"I haven't been drunk in 3 years... and I've been partying way more than you." - <AUTHOR> http://hellobubs.com/post/17052863136/i-havent-been-drunk-in-3-years-and-ive-been <comment><USER2> Just speculation, but I have the impression that alcohol "problems" are a larger problem in countries where the age required to legally buy alcohol is rather high.

In my home country (Austria) I could buy alcohol at age 13 without any problems. No one would ask for an ID. I think nowadays they are a little bit stricter, but you are still legally allowed to buy alcohol once you turn 16. Once you turn a little bit older alcohol isn't that interesting any more. Of course, you'd still buy a beer (or more) if you're partying with friends, but getting totally wasted is something teenagers would do.

I've moved to the US some time ago, and here I have the impression that even people in their late-twenties get regularly drunk just "because they can" and are "allowed to do so". Seems they just never learned how to use alcohol responsibly while they were young, and at some age it's too late to learn it.

<comment><USER3> I agree that the easy availability of alcohol to teenagers in most European countries seems to achieve the effect that you describe.

There is another angle to this though - is it better to engage in binge drinking right in the middle of adolescence, when the body and mind is at a rapid pace of development, or in your twenties, when you are physically better equipped to deal with the effects of excessive alcohol consumption?

I am not a medical professional, but instinctively, the second option seems to me to be the safer one.

<comment><USER4> > your twenties, when you are physically better equipped to deal with the > effects of excessive alcohol consumption?

Why would you believe that? I don't have any specific knowledge, but I also see no reason to believe that you're better equipped (physiologically) at 25 to handle alcohol than you are at 15.

<comment><USER5> You aren't still growing, so the binge drinking can't mess up your development processes. You have more body mass, so a given amount of alcohol will cause less of an increase in your BAC.

<comment><USER6> Another variable between European teenage drinking vs USA teenage drinking is driving.

European teens do drive - but it's not fashionable.

USA teens _have_ to drive. The party is spread out (multiple locations in suburbia) and the vehicle is the symbol of empowerment.

Obviously, mixing heavy or inexperienced drinking with driving is a recipe for death.

<comment><USER7> Drunk walking is just as dangerous. Freakonomics Radio recently did a piece of drunk walking and the numbers are surprisingly high.

<comment><USER8> In Germany it's illegal to walk outside if you're to drunk.

<comment><USER9> This is of course bullshit. There is however, an interesting paragraph (StGB § 323a) that says you can go to jail for up to 5 years for being intoxicated if you get drunk deliberately and then commit a crime but are deemed criminally incapable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Why the false dichotomy? The author seems to imply that the alternatives are 1) never touching a drop of alcohol, or 2) getting blind drunk, being incapable of controlling your actions, and blacking out. There are some good points in there about how you shouldn't "need" alcohol, and arguments against getting totally wasted, but he seems to be completely ignoring a huge, huge middle ground.

<comment><USER11> For a lot of people, it's not a false dichotomy; there is no middle ground. And I'm not necessarily talking about alcoholism either (though that qualifies); the insidious thing about alcohol is that it clouds your judgement and makes abuse more likely. So you've had a few drinks and you're having fun, hanging out with friends, feeling pretty good. And then everyone is ordering another round, which is almost certainly a bad idea from a logical perspective. But you're not thinking logically anymore, so you do too.

Think about it like this: how many people who drink have been drunk to the point of throwing up (and subsequently hungover) more than once or twice? Most people who drink would answer yes. And that makes zero sense; what logical person would choose to experience that misery more than once? And yet many do it almost every weekend. _Because alcohol screws up your brain._

<comment><USER12> > the insidious thing about alcohol is that it clouds your judgement and makes > abuse more likely. So you've had a few drinks and you're having fun, hanging > out with friends, feeling pretty good. And then everyone is ordering another > round, which is almost certainly a bad idea from a logical perspective. But > you're not thinking logically anymore, so you do too.

...or you can hang out with friends who drink like responsible adults (and not like overgrown frat kids.) Excessive drinking isn't a result of alcohol consumption as much as the drinking culture in the US. We have this notion that "when people drink they act like idiots with clouded judgement," which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other countries where attitudes toward alcohol are different there's a marked difference in how people behave under the influence. Now, while you can't do a ton about the way US culture as a whole views alcohol consumption, you _can_ make it a point to socialize with people who know how to have a good time while drinking in moderation (or influence your friends to be more responsible in the way they drink.)

(More about how behavior under the influence is actually determined by our social expectations and not a characteristic of alcohol itself: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15265317> For instance, "This basic fact has been proved time and again, not just in qualitative cross-cultural research, but also in carefully controlled scientific experiments - double- blind, placebos and all. To put it very simply, the experiments show that when people think they are drinking alcohol, they behave according to their cultural beliefs about the behavioural effects of alcohol.")

<comment><USER13> The cultural inability to drink moderately is not inherently American. Seems you have a bit of a cultural bias, as you left out some notorious drinking cultures: Germany, Japan, Australia, and the UK among them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Once a week there is a post on HN where I fail to understand how it got so up- voted. This is that post. If not for the moderate condescension and proselytism, I wouldn't think much of it; instead, I've become inspired to comment.

OP probably does feel more "fun" in a given month than most of us. But the article comes across as though the reader has never experienced such a life.

A lot of us have - in our teenage years. The life of skinny dipping, cross- dressing, and acting like an idiot, all without the aid of alcohol, aptly describes my own. Sure, those times were fun, perhaps among the most fun of my life. But a lot of that fun came from both their novelty and ignorance of the perhaps more enjoyable adult fun (alcohol, sex). Unfortunately, as life went on, those activities grew mundane. (Besides, one seeks higher levels of happiness as he ages, for instance the self-actualization that comes with building a successful business). In a sense, I envy the author's enjoying such activities at 30 as much as a teen would. Why he thinks he is able to would make a great follow-up blog post. Most of society after all shifts to the "adult fun".

On another note, the extremism of the post bothers me. The author equates drinking alcohol with getting drunk. Which of course excessive consumption causes. But I can certainly remember everything if I consume just a few shots, but those said shots certainly make the world around me seem much more entertaining.

</comment><comment><USER15> First, I agree with people pointing out that alcohol doesn't have to be for getting drunk. At the moment I have three near-empty boxes of beer (bottles), six part-drunk bottles of whisky, and a few empty wine bottles. None of that alcohol has been consumed by myself or anyone else to the point of being even buzzed, yet alone drunk.

However, I do enjoy getting drunk. I've never drunk so much I threw up, or fell over, or hit anyone, or... etc. But yes, when I'm out with friends or colleagues we will happily enjoy a night with much alcohol flowing - enough to be classed by the UK government as "booze drinking", at least.

I sometimes do or say something I feel embarassed about afterwards (most recent example was a conversation about poetry with a London taxi driver at ~5am), but nothing I've been ashamed of.

Sure, I can have fun without alcohol. Sometimes I do - certainly I've never had the thought that being drunk is a requirement for having fun. It just provides a different type of fun. Different things make you laugh, you have different conversations...

Obviously these things vary for different people, I've known people who I don't want to be around when they're drunk - but also plenty of people just like me.

edit: Just read the first paragraph of this comment and thought "I wrote that myself and even I think that sounds like an alcoholic in denial". When I'm out and drinking I'll drink a lot, when I'm at home I'll have a glass or two over an evening. If I tried to get drunk off the whisky I have at home it would be a _really_ expensive night.

<comment><AUTHOR> I really didn't intend to say drinking or not drinking was right/wrong for everybody... just trying to tell my story and what I've found worked well for me.

I would love to know what the beer/whisky/wine brought to your time with your friends, it it wasn't for getting drunk/buzzed? Honestly curious.

<comment><USER15> Regarding the first paragraph - it brings taste. Same reason we eat nice food rather than the cheapest most nutritional food we can find. It's not alcohol for the sake of alcohol, if I had a bottle of vodka at home I wouldn't bother drinking it. Come to think of it, I think I actually _do_ have a bottle of vodka somewhere in a draw in my bedroom... it's there because I haven't ever wanted to get drunk at home since I was given it 9 months ago.

Whisky in particular I can't get enough of (in the hyperbolic way, not the "I literally drink as much as I can" way!) - I forgot to include, when looking around the room, that I have ~15 30ml bottle samples of various whiskies that I haven't tried, which I regularly add to and try. After trying them I might add it to my mental list of real bottles to buy in the future... often won't.

<comment><USER9> Except to me the taste is absolutely vile. I don't drink any alcohol whatsoever simply because it dislike the taste. Even a whiff is enough to turn me off.

I don't have any objections to others drinking (within safe limits), but really hate the notion (fortunately not widespread among my friends) that if you're not drinking alcohol in a social setting you're somehow weird or even spoiling everyone's fun.

<comment><USER16> Similar views here. For me it's beer - I've just never, ever liked the taste of beer. I think I've have 3 beers in my entire life, generally as the result of awkwardly forced social situations where it was easier to have a few sips than to make a bigger issue out of it than I wanted to.

Wine? A glass now or then with a particular meal, it's OK. Spirits? Some vodka with OJ can give me a small buzz which, in some ways, can be relaxing for a while. These are the '1-2x a year' sorts of drinks, but never really for the taste of it.

But... beer. Of any sort. I've just _never_ understood the fascination with it. It all tastes gross. It's probably saved me a small fortune compared to some of my friends over the years, and I'm sure I'm (a bit) healthier because of it, although I still eat junk food, so it's not all unicorns and rainbows on that score :)

<comment><USER17> _I think I've have 3 beers in my entire life.... I've just never understood the fascination with it. It all tastes gross_

That's a rather strong conclusion to draw from having tasted at most three different beers (and I wonder if they were all that different... situations where people typically feel pressured to drink aren't known for the high quality of the beer on hand).

<comment><USER16> I figured this would come up.

I've exaggerated a bit - I've had sips of more than 3 beers in my life. I've had tastes of lagers in the UK, a couple German beers, and a few others over time - a swig here and there, etc. 3 was basically full (or near full). There's just nothing appealing at all with any of the types (closest I could probably do would be a cider, which isn't really a beer though, right?).

This feels like a no true scotsman issue. "Well, if you'd had _good_ beer, you'd feel differently!". :) I've had tastes of beer where people said "this is the best stuff here". It's still ... ugh. Can't deal with the taste.

If my life depended on it, I probably could do it, but thankfully I've never been in that situation :)

<comment><USER17> _I've exaggerated a bit - I've had sips of more than 3 beers in my life. I've had tastes of lagers in the UK, a couple German beers, and a few others over time - a swig here and there, etc. 3 was basically full (or near full). There's just nothing appealing at all with any of the types (closest I could probably do would be a cider, which isn't really a beer though, right?)._

If that's your experience, I'm fine listing you as "doesn't like beer."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> While I'm glad that someone found that total sobriety is the best for them, I found parts of this to be a bit distasteful. The times in my life when I overdid it a bit (or a lot) with the drinking, the next day I found myself thinking "wow, I acted like such an idiot last night", not "I could have acted like the same idiot _without alcohol_ ".

If I'm at a bachelor party making gay jokes ("no homo"), the amount of alcohol I've consumed is somewhat irrelevant.

<comment><AUTHOR> What parts did you find distasteful? I was conscious when writing this to keep an air of mtv beachhouse / jersey shore tone in it... That's the kind of partying that has been glamorized and what a lot of people seek out on the weekend.

I definitely don't suggest people act like idiots. I was simply trying to relate to the people that are probably overdoing it the most.

<comment><USER19> Well, drewblaisdell named one of the distasteful parts directly, but I can quote it in isolation to make it more clear:

> at a bachelor party making gay jokes ("no homo")

<comment><AUTHOR> "No homo" isn't really making fun of gay people... it's more making fun of people who are homophobes. No offense intended to gay people. Some of the people I love and respect most in this world are.

<comment><USER19> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_homo>

To be clear, this isn't some White Knight thing, or a _gotcha_ trying to call you out. I think you deserve the chance to get feedback that your words carry an apparently unintended meaning.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup, feedback appreciated. I updated the image.

<comment><USER19> Thanks for your response--I appreciate that you considered the feedback. Cheers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm really surprised at the level of hostility in these comments. I read this not as a preachy, "do this or waste your life" type post, but as a reflection of one man's experience and the very positive outcome that this lifestyle change had.

Maybe it's not relevant for some people - if you're _not_ the kind of person who parties and gets drunk regularly (where regularity is obviously subjective) then clearly his experience may well be irrelevant. On the other hand, if you are, maybe you can try it - maybe it won't work for you and maybe it will.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you. That was how I meant it... simply suggesting a hack to my life that worked out really well for me.

The hostile reaction was a bit of a surprise.

<comment><USER21> When I read the post I didn't get a very sanctimonious feeling out of it.

But quotes like these are not at all defusing the hostility:

> _"Like with most things it's easy to slide down a slippery slope. One glass > of wine turns into two and then you've polished off the rest of the > bottle."_

You've gone from "here's a great idea" to "if you're not doing it my way you're on a slippery slope to hell", and I think that's the tone people are objecting to.

<comment><AUTHOR> I did generalize there, and in my head I was speaking to the original audience of the post which is people who like to party... and to that audience I think those words hold truer. There are obviously a lot of connoisseurs of wine & drink here who took my words directed at their casual consumption.

And definitely wasn't trying to suggest that not drinking was a slippery slope to hell.

<comment><USER21> It seems to me that with each caveat your target audience just keeps getting smaller and smaller.

Take me for example - I might be your stereotypical partier. My default Saturdays are at the club and I hit up bars often - but I'm very rarely drunk, and in fact I'm stone sober nearly all of the time. The people I go with are also the same. We get up to crazy shenanigans regardless of how much alcohol is in (or not in) us.

The problem with your thinking here is that you assume everyone in the club is like you, but the truth of the matter is that most of us leave our binge- drinking-plastered-constantly days behind us fairly soon after college.

There is certainly an audience for your post - people with addictive personalities who can't achieve that (very, very wide) middle ground on alcohol consumption. And power to you and them. But you started out addressing to all alcohol consumers. Then you took a step back and addressed this to just "partiers". And now you must take one more step back and realize that you're really addressing a subset of partiers at that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A couple of years ago, I spent Thanksgiving with a friend and the first thing he warned was, "My family does not drink alcohol!". Interesting... I am accustomed to intoxicated family parties, but on that specific Thanksgiving, 20 of us drank tea and ate turkey. It was pleasant.

After dinner, his father (a Doctor, along with 80% of the family) shared his views about alcohol, predicting that in one generation alcohol will be socially rejected the way tobacco is today because of how utterly destructive alcohol is to the human body.

Remember! Just 50 years ago, the majority of the United States had no problem with cigarettes.

I still drink, along with almost every adult I know, though I cannot help but think that my friend's dad is right.

<comment><USER23> >After dinner, his father (a Doctor, along with 80% of the family) shared his views about alcohol, predicting that in one generation alcohol will be socially rejected the way tobacco is today because of how utterly destructive alcohol is to the human body.

I think this has a likelihood approaching nil.

The consumption of alcohol is literally as old as human civilization; humans first stumbled upon fermenting grains into ale around the time humans first began farming.

There would have to be some sort of ground breaking discovery to attach the same sort of health stigma to alcohol as tobacco. Right now, the research is extremely mixed. The continual debate over possible health benefits of wine would be one indicator. The fact that data indicates that complete abstainers generally live shorter lives than those who drink would be another.[1]

>Remember! Just 50 years ago, the majority of the United States had no problem with cigarettes.

Remember! Less than 100 years ago, the anti-alcohol movement in the United States was strong enough to put Prohibition into place.

And what's interesting about that is that it illuminates another key place where I think the idea that alcohol will suddenly become socially unacceptable is completely off the mark. We've consumed alcohol for thousands of years, and we've been fairly aware of its destructive effects for nearly as long because _alcohol is more immediately destructive_ than tobacco.

One of the biggest drivers of the temperance movement in the late 19th and early 20th century were women. In the time predating modern social safety nets and women's liberation movements, a woman with a drunk for a husband would end up with mouths to feed and very few options for making an income.

Yet prohibition was a disaster on a grand scale because society at large rejected it. It would take a major sea change for things to be any different today or in 50 years.

[1][http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017200,00....](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017200,00.html)

<comment><USER24> Prohibition was rejected because it was forced upon people, but I could see people start to "naturally" reject alcohol as they have tobacco. Drinking and driving used to be the normal thing to do, now you are an evil, evil person for even considering it. The straight up consumption of alcohol could easily go the same way.

<comment><USER23> The difference is that we have clear evidence that tobacco is vastly harmful to your health in the long term. Alcohol? Not so much.

Pretty much everyone agrees that it's bad to be an alcoholic. Most people get annoyed with people that routinely get sloppy, out of control drunk. That's _already_ socially unacceptable.

The general consumption of alcohol becoming an outright social faux pas, though? I just don't see it happening any time in our lifetimes.

<comment><USER24> A couple of cigarettes each year is not going to increase your chances of health problems any more than a couple of drinks. Yet, we look down upon the people who even try a cigarette just once.

And what about drinking and driving? One drink is legally okay in most jurisdictions, and generally considered to still be safe, but it is often taboo to even do that these days. Zero tolerance is a strong meme in that area.

And those attitudes are not necessarily bad, but it takes what does cause harm in excess and applies the same logic to moderation. I'm just not certain alcohol is immune to those same social pressures.

I guess only time will tell...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I did this for four months. (Started drinking again around new years because it seemed highly appropriate)

I definitely got the "Wow, you've been sober for 4 months?!? But we partied so hard last friday!" thing a lot. When people are drunk, they really don't notice you not being drunk..

I agree with most of the article, and will probably go back on the wagon again soon. But he left out some of the negative stuff... For example.. How grating it gets when your friends get so drunk that they start to repeat themselves... Over and over again.. And how hard it can be to get a point across to someone who's drunk when you're sober. Making conversations, at times, highly frustrating. When I'm drunk I'm just as stupid and the conversations run smoothly!

<comment><USER26> Those are definite negatives to hanging out with drunk people. But, they don't really go away just because you're drunk, too. People are still bad at conversation, you just start to not notice. If your primary intent is just to be sociable, that probably solves the problem, but if your intent is to actually talk about something, it's just avoidance.

My preferred solution is to hang out with other people who are also not drunk, but still intent on partying. My freshman year of college developed a saying that I really should've started using in high school: "The Best Things in Life Happen When You Could Be Mistaken for Drunk, But Aren't."

<comment><USER25> Having good conversations doesn't necesarilly have anything to do with having structured well thought out dialogue.

"Clicking" with someone, and having a great time incoherently talking about dumb stuff while laughing, can be just as fulfilling (but in a different way) than an intelligent enlightening discussion. Sure, you don't need alcohol to talk about dumb stuff with someone you're level with. But I find that alcohol severely expands the demographic of people I can get that kind of interaction going with

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Good for him but not sure why he feels the need to push his zero-alcohol policy on others. I'd guess more people drink for other reasons than to "get drunk" but I guess this was his only reason.

<comment><USER28> As his co-founder, I can assure you he doesn't push his "policy" on anyone else. Far from it. It's more a philosophy of being present for every moment, and living life to the fullest.

And pretty sure he was the one that bought a bottle of champagne for our team to celebrate the end of our adventure through YC...just he didn't drink any.

<comment><USER29> _It's more a philosophy of being present for every moment, and living life to the fullest._

Interesting that you equate living life to the fullest with not drinking. Drinking a great beer with some friends or having a nice glass of cab with a big steak is high on my list of things to do while living life to the fullest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm not sure I follow the author's reasoning. It's also possible to have a great time without consuming meat, without having sex or even without including friends in the activity. So what?

<comment><USER31> I can start a fire by rubbing two sticks together, but I'll still bring matches to a campout.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Most people who stop drinking do it for either health reasons (allergic, acid reflux, etc.) or because they are an alcoholic. He doesn't fully explain why he stopped drinking, and I'm wonder if it is because he had issues with drinking.

I do want to add before I write more that if you don't enjoy drinking, don't do it. Just because other people are doing it that doesn't mean you should. I know some people who don't actually enjoy alcohol, but they still feel like it's the thing to do socially. If you enjoy not drinking, rock it.

If you're out of your early 20s and you're still getting drunk regularly, you probably have an alcohol problem. I'm 27 and haven't been drunk in years. I drink a few times a week and usually only have a drink or two. I might have three-ish tomorrow because of the big game.

It's fine if you don't want to drink, but there is something missing from his story. Maybe he needed to stop drinking, but many of us can responsibly handle and enjoy alcohol.

I love beer. I love trying different kinds of beer. I love the taste, and I want to discover new kinds.

If you're drinking alcohol just to get drunk that's the issue. Many of us drink beer, wine or mixed drinks because we actually enjoy the drink.

I know I have a few tasty microbrews lined up for tomorrow.

<comment><AUTHOR> Never had issues. I thought I explained in the post that I did it as a challenge to not need the "liquid courage" to do all the fun stuff when partying with friends. I guess that is an issue, but would be a confidence issue... not an alcohol one.

I have plenty of friends who drink socially, have been drunk every so often and are in their 30s. I don't think any of them have drinking problems.

You mention a couple times that there is something missing from the story but I wonder if you read the post? My story explains that I did it as a challenge. To not need the social support of drinking, so I can experience a party at any time... without alcohol.

My point was not to say alcohol is bad for everybody or that if you drink you have a problem... again, I was speaking about people "partying" ie drinking 4+ drinks. If you drink in moderation or have a glass of wine here or there, then the post wasn't addressing your lifestyle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> In Finland we have this joke that "You can't have fun without alcohol but you can have alcohol without fun—thus prefer the former, obviously."

<comment><USER34> "You can't have fun without alcohol"? Really? Is that some kind of a typo or do you guys really say that?

<comment><USER35> You obviously haven't been to Finland, have you? Finnish males communicate by grunts and don't express emotions when sober. When drunk, they communicate by brawls and express emotions in streams of vomit.

Seriously, spend a night in Helsinki sometimes, it's an eye-opener.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Moderation seems like a good approach. I like a nice glass of wine with dinner. I don't like being drunk, though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Like with most things it's easy to slide down a slippery slope. One glass of wine turns into two and then you've polished off the rest of the bottle. A glass of wine is something I may add back in like 20-30 years, but honestly I don't miss it that much. You're either alone and should just find a way to be in that happy, light place without the wine... or it's a social thing and you can find another delicious drink to socialize with. (hot cocoa, coconut-lime soda, etc.)

And the buddhist in my fully appreciates a moderation / middle way approach... But what is that glass of wine getting you? Is it strictly a taste thing? Is it the antioxidants? My guess is there are comparable things that would be you those same positive results of a glass of wine.

<comment><USER37> Just because you can't regulate your alcohol consumption, doesn't mean that the rest of us can't either.

Don't try and force your own choices on other people.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow. Do you really feel like I'm forcing my choice on you? I wrote a blog post sharing my experience. 3 years I've enjoyed fully. Maybe you don't need to do it the way I've done it and can make every moment of your life a party with or without alcohol.

And I'm fully capable of regulating my drink. What I'm getting at is finding other ways to find the mental benefits drinking provides, ie, being able to have the confidence / happiness being buzzed/drunk provides... without needing the alcohol.

<comment><USER38> Well, you did say, "Like with most things it's easy to slide down a slippery slope. One glass of wine turns into two and then you've polished off the rest of the bottle," as if you automatically assume others can't control their drinking.

As for the "confidence/happiness" that drinking brings, I wonder if you're not projecting again. Personally, drinking doesn't make me any more confident. It doesn't make me happy in and of itself, though it can help to reduce stress. And there you're talking about "needing the alcohol," as if appreciating the effects of something is "needing" it...

<comment><AUTHOR> I wrote the post for people that use drinking as a way to enjoy an experience more. Those are the kind of people who often slide down that slope. I recognize that a lot of people don't have any issues with this slope. Sorry for sliding you down it.

What do you get out of drinking?

<comment><USER38> _I wrote the post for people that use drinking as a way to enjoy an experience more. Those are the kind of people who often slide down that slope._

And I think that's completely a false assumption to make about people. I myself might drink because I enjoy the element that the feeling of warmth and relaxation adds to a conversation with friends. So, I may be using it to enjoy an experience 'more' but that has nothing to do with sliding down a slope. Friends and I may sometimes enjoy drinking as the social setting, the activity for the night. The actual entertainment comes not from the drinking itself, but from the social interaction and camaraderie. It's a shared experience, and that's what human interaction is largely about.

It sounds like you're trying to address an audience of unaware alcoholics. Or extremely dull people who rely _exclusively_ on drinking as sole entertainment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I get the point of the post. But come on, we're adults. Drinking is a choice. For some people, if having a drink makes them more social and they enjoy it, more power to them. If people choose to be sober and it works for them in their social life, hey, good for them too.

Yes alcohol can be abused. But just because you choose to get shitfaced doesn't mean you don't know how to have fun the "real" way. It also doesn't mean you're an alcoholic. And just because you don't drink, doesn't mean you're the outcast.

Your post would have been a lot more meaningful if you neglected the part about the alcohol altogether. I think what's inspiring is that you chose to go down a different path and it led to amazing things in your life. Drinking is irrelevant and takes away from the good message you try to convey.

<comment><USER40> I quit drinking Jan 1st, and commented about that on Facebook. A friend messaged me and told me she'd done just the same, but was explicitly not telling people to avoid judgemental comments. Judgemental comments? lolwhut?

But any time recently people have seen I don't drink, everyone has an opinion. And 90% of those opinions are long-winded justifications on why it's ok the other person drinks.

Drinking in moderation won't kill you. Very occasionally people suggest that there are even medicinal purposes. But: life gets better without alcohol. I went out for my birthday party last night, and we had an awesome night of drunk karaoke, only, I wasn't drinking. I had a load of fun, sang like an idiot in to the microphone with my friends, and got home safe, having spent almost no cash.

Giving up drinking for me was like giving up smoking before it: I really realized I could just no longer justify doing it. Ever. It's a literal poison, and the idea that you can't bond, have fun, and have crazy nights without it is all bullshit.

<comment><USER41> I don't know if it's a Finnish tradition only, but a lot of people (around 14% of population in 2010) stop drinking for the month of January. For some it's a way of giving a break for their livers, and some want to see if they are still able to completely stop drinking.

The good thing is having one month per year where it's almost socially acceptable to not drink any alcohol. Of course everyone could just drink moderately all year, but that doesn't seem to happen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I'm British, I've been crazy drunk 3 times. I don't do that often, I don't really even go clubbing anymore (last time was 6 months ago - in Hungary, gotta go back 10 months for UK clubbing).

I think the drinking culture in the UK is really bad. The French will happily drink a bottle of wine... but with a meal. I definitely drink most people get bored of it pretty quickly. I think it's insane that people get "pissed" weekly. Hangovers are not fun.

However, I have a (mini) fridge just for botted lager, which I dip into when watching football. I have a collection of 8-16year single malt whiskys which I slowly sip of occasionally. I often buy a nice bottle of ale, which goes well with a steak.

No clue why people would continue getting very drunk behond the age of 25. (I'm 21 and mostly bored of it)

</comment><comment><USER43> Obviously this story has nothing to do with alcohol. It's just some kind of deflection.

It's about he had a cancer in the eye, realized life's short, cancer got fixed and he lived his life the way he actually wanted but never dared to.

</comment><comment><USER44> This article was very helpful and it encourged me. I'm in my mid twenties and I've never drank gotten drunk (outside of sampling) and always had peers pressuring me to drink. But this article reaffirmed my reasons for not drinking. Conclusion; I don't see how drinking would enhance my life than when I am sober. Thank Bubs!

</comment><comment><USER45> I like to drink. I love the taste of a good bitter beer. I love trying different kinds of scotch and wiskey. I've had some of the best times just drinking with friends. Everything doesn't have to be a soul searching adventure.

I don't get wild and belligerent when I drink. So there's definitely no need to be that way sober.

</comment><comment><USER46> ...but being sober is not the same as being on drugs. same fun? no. better fun? define better. different fun.

drugs are a big influence of human history, art pretty much was build on it. you can tell by trends in art which kinds of drugs were fashionable.

it is interesting to "hack" your body with drugs. you change, like vacation from reality.

sobriety is overrated.

<comment><USER47> It's overrated if it comes easy to you. For some of us it's an achievement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I agree completely despite being a frequent recreational user of drugs including alcohol. I was once an extremely shy person who on following friends to social gatherings would ignore girls hitting on me and otherwise avoid interaction. I was very lonely so I sought out drugs as a way to subdue my inhibitions. Misguided though that may have been, ecstasy in particular has helped me gain confidence in social situations (due partly to a placebo effect :). I realized that I should and would be able to be comfortable and have fun while sober if I only tried.

Drugs are fun in moderation (let's not throw the babies out with the bathwater) but only to the extent that they cause fun rather than detracting from it. In my experience for a given drug such a point of inflection always exists.

Drinking for the taste also makes sense.

</comment><comment><USER49> While of course his 'main idea' is solid; you don't need drugs (alcohol being a particularly addictive and unhealthy one) to have a good time, but saying that he never had "Wow, I'm so glad I did that thing I did last night. It's significantly improved my life." => that's crap, at least, I am not him, but I have had that, so did all my friends. Of course you don't wake up and think 'it's significantly improved my life' (who thinks that??), but certainly 'i am so glad i did that last night'.

When forced to think about that, then yes, it significantly improved my life; I met great friends and girlfriends (which I wouldn't have met in such short period otherwise and at the time that mattered to me), had conversations with friends which were far more honest than we would've had without drink.

One case for instance I was at a very boring party, everyone was ready to go home at 10pm. I was together with my gf and we decided to drink some cocktails and go home too. After feeling a nice buzz, we started dancing _alone_ on the big dance floor with almost no-one around (and surely no-one dancing). Another couple joined in a bit later, we started talking and that guy is now my best friend. This is over a decade ago. This would not have happened if both couples didn't drink; we would've gone home. I know there are people who can 'do this' without alcohol and now my wife and me can too, but back then it was just 'boring party, waste of time, bye' when sober. And I wouldn't like to have missed that for the world; there is almost no chance I would've met him otherwise (I know that in hindsight).

</comment><comment><USER50> Indeed this has crossed my mind many times... I have blacked out far too often and thought to myself, whats the point if i don't remember anything the next day?

That being said, it's easy to claim that you can be just as fun,charismatic,etc without alcohol, but I have tried before and its really hard. Can you share how you transitioned to being drunk sober?

<comment><AUTHOR> I tried to outline some of those things in the post... ie, getting your friends on board so they don't make the non-drinking an awkward issue. Drinking something else as a social crutch. Give yourself permission to act a bit silly, just go along with the other people around you.

I'm not saying it's an easy thing. But if you can get to the point where you can be just as fun,happy, charismatic sober... You have that ability anytime you want it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Thanks for writing this. I've felt the same way for pretty much my whole life, and I'm glad there are other people who feel the same way. It's a much better investment in yourself to be comfortable being your best, most uninhibited self, without sacrificing mental clarity.

That said, I did hear one argument from a friend once that made me understand drinking a little more. When you drink heavily with a friend, you're in effect saying that you trust that person enough to see you without full control of yourself. It's a more intimate interaction as a result. I half buy that, though I still avoid alcohol.

The most important thing to remember about all this is that there really isn't any judgement involved. When I'm hanging out with people, I want them to be fun and uninhibited. If that requires alcohol, that's fine. It's a personal choice to increase my _own_ happiness, not a judgement of anyone else.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed, especially on the judgement point. I really didn't intend to, but I think I offended a few people here because it sounded like I was passing judgement on people that do drink.

I just bought my wife a 6-pack of beer from the store yesterday and I think she's the most amazing person on this planet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Looks like he's bragging more than anything else, and the sad part in it, I really don't think he partied the way I did.

</comment><comment><USER53> Great post. I stopped drinking for good 2 years ago, after 20 odd years of being drunk pretty much every night. For me, the enjoyment was gone, and only the habit remained, along with a pile of worries about if/when my health would fail. After a rough few days, I've not looked back, and have no plans to drink again (I could never moderate). I too have lost weight, feel great, and still enjoy parties. My wife is somewhat dismayed that the stupid behaviour she put down to the drink is actually the real me and my warped mind! If you like drinking and can drink in moderation, then keep going, but if you need to stop, then go for it. Just stop fully, and stay stopped. NB: I found Allen Carr's "Easy Way to Control Alcohol" book useful - he uses some great imagery I found helpful in the early days after stopping.

</comment><comment><USER54> I hardly post comments here but I have to thank you bub! I quit drinking for 3 years and unfortunately started it a year ago again.

I quit drinking because of my aunt who died because of liver cirrhosis (result of alcohol addiction), started it again because the last year wasn't an easy one for me. :/

I was very proud that I could stop drinking and still having fun. I had the exact same moment you mentioned, where some random girl told me that I was sooo drunk yesterday and I just replied.. nope, I was sober. :D

During my time drinking I lost extremely much of my former productivity. I have to admit I don't regret every drunk evening, there were some really good too! But I definitely lost mental strength during my drinking time.

I had to lough at the point where you wrote about the lost money and in my case gained weight. That's all true too.

I'll quit drinking again, one more time. :D

</comment><comment><USER55> "If you're drunk, you're not fully there. You don't remember everything. "

that's part of the whole reason to get drunk for me

<comment><USER56> Exactly. Alcohol is for helping me forget the stupid things I'm going to do. Why anyone would want to remember them in vivid detail is beyond me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> To each their own. I never drank alcohol, not until long after my student days had come and gone. Some of my best friends never drink, either. It doesn't stop you from having fun, nor does the inverse guarantee you'll have fun. But in the end, it's your own choice, and it's always interesting to see different points of view being discussed on HN.

Haters gonna hate.

</comment><comment><USER57> I've seen these kind of people, and the fact is that they are not "the fun of the party" though they themselves of course can enjoy themselves (and the drunk people don't mind). It's the "drunken" people providing all the fun and atmosphere (no, you don't have to be wasted, just a little drunk so that you don't have so many inhibitions).

</comment><comment><USER58> I know a lot of people who go out to bars, drink, and spend the entire night shouting about how drunk they are and how drunk they were all those other times they went drinking. I don't get it. I've never been a heavy partier, but my craziest, weirdest, most memory-making times have all been stone sober.

</comment><comment><USER59> ++

Especially with alcohol, there's a huge difference between what's promised and what's delivered. It seems to promise fun and relaxation, but really it just makes you a little wobbly and a little sick.

A friend of mine would always joke that "we're in for a night of beer and yelling!". It kind of put things in perspective.

<comment><USER58> Interesting take on fun and relaxation: Try going to a party and drinking non- alcoholic beer. It tastes kind of meh, but overall delivers the same experience. One surprising result of that is that drinking non-alcoholic beer (which has the same alcohol content as some brands of orange juice) tends to loosen you up a fair bit, because it has all the trappings and promises of an alcoholic beer. Turns out the actual alcohol is incidental to those effects.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I love the idea, but I am left not knowing what to do next. It ends with a bunch of motivational stuff, give me direct challenges! some concrete action steps and you have yourself a full blogpost article thing thats awesome and can really change the status quo

<comment><AUTHOR> I would love to go deeper on this. I don't have the time right now to write what would be a short book length piece, but appreciate the motivation to do it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Well its just actually a matter of perspective sometimes. If you think you could still keep up there is no problem so long as you still has control over yourself. Remember that accidents happen when we are not aware of it. Be a responsible drinker.

</comment><comment><USER62> Sometimes I am surprised to find I am the only straight edge hacker I know. Most of the time though I just don't care. So while I totally concur with the article I fail to see how this parses as hacker news?

</comment><comment><USER63> Take one 250 mg Disulfiram pill and prevent <http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place- lancashire/plain/A29443179>

</comment><comment><USER64> > but top 5 worst days of my life were all recovering from a lot of drinking.

Considering that this guy had cancer, his hangovers must have been of truly epic proportions.

</comment><comment><USER65> Insecure people drink because they can't deal with their real selves. If you're secure with who you are, you won't need to alter your mind to do something.

<comment><USER66> What is caffeine then?

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Wow this guy's life sounds AMAZING. All kidding aside, I'm for anything that makes you happy and doesn't harm others.

</comment><comment><USER68> This is funny because I've never touched alcohol but am often accused of being drunk.

<comment><AUTHOR> you're just naturally fun, and maybe a little crazy. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> I recommend the use of cannabis

<comment><USER70> aha I came here for this.

Damn fear campaigns generating 'non-conforming' conformist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Been doing this since January 1st. It's awesome. Try it.

</comment><comment><USER38> The author comes across as projecting, having social issues, and obsessing on "achieving" juvenile behavior (not to say I don't engage in juvenile behavior, but it comes naturally). Flagged.

<comment><AUTHOR> I probably was projecting a bit... as I was telling my story. The experiences, the reasons to change, etc. Were all personal reasons. And yes the focus on juvenile behavior was because I was writing to the people who party this way. What I didn't expect was so many casual drinkers to think I was speaking to them to to take offense.

<comment> ryan-allen You're going to hit nerves no matter what you say. You're discussing the use of a widely legal and popular narcotic.

I think the only mistake you made was submitting this piece to Hacker News in the first place.

To write about your personal experiences is fine, to submit them to a resource of useful information is a whole other matter.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was trying to discuss a hack I made to my life. Something I've done to improve my own. And I'm a YC Founder... Seemed like a pretty good place to post this. imho</comment></comment></comment></comment>


MIDI Web Karaoke: Let's sing like in the 90's - <AUTHOR> http://karaoke.insertafter.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> A toy project to play MIDI Karaoke (.kar) files right in your browser using the WEB MIDI API.

Enjoy MIDI nostalgia :D.</comment>


Forensic analysis of recent Victoria's Secret photo - <AUTHOR> http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/322-Body-By-Victoria.html <comment><USER2> I didn't know what "Error Level Analysis" was. So:

'Error level analysis (ELA) works by intentionally resaving the image at a known error rate, such as 95%, and then computing the difference between the images. If there is virtually no change, then the cell has reached its local minima for error at that quality level. However, if there is a large amount of change, then the pixels are not at their local minima and are effectively "original".'

From <http://www.hackerfactor.com/papers/bh-usa-07-krawetz-wp.pdf>, a lot of interesting stuff in there.

<comment><USER3> That reminds me of this interesting video which shows digital decay and JPEG data loss in action:

<http://vimeo.com/400918>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would love to see an analysis like that of this photo I first posted to my blog ([http://socialtech.ca/ade/index.php/2008/03/beware-the-big- ba...](http://socialtech.ca/ade/index.php/2008/03/beware-the-big-bad-black- wolf/)) which generated the usual claims of "Photoshop" on Reddit, until I posted the original version, which kicked off many more claims that it was 'shopped ([http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/6byul/to_all_the...](http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/6byul/to_all_the_photo_experts_on_reddit_who_claimed/))

Even though, to the best of my knowledge, the photo is 100% real.

<comment><USER5> Im willing to bet there is some tampering going on. The body looks nothing much like a wolf - more like a large dog.

If you fiddle with the levels in Photoshop that section does look really suspicious (though Im no expert).

<comment><USER6> I'm a gambling man (as my profession). I will offer you (3:2) - my $3 to your $2 says this photo is real. Let me know how much you want to bet, I'd accept someone reputable on HN will escrow. Would you trust the author of this article as the arbiter of the wager, using similar techniques as the Victoria's secret photo?

[I have no expert knowledge on photos, wolves, or the photographer in question. But I like a good bet, especially in the pursuit of science!)

<comment><USER7> How will you define "real"? Clearly the representative set of bits that make up the image are not "real". If you're attempting to determine whether the underlying scene was real then this photo alone may not be the best evidence. If you're trying to determine whether the image is original and unmodified, then you have already lost. The image is modified when the picture is saved on the camera itself and then any time the image is saved in any other program.

If you clarify your definition of "real" then your bet may become more enticing.

<comment><USER6> ErrantX said "I bet there's been some tampering going on". That's what I was referring too. As is the theme of this thread. I'm not getting in to the nitty definitions of the what "real" or "tampered" means because I think we all know what is being discussed here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The two pictures the author showed after saying, "Here are two photos of the same model" are of two different women. I'm pretty sure about this, because I know who the first woman is. So it appears he did catch them on some things, but he's made at least one mistake himself. Maybe someone else will know if this led to any other mistakes on his part?

<comment><USER9> He changed the example pic, adding:

"[Update 2009-12-27: There was some debate whether the second picture was the same model. I have changed the second example.]"

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_component_analysis>

When I read that he used PCA to detect that they modified her bust, I really couldn't believe it. That is really impressive.

edit: I guess I should add a little background. PCA was used a good bit in computer vision (and data mining in general) when I was in school. You typically don't see it mentioned outside of those contexts.

<comment><USER11> PCA is used a lot in the financial industry. You can guess how it might be useful there...

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> See also [http://www.jgc.org/blog/2008/07/photoshopped-iranian- missile...](http://www.jgc.org/blog/2008/07/photoshopped-iranian-missile- launch.html)

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't understand the criticism really. I would expect Victoria's Secret to photoshop pictures.

<comment><USER3> It isn't about criticism, it is about forensics, using reasoning and computer algorithms to figure out what people did. It is an intellectual challenge, not a criticism.

<comment><USER14> Small Nit - but the use of "Criticism" does not always mean the pejorative:

From: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism>

"The word critic comes from the Greek κριτικός (kritikós), "able to discern" , which in turn derives from the word κριτής (krités), meaning a person who offers reasoned judgment or analysis, value judgment, interpretation, or observation . ...

<comment><USER15> Indeed!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Besides the very interesting analysis, is anyone besides me disturbed by her face in the various analysis images? It looks really, really disturbing in some pictures.

</comment><comment><USER17> This was used as an example in a short lecture about JPEG compression in one of my classes this term. Here are the slides if you're interested. They give a basic overview of perceptual coding and the 2D Discrete Cosine Transform.

[http://web.mit.edu/6.02/www/currentsemester/handouts/lecture...](http://web.mit.edu/6.02/www/currentsemester/handouts/lectures/L24.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER18> If the "ELA" indicates edited regions, why is the region where the most obvious change happened (the bag) one of the darkest?

I'm also not convinced on the lightening of the skin tone. The lighting is entirely different in both pictures, and I have friends who have shifted tone more than that after a summer of tanning. (edit: her hair is much darker as well)

</comment><comment><USER19> This is enlightening! I'm an amateur photographer who likes to post-process some images (mostly tweaking contrast, brightness and the hues). This post taught me quite a bit on photography forensics.

</comment><comment><USER3> Very brilliant, including the followup. This is forensics at its best.

</comment><comment><USER20> Hm... If only people could see the pre-process images...

</comment><comment><USER21> Follow-up: [http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/329-The...](http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/329-The- Secret-is-Out.html)

</comment><comment><USER22> I love the article, and the Sherlock Holmes analysis too:

-Ohh, let me see... a professional photo could be manipulated by Photoshop or Gimp...

-mmmmm. It's photoshop what had been used.

He is truly a genius!!

</comment><comment><USER23> Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like it would have been much more worthwhile to use an example that actually might have been 'tampered' with, and not edited in post-production? Geeks and their VS--wonder what he did with the lingerie catalog...</comment>


Photoful Improves On iOS 7′s Photo Gallery With A More Open, Gesture-Based App - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/20/photoful-improves-on-ios-7s-photo-gallery-with-a-more-open-gesture-based-app/

<comment><USER2> Could we wait on "improves on iOS 7's X" articles until iOS 7 is actually released to consumers? Things could easily change between now and whatever date Apple finally chooses.

This is something like "Chevy's new car doesn't have the problems of the 2017 Ford Fusion that we saw a prototype of".

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks really cool. Surprised this much could actually be pulled off on an iPhone.

</comment><comment><USER4> Thoughtfully designed and intuitive; immediately useful.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's crazy how sub par a lot of the default iOS apps are. Too bad Apple's ecosystem is too closed to innovation.

<comment><USER6> For a troll, you are very unimaginative.</comment></comment>


New data manipulation/clean-up tool out of Stanford - <AUTHOR> http://vimeo.com/19185801 <comment><USER2> This is really needed for working with much of the government open data initiatives.</comment>


No Laptop, No Phone, No Desk: UBS Reinvents the Work Space - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/business/dealbook/ubs-bank-virtual-desktops-london.html <comment><USER2> Sounds awful. What better way to make your employees feel like a replaceable cog than to strip any personality from their work environment.

<comment><USER3> Are the execs that cook this up part of this or do they keep their (window?) offices?

<comment><USER4> It sounds like there are no window offices. From the article:

> Inside, UBS has significantly reduced the number of individual offices, by > about 40 percent. None sit against the windows, allowing light throughout > the building.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Somehow this reminds me of the government office description in "Snow Crash".

"So there is no paper in a Fed office. All the workstations are the same. You come in in the morning, pick one at random, sit down, and get to work. You could try to favor a particular station, try to sit there every day, but it would be noticed. "

<comment><USER6> In the book this is the same office that timed how long employees spent reading emails. Too short and you are penalized for skimming, too long and you are a slacker.

I wouldn't be surprised if offices are doing that now too.

<comment><USER7> Yahoo tracked their remote worker's activity by their VPN traffic (to access email). So yes, it is being done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I love using a different keyboard every day that somebody previously ate Doritos at. Are they hiring?

<comment><USER9> [http://www.fritolay.com/careers.htm](http://www.fritolay.com/careers.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This same idea went notoriously badly for Chiat/Day: [https://www.wired.com/1999/02/chiat-3/](https://www.wired.com/1999/02/chiat-3/)

That was over 20 years ago so I guess all lessons have been forgotten and we have to learn them again.

</comment><comment><USER11> To the point of using thin clients:

One interesting angle to this is arguably better security for the corporation as there are no USB ports on employee machines.

This prevents employees from making copies of corporate data or bringing malware on their USB flash drives.

I know that there's software that disables USB ports, but there are always exceptions or workarounds that are enough to cause an incident.

This also eliminates potential of data loss in case of hard drive failure/damage or theft of employee's computer as everything is on corporate servers where enforcement of backups is much easier than on actual computers.

</comment><comment><USER12> Not sure how this works... so it's a race into the office so you can sit next to your team before it all fills up?

</comment><comment><USER13> So working at UBS is like a public HS. You get a locker a phone and you float around to where you need to be.

</comment><comment><USER14> Being an employee at this company I can tell you it has nothing to do with mitigating risk associated with data loss prevention, and everything to do with cost of infrastructure. This particular roll out is due to Citrix' A3 being deployed in favor of HP physical desktops, as well as Microsoft Lync (Now Skype for Business) in place of physical Avaya phones. Its a long term play for cost cutting with some argument for latency as well, as the A3's when they work right are super fast.

</comment><comment><USER15> I've been in contact with a number of Swiss companies and saw that live already - the PostFinance in Berne did the same stuff. You have a locker for your private stuff/jacket and a tiny container with your 'work stuff' that you just push to a random desk (Not sure if they still do this, last saw this a year ago or so).

You plugin your laptop in a docking station and start working.

I .. hate the idea and felt uncomfortable the couple days I stayed. This is definitely not new or UBS specific though.

</comment><comment><USER16> Isn't this essentially what the Sun Ray thin client was, 17 years ago:

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

<comment><USER17> Yes, absolutely. They did something like this at the Sun Microsystems field office outside of Chicago while I worked there. You would log into a sunray with your smartcard and pick up whatever you had left behind in your session, with no permanent desk assignment.

It was unpopular, to say the least. Your personal belongings went into a pedestal on wheels that you could take to whichever workspace you wound up at that day. This was in 2000/2001 or so.

<comment> david-given These days we call them ChromeBoxes.

And they _can_ be great. My work issue laptop is a Pixel 2 ChromeBook, and I love it. But that's mine, which I alone use (except when I lend it to someone), and the grease on the keyboard comes from my fingers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> crooked-v I'm sure the people who use a specific model of keyboard or monitor for ergonomic or accessibility reasons just love this idea.

<comment><USER18> My office did this on a vastly smaller scale. The people that do care about their keyboard either store it in their locker, or in the case of one of my coworkers, carry it with them (it's the smallest CODE keyboard so it packs up easily).

That clearly doesn't work for the monitor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I hope someone is sanitizing those keyboards regularly. It's impressive what germ-traps shared keyboards are.

(Not originally written as a Douglas Adams reference, but I suppose it sort-of fits.)

<comment><USER20> This is easy to fix: get rid of the keyboards altogether, and just use on- screen touch keyboards. Give employees screen wipes to use.

I can't imagine why office workers wouldn't mind typing in lengthy documents using an on-screen keyboard. /s

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It is a shame the article has no pictures of the office setup.

<comment><USER22> Initially I thought this as well but upon reading it's somewhat irrelevant.

Desks are now like parking spots: first come, first served. When you log in, you get your own VM, not your own PC. So the placement and configuration may well be innovative in some way, but it would be a separate concept. You lose the ability to be special at all (prefer a trackball or ergonomic keyboard? Grossed out by that grey crap on someone else's--wait, your--mouse? Too bad, sucka!)

Digital nomads... but none of their digitals are nomadic. :)

What I found noteworthy is the lack of laptops. Nobody works from home?

<comment><USER23> I am inclined to not look for the zebras here. No photo offered by UBS, nothing they can get easily from a getty images (a clip photo) so hey it's not like they are going to use any leverage they have and demand it. "Photo or we don't run the story". As always this article was floated by someone for PR purposes. And a UBS employee is quoted. So it's not like they couldn't have said "ok we will print but send us a photo to make it more interesting". And the photo is of UBS offices in Zurich to boot. Lazy.

Back in the day when we were featured in a news story I actually took the time to setup the scene (in advance) for the photographer that was sent over from the local big city paper. As a result he was able to get a great shot and the article was syndicated in 20 newspapers across the country. Was well worth the effort. Even had a ladder for him so he could get the shot from the top easily.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Some of the doublespeak in large financial corporations is astonishing.

> UBS executives insist the shift is not all about costs. "I would be wrong to > sit here and say there isn't an economic efficiency dimension," Mr. Owen > said. "In and of itself, that's not the reason to do it. It would fail on > that basis. It has to be of value to our staff and our structure in the way > we operate. There has to be a value there."

Translation: It's all about costs and making employees absolutely replacable, only we're calling it "value addition" or some such nonsense. And what the fuck is an "economic efficiency dimension"?

</comment><comment><USER25> I like it. If I want to get on a whiteboard with a couple guys and hash things out, we can get a room with maybe a couple PCs to write some code. Otherwise, you're at home or somewhere else you find comfortable.

</comment><comment><USER26> Give it a few years for those disgusting coworkers to dirty up all the chairs, keyboards, and mice. Maybe add a bunch of fingerprints to the monitors.

<comment><USER27> > Maybe add a bunch of fingerprints to the monitors.

And yet, somehow, the new thing in laptops is touch screens.

:(

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I work at a company where this was implemented at one point. The kicker? Everyone picked a desk and stuck with it, setting up family pictures, monitor setups, and so forth. When someone did change desks, it was a major pain to track them down for in person conversations, and it incurred ill will with the coworker (and their colleagues) they displaced.

We're back to normal seating arrangements.

</comment><comment><USER28> This was predicted by Stephenson in _The Diamond Age_.

It sounded perfectly horrible when I read it then as fiction, but reading it now as reality, I find myself filled with an unpleasant sensation of dread and loathing that well surpasses my previous response.

<comment><USER20> Every day, I become more and more convinced that I'm living in a dystopian "mirror" universe like the one on Star Trek where the humans are all evil, and somewhere out there, there's a "prime" universe where humans are generally good and things are generally improving.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This setup wouldn't work for "computer people". My OS' tend to be adjusted to the extent that I have a hard time using the default installations.

</comment><comment><USER30> There are 13% fewer desks than people. Sounds like finding a desk there at least once a day is about as fun finding an open meeting room other companies. Plus, you can't find anybody because you don't reliably know their home location.

<comment><USER31> Looks like Musical Chairs really

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I find myself moving around the office with my laptop a lot, and I don't really understand why I have a desk, other than to accumulate junk. I like the idea.

<comment><USER33> If you have your own personal laptop, sure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> To truly reinvent it what I would want done is email

It might be needed for external information, but companies should start to think how to get it retired

<comment><USER34> Email, much like spreadsheets, is the second best tool for any task. You can long for the best tool, if you first define the task. You can't beat email's flexibility, though, when you don't know the task beforehand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> This is what VDI was meant to accomplish. Secure desktops in the cloud. The problem is doing it right gets very expensive VERY fast

</comment><comment><USER36> God what a nightmare that would be. As if open office spaces weren't bad enough.

</comment><comment><USER37> I would love to see how thin are these "so-called thin desks".</comment>


Ask HN: PHP or Go? - <AUTHOR> Hi! I would like to know if it is currently more worthwhile to learn PHP or Go.  Currently I have a relatively profound knowledge in Java Spring and would like to learn a new language to broaden my backend development skills. Go looks very interesting to me and impresses with the number of cool projects written in the language.  PHP on the other hand seems to me more like a foundation that you need as a backend developer.  What do you think, if you had to decide?
I am also open for other tips.
Thanks a lot in advance. <comment><USER2> I think Go is more foundational. If you can understand Go, you'll mostly be able to learn PHP without problem; learning PHP is mostly endurance sport, via trial and error of using the builtins which are fairly unintuitive purely because of bad design. A strict PHP linter will speed up the process significantly though. Go is more like C on easy mode, but because C is so close to the kernel, you'll likely learn a lot about Unix and the data structures by learning Go.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your advice! Much appreciated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Learn good programming. Set your goal. What do you want to learn and why? Language choice is of less importance. Front end and backend is a strange to split programming tasks. Programming means you understand and can do everything..

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your advice!</comment></comment>


It's worth spending weeks on research before wasting years on a hopeless project - <AUTHOR> https://ottofeller.com/blog/how-to-conduct-research-and-successfully-launch-a-product <comment><USER2> I barely get a day or two to do some research on a new piece of work e.g. scope the tooling, mental model, checking how well the third-party components integrate etc before I need to provide an "update" at the status check meeting on "where we are". If you say that you are researching more than once, you are told "if you are facing difficulties, maybe xyz can have a look at it". It makes you feel that you are being labelled as slow/not quick enough and basically comes across almost like a threat of your work being assigned to somebody else who doesn't need to research as much.

<comment><USER3> A lot of this is work culture. You can push back by trying to formalize the research phase. Saying "I'm working on the architecture/design document, we have some known unknowns regarding [foo] I'm hammering out" shows other people in the meeting that you are working towards their problem in a meaningful and structured way.

Ultimately, if the people in the org want to push the work to xyz instead I would let them. Maybe xyz is as good as they think, but probably everyone in that room will enter a slog project/feature.

When someone makes a threat your default behavior shouldn't be to back down.

<comment><USER4> Agreed on the structure part: structuring research is incredibly helpful for guiding the research itself, knowing what's left to do, and the nice bonus of also making it easier to share the results, both incremental and final.

Research is in many ways naturally more unstructured than other dev tasks and people don't get too much practice at doing or delegating it, so it can be fertile ground for organizational misunderstandings. Structure agreed upon up front can help all that.

<comment><USER3> I think they key word in my post wasn't "structured" but "shows". Even if the occasion calls for 100% unstructured research (let's spend some time in the sandbox to see what we can do with some new software) it's a critical skill to be able to communicate what you learned during that phase with other people, even people with different job titles and backgrounds.

I suggested formalizing and structure as words because new features/products/projects are a common enough occurrence that we have standard procedures for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have met many doctors who say they did essentially no research whatsoever on what being a doctor really entails and what it's like. They spend four years in school racking up six figures in debt, then three years in residency, based on nebulous ideas and media commentary. That is part of the driving reason why I wrote this: [https://jakeseliger.com/2012/10/20/why-you-should-become- a-n...](https://jakeseliger.com/2012/10/20/why-you-should-become-a-nurse-or- physicians-assistant-instead-of-a-doctor-the-underrated-perils-of-medical- school/)

<comment><USER6> See also:

The Law School Scam (The Atlantic, 2014)

[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/09/the- law...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/09/the-law-school- scam/375069/)

<comment><USER7> US grad school is the same scam. There's an argument that only foreigners should compete in it for the green card.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is one of those pieces of startup advice that once I learned about it, I started seeing lots of connections to my own life. I think one of the more dangerous things about doing something on your own is the risk that you'll go down the rat hole on something unprofitable or unproductive.

Consider that you spend a huge potion of your life on very well-worn paths that were cut by others. From the subjects you study in school to the business models you drive forward at work, everything has been done before by someone else and you are only doing it now because of a sort of survivor bias. The bad ideas and bad approaches have failed or been discarded and the better ideas have turned into Fortune 500 companies and academic departments. Walking those proven paths, you just have to do a reasonable job, follow the formula, and you're not likely to fail.

Now lets say you've struck out on your own and you want to do something new that no one's ever been successful at before. Now you're essentially guaranteed failure. There's no more formula to follow. There's no more boss or teacher to tell you you're not on the right track anymore. You can no longer just plug into an existing money-making machine and start spinning, you have to build one from scratch. The best strategy is to get out of failing situations fast before they swallow you up.

An analogy from skiing: When you're on the marked trails, everything has a name and difficulty rating so you know what to expect in advance. Hazards have been roped off and the trail is guaranteed to lead to a lodge or a lift. This is life within school and companies. Then you go off-piste and out of bounds. There's no longer any ropes or trail names or safety patrol, just a wild mountain. Some people have been through here before as you can see from the ski tracks in the snow. If you follow those tracks you might be ok. They will probably lead somewhere safe like a road where you can hitch-hike or a valley you can traverse back to the resort. But if you turn instead into the fresh snow where no-one has tracked before, you're in very dangerous territory. Who knows where this leads, hypothermia in a wilderness area, under an avalanche or very likely off a cliff. But it's a whole mountain of fresh snow just for you. This is entrepreneurship.

</comment><comment><USER9> I wish more projects would start with the old grad school approach of doin' the literature review. Swashbuckling your way into a project usually means falling short of prior art. At a minimum it's good to know what pitfalls are waiting for you before embarking.

<comment><USER10> Yes, but sometimes research is just safe procrastination and more can be learned, more quickly, by jumping into the unknown and trying to figure it out.

<comment><USER11> How does one differentiate between the two? The mind is very sneaky is it not?

<comment><USER10> Indeed. I theorize that the best approach is a hybrid: jump in, figure out, _write_ something, but step back periodically and _read_ what is out there. True understanding comes from the interplay of these two activities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Kaibeezy's Unique Business Model Axiom: If you have an idea, somebody else already had it.

Kaibeezy's Unique Business Model Corollary: Don't let that stop you.

So many people think they have to have the "killer" version in a category, or they collapse with disappointment when they find out someone else already had their amazing idea. Amateurs.

Existing solutions prove a market exists. Take the opportunity to see if the market is interested in your particular formulation. If you can carve out a niche and keep your overhead low, it could become viable or even quietly successful.

<comment><USER12> This axiom sounds contradictory. Maybe if you add the word "probably" someone else had it. Because the fact is that someone HAD to have the idea first, so it's impossible to always apply this axiom. But I get the idea

<comment><USER6> As a modestly successful inventor, I get buttonholed all the time by people wanting advice about their ideas. Some may even be unique, but it doesn't matter. Uniqueness is far from the major factor in doing something successful with an idea. Yes, the axiom is an intentional exaggeration—cold water in the face—to get their attention and refocus it.

<comment><USER13> Uniqueness is if anything an anti-pattern to success. If you are really unique that probably means there is no market - either that or there would be a market but the problem is not solved and you are unlikely to make progress.

<comment><USER14> Even if there isn't something like the idea, if the problem exists, people are doing workarounds to solve their problem. This is what you need to be looking at.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I worked on a project where we did the research and it came back saying "meh", or "no", or "only if it had this impossible feature".

Our management just discounted the research, "we asked the wrong population" etc, and drove forward with their vision

Approx $100m later the project was quietly folded, senior managers who had been promoted during the process quietly moved to pastures new, everyone else given 6 weeks to find something else.

I saw the warning signs and left before the crunch, but in hindsight I had concerns that weren't answered from day 1 but I let my enthusiasm allow me to ignore them

A learning experience

</comment><comment><USER16> Tried to view this in Firefox...

Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead

Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to ottofeller.com. If you visit this site, attackers could try to steal information like your passwords, emails, or credit card details.

<comment><USER17> Ff mobile says:

ottofeller.com uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate is unknown. The server might not be sending the appropriate intermediate certificates. An additional root certificate may need to be imported. Error code: SEC_ERROR_UNKNOWN_ISSUER

But didn't name the issuer. Why?! Likely either a fringe issuer or self-signed cert

<comment><USER18> It claims to be Sectigo. Strange. I've switched my team's projects to Let's Encrypt to avoid dealing with Comodo (now Sectigo?).

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, crap. I can see the issue in FF68. Sorry about that!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This actually doesn't work out so nicely in real life, and I can tell from experience. It's one of those things that sounds obvious, but neglects context.

The most valuable projects are always going to be a _race_. If all your competitors are spending time carefully researching the path they will take, there is an advantage to be gained by skipping research and jumping straight in. If the idea of your project has merit, then competitors will be fumbling to catch up to you, and if the idea was a dud, then you wasted time and money while your competitors sigh in relief and talk sideways about what a fool you were.

In these scenarios, the only glory to be gained is by the ones who skip the research and move forward boldly. Moving boldly for some is just dumb luck, and for others it's intuition.

Businesses and startups look for people with intuition, capable of finding repeatable success through some unknown heuristics they have assembled together with their life experience; essentially this is research, but not _deliberate_ research, instead it is a _subconscious_ research.

These intuitive people do not need to spend weeks going out into the world and talking to people about a project or reading statistics and case studies. They could simply roll their eyes into the back of their head and draw from a deep well of wisdom to determine if a project is worth pursuing. They give you their answer and that's it; it's the final word. A business with one of these people in its ranks has a tremendous advantage in the speed at which it moves, unburdened by the need to do research or question the premise of its ideas.

Many people in the valley like to pitch themselves as being one of these people to proselytize a following of investors or employees, but almost all are frauds. You need a mind that has depth _and_ breadth. A person who's lived all their life in the valley or has simply hopped from one tech job to another is unlikely to ever be one of these people. It takes a very wide range of expensive experiences to become one.

</comment><comment><USER20> Yes, as the more time invested into research, the less time and the greater accuracy of planning. But like all multivariable situations, a balance is needed. With that planning feeds back into research in that you may hit a cut- off point, that don't mean research stops, it just changes the focus and future research will come into version 2.... As is with software, you hit a time in which you would love to add this and that and tweak this and that, but those end up being patched or version 2.... later on. Like everything, it is a fine balance, no cookie cutter template or formula as every situation is different. But they have comparable factors that you only learn over time and then in niche area's. You also learn to get those balances better and with that, plan ahead more.

But do put a price on your passion, more so if you plan to combine that with work. As the later can kill the former just as much as the other way around, get that balance right in a way that works for you.

</comment><comment><USER21> Say you are looking to start a SaaS platform.

What research can you do other than look at web traffic estimates of competitors? It'll be obvious who is big + who is small, but it doesn't help understand... "are these companies actually profitable? What's retention like?"

<comment><USER22> There isn't a good way to know for sure that something is going to work, but there is alot of research you can do that will give you good information.

1\. Cold email/linkedin message then speak to 100 potential customers. Attempt presales. You don't actually have to get presales, but that process should give you a good indication for willingness to pay / desired functionality, how people are currently working on the problem, and what language they use to describe their pain (quoting that back to customers is good marketing copy)

2\. Build a landing page, run facebook / google ads, find out how much it costs to acquire an email address. Your real CAC will be higher of course, but this is a good starting point.

I'm a founder of [https://www.saturncloud.io/](https://www.saturncloud.io/). I started with #2, and found it cost 70 cents in advertising revenue to get a click, ~7$ for an email address, and ~$100-$200 to get someone to signup. When we started we were attempting a low touch sales model.

Since then we've started focusing on enterprise sales, because the willingness to pay is much higher. We did #1 when moving towards enterprise sales, but should have done that in the beginning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's literally worth spending weeks doing anything to avoid wasting years doing anything.

</comment><comment><USER24> We were taught this in grad school- often simply doing little toy problems on the back of an envelope can convince you that some approach is unlikely to be fruitful.

I thought this was a good idea, although after a while I noticed that a number of good ideas ended up getting rejected and decade+ later somebody else tried the same thing and managed to get a Science or Nature paper out of it.

<comment><USER25> With this approach you're minimizing false positives (wasting time on useless projects) not false negatives (ignoring useful ideas) so it's not surprising that some ideas you discarded are then successfully explored by others.

<comment><USER26> There isn't much you can really do when it comes to exploring more useful and potentially successful ideas, because for you (doing the exploring) they will be unknown unknowns, unless you've somehow stumbled upon the domain area before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This reminds me of a quote from Mike Williams (one of the Erlang fathers):

> If you don't make experiments before starting a project, then your whole > project will be an experiment.

</comment><comment><USER28> Is this the corollary of:

Remember, a few hours of trial and error can save you several minutes of looking at the README/instructions/manual.

</comment><comment><USER29> Alternatively, stop looking for reasons not to start something. Start and pivot as necessary. Barrier is low on a side project and higher with someone else's time and money obviously.

</comment><comment><USER30> webkit-user-select: none is fucking cancer</comment>


Exploding stars may have caused mass extinction on Earth: study - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2020-08-stars-mass-extinction-earth.html <comment><USER2> Here is the original paper titled "Supernova triggers for end-Devonian extinctions" by Brian D. Fields and others:

[https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/08/17/2013774117](https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/08/17/2013774117)

<comment><USER3> They speak of

"a 300,000-year decline in biodiversity leading up to the Devonian- Carboniferous mass extinction"

Is this a real thing? I ask, because paleontologists have had a bad record of interpreting statistical samples around an event. I.e. misinterpreting the mean interval between the last recorded fossil before an event as evidence of 'gradual extinction'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There is never a bad time to plug Egan on HN. Diaspora is one of his novels around just this topic. If you decide to read it, strap in, you're going for a mind bending ride. [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/156785.Diaspora](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/156785.Diaspora)

<comment><USER5> Another recommendation for this book - I am pretty sure its my favorite fiction novel and I have read it many times. So many interesting and thought provoking parts.

<comment><USER6> I feel that rereading a book is the height of praise. So you've hooked me I'm going to pick up Diaspora.

Returning the favor I've reread "A Fire Upon the Deep" a few times now. Vernor Vinge scifi author who taught comp sci and mathematics at university.

<comment><USER7> I like Vinge very much, but Egan is really in another level.

I have read Diaspora three times and I can't decide if I like it more than my favorite other book by him: Permutation City.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It looks like there's no risk from this now as there are no supernova candidates near enough to have that strong an effect. With stellar drift though. That could change in the course of tens or hundreds of millions of years with stellar drift.

What could we do to mitigate this though. Would enclosed habitats, greenhouses and pastures covered by UV blocking screens be enough to maintain habitability and a sustainable agriculture?

<comment><USER9> > That could change in the course of tens or hundreds of millions of years > with stellar drift.

Not worth worrying that much about it then - in a mere billion years (IIRC) the sun's output is predicted to have increased enough that it's unlikely liquid water could exist on the surface of the earth, effectively ending most life. Though it's possible that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will have dropped enough to make photosynthesis impossible for most plants in around half that time.

<comment><USER10> So we only have about 500 megayears to both attain a K2 scale civilization and find a way to use that power to protect our cradle world (or work around the extinction of life as we know it). Got it. No pressure.

<comment><USER11> Bear in mind that our species has only existed for a rough upper limit of 500 KILOyears. The first electric motor was built only ~200 years ago, and we've only been technically spacefaring for ~60 years. We went from first heavier- than-air flight to first space station in 70 years.

Our species has a thousand times our current age to figure things out. To unironically quote Dennis Reynolds from _It 's Always Sunny_: we haven't peaked. We haven't even _begun_ to peak. ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS7ifk26tJc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS7ifk26tJc))

<comment><USER8> I'm afraid I don't see it that way. Technologies don't improve exponentially for ever, they follow an S curve. The physical properties of the universe are fixed and finite. Eventually we will discover all the technologies that are practical, and we may not be all that far from doing so. Maybe only a few hundred years, and we may be quite far along the S curve of some of the best of them.

<comment><USER10> While I think there is an "S" curve, I see we have quite a lot more to learn, much longer than a few hundred years' worth. I'd say more on the order of hundreds of millennia more at a minimum, because the scales I see possible are so vast. My metric is where we are on the Kardashev scale, how resilient we are to extinction-level events, and our time horizon. The ultimate "we're pretty close to knowing all the practical stuff" level being figuring out how to work around the entropic end of the universe. I count indefinite life extension among the practical tech tree, and once we accomplish that, the range of "practical" also expands.

Even before all that, we're nowhere close to various practical limits we've calculated as theoretically possible in energy extraction, energy conversion, energy conservation, matter properties (compression strength, tension strength, torsion strength, and so on), computational density, information density, _etc._

For most of our species' history in geological time, we've barely edged over from sentience to sapience. On that scale, we're still at the boundary layer edge, and have yet to really delve into and establish ourselves within the time stream into sapience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> After the initial UV/X/Gamma hit, we'd have a good couple thousands of years to build a parasol to protect us from the slower particles.

<comment><USER13> You and I both know that any event that is 1000 years away nobody will put any effort into protecting against today...

And in 1000 years, humans will have forgotten the XRay blast (do you remember the mysterious plague of 1020AD where lots of people died of cancer? No - didn't think so...), and therefore won't prepare.

<comment> wing-_-nuts >do you remember the mysterious plague of 1020AD where lots of people died of cancer?

I'd love to have a source on this? Particularly in relation to cancer rates at the time? I googled but the only thing I could find was a ref to an outbreak of bubonic plague in germany in 1022AD.

<comment><USER14> Prev author was being facetious / too clever by half, note the exact date of 1020 and the lack of "/s" :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What about the fringy hypothesis of solar mini-novas to explain the extinctions?

Would appreciate some thoughts on the plausibility of this.

There's a growing internet movement of people pushing this and they sound geekier than your usual conspiracy theorist.

<comment><USER16> We can see very large populations of sun like stars, and there are no observations of this kind of behaviour, so it seems unlikely. The large full sky survey telescopes coming on-line in the next few years will rule this out our in after a decade or so though. If billion sun like stars are watched for five years at least fifty should pop in a micro nova if the theory has any legs.

<comment><USER17> As far as I am aware there are observations of this behaviour. Several are listed here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova#Recurrent_novae](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova#Recurrent_novae)

<comment><USER18> Are any of those from sun-like stars? The ones listed all seem to involve white dwarfs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Add a bullet point to Boring company's mission plan.

</comment><comment><USER20> Nice how they provide testable predictions (radioisotope signatures) for their theory.

</comment><comment><USER21> It's great to see articles like this. but I encourage people to treat things like this, and the other thread making rounds about how all the stars that have been made are most that will ever be made as having a chance of being correct at 0.000001%. Not that this percentage isn't an amazing breakthrough, but just don't turn this into - the debate is settled in 5 years.</comment>