<comment><USER8> You're implying that grades are an objective metric of value. This is often false, because the metrics for grading are oriented around what's easily _testable_ , rather than what's _actually_ a sign of good work.

Kind of like hours spent in a gym, actually.

<comment><USER7> No, I am just arguing that someone's grade on a test is directly linked to how well they do on the test and not necessarily on how much studying they did. If you don't like university tests, that is fine (I do not believe they are perfect either). But, they do a decent job of determining if a student knows a specific set of facts and can solve a specific set of problems. I have graded these tests before and no where during the process do I ask myself how long someone studied (because I don't know how long people studied). Very smart people can ace tests with minimal studying. Some people do poorly after studying a lot.

<comment><USER9> The problem is final GPA means almost nothing. High School Valedictorians are an interesting population because they tend to do poorly in life. Prodigies similarly underperform vs expected results.

So, when you look objectively you find the most highly paid author has zero relevant accolades. _in academic terms, gave the appearance of doing what was necessary ".[18] Rowling recalls doing little work, preferring to listen to The Smiths and read Dickens and Tolkien_

<comment><USER10> > The problem is final GPA means almost nothing. High School Valedictorians > are an interesting population because they tend to do poorly in life. > Prodigies similarly underperform vs expected results.

Interesting, do we have any explanations for this phenomena?

<comment><USER9> Not sure how much research backs this up, but I think it's a change in what's important. A 10 year old who copies someone else brilliantly is praised, an adult doing the same thing makes minim wage.

"Even prodigies who avoid burnout and resist social pressures are unlikely to make a big splash as an adult. The problem, notes giftedness researcher Ellen Winner, is that to make a major contribution in the arts, and even the sciences "you need a rebellious spirit and the type of mind that can see new things." Most prodigies, however, are acclaimed not for their innovation but "for doing something that's already been done, like playing the violin in the style of Itzhak Perlman." Only prodigies who can reinvent themselves as innovators, she says, are likely to leave a lasting mark during adulthood." [https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200511/why- prodigie...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200511/why-prodigies- fail)

<comment><USER11> Well, I guess it all depends on what you mean by do poorly in life.

High school valedictorians and child prodigies (especially the former) are disproportionately likely to hold positions of societal power. Just read the bio of any president of the IMF or the World Bank or the Federal Reserve. Essentially all of them graduate university summa cum laude or magna cum laude.

Innovative scientists and people who move the world forward? Perhaps less likely to come from this group, for a variety of reasons.

<comment><USER9> Sure, when all you need for 'successes' is to be accepted credentials are useful. But, that just means you where picked it does not mean you actually succeeded at something.

It's the difference between getting funding, and not just having an IPO but actually pay real dividends for significantly more than total investments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If their job was, say, picking cotton, then the hours they spent at work would directly correlate to their work output.

So what is the difference?

Maybe scientists are still thinking about difficult problems when they are away from work. Like when they are sitting in their porch swing with nobody else around to distract.

<comment><USER13> Being creative is like tending a garden. Ideas grow on their own, and all you can really do is prepare the environment to facilitate this growth. You do this by clearly defining the problem, fertilizing your mind with inspiration, and revisiting the problem periodically to keep it present. From there, you need to relax and let your brain do its thing. Actively thinking/concentrating actually inhibits brain activity in much of your brain to prevent interference, and the brain areas inhibited are usually the ones that make creative jumps. The rational networks of the brain should only be engaged to sanity check/refine creative ideas.

<comment><USER14> Not exactly:

 _" Opportunities multiply as they are seized." \- Sun Tzu_

One way to have good ideas is to have a lot of them and then filter.

Even in highly creative endeavors like say music and painting, volume of work largely matters. You have to spend a lot of time(years) doing a lot of work before you get anywhere close to good.

<comment><USER15> You can work on a lot of different problems and still do the creative garden cultivation that the previous poster said. I do that. I've got about 10 prototypes for board and card games actively going at once at the moment, and I write down fresh ideas that pop into my head to come back to later.

Even if months pass, I'll get spontaneous ideas to certain projects that improve them a ton. But I have to feed my brain with fuel for inspiration constantly, and actively try to apply any interesting idea to my existing projects and see if they inspire anything new for them.

I can't find the quote now (It's written in a notebook I don't have on me at the moment), but this is apparently how Richard Feynman approached work, although by working on multiple problems at once, not projects (although all of my projects have problems :).

<comment><USER14> "creative garden cultivation" might be a poetic way of putting it. In reality its just hard work and sweat at the end of the day. It requires you to go through many iterations of success/failure loops testing outcomes of your work.

Of course you can do more than one of this at the same time. In fact that was precisely my point. The more of such you grab, the more come they come to you.

<comment><USER16> "sweat" is poetry/metaphor in this context, too, so your description and the previous one are equally valid "in reality."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> They take a very constrained example and claim that "You should be a slacker too".

This is at best an irresponsible piece of writing that's clearly targeting discussions like what's happening here. This is the 1000th time I've seen a post on this topic on HN, and every time it's posted here it's like groundhog day, same comments. Well this is what publications like these want, they want more traffic.

There are many famous athletes who worked long hours. Ask Michael Jordan.

There are many famous entrepreneurs (actually I don't know of a single extremely successful entrepreneur who didn't work extremely hard) who worked long hours. Ask Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and really any successful entrepreneur who's changed how the world works.

Just don't ask some nobody writer who writes for a blog who just needs to get more page views. They don't know what they are talking about.

In fact, you know what? MOST successful people work very hard. Surprising right? Duh.

It's your freedom to choose how to live your life, but don't tell others what to do based on your idiotic research clearly aimed at generating page views. That's irresponsible.

Also, if you want to succeed, don't listen to these idiots. Statistically those who work harder succeed more. Period.

That said, if your life goal is NOT about being successful but more about living a balanced life with happiness, then go live your life whatever way you want. In fact that's how 99% of the world live their lives.

But again, if you want to have huge success and achieve more than you ever wanted in life, work hard. Don't let these people ruin your life. You will really regret later.

<comment><USER18> You're conflating knowledge work with manual work.

Knowledge work requires the brain to wonder...to explore a problem and possible solutions freely.

Michael Jordan wasn't trying to create anything new, he was trying to develop a physical skill. Physical skills are made via repetition.

Things like stress and distraction destroy knowledge workers. This is something every experienced engineer knows.

<comment><USER17> i'm not conflating anything more than what this article is doing.

On the other hand, you are guilty of taking my words out of context. It's convenient to just take michael jordan and use it as an argument, isn't it? I also mentioned another "knowledge work" example.

I'm not saying scientists should be working 18 hours a day. In fact when it comes to scientists and researchers I do agree that you should NOT work too hard because you will burn out, and most creative ideas come when you're taking a break.

But it's not cool to take that example and tell the world you should "slack off" because it's "scientific". That's not how the world works. If you want to achieve something, you can't win against someone who go all in. Simple as that.

<comment><USER19> You can't count productivity in hours. Someone who goes "all-in" 6 hours a day can certainly accomplish more than someone who says they go "all-in" 12 hours a day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> this is such a typical HN discussion; misleading headline provokes reaction to the headline rather than the content of the article. nowhere in the article are entrepreneurs discussed, or doctors, or anyone else whose work requires many hours of clocked-in work.

the fundamental claim of the article is that deliberate focus in a creative field cannot happen without deliberate rest. you can't always be on if you want to achieve the types of breakthroughs which underpin the most significant steps forward in science, literature, and music.

that's it. he never discussed Gates' work habits, except in context with Gladwell's 10k hours for expertise thesis. he then goes on to say that those 10k hours do not exist in a vacuum, and that this number is often misinterpreted; those 10k hours of focus also require a commensurate amount of leisure and rest.

he even specifically says that "[scientists'] legacies are often easier to determine than those of business leaders or famous figures", which to me says that those individuals are outside the scope of his discussion. how so many people here are projecting that conclusion is a mystery to me.

</comment><comment><USER21> And then on the flipside there is Musk, Jobs, Gates and countless others who work(ed) all the time.

All I'm saying is I see a lot of emulation-of-success articles posted here...

<comment><USER22> Those people are not scientists. Lookup Musk on Wikipedia and you'll find that he has a BSc. only, and he started a PhD only to quit after a few weeks to pursue his business endeavors. Jobs dropped out of University. And Gates is probably closest to a scientist, although I'm not aware of any research by him.

<comment><USER23> > _" Lookup Musk on Wikipedia and you'll find that he has a BSc. only, and he > started a PhD only to quit after a few weeks to pursue his business > endeavors."_

Three of the most important scientific papers in modern history—uncovering the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion and the special theory of relativity—were written about a hundred years ago by a man who could only sign them "Mr." when first writing them. About 80 years before that, another physicist who had no formal schooling past the age of 14 was pioneering advances in humanity's understanding of electricity and magnetism.

Science isn't restricted to or based on credentialed people. If you look at the history of science, credentials and recognition often _follow_ groundbreaking scientific work.

<comment><USER24> A hundred years ago you could reach the frontier in theoretical physics without a decade of intensive study. That's no longer true.

<comment><USER23> Regardless of the century, the credential is not the defining characteristic of science.

<comment><USER25> That's not why anyone gets a PhD. The training is designed to teach you research. Unlike any other schooling, the degree has little class work.

The PhD is essentially an apprenticeship to a practicing scientist.

<comment><USER26> I would be really interested in someone elaborating on this idea "phd is an apprenticeship for researchers".

Several people have insisted that I should go into a phd program, but when I looked into it I saw a lot of: learn how to do grant applications, publish this non-reproducible and barely significant result just so you have something published, work on a phd adviser's bad idea so he can take the credit, etc.

If you're working on an idea no one has had before, what kinds of support can others give you and do modern phd programs give that support?

<comment><USER25> Much more important than the idea is the process you learn how to vet and research the idea. That is the 'support'. Now I can independently expand on my own ideas, and reject unpromising ones. Some are born with this skill, but many who think they have it... don't.

A PhD isn't really about doing something useful, although that is typically a result. It's learning how to explore an idea and expand upon it.

Your advisor does not lead you as much as guide you. Hence the name.

While the dangers you mentioned are absolutely a threat, much of that can be mitigated by choosing a good advisor. Personally I think taking a tenured, well established prof is a better bet, because they aren't as worried about their own career advancement. But everyones mileage varies.

To expand on my original idea: imagine being given an opportunity to work closely with a recognized expert in your field. For years he will meet with you, advise you and honestly try to help you also become a world authority on this subject. Afterwards, he will always support your career and care for your future. That's what I have, and while I certainly feel fortunate, I would not call my situation atypical.

I'm happy to provide more info.

<comment><USER22> > Now I can independently expand on my own ideas, and reject unpromising ones.

Unpromising in what sense? Unpromising for you personally, or for the greater good of humanity?

Research always comes with a risk. It is called "re-search" and not "re-find" for a reason. You can learn some heuristics that will help you explore, but it is certainly no guarantee for finding anything.

<comment><USER25> > You can learn some heuristics that will help you explore, but it is > certainly no guarantee for finding anything.

Agree. Those heuristics were precisely what I was alluding to. It is all about how you explore that space. The best researchers have an amazing ability to intuitively ascertain promising directions. Many smart folks I know constantly spin their wheels working on problems that are intractable.

To me, that ability is the principle value add of a senior PI (aside from funding, of course!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Richard Hammings anecdotes of famous scientists would suggest otherwise... They may not look like they were working but They were always thinking on their problem. Working on a problem doesn't need to be done sitting in your desk but it can be done while on hikes with your colleagues or locked in the attic of your room.

Their minds were constantly thinking of their problems.

<comment><USER28> I think about software development all the time too, but if I was in the office as often as I think about it, I would be so burnt out and depressed, I wouldn't get anything done.

<comment><USER29> Or otherwise said - "Your get your best ideas on the toilet/in the shower/walking around."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> _After that, it was all downhill: The 60-plus-hour-a-week researchers were the least productive of all._

Could causality be in the other direction? Researchers who aren't getting publication-worthy results spend more time in the lab desperately trying?

<comment><USER31> At least anecdotally the opposite is true.

Researchers who are getting publication worthy results are in general hustling to manage multiple projects, run experiments, write papers, apply for grants...

The most talented researchers I know are without exception the ones who willingly live in their own lab. By their own admission they love it though. I don't sense burnout.

<comment><USER32> publication worthy != famous

Publication-worthy scientists try to manage multiple projects, work slave hours in the lab, interact with people 60+ hours a week, shaving themselves to fit perfectly into the mould of the scientific community. Sure-fire 50% improvements on existing results should be chased, because you'll get a paper in your name. Low-hanging fruit should be chased, because you'll get a paper in your name. Papers in your name gets you degrees, tenure, and more grants. Forget chasing 10-fold improvements. 10-fold improvements are dangerous because they're likely to fail -- too risky when you're trying to get grants, get tenure, or get your PhD.

[http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1436](http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1436)

Famous scientists didn't care about tenure, PhDs, papers, or any of that crap. They cared exclusively about 10-fold, 100-fold, 1000-fold improvements. Some published papers in peer-reviewed journals, but many had a hard time getting them reviewed because of their controversial ideas, especially if they were theoretical.

Of course, for every famous scientist, there are hundreds of others that tried and failed hard, and you never heard about them.

<comment><USER22> Of course, merely by statistics, there must be a few exceptions too, i.e. lab slaves becoming famous by accident. And the question then is if those exceptions are more abundant than those famous people going for the hard results.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm just spitballing my opinion here.

One of my favorite quotes is: "Most people overestimate what they can do in one year and underestimate what they can do in ten years." \- Bill Gates

Working long hard inefficient hours might get you short term gains, but consistent effective work over years will bring long-term success.

Typically (for me) putting short time constraints on projects amplifies my focus and cuts down on wasted time. The best way to cut down time is to have a well planned path of execution (know what you're doing before you sit down and don't do anything else).

That's how you can be successful without necessarily working long hours.

I'm not successful in terms of my own standards, but I think this makes sense.

</comment><comment><USER34> _The rest of the time, they were hiking mountains, taking naps, going on walks with friends, or just sitting and thinking. Their creativity and productivity, in other words, were not the result of endless hours of toil. Their towering creative achievements result from modest "working" hours._

If Darwin spent most of his time "hiking mountains... or just sitting and thinking", guess what he was actually doing? Yep, he was studying, and working. Just because he was not hunched over a table or a microscope does not mean he was not studying.

<comment><USER25> ^ this. My best cited paper came to me while summiting a 14er in Colorado.

Did actually generating the results take long hours and serious work? Of course. But the idea required freeform thought and subconscious mulling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> There was a poll on HN a couple of years ago that asked how many productive hours each reader had in a given day, and if I remember correctly there was a large plurality that picked 4-6 and a rather large group that picked 2-4. Which seems to square fairly well with my personal experience and that of the scientists in the piece. I often wonder how much actual work people who spend 80 hours in the office are actually getting done.

<comment><USER36> I used to spend 80 hours in the office. Most of it was waiting around for everyone to go home so I could get some programming done.

Now I'm much more balanced. I realized I want to have work I'm passionate about, and go at it with all the gusto I have, but also limit it to a timebox so it doesn't take over my life.

Everything that involves reaching "as far as you can" needs to also be boxed. Otherwise, it's like a cancer cell that "grows as much as it can" until it destroys you.

So, define a box for how much you want to work. Inside that box, work like a single-minded barbarian. But outside the box, enjoy life, smell the roses, and participate in hobbies. That's my formula now.

<comment><USER37> As someone who has been on both sides of this equation, I think you've phrased it very eloquently. Well said.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Maybe I missed it in this story, but this anecdote about Poincare himself is apropos:

"The famous French mathematician Henri Poincaré was very interested in mathematical creativity. He describes a period of hard and seemingly fruitless effort to solve a problem, from which he took a break to join a geological expedition. As he was stepping on a bus, he made one of the most important breakthroughs of his life. The solution came to him out of nowhere, and was accompanied by a perfect certainty as to its correctness"

(from this blog: [https://kjosic.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/creativity-and- waste...](https://kjosic.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/creativity-and-wasted- time/))

<comment><USER39> Similar to what Gelman said about what he called the Feynman method: "Step one: write down the problem statement. Step 2: think real hard. Step 3: write down the problem solution."

His point was, I think, that not every scientist can work that way. Some are real treasures, come along one in a generation.

<comment><USER40> There's a better Feynman method: [http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~cahn/life/gian- carlo-rota-10-le...](http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~cahn/life/gian-carlo- rota-10-lessons.html)

> Richard Feynman was fond of giving the following advice on how to be a > genius. You have to keep a dozen of your favorite problems constantly > present in your mind, although by and large they will lay in a dormant > state. Every time you hear or read a new trick or a new result, test it > against each of your twelve problems to see whether it helps. Every once in > a while there will be a hit, and people will say: "How did he do it? He must > be a genius!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I will add a personal anecdote from software development. On one project I had a difficult objective (to write a database that met certain criteria). I had never done database work before.

For the first year, I worked with almost no supervision and developed a routine where I would select an area to work on, give it a week, and if I could find no good solution, would switch to something else. All the while I read many related technical papers. Often after a couple weeks of "not working on the problem" I would think of a clean solution and implement it fairly quickly.

After that year, I got a new boss who insisted that I schedule my work using agile techniques, which meant that when I started something I had to focus on it until it was delivered, while trying to meet my estimates, planned to at most a two-day delivery cycle.

My productivity in the second year was terrible and much of the coding I did then sucked, as it was full of hacks designed to make my first, sloppy approach work quickly.

For me, downtime, and reading papers that were indirectly related to my problem area, vastly increased the quality and quantity of work done.

<comment><USER42> You've got it right, it works that way in computer science similarly to how it does in natural science.

If you require balance relative to the mainstream, maximum scientific creativity is probably not for you.

In expensive unique laboratories which often require years of assembly before productive creation of technologies can begin, it is easier to appreciate why the higher-performing individuals do not pursue much idleness.

Seeking eminence is also a major productivity drain for someone who would otherwise be the most capable of breakthroughs at the bench.

Anecdotally over a lifetime, seeking recognition for a million dollar breakthrough consumes the time & resources needed for more than one equivalent breakthrough that could have been.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I am as happy as the next person to accept that you can work less and achieve more.

Ordinarily, I would protest that there is no data here, just some anecdotes.

But in this case, I say, let's just accept this claim at face value.

<comment><USER44> For some data I suggest the following books, if the subject interests you:

"Peak: Secrets From The New Science of Expertise"

"Deep Work"

"A Mind for Numbers"

All are pretty engaging reads!

<comment><USER43> Okay, before I read them, are you saying that these books contain evidence for the rather startling thesis that hours of labor are not required for achievement?

Because if they are just laying out what you need to succeed (focused practice, immediate feedback, elemental skills or whatever the current theory might be) then, although valuable, it doesn't speak to the matter at hand.

<comment><USER44> > hours of labor are not required for achievement?

Well, you need to put in something like 3-8 hours per day, certainly. But it's been documented over and over that 60+ hours a week does not increase your productivity.

Each book does contain evidence for its claims based on research. Perhaps "Deep Work" is more anecdotal than the others, but Cal is up-front about this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Note that work hours mostly means hours spent at one's job site (e.g., at their university in the case of an academic scientist).

My experience observing people when I was at Caltech, and observing a few top software and hardware engineers in industry, is that the most productive people do work the way Bruce Banner handled anger in the Marvel movie "The Avengers":

Steve Rogers: Doctor Banner, now might be a good time for you to get angry.

Bruce Banner: That's my secret, Captain. I'm always angry.

<comment><USER46> I often remember a blog post or something that I read by a programmer--I'm sure I discovered it here.

Anyway, he said that his wife was conditioned to not interrupt him no matter what activity he was doing, because he might be 'programming' while doing something like tending his garden.

I think all of us programmers have experienced the phenomenon where we get stuck, then stand up and walk away and within 5 minutes we have 5 new possible solutions in mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Darwin was _thinking_ during his walks. During his writing tasks much of the activity was mechanical or the consolidation of notions arrived at during leisure. What society regards as 'work' largely comprises the application of existing knowledge and the running of errands.

>He was passionate and driven, so much so that he was given to anxiety attacks over his ideas and their implications.

Emotions driving emotions? No, he was right to be anxious about the consequences of his work. Though marvellous and important and interesting, not to mention _true_ , it set up a huge conflict in the psyche of the West due to the competing claims of science and religion. Which still hasn't been resolved.

<comment><USER15> I'd be perfectly happy if the takeaway companies got from this is to let people get away from the desk and do some thinking about work during work hours.

Let me take an extended walk and think about where I'm stuck on a problem during the work day, instead of forcing my butt in a seat for 8+ hours, and interrogating me if the time-tracker at my computer drops down below that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Reminds me of this:

[http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/if-i-had-one-piece-of- advic...](http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/if-i-had-one-piece-of-advice-for- todays-youth-it-w-18438)

I know it's The Onion, but irony being that Roy Halladay probably worked harder than any other pitcher in the same span. Natural talent still helps, though!

</comment><comment><USER49> _[Darwin] was passionate and driven, so much so that he was given to anxiety attacks over his ideas and their implications._

He many not have spent that many hours sitting at a desk, but he had to be directing a tremendous amount of mental effort and attention to his work to have this sort of reaction. The article describes his not-sitting-at-a-desk time as "downtime," and maybe that's half-defensible. But that "downtime" probably isn't something I'd recognize as _leisure_ time, either.

Here's something else that many successful 19th/20th century artists, scholars, writers, and scientists turn out to have had in common, the other side of the same coin, perhaps: sufficient economic prosperity (often familial) to employ servants. They could devote great swaths of time and attention to their work, even when away from a desk, because they were not fretting about the grocery shopping, not wondering if they should be pushing the kids harder on their ABCs, etc.

The class structure and sexism that made such arrangements common also surely squandered enormous amounts of human potential.

</comment><comment><USER50> Depends on whether whatever you are doing is something with a finite goal and has clear steps (e.g, deliver a prototype, complete testing, complete a presentation, prepare for a test etc.) or something that is more exploratory and you are not really sure what you are looking for. Most of the work we do is of the first kind. In that case, the amount of work accomplished is directly proportional to time spent*focus. For the second type of work, there is no correlation. You just have to train your neurons to try all combinations until something clicks. People who are not doing research or art (i.e, most of us, despite what we'd like to believe) can and will see more results if they spend more time. You need to be able to recognize whether you are doing type 1 or type 2 work and plan accordingly. Time and focus is not going to help in type 2 work beyond a minimum. If you are doing type 1 work and stretching yourself, recognize the trade-offs you are making and don't burn out.

</comment><comment><USER17> Since so many people here are talking about how "in science it's different, you need to just chill out. Science is all about creativity and you shouldn't work hard if you're in a "creative business"", let me just leave this link here: [https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/work- hard/](https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/work-hard/)

If one of the best mathematicians of our time is saying "Work hard", it probably means more than some rando who writes for some blog.

If you want to just "chill out" and live a fun life, feel free to do so, the world would suck if everybody worked hard. It's actually great that you guys decide to believe working less is good for achieving what you want, because the ones who actually know what's up have higher chance of success.

<comment><USER51> I would argue that "working hard" and "working long hours" are not the same thing.

<comment><USER52> Yes, merely staying late to work every day won't lead to a breakthrough.

Being so absorbed in your work that you forget to stop working is a by-product of really enjoying your work and wanting to learn more. You can't force enjoyment of (or a breakthrough in) a subject just by slaving away for hours after the office closes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Teslas and Edisons did insane work hours most people would consider suicide these days.

In my experience these are largely a function of volume, quantity and relationship with your work. Most managers I know can get by even 2-3 hours of work/day. This is true because the work is largely meta- Delegating, tracking things et al.

If you are involved in your work at a lot more micro level, then the speed of the project is the function of your involvement with the project.

This fantasy of achieving extra ordinary things doing just 5 hours of work/day is largely a millennial thing. As a Indian millennial myself, I find this attitude sick. Our fathers used to largely look these things as 'opportunity'.

</comment><comment><USER53> I bet famous scientists spend almost every waking hour actively _thinking_ about their subject of study, even if they're not necessarily sitting around pushing a pencil at their desk.

</comment><comment><USER54> Mixed feelings on this -- I don't think sitting at a desk for 12 hours is useful for anything other than social signalling, but, there's a Stephen King quote I love: "Amateurs sit and wait for inspiration, the rest of us just get up and go to work." Sometimes you just have to grind. Some of my most productive days have been when I _really really_ didn't want to work, but I had to, and somehow the inspiration came out of that.

</comment><comment><USER55> This is stupid. The article completely misinterprets its source evidence:

Darwin, from the article:

8am - 12pm: Work; 1pm - 3pm: Work; 4pm - 5.30pm: Work

That's a 7.5 hour, day which is pretty standard in the UK at the moment. The fact that he fitted a one-hour walk into his lunch break doesn't make him a slacker, and neither does the fact that some of that work happened to involve answering letters in an aviary.

</comment><comment><USER56> They also didn't have iPhones or televisions.

</comment><comment><USER57> Evan Robinson has collected a whole bunch of evidence that long hours don't result in greater output ([http://www.igda.org/?page=crunchsixlessons](http://www.igda.org/?page=crunchsixlessons)). This has been known for something like a century at this point.

</comment><comment><USER58> Actually what I can read in the article is that they have in common to work long hours.

The very first example about Darwin already mentions that he gets 3x 1.5h stretches of dedicated work in, _every f 'n day_. That's way more what the common 80h/week employee gets in with all the meetings, cross-office talk, and water-cooler waits. Even if you don't consider that "every day" probably also includes weekends.

Famous scientists apparently didn't just work a lot, they worked very efficiently to achieve something like that.

</comment><comment><USER59> The guys on the article were walking about on huge familial estates and had servants.

I on the other hand have a mortgage to pay.

Out of the box creative thinking as the result of leisure is great. Sometimes it pays off. More often it doesn't. Sadly most of us don't have the luxury of finding out. At least for now.

<comment><USER60> I spent my early 20s working 2 shifts a week at a bar. It doesn't cost much to buy yourself the time and headspace needed to get from 0 to 1 as a creative worker. It was a rich life. It still is. All that's changed is that I travel more. Priorities, man.

<comment><USER59> Oh, fully agreed. It's not like it's 1874 and we pretty much all have a fair amount of leisure relatively speaking.

It's just I've noticed a fair number of "great contributors" to human knowledge and civilization appear to have had a lot of trivial things in life taken care of out of the box. As opposed to those who come up scrabbling (who often wind up wealthy but aren't necessarily great contributors in an intellectual sense). The Greek philosophers, Buddha, people like Thomas Jefferson, the people in this article. All some degree of wealth and leisure and other people (initially at least) taking care of the small things for them.

There are always the Ben Franklins though so I guess it's not a universal truth.

Just kind of makes me wonder what humanity could be if so many people weren't born into a world that required a hustle or die mindset. Meh, probably just a lot more video game screencasts on YouTube:) But maybe not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> I wonder if the maximum aspiration of any scientist is to be famous, or even "successful", for whatever definition of success is out there.

I would imagine a scientist as someone who wants to make a positive impact on the life of his fellow human beings by investigating a field of science, or maybe is just curious about said field and just works to find out what intrigues her.

Whether she becomes famous in the act is only a side effect, and maybe not even a necessary condition to fulfill her desire. I have the impression that just aspiring to fame is not conducive to "good" science.

This said, I'd like to see articles comparing the working days of people who accomplish something important in science, regardless of their fame (or lack thereof).

</comment><comment><USER62> This article resonates with me in so many ways. I barely managed to get into any university in my home country, but once I was accepted to one, I set up a strict and timed schedule of 5 hours of concentrated work each day, outside of classes and other mandatory requirements, and left each evening for recovery. A few years later the structured work payed off and I am now completing grad school at Stanford. I honestly thought I would be working in a video rental store in my tiny hometown for the rest of my life. Let's home the structured approach continues to help into the future.

</comment><comment><USER63> I am not Einstein but in my 40s and definitely doing a lot with my time: on one side it was hard commitment and fierce hustling for 15-20 years in the past, on the other side hustling increases efficiency and high-level productivity dramatically, so that I can now do a lot (and well conceived / designed) in a very short time. Low-level implementation is invariantly slower though, be it by yourself or delegating. As an analogy with more talented people, I suspect scientists finding their Eureka! moments easier worked very hard for a long period in their past.

</comment><comment><USER64> What a load of bullshit. Most of the scientists have spent a long time actually working, especially in the modern era. None of the successful physicist/mathematicians of those whom I have seen slackers. Each one of them (without exception) have worked extremely hard. Also, more importantly, I have seen level insight into solving difficult problems being directly and causally proportional to the amount of work people have put in trying stuff that hasn't worked till now.

</comment><comment><USER65> As a counterexample, Hans Geiger was a workaholic. Rutherford said he "works like a slave… [He] is a demon at the work and could count at intervals for a whole night without disturbing his equanimity" [1]

He eventually discovered the atomic nucleus, so I guess it paid off.

[1] [http://www.encyclopedia.com/people/science-and- technology/ph...](http://www.encyclopedia.com/people/science-and- technology/physics-biographies/johannes-wilhelm-geiger)

</comment><comment><USER66> Yet Another Article With Initial Caps Telling Me How To Live My Life

<comment><USER67> No one is telling you how to live your life. This article merely points out that there's evidence that common assumptions about the relationship between the amount of time worked and productivity aren't accurate.

What you choose to do with that information is entirely up to you. You may enjoy working 80-hour weeks and achieving as much as a person who works a 20-hour week. Others may differ.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> This may have been true during Darwin's time, but it simply does not apply in today'a academic world. The level of competition for grants, publications, etc. is way, way higher than before. Not that I've conducted a survey, but I'm pretty sure every professor at an R1 university works at least 60 hours a week, if not more.

Source: Am finishing up my PhD in theoretical high energy physics.

</comment><comment><USER69> I am quite interested in "how" the working hours are spent, rather than how many. Personally, it's when I forget about time, that I am more efficient, engaged and satisfied. Today I cleaned my house for 5 hours and almost forgot it suppose to be daunting.

Did the same trick, imagining I have plenty of time. Just taking my time...

</comment><comment> loup-vaillant That seems to be in direct contradiction with what Hamming said on the matter: [http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html](http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html)

Maybe some people thrive by slacking, and others by working their ass off?

</comment><comment><USER70> There is being at work for long hours and actually being productive during that time. They are different things.

There are still many jobs and/or management mentalities that see "butt in seat" as productive time. Especially in "brain labor" jobs versus physical labor jobs where your time working is inherently productive.

</comment><comment><USER71> "The rest of the time, they were hiking mountains, taking naps, going on walks with friends, or just sitting and thinking"

I think in most likelihood that the creative mindset of these people ticked when they were doing these stuff, hence, once they get back to work, their focus is so sharp and intent on finishing.

</comment><comment><USER72> " or just sitting and thinking. "

Put another way, these people worked long hours, so long as you recognize what kind of work they were doing. I mean, they were not shoveling coal. I think humans have some bias such that we don't recognize thinking hard as hard work.

</comment><comment><USER73> I'm just going to drop this here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10882202](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10882202)

You can listen to the guy who wrote this article. Or you can listen to John Carmack. 0_0.

</comment><comment><USER58> I think there is a sweet spot of 30h a week. 60 hours and you are tired as hell and don't get the rest of your life managed. 20 or less and you don't really focus on it and take forever to get a little step ahead.

</comment><comment><USER74> The best book I know about research is "Apprentice to Genius: The Making of a Scientific Dynasty":

[https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801847575](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801847575)

It's a fantastic book.

</comment><comment><USER75> The thing I want to know is how did they achieve the independence, whereby they could focus on their problem of choice and not have to continuously context switch to problems of other people's choosing?

</comment><comment><USER76> Poincare is an interesting example, because he seemed to have a process of rotating between subjects of thought.

I am also reminded of Guy Debord, who espoused the implicitly Marxist dictum, "to never work."

</comment><comment><USER77> That's because a lot of people we think of as famous scientists were really politicians. Rest assured the people who did the actual research weren't working 40-hour weeks.

</comment><comment><USER78> OK, forwarded this to my PI... will let you know tomorrow. :D

</comment><comment><USER79> Your subconscious grinds away, even when you do not _work_. Then you see or hear something, a final piece in a puzzle, and an idea is born!

</comment><comment><USER80> One point about these guys is they were men of means. They were hyper-rich for the time, had vast properties and many servants and such.

</comment><comment><USER81> No desire to be famous but I can't see myself getting to where I am without working hard. I'm just not smart enough.

</comment><comment><USER82> Maybe they are famous due to serendipity and luck. I don't believe there is a correlation between long hours and luck.

</comment><comment><USER83> So Survivorship Bias in play in this article?

<comment><USER84> Exactly what I thought. Lots of not-so-famous scientists didn't work long hours either. This is just another case of the "Halo Effect".[1] Let's select a group based on an outcome (i.e. being a famous scientist) and then work backwards to find similarities that fit a narrative.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Halo-Effect-Business-Delusions- Manage...](https://www.amazon.com/Halo-Effect-Business-Delusions-Managers- ebook/dp/B000NY128M/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1490891896&sr=8-2&keywords=halo+effect)

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> They also had another thing in common; they didn't care much about money

</comment><comment><USER86> Roger Bannister found time to break the 4 minute mile while in med school!

</comment><comment><USER87> logical fallacy

\- these people are famous/successful

\- they also have characteristic X

\- therefore if I want to be famous/successful I should aspire to characteristic X

it's a logical fallacy

</comment><comment><USER88> Is this article really worthy of so many votes?

</comment><comment><USER89> Another something in common: they are famous.

</comment><comment><USER90> What did Darwin do to pay his bills?

</comment><comment><USER91> The title is misleading - Darwin was pretty much always 'on the job', as we can see from his notes and correspondence.

<comment><USER92> In his early life he was a neglectful student, an underachiever. He was a late bloomer.

<comment><USER93> As a poet I must contend that no flower blooms late for its own rhythm. They're all right on time.

<comment><USER94> Though I admit I'm mused, this is Hacker News, so you're gonna have to specify time signature otherwise this is just conjecture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> So much of our "work" these days are only paid by the works ur in the office, where as most of the answers come to us at other hours of the day. Number of times I've emailed code snips to work....</comment>


Every Lost episode visualized and recreated - <AUTHOR> http://intuitionanalytics.com/other/lostalgic/

<comment><USER2> This is pretty fun to play around with, if a bit difficult to navigate- I kept flying all over the place when trying to look at a particular episode in the initial view. Amazing work anyway, and as a (heavy) Lostpedia contributor (around the season 3 days) it's nice to see the data being used in interesting ways.</comment>


Ask HN: Best way to be able to spend more time on an Open Source project? - <AUTHOR> Hi all,
I wonder what's the best way to get to spend more time on an Open Source project you love. In my case, I'd love to work less for the company I'm currently employed and spend more time on ideas around an Open Source project of mine.
I think a dual license approach, for instance, doesn't make much sense for providing custom solutions on top of the Open Source version. In my opinion, it would be best to spend all the time on the Open Source project itself and make it a better experience for everyone. Meaning, I guess it's all about being "lucky" or more of a genius to work on something that big companies need, and it would not make sense for them to build their solution from scratch, but rather sponsor your project.
Kind regards Johannes <comment><USER2> Be consistent in getting time in. Maybe be you can get 1 hour in the morning and 1 in the evening.

Cut work up into small bits, make a simple Kanban board with tasks you've committed to work in. Night and weekend projects are especially vulnerable to starting things and not finishing. If you have a limited commitment of things to do you will get some done and that experience is good for morale.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, that's great, but I think in the long-term it would be super awesome to not have to spend so many extra hours, but to somehow get sponsored and to be able to reduce the "normal" work time for the company I'm working to for instance 60 or 70%. I guess that would be a huge win, as I also want to spend more time with my girlfriend and for other hobbies.

I'm doing it like you mentioned, that is spending at least 2 hours 4 to 5 days a week (or sometimes more if time permits) since the last 1,5 years and 5,5 years with breaks in-between. However, last year was pretty awesome, as the project now get's contributions at least weekly and I've found at least one member, who is consistently pushing the project :-)</comment></comment>


Remdesivir and chloroquine effectively inhibit coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in vitro - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0 <comment><USER2> Not just in vitro - Italian media reported today that the two Chinese tourists who fell ill in Rome have been successfully treated with Remdesivir (freely provided by Gilead). Source (Italian): [https://www.corriere.it/cronache/20_febbraio_26/coronavirus-...](https://www.corriere.it/cronache/20_febbraio_26/coronavirus- guariti-tre-pazienti-curati-roma-farmaco-studiato-contro-l-ebola-fa-sperare- medici-5c56ad00-58ba-11ea-8e3a-a0c8564bd6c7.shtml)

<comment><USER3> While that's good news - it isn't statistically significant.

You need to do a double-blind test to confirm results.

<comment><USER4> This is an example of real-world evidence ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_world_evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_world_evidence)), gathered outside the context of any kind of drug trial, blinded or not.

While these two outcomes may not achieve statistical significance in the mathematical sense...

\- there are compelling mechanistic hypotheses for why the treatments might work

\- drug doses are being supplied for free by manufacturers

\- infected people don't have the luxury of time to wait for RCT results

<comment><USER5> Most importantly, a placebo controlled RCT would be unethical for a disease with high mortality rates.

You would run a randomized controlled trial with treatment control (not placebo controlled) when we have an effective treatment. These are about as good as it is assumed placebo effects figure the same in all tested treatment groups.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is practically ancient news at this point. RCTs are already underway in China and now starting up in the US. The question that hasn't been well answered anywhere is, assuming it does prove to work, can we make enough of this stuff in the space of time to really make a difference? What would that look like? Would we need to stop producing other drugs to switch over production lines? Etc. What that would look like would be interesting to read about.

<comment><USER7> Chloroquine is extremely common and can be bought in big bottles at your local grocery store.

<comment><USER8> Not in the US. Nobody makes it here. Over $250 per 12 tablets at Kaiser. HCQ (hydroxychloroquine) is still used for autoimmune disease and is a lot cheaper.

<comment><USER9> Definitely. The State Department has a set of pages noting that mosquitoes with malaria have developed chloroquine resistance in every country with malaria, and recommends other drugs instead. The main manufacturer of chloroquine, Bayer, stopped producing it a while back. Not sure who if anyone even makes it these days. I'm assuming the Chinese trials are using some old stock.

<comment><USER8> They restarted old lines. These are not terribly hard to make. There was just no demand.

<comment><USER9> Do you know they (the Chinese presumably, if not who) restarted old lines, or are you guessing that you think they did?

It would be great if chloroquinine is back in production.

<comment><USER8> It was reported in the news. Also Bayer donated a bunch to China from their stock in Pakistan. It's possible that HCQ, which is widely available, has similar effectiveness.

<comment><USER9> Thanks, that enabled me to find the 1/28 donation news:

[https://www.marketscreener.com/BAYER-AG-436063/news/Bayer- to...](https://www.marketscreener.com/BAYER-AG-436063/news/Bayer-to-Donate- Medicines-to-Treat-Coronavirus-29900181/)

It mentions "antibiotics and analgesics" but not quinine, but I'll accept you've seen a more detailed report.

I was unable to find a report saying that Chloroquine lines have started back up.

By HCQ do you mean Quinine Hydrochloride as is found in Tonic Water? Do you have any links to studies showing it has "similar effectiveness" as Chloroquine in treatment? I'm taking Quinine Hydrochloride at present since it's harmless and available, but have not seen any studies about it specifically regarding the new virus.

<comment><USER8> HCQ is hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial that is still widely available because it is used for autoimmune diseases. It is a prescription only drug. The antiviral property is described in this Lancet article: [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099\(03\)00806-5/fulltext)

<comment><USER9> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just a reminder that other antivirals like remdesivir that Gilead manufactures retail for $2k for a 30-day supply in the US, despite costing roughly $40 in other first world countries, and multiple US insurance companies needed to be sued before they would cover them. To put this in perspective, transmission of HIV could be virtually eliminated in the US if some of those antiviral drugs were made available to at-risk populations.

Should there be a pandemic-level outbreak in the US, I just hope cost and IP laws aren't the bottlenecks when it comes to preventing the spread of, and recovery from, this disease.

<comment><USER11> > To put this in perspective, transmission of HIV could be virtually > eliminated in the US if some of those antiviral drugs were made available to > at-risk populations.

No, the biggest issue with preventing HIV transmission is stigma of the disease

Besides, Gilead, much like every other large pharmaceutical company, has patient access programs to ensure that anyone who needs their medications can get them: [https://www.gilead.com/purpose/medication-access/us- patient-...](https://www.gilead.com/purpose/medication-access/us-patient- access)

<comment><USER10> > _Besides, Gilead, much like every other large pharmaceutical company, has > patient access programs to ensure that anyone who needs their medications > can get them_

Not if they're on Medicaid or Medicare[1], which _some_ providers through those programs only very recently began to cover the medications due to lawsuits against them.

Also, the co-pay coupon card only covers up to $7,200 in co-pays per year[1].

There is also the income gap where someone could make too much money to qualify for their program, despite having no insurance, bad insurance or catastrophic insurance plans. A contractor responsible for their own health insurance might find themselves in that income gap.

And this program is at the discretion of Gilead, who can deny, change or discontinue it at any moment.

[1] [https://www.truvada.com/how-to-get-truvada-for- prep/truvada-...](https://www.truvada.com/how-to-get-truvada-for-prep/truvada- cost)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine were successful in malaria prophylaxis on a weekly dosing. Someone should start a trial among medical personnel to see if it is effective in coronavirus prevention. These are non-specific antivirals. Once virus takes hold, they have not yet been proven to be that effective in clinical settings.

</comment><comment><USER12> Why does astronomically priced remdesivir take precedence in most mentions when, from the chart, chloroquine seems to have a similar inhibition rate, a slightly lower cytotoxicity, and a much lower cost?

</comment><comment><USER8> Clinical trials for Remdesivir are ongoing.

There are some problems with the Chinese trials, which were the first to start twenty days ago:

[https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04252664](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04252664)

[https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04257656](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04257656)

Trials were run in Wuhan by popular demand but the epicenter with a very over- burdened medical system was probably not the best choice as trial site. Recruitment of mild/moderate cases were particularly problematic because these were not treated in hospitals in Wuhan at that time (you had to have a serious enough case to have a real hospital bed). It is also hard to find patients who have not tried other medication per the recruitment criteria.

The US organized trial [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04280705](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04280705) just started but is designed to be a lot more flexible and will show results a lot sooner if Remdesivir is actually as effective as we all hope it to be.

<comment><USER3> The drug was also shown to be effective against SARS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> But didn't malaria develop chloroquine resistance in some areas? Whats stopping sars-cov-2 from mutating like that?

<comment><USER14> I'd say we should cross that bridge when we get to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Chloroquine update - "Xu Nanping, vice minister of science and technology, at a press conference in Beijing" Feb 21:

>Chloroquine Phosphate, which has been used for more than 70 years, has been tested in 135 cases in Beijing and southern China's Guangdong Province. Among them, 130 patients have light and common symptoms, and five are severe patients.

>None of the patients with light and common symptoms have developed severe symptoms. Four severe patients have been discharged from hospital, and one has seen severe symptoms mitigated to normal, Xu said. [http://www.china.org.cn/china/2020-02/22/content_75732846.ht...](http://www.china.org.cn/china/2020-02/22/content_75732846.htm)

which sounds promising.

</comment><comment><USER16> The guy in Washington was near death until Remdesivir was administered. He was released a few days later.

Cool stuff.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'd love to understand the mechanism of action of chloroquine. Does the paper touch on that?

<comment><USER18> [https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69](https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69)

>>We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS- CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.

>>Chloroquine is known to block virus infection by increasing endosomal pH required for virus/cell fusion, as well as interfering with the glycosylation of cellular receptors of SARS-CoV

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This paper is a month old. I don't understand why this isn't common knowledge yet.

</comment><comment><USER17> If this stuff is working, why haven't we seen the death rates start falling?

<comment><USER20> They have fallen these last days in China, if that means anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I thought the name looked familiar. I'm not a doctor and I only googled for 10 minutes. I tore my achilles last year. I would never take this drug. I hope I'm off base.

Wiki breadcrumbs

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-Aminoquinoline](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-Aminoquinoline)

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinolone_antibiotic#Tendons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinolone_antibiotic#Tendons)

<comment><USER22> Chloroquine =/= quinolone class of antibiotics</comment></comment>


Walter Isaacson on the women of ENIAC - <AUTHOR> http://fortune.com/2014/09/18/walter-isaacson-the-women-of-eniac/

<comment><USER2> I like this article a lot, it shows how women have been able to be successful at getting into math and programming irrespective of the otherwise strongly sexist attitude of their times. I think this actively demonstrates that societal sexism might _not_ the reason for more women not being interested and working in technology ('might' being the key word here).

This part of the article is key: "The night before the demonstration was Valentine's Day, but despite their normally active social lives, Snyder and Jennings did not celebrate. "Instead, we were holed up with that wonderful machine, the ENIAC, busily making the last corrections and checks on the program," Jennings recounted."

Think about how a man (or woman) who said this today would be treated. Would they be lionized as a good, intelligent person dedicated to their job, or would they be called a "f--king dork" and parodied on the Big Bang Theory? (Notice how the article finds it imperative to state that they had otherwise normal social lives.) How might either situation affect boys trying to get into technology? How might it affect girls?

<comment><USER3> > I think this actively demonstrates that societal sexism might not the reason > for more women not being interested and working in technology

I don't really agree. What I understood from the article was that, in the past, when programming was marketed as a women's job, it was mostly women doing it, whereas now, when it's stereotyped as a male job, it's mostly men doing it.</comment></comment>


SEC charges E*Trade, 5 others, for front running - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN0530515020090305?rpc=44 <comment><USER2> The article doesn't fully explain "front running", so here's Wikipedia's take: (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_running>)

 _Front running is the illegal practice of a stock broker executing orders on a security for its own account while taking advantage of advance knowledge of pending orders from its customers. When orders previously submitted by its customers will predictably affect the price of the security, purchasing first for its own account gives the broker an unfair advantage, since it can expect to close out its position at a profit based on the new price level. Front running may involve either buying (where the broker buys for their account, driving up the price before filling customer buy orders) or selling (where the broker sells for its own account, driving down the price before filling customer sell orders)._

</comment><comment><USER3> Seems like a very small fine. I'm sure eTrade made a ton more money than the 34 million they were charged.

<comment><USER4> Just think how much they will lose in customer trust because of that. I pulled everything out today.

<comment><USER5> Yeah. I'm willing to forgive most blunders, and I am not actually investing in the stock market yet. But when I do I'd highly doubt that I'd ever E trade.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> They are getting hit hard for this. Their stock has lost over 13% of its value today.

</comment><comment><USER6> Who do they think is fooled by neither admitting or denying the allegations?

</comment><comment><USER7> I got a letter from the Office of Thrift Supervision today confirming receipt of my complaint about E*TRADE Bank. Glad to know I'm not the only one who hates them.</comment>


Video: Hacker creates Super Mario game in a cardboard box - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-09/12/analogue-mario-in-a-box

<comment><USER2> Honestly, I'm a little bit underwhelmed overall.. I must say though, my favorite part by a long shot is the way the box opens to start, and then closes when you lose. It's the most compelling design element of the project... provides a really fun surprise, and I can't think of a more tactile way to say 'Game Over'.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, so cool. I made a cardboard video game when I was six so this gives me a warm feeling.

It was based on the cocktail version of Galaga. I cut a hole in the top of a similar box and put two ships and an "explosion" on popsicle sticks. Videogame puppetry.

I netted fifty cents (oh yes, it had a coin slot too). My parents were good early customers. It did not achieve product-market fit when I sneaked it to school, however.

<comment><USER4> Poor market fit, or heavy litigation? :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Source code:

<http://teagueduino.org/index.php?p=/discussion/22>

</comment><comment><USER6> Very, very cool.

If you think about it, the underlying technology is not that much different from those LED/LCD video games back in the 80s where different images would light up simulating motion, etc. I remember the coolest thing as a kid was a Pac-man LCD watch, which in fact really sucked, but I was a dumb kid and didn't know better. Also, it was cool that it was a portable video game.

Regardless, this is definitely cool. (But is it just me or does Mario go from left to right...?)

</comment><comment><USER7> I made a cardboard submarine game where you aimed your torpedo to a boat rollng on the horizon line when I was 12, using way less electronics :) Funny that people still do that :)

</comment><comment><USER8> No. He creates a scrolling game with collision mechanics, using art from the popular and recognizable Mario franchise. An acute, but distinct, difference.

Mario is an intellectual property. Not a genre.</comment>


DHH Interview: Ruby on Rails, Startups, Culture - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb2xzeWf-PM

<comment><USER2> I am really not predisposed to becoming anybody's fanboy, but I've gotta admit, the more I hear from DHH, the more I want to hear.

I think he has a very sensible, "grounded" perspective, and he presents it well.

</comment><comment><USER3> Birds!</comment>


Save for Later: Bookmarking Apps and the Wish Economy - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@dianakimball/save-for-later-b2fa64782078 <comment><USER2> I like the idea of bookmarking services, but I've never used one due to the fact that I always have enough to do at any given moment. I've never had a moment where I thought "OK, now I have time to get to those articles I bookmarked". If I used such a service I would quickly build up an impossibly large backlog of learning and reading material.

That being said, I can definitely see the value of knowing what people intend to do if they only had the time, money, etc.

Maybe I'll wish I had used a bookmarking service if I live long enough to have my brain uploaded into a computer!

<comment><USER3> I use bookmarks for the opposite reason: it's for stuff I've read that I might need to lookup later (a new tool to try out, a reference guide, an interesting article to share, etc). For the read-it-later pages, I just keep open tabs (which Firefox syncs across my devices).

That said, I don't use a separate service, just the browser bookmarks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was guilty as well, but since I began to see 'saving something to consume it later' as basically stealing time from my future self for trivial reading of no real consequence (let's be honest, we could unplug from HN, twitter & co. for weeks and not miss out on anything vital) I became much much much more conservative in what I save.

And if you really don't even have time to skim an article at the very moment you found it why are you browsing anyway?

<comment><USER5> > And if you really don't even have time to skim an article at the very moment > you found it why are you browsing anyway?

Sometimes I'm looking for something specific, but come across tangents that look interesting/useful for when I have more time to read.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> There is only one pure bookmarking app in this list: Pinboard. Pocket & Instapaper are bookmarking/read later Apps. Wunderlist & Evernote are productivity Apps w/bookmarking functionality tacked on (Evernote less so). Tumblr, Pinterest & Product Hunt are social networks.

</comment><comment><USER7> Hey Everyone,

Just wanted to jump in here and say that me and my business partner are making a bookmarking app that falls in squarely in the visual and private corner of all these apps if you look at the article.

It's called Linkship and you can check it out at [https://www.getlinkship.com](https://www.getlinkship.com)

It's in the very early stages of development, and we're in the process of adding a whole slew of useful features. Would love for anyone to try it out and give us feedback. We're only two people, but we're working hard to do this right :D

<comment><USER8> > Collect and share the best of the web together with Linkship for Chrome.

I pay for Pocket and I've dabbled in Instagram. I rolled my own system in Perl and SQL and I spent some time with Yojimbo. I don't remember the names of the other systems competing to help me archive and cross reference data, but it's one of the most important pillars in my workflow. I hope you expand this beyond Chrome, because I like market competition and would love to try it it.

<comment><USER7> We're definitely going to be expanding beyond Chrome to Safari , Firefox, and likely Edge once it has extension support.

At the moment, we're still in feature development with the product, and Firefox is in the middle of changing its extension platform, so we're trying to get the right timing with porting things over. We should have it soon though!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Evernote is cumbersome for me, but where do people save the multitude of snippits from websites they visit and don't want to forget?

<comment><USER10> I keep a personal Wiki as a set of plain-text (org-mode) files in Dropbox. I paste snippets into those files. I sometimes even copy contents of entire articles if I find something interesting that if the original URL died in the next couple of years, I'd consider it a great loss.

<comment><USER11> I just save, file, and tag every article that I read. It means I have a lot article data, but I never have to worry about having an article name on the tip of my tongue or losing an article due to dead links.

I've never used a Wiki as you described it - can you tell me more about your system?

<comment><USER10> It's a very simple system. I just stuff text files in Dropbox/wiki, with an occasional subfolder for things like projects, essays (I write) and support files that I reference in the wiki entries.

The cross-linking itself is done directly in files. I use org-mode[0] in Emacs for keeping notes. No web access (one day I may some up but I have no pressing need), mobile mostly through Dropbox app itself (there were some mobile apps for org-mode files developed recently that aren't crap, but they're still geared mostly towards the TODO-list features, and I need a general-purpose org-mode notes editor; I haven't found any for Android yet). So I mostly interact with the Wiki whenever I have a computer with Emacs handy (at work I selectively sync wiki/ and several other folders from my personal Dropbox).

A very simple setup, but the real value comes from just storing all those notes over the years. I store everything and anything - from personal information I just can't remember for life (like social-security-bank- insurance-tax-whatever something ID), through cooking recipes, my geek code[1], dieting notes, shell snippets, notes about geopolitics, travel checklists - you name it.

[0] - [http://orgmode.org/](http://orgmode.org/)

[1] - [http://www.geekcode.com/geek.html](http://www.geekcode.com/geek.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> How about bookmarking app for apps? Mobile phones have limited storage and You can not install everything You want. It would slow down Your phone

</comment><comment><USER13> Very interesting... as far as I've read. I've saved it for later reading in my Pocket account. I wonder what the author thinks of me.</comment>


Can a Smartwatch Help Prevent a Heart Attack? - <AUTHOR> http://ww2.kqed.org/futureofyou/2015/05/06/can-a-smartwatch-help-prevent-a-heart-attack/

<comment><USER2> Although we're not quite there yet, this is an interesting thought, and well within our technological grasp.

I think the one thing missing from moving this analysis forward is reliably tracking heart attacks.

You'd have to rely on the user to signal that they had a heart attack, so that data analysis could be done leading up to the events. This requires effort by someone that just had a heart attack (not always easy).

Then you also have to trust that your user data is accurate and that your users aren't trying to fake heart attacks by messing with their devices.

I'm still hopeful that these problems will be worked around.

</comment><comment><USER3> You need a 12 point ECG to even see many arrhythmias. Heart rate monitors aren't useless, but they aren't particularly helpful for a lot of heart conditions. Source: have heart condition.

</comment><comment><USER4> How about cryptogenic stroke?[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23366107](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23366107)

I think it's relatively clear that the tech works in a controlled setting. It even works surprisingly well in an uncontrolled setting. But as these devices become more mass marketed, sensitivity and selectivity become a much bigger concern. If you detect 99% of all true events, that looks great at first. But how useful is it if only 10% of all detected events are true? Selectivity must be tight before we can issue strong health warnings to masses of people. The challenge of real world noise can be bigger than getting the first principle tech to work.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'd rather just die than keep worrying about it.

</comment><comment><USER6> The short answer based on my reading of the article is, probably not.

</comment><comment><USER7> A recruiter for mc10inc.com reached out to me and told me about their business which is exploring something here. Small wearable electronic stickers that are flexible and waterproof. I suspect that type of tech would even allow the all important 12 point ECG monitoring without the typical discomfort and immobility associated with the current method.

</comment><comment><USER8> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)</comment>


Quantifying the Effects of Firefox's Tracking Protection - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/11/12/quantifying-the-effects-of-firefoxs-tracking-protection/

<comment> X-combinator This is so awesome!</comment>


It's 2020 and dailymail looks like this - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/UXDesign/comments/i3s0sy/its_2020_and_dailymail_looks_like_this/ <comment><USER2> The irony is, I couldn't see half this image because of Reddit's own "use our app!" popup and header, which together covered more than half the screen on mobile.</comment>


170+ Django conference videos - <AUTHOR> http://equallytrue.blogspot.com/2012/05/170-django-conference-videos.html <comment><USER2> We also have a large crowdsourced collection of Django videos on Lanyrd (178 at the moment) - many of which have accompanying slides and notes:

<http://lanyrd.com/topics/django/video/>

We have similar collections of videos on other topics, for example:

<http://lanyrd.com/topics/python/video/> (277 videos)

<http://lanyrd.com/topics/ruby/video/> (161 videos)

<http://lanyrd.com/topics/javascript/video/> (204 videos)

<http://lanyrd.com/topics/ruby-on-rails/video/> (66 videos)

Or search through our full index of over 6,000 conference videos here:

<http://lanyrd.com/video/>

<comment><USER3> You should get added as an Apple TV "app" similar to Youtube, Netflix etc, so people can browse the topic of the video they want and then watch them sorted by the max rating or something like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The embarrassing demo failures in the "Advanced Security Topics" at the front and center of the blog post were painful to watch and unenlightening, and discredit the effort which has presumably gone into curating this video collection. Might want to highlight something else.

<comment><AUTHOR> I did watch the session a while ago and now remember it wasn't too successful, but I selected it there because I think security is important and did have good points in there. Many books, articles and presentations tend to leave the security part out of their scope. I did push the security session down the list :).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Perhaps the OP missed it, but there's <http://pyvideo.org> –which contains these and more.

<comment><USER6> I wrote a simple python script that fetches videos form pyvideo and converts them to QuickTime so you can watch them on your Apple device. <https://github.com/codeinthehole/pyvideo2quicktime>

This is useful to me as I spend 2 hours a day on the London Underground, which is a good time for watching conference talks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Most of the talks don't have links for slides. Otherwise great talks.

</comment><comment><USER8> Hey! One of the five selected videos I co-presented! Yay! \o/

</comment><comment> why-el Is there something like this for Ruby or Javascript?</comment>


Shame on you Microsoft, for buying a Promoted Tweet for "Firefox".  - <AUTHOR> http://twitpic.com/4c6nth

<comment><USER2> Actually, that's kinda awesome. Talk about effective use of marketing.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why is that shameful? Buying AdWords for competitor searches on Google is standard practice, why should Twitter be any different?

<comment><AUTHOR> Competing aggressively against a non-profit? Classy!

<comment><USER3> How does Firefox's tax status have anything to do with Microsoft's business objectives? I hate IE as much as the next guy, but I don't see how Microsoft marketing their business is morally questionable just because their competitor gets tax breaks and doesn't pay dividends to shareholders.

<comment><AUTHOR> What would you think of a paid-but-cheap clinic with shady methods and far- from-best care practices (let's say they kill or mutilate 2% of their patients) that targets search-advertisements towards people in need of free healthcare?

Oh, and according to Tom Warren, of Winrumors, "The company was quick to trash the marketing stunt after complaints started rolling-in on the social networking site." so, they probably realize it didn't get down well with the public.

<comment><USER3> I agree that IE is a bad product, and that this marketing campaign may even have been counter-effective. I still don't see how a bad product or a bad marketing campaign are "evil". That being said, my life as a web developer would be better if IE disappeared off the face of the earth, but I don't forecast that happening any time soon :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> How much would a "Try Fedora/Ubuntu/etc. Live CD for Free" promoted tweet cost when the next version of Windows ships?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know. Kickstarter to the rescue?</comment></comment>


Taskbox - Turn your inbox into a task list - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/taskbox/taskbox

<comment><USER2> This space of "handle tasks in email" is starting to explode since pg called it as a giant opportunity. Indeed, I believe Mail Pilot are launching their public beta soon - the timing makes me think these guys were (savvily, tbf) trying to jump in alongside it.

It's not just another "todo list", it's really dealing with the pain of remembering the promises you make in email, and the fact email is used to discuss all the work we do, but is completely disconnected from our other management tools.

It's also obviously a positive thing that lots of innovative new products are getting involved: a single pioneer does not a movement make.

Disclaimer: I've been working on ActiveInbox for Gmail[1], first as a hobby project and later as a bootstrapped business, since 2006. In fact I think we were the earliest, certainly for Gmail.

Oddly enough the transition from hobby to business came about in a very Kickstarter way, but long before it existed -- early users simply wanted to give money to keep us going, we refused at first because it was a "hassle to deal with tax" (this is also long before Lean Startup: customer validation was clearly not something we were tuned too), and eventually set up a PayPal donate button.

And I'm really proud of our community - we've been discussing ways to improve email very openly since we started. They drive ideas, and we implement them to create a very experimental product.

I'd really like to write up our experience for HN, including the experience of getting an invite to YC, but not a place. There are a lot of stories of how regular people - our customers - pulled a business out of a geek hobby, and lots of mistakes and missteps I've made that could have been avoided.

[1]: <http://www.activeinboxhq.com>

<comment><USER3> Email has been very closely integrated with task management in Outlook for a while now.

On the same note, I've been hoping that Google would flesh out Google Tasks for a while now -- technically Tasks ties in with Gmail and Google Calendar already, but that integration is fairly primitive, and Tasks is still missing extremely basic things like search, labels, and a usable (non-widget) UI in Gmail. Of all the projects Google is letting stagnate, this one hurts me the most. I could make great use of it if it were more complete.

<comment><USER2> I got the impression from a single conversation I had with Google back in January (please take this as the single data point it is), that they really did re-route the entire organization to focus on Google+, and were prepared to scale back efforts on Google Apps for at least a few months. For reference, the conversation was about them seeking 3rd party vendors to fill in the gaps in their offerings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm curious why this is using a Kickstarter project. Maybe I'm jaded as a developer, but with only a $4k ask I would say build it, sell it, and ship it. I'm not going to trust that you can build a good mobile app until I can use it myself.

<comment><USER5> To clarify, our target is 30k not 4k. However our goal with Kickstarter is primarily to build a community of positive, supportive users that are interested in helping us shape the product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Another comment has already mentioned Taskforce; Mail Pilot (<http://www.mailpilot.co/>), which was another Kickstarter project, _also_ does something similar.

I really want something that does this, but as a native desktop app _and_ a mobile app, _and_ syncs to a web app so I can access it from elsewhere. And a pony.

<comment><USER7> MailPilot is also about to open up a beta today in about 4 hours, so not sure it's worth investing in another kickstarter to make a similar project. I want to play around with MailPilot to see if I like the metaphor of my inbox as a task list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Andrew here from Taskbox. Thank you all for your interest. Hacker News is currently driving 27% of the traffic we are receiving on Kickstarter and we've already started to see some pledges. This is great.

</comment><comment><USER8> Because another todo app is just what the world needs.

</comment><comment><USER9> I have a system whereby I email tasks to myself and setup a filter to automatically dump those tasks into a special folder. I do the same as a "Read It Later". I know its not the same level of complexity as this product but I always liked email for its simplicity and my approach is simple and works for me. I'd be interested in hearing what other techniques people employ using email.

</comment><comment><USER10> I like the idea of merging tasks with emails - but if I can make one suggestion: I don't think I'd ever hit an auto-reply button that said "I'll get it done. It's now in my _Taskbox_." Unless replies are customizable, this sort of self-serving superfluous information would turn me off to the product.

<comment><USER11> I currently have the app, and this was the first thing I changed :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This has been tried over and over.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm a big fan of creating task lists, however, I don't think anyone's going to solve this problem by making the user do the work, no matter how nice the design.

There was once an Australian company called Liaise, which went a long way toward automating the task creation process by automatically identifying action requests within email. To me, this is what I imagine the future of this activity will look like. Here's an old Liaise demo video, which may help illustrate the point: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyrWD7hTnFc>

</comment><comment><USER14> It's a good idea to play with. I've been using Streak, which merges CRM with gmail inbox. Google's own task integration (as with Apple's, Yahoo, et al) have been poor.

But I agree with previous commenters that a speculative mobile app is unsuitable for kickstarter. I wouldn't be surprised if the new rules issued to prevent speculative hardware projects were eventually expanded to include things like mobile apps, but in any case it's a marketplace -- others with the capability to fund are free to disagree, and if enough do it will get funded. What's to complain about?

<comment><AUTHOR> Just a quick note: I'm not affiliated with the app or its creators in any way, but I have been a beta tester for it, and it's working pretty well (the app is bootstrapped so far). The Kickstarter is to add integration with other email providers (Exchange, etc.) and to create a web app that integrates with it.

<comment><USER5> That is correct. The iOS app will go live in October and folks are welcome to wait for that if they'd like. We're hoping to raise funds for expansion of engineering into web and android platforms via Kickstarter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Andrew and his team worked out of our office space for a few weeks while they built their product.

Andrew's is a stand-up guy and he's recruited a solid team of software developers to take on this project.

</comment><comment><USER16> _In fact, 80% of users move email messages out of their inbox and into folders while at their desk_

I'd like to know where they got that number: it's nothing like the numbers that I've heard elsewhere, although it might be closer if they're including any action that moves email out of the inbox (like gmail 'archive').

</comment><comment><USER17> YC company Taskforce (<http://www.taskforceapp.com/>) does something very similar, although not having used it, I can't speak to whether they're focused on mobile as Taskbox appears to be.

</comment><comment><USER18> Solid team behind this app. I've also met the CEO and he really knows his stuff and is a great guy. Even though the app isn't available quite yet, trust me, it will be great.</comment>


Kurzweil still doesn't understand the brain - <AUTHOR> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/kurzweil_still_doesnt_understa.php

<comment><USER2> what a pathetic little child, who lacks the courage to apologize for his little temper tantrum. so to sum up, the issue is that kurzweil, an outsider, has dared to make a prediction related to biology with myers in earshot despite providing "no explanation for how we'll be 'reverse engineering' the human brain"</comment>


Is America Rooting for a Twitter Downfall?  Some Evidence. - <AUTHOR> http://themetricsystem.rjmetrics.com/2010/02/08/is-america-rooting-for-a-twitter-downfall-some-evidence/ Media fallout from new data that highlighted Twitter's churn rate. <comment><USER2> Facebook took it's core function and made it better; added threaded comments. Thus to the many who never used Twitter now they don't see why they would. Everyone they know is on Facebook and it's a more private network. My mom, her friends and others in that demographic were not on MySpace but they have been one of the fastest growing demos on Facebook (growth) if im not mistaken. This same demo as a whole want and are used to privacy. Doubtful, they'll flock to use Twitter ever.

Though Zuckerberg is pushing to be more like Twitter and he may have achieved such by fooling millions. Yes it was all over the news, but millions still don't understand nor cared to. Twitter on the other hand when understood is that you are saying random things openly to whoever and anyone can read it. That's not how people comprehend Facebook.

Zuckerberg's comments that people don't care about privacy was a bit surprising. His demographic might feel this way - but doubtful!

<comment><USER3> I know Facebook lets you comment on statuses, but comments aren't threaded, or they weren't last I checked.

<comment><USER4> But the comment on a status sticks to the status, not as a random flat message somewhere in a twitter-stream.

So as opposed to on twitter you _do_ get some context and you know what they replied to. I say that is "threaded" enough to make it useful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It has always seemed to me that Twitter had been extremely hyped up, but only by the very people Twitter is optimal for (e.g., journalists, bloggers, and anyone else who would benefit from spreading information in a 'one-to-many' way). Other (average and non-tech) people, whose 'followers' are limited to Facebook friends, generally don't understand Twitter, and are often actually quite annoyed that they have to keep hearing about it.

I think, therefore, it could be true that all these readers/commenters who seem to be 'rooting' for Twitter's downfall, may more accurately be rooting for it to stop being so overhyped, or for it to at least be presented as a product they can understand.

</comment><comment><USER6> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle>

<comment><USER7> Thank you, I didn't even know there was an established term for this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Some of the metrics about how many users are active and produce a certain % of the content are somewhat irrelevant and are not a sign of downfall. In nearly every social network I've studied with the Web Ecology Project (<http://webecologyproject.org>) we've roughly seen that the top 10% of users create 90% of the content. This is true for everything from HN to Facebook.

It was a super easy story in 2009 to praise Twitter. It got people reading the articles and sold copies/advertisements. The news like stuff that is new. Now its time for them to step up to the plate and continue on with having an awesome, useful and sustainable service and company.

</comment><comment><USER9> Is wishing I could stop hearing about it the same as rooting for its downfall? The only feelings of negativity I have towards it is related to the resurgence in url shorteners, which is a view outside the mainstream.</comment>


Any one interested in debugging a scrabble game? - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/deostroll/jscrab.git <comment><USER2> What's the bug?

<comment><AUTHOR> I've setup the project to be debuggable. I am trying to understand the move generation algorithm. There are a lot of loops. I've changed the shuffling strategy to return the same sequence of words, every time the game starts.</comment></comment>