Magic keywords on Google and the consequences of tailoring results - <AUTHOR> http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2012/10/magic-keywords-on-google-and-the-consequences-of-search-tailoring-results.html <comment><USER2> I'm happy to give more context on this. Some people don't put all their information needs into a single query. For example, instead of searching for [iphone wikipedia] to find the iPhone page on Wikipedia, they'll do one search for [iphone] and then their next search will be [wikipedia].

Google tries to help with those sorts of search sessions. For 0.3% of queries, if we see a search for a query A and then another search for query B, and there appear to be good results related to both A and B, then we may surface those results.

For example, I just did the search [iphone] and then the search [wikipedia]. In addition to the regular results for Wikipedia, Google also surfaces the page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone> . A good way to see that Google is doing this is to look for a phrase like "You recently searched for iphone" under the newly-surfaced results. Go ahead and try it with the search [twilight] and then the search [wikipedia] for example.

Between Gabriel's article and the WSJ article, words that are reported to provide this behavior include iphone, nexus, obama (but not romney, because there wasn't enough information for this word at the time the data was generated), tablet, twilight, computer, health, speech, iraq, sports, social security, and stock.

Just to reiterate, this algorithm affects 0.3% of searches on Google. Most Hacker News readers are savvy enough to search for [iphone wikipedia] instead of breaking that search into multiple queries. However, if you don't want Google to surface additional results that might help with your current query, Google has a support page telling how to turn off search history personalization: [https://support.google.com/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=en&...](https://support.google.com/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=54048)

As an aside, I wrote a blog post ~4 years ago to preemptively debunk the idea that Google skews our search results for political reasons: <http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-search-and-politics/> We simply don't do that.

<comment><USER3> What you're saying, though, is that Google is making an inference. DuckDuckGo does not want to infer anything and I tend to agree. Also, why aren't all of the inserted links highlighted with the, "you recently search for" line? Why wouldn't Romney be a magic keyword? I appreciate your explanation but it doesn't really explain anything.

<comment><USER4> I don't work for Google or have any inside informatgion, but I guess "magic keywords" become such after a certain (very large) threshold. Obama, being the president of the United States for four years, has probably crossed that threshold long ago, but it only became a political issue since the election process began.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm tired of Gabriel Weinber telling me how bad Google is and therefor why I should use DDG instead. I'm happy with Google, I'm glad that when I search for "ruby" I get the programming language and that when my brother who works in jewelry searches for "ruby", he gets the gemstone.

But seriously, tell me why DDG is awesome and unique, stop bashing the competition. It was fun at the beginning but now it's getting old. Like basecamp bashing microsoft project at the beginning, it was ok, when was the last time you read 37signals still writing about how bad MS Project is? Exactly.

Stop spreading FUD about Google and tell us what's great about DDG. Google Search is an awesome product that changed the world, it gives great results and at much greater speed than DDG. Beat them at that and I'll give DDG a go. Not for any scary reasons.

<comment><USER6> Hi, Gabriel Weinberg here. Sorry to offend you, as was of course not my intention.

I also of course don't think this is FUD at all. As far as I know, this is the first quantitative study of any kind about the filter bubble. I think it is hard to dismiss a concept out of hand when it hasn't even been effectively studied yet.

Also, the filter bubble it is not an effective marketing message because it requires too much education given it is a complicated subject no one knows about.

I also think tailoring can be just fine when it is opt-in and you are in complete control of your data.

As for DuckDuckGo, we've been telling people plenty about new stuff. Most recently we've been focused on our open-source plugin platform -- DuckDuckHack, <http://duckduckhack.com/> \-- where you can hack the search engine. And people have been doing it and making cool stuff, e.g. <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=khan+math> and lots of others: <https://duckduckgo.com/goodies/>.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for your answer. I'm not offended, I'm just getting some kind of fatigue reading your anti-google posts. I think insinuating Google care more about Obama than Romney is bordering on FUD, like all of your anti "bubble" articles are always bordering on FUD or at least intend to scare people a bit. You can't deny you're kind of aware of that, aren't you?

It's been more than a year now since you're writing anti-google and anti- personalized results articles. It's getting old and people love personalized results. I don't think it should be made opt-in as I think Google (and any product) should make the best option opted-in by default, and personalized results is the best option as it offers the best experience for regular users. Why would they offer a worst experience by default? It doesn't make sense. Also, most people don't know or care enough about changing options so they'd just keep the worst experience by default.

Let's take my brother's example again, if he searched for "ruby" and got results about rails and ruby.rb first before the gemstone because they are more popular than ruby the gemstone, my brother would just be confused and may even waste time clicking on the rails link first. So what should google do, propose a link that would say "opt-in to have search results that actually make sense to you". Do you see how absurd and bad UX that would be?

People who care about these kinds of things already opted-out, in fact, the most paranoid hackers I know don't even use DDG, they use Google+Thor and turn JS/cookies off. It's cool that DDG is adding more features but that's not anything I care enough to use or I could just write a quick google chrome script that'd do the same.

<comment><USER7> why do we have to have an assumption that personalised means doing so in a negative way like enforcing a political affiliation? perhaps the engine can be clever enough to realise that some things like localised weather are a reasonable personalisation, whereas politics are more dangerous and should be less personalised.

it seems to me that both google and ddg have problems here, ddg in not personalising at all, and google in personalising things that really shouldn't be.

<comment><USER8> > ddg in not personalising at all

I think DDG has some personalization based on your location, for example if I search "weather" it shows me the weather near me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm trying to decide how concerned I should be about Obama being a magic keyword and Romney not. On the one hand, Obama has been president for nearly four years; the number of searches for him will have been high and consistent. On the other hand, Google is _so_ central to information flow today, having it decide which candidate should get special treatment is disturbing.

I'm mollified somewhat that the Obama magic results that came up when searching for Romney were from Fox News[1], but I still feel a faint disease at the whole concept.

I've been using DDG for several months now and like it. It hasn't matched Google on technical searches, but on general information searches, I prefer the results to be less biases by me.

1\. I would personally prefer to never see a link to Fox News. However, if every search for Obama was extolling his virtues and every search for Obama was extolling _his_ virtue, my unease would be outright disgust and I would be contacting my Congressman. My unease comes from not knowing _why_ they might show me something, other than to echo back what I already think, wchich is noot a very useful set of information. I already know that.

<comment><USER10> Google sees how people followup queries over time. So they know the relative frequencies of the four distinct progressions:

      [Obama], [Iran], [Obama Iran]
      [Obama Iran]
      [Romney], [Iran], [Romney Iran]
      [Romney Iran]

The triggering could be as simple as the fact that {[Obama], [Iran], [Obama Iran]} happens more often than {[Romney], [Iran], [Romney Iran]}.

And that difference could be because people searching one path are slightly more likely to keep refining simple queries ("try, try again"), versus other people more likely to combine-up-front ("measure twice, cut once").

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Most of the stuff discussed in this post didn't bug me, but then I got to this part:

 _As the Wall Street Journal confirmed in its own study, Google has been significantly altering its search results to highlight Obama-related results, but not Romney-related results (more on that later).

These Obama-related results are being inserted because obama is a magic keyword on Google. A magic keyword is a search that can transform the Google results of later searches._

Incredibly shady. Changing the results of later searches based on things I searched for in the past is the _complete opposite_ of what I want a search engine to do.

<comment><USER12> I wonder if the effect times out? If so, it could be reasonably construed as an attempt to present more relevant results across a session.

If, on the other hand, Google accumulates history until you sink into a morass of similar results, it's clearly harmful.

<comment><USER13> In the original WSJ article (yc: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4741394>), it's confirmed that this effect has a limited duration.

      > A Google spokesman said: "We aim to get users the best
      > answers as fast as possible" using techniques such as
      > examining "related searches." He said the goal for the
      > feature is to provide better results in a situation
      > where, for instance, a person who searches for "Harry
      > Potter," and then for "Amazon," actually wants "Harry
      > Potter" results from Amazon.com Inc. He said that the
      > technique saves Google users time and provides better
      > answers, but affects only about 0.3% of the searches the
      > company conducts.

<comment><USER14> That's not confirmation, that's a public relations response. _Confirmation_ of limited duration would be actually running the experiment until the effect actually disappears.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I ran the search and I am not concerned at all... Google shows poll results with bright red and blue colors drawing the eye... News stories show up first, and pictures of Romney, and his website outrank these related results.

The "you recently searched for obama" results appeared below the fold and the story was quite frankly very unlikely to be noticed unless it was something I was looking for specifically, which is probably google's algorithm's intent.

I tried running the search in battleground states and the same results showed up and I tried a bunch of searches like "Romneys plan" "why vote for romney" "who should I vote for" "vote for romney" and none of them showed obama results...

P.S. I am a libertarian who voted for Romney and I approve this message.

</comment><comment><USER16> "65% of people said personalized search was a 'bad thing'"

So does this guy ( [http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bu...](http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html) ) on TED and will easily convince you if you aren't already.

<comment><USER17> if people really wanted to find the other side of the story its available to them. I absolutely love personalized search. When I search for something I want local results, I want results that are most relevant to me. Its been proven that people would only go to sites that support their ideas and beliefs already. So showing unbiased results make no difference.

<comment><USER18> So if things are already messed up, we should just throw our hands up, pander, and go along with it?

<comment><USER17> whats messed up ? I stated I like personalized search because 9/10 times I'm googling something its related and I'd want to be personalized , either by local or a topic i've searched before. Not personalizing results will probably make search worse and people less likely to search in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Assigning a moral value to Google's algorithms here, or to personalized search in general, doesn't make sense. I _like_ personalized search - when I change main operating systems, as I do every few months, my information for debugging is always for the right os. If I look up hashmaps, it usually gives me results for the programming language I'm using that day. In the middle of a study session for linear algebra, I can just search for inverse and get a useful wikipedia page. If I want results that are not personalized like this for some reason - more balanced coverage, I actually want to know about pythons, whatever - then hopefully I have the discipline and ability to go to incognito or another search engine. Maybe I don't know about them, in which case if I'm politically engaged I will find out from a fearmonger. But the reality is that there are two products, each ideal for different people and use cases, and neither of them is evil. It has always been difficult to get 'unbiased' information, whatever that is. With Google, I have a chance to see beyond my local papers and the people I know in one way, and with DDG it's another.

</comment><comment><USER20> "We chose to use these keywords (abortion, gun control and obama) because they are both a) searches where many people want unbiased results..."

I suspect that someone searching for these keywords are looking for reinforcement of their predetermined beliefs. Which is exactly what personalized search would do.

[edit] I've been downvoted so I feel I should clarify. I'm saying that these keywords are "magic" for a reason. This test should be performed using keywords people _actually_ want unbiased results for. A good example would be a good javascript library for making graphs. (something I searched for yesterday and wanted to see an unbiased comparison). These keywords return biased results because they are highly polarized topics and you probably situate yourself on one of those poles - not in the middle. If google knows this about you, good for them and you because you found what you were looking for.

<comment><USER18> Filter bubbles are troubling for exactly the reason you don't seem to have a problem with.

It's not particularly good for the world to have Obama searches be filled with either Fox news results or MSNBC (pro-Obama/Dem) results.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wish Gabriel had inserted a map of where the screenshots were taken. My hunch, which could be wrong, is that magic keywords are geographic too. In a state like NH which leans strongly, maybe the algorithm automatically identified Obama as a magic word. (This hunch is based based simply on ddg being not-quite-mainstream, so maybe its users are more democrat than the country?)

I think it'll be interesting to see the Google response to this. I think the most important question is whether identifying magic keywords happens automatically, or is programmer input involved?

</comment><comment><USER22> DuckDuckGo is at it again, this time smearing politics into tailored search.

</comment><comment><USER23> What if I turn off Google Web history?Doing this should resolve tailoring result,or not?

</comment><comment><USER24> Google uses the word 'personalization' as a euphemism for 'censorship'.

<comment><USER25> No Free Lunch!

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Just so that everyone is on the same page on what is being discussed here: this is a "study" by a competitor who can't implement personalised search and thus is spreading FUD to spin that as a differentiating advantage. It might be a good marketing strategy as he managed to get coverage by a couple of outlets during the elections frenzy in the US, but this "filter bubble" buzz-phrase is nonsense. Don't fear personalized results they are just another way of sussing relevance, and as mentioned in that post it concerns a tiny number of queries and has minimal effect on the results page.

<comment><USER27> "We also saw in Google chrome that magic keyword transformations sometimes jumped incognito sessions, meaning that if you started a new incognito mode, got a transformation, then shut it down and started a new incognito mode you could sometimes see the same transformation again (without searching for the same magic keyword again). This weird behavior was not reproducible in Firefox's private browsing mode."

If that is FUD, that is some pretty damn creepy FUD.

<comment><USER28> Yeah, that jumped out at me as well, and actually seems somewhat irresponsible without more data (like a log of actual http traffic).

AFAIK (when I last checked), Chrome keeps no data between incognito sessions. If data is being kept, it should be extremely easy to spot and a bug should be filed. "This weird thing happened" isn't really a sufficient response to that theory.

If there isn't data being kept and transmitted, it means either the testers left open an incognito tab or something without noticing (easier to do than with private browsing, since private browsing closes all non-private browsing tabs until private browsing is over), or that google is tweaking results based on search history saved server side by ip address (and maybe other id-able browser characteristics), but _only_ if the browser identifies itself as Chrome, not e.g. Firefox. There doesn't seem to be any real advantage there (and you'll likely just end up polluting anything but the coarsest of clustering), but that's just speculation.

I'm not able to reproduce the behavior in Chrome (though I'm having trouble reproducing even simple magic keyword behavior in incognito mode in the first place), so more data would be appreciated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Maybe Google is not the problem if a voter's idea of political engagement is typing in "one word" and voting for whatever pops up?</comment>


Amazon is making us lazy - <AUTHOR> https://sketch.nono.ma/the-box-with-blue-tape <comment><AUTHOR> Ever seen this box? [https://sketch.nono.ma/img/u/sketch-190718-malaga- panaderos-...](https://sketch.nono.ma/img/u/sketch-190718-malaga-panaderos- amazon-box.jpg)

—

 _Click_. It's made out of cardboard. _Click_. It's sealed with blue tape. _Click_. There are 3 items in your cart. _Click_. Your order has been placed.

—

Amazon is making us lazy. Set a default delivery address and credit card on file, and you can place an order with _one click_.

With more than 600,000 employees, Amazon has crafted an online experience so convenient as to become the standard method to buy virtually anything for many people all over the world.

You might receive your package faster than they initially said, and returning what you bought has never been easier.

Without shipping costs, the thrill of going to the store to buy the things you love rapidly fades away, replaced by a virtual, addictive shopping experience while wearing your best pajamas.

—

 _Ding_. The bell rings. _You 've got an Amazon package._</comment>


Scientists Warn of Perilous Climate Shift Within Decades, Not Centuries - <AUTHOR> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/science/global-warming-sea-level-carbon-dioxide-emissions.html <comment><USER2> Finally out of draft and published in an archival journal. If the authors are right (likely IMHO) it's scary stuff. The paper can be found at [http://www.atmos-chem- phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016...](http://www.atmos-chem- phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf;) the associated DOI is doi:10.5194/acp-16-3761-2016.

</comment><comment><USER3> When I was at school in the 80s, people were saying this. They've been saying this every decade since. I just don't believe it anymore. It's like the boy who cried wolf. Not that that's a good thing. Didn't the wolf eat all the sheep in the end?</comment>


Why I Don't Date Stamp My Blog Articles - <AUTHOR> http://jamesblute.com/no-date-on-blog-posts/

<comment><USER2> if your article is truly timeless, having a date on it will not change that.

I automatically rank content without source/time aspect lower than information with a proper context and that includes a date when it was created/thought about/written.

context is important and should be part of your content.

</comment><comment><USER3> That's not very clever. Nothing is more annoying than the absence of a timestamp on an article. Often I don't even bother reading such articles.

</comment><comment><USER4> But... I read the title of your post, and the lack of date/time makes me discard it IMMEDIATELY. I HATE articles with no date stamp. No, seriously, I didn't read what you wrote. I have no idea what you said.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you're writing includes anything technical (and frankly if it in any way references society,) then I see it as almost a duty to datestamp, otherwise it's impossible to infer context. It doesn't become timeless, it becomes potentially misleading.

</comment><comment><USER6> Great way to make your articles unciteable.

</comment><comment><USER7> > My article Twitter Marketing Tips has always had good momentum considering > when it was first published (guess). I know if I published the date… people > would think "dude, this is so old… things must have moved on".

And when things _do_ move on in such a way to make those tips invalid, people will keep finding that article and be misled.

The simple solution is to put a "last updated" date on your article (or at least a last updated year). Then every few months or every year or so, go through and update the last updated date if the article is still relevant.

</comment><comment><USER8> Because you don't want me to read them.

</comment><comment><USER9> See, I take the opposite view for the same reason. I see the contextual information like date as informative in my own posts and in others. An outrageous post looks less outrageous posted in a time when our knowledge of the world was different. Insight that's on the mark is that much more prescient if someone made it well before anyone else saw that same insight.

I think there are probably good reasons not to provide context for your posts, just like there are times that it makes more sense to post anonymously (or pseudonymously), but I don't think this post makes a good case for removing context like post date by default.

</comment><comment><USER10> I remember reading the same blog post in 1997, kinda makes you wonder

<comment><USER11> Yes, and instead of "Twitter Marketing Tips" it would have been something like "AOL Marketing Tips".</comment></comment>


"Hello World" in esoteric languages - <AUTHOR> https://esolangs.org/wiki/Hello_world_program_in_esoteric_languages <comment><USER2> Do people actually find these languages interesting? I mean, what's the point of them?</comment>


Common Programmer Health Problems - <AUTHOR> http://sheddingbikes.com/posts/1281257293.html <comment><USER3> Another related problem is hygiene. I've met too many programmers that smell. Some people don't wash, don't wear deodorant or just don't realise that their _clothes_ need washing even if they look clean.

It's especially annoying because it's so easy to fix!

<comment><USER4> In the summer, it's not easy to fix. It's been quite hot here this summer, around 25-30℃ through June—August. Hot weather = sweating.

Taking a shower doesn't give you an edge over it for more than an hour: as soon as you've walked for a while or sitting in public transportation for more than five minutes, you're as soaked as before. And then you're smelling again.

<comment><USER5> You must live in a rather humid climate because that isn't too hot, it is more of a comfortable temperature.

<comment><USER6> It's just what you are used to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Quit coffee. I ended up in the hospital after being in the heat and being hypercaffinated, so I decided to quit.

After the first few weeks of withdrawl, I've found that it is a net gain overall. No more feeling like crap until the first cup of the day. Better sleep. Clearer, less scattered thinking. I recently went on a trip with a friend who is still a heavy coffee drinker, and it was striking to see him suffer through the first several hours of the day before his second or third cup. Being able to wake up and feel great is well worth it.

The thing you lose is the muli-hour high speed coding marathon. But lets be honest, how often is it that the result of these marathons isn't something you end up needing to rewrite anyway because you jumped in too quickly or failed to think it through?

You could, of course, drink it "when you need it", but I've found that this is the slippery slope back into addiction. So, I just stay away.

Edit: I've also found that a tall decaf from Starbucks can serve as a mental substitute for those days when I _really_ crave it. I even get a slight placebo energy boost. "It's so good when it hits the lips" :)

<comment><USER8> I was never even close to being addicted to coffee and I refuse to drink even one drink due to its effects on my body. Stimulants not only fry you a bit, they also fatigue your adrenal glands which is the major cause for midday fatigue, random allergies, and poor sleep at night.

I highly recommend anyone that drinks anything more than green tea to quit - it seriously f's up your adrenals...

<comment><USER9> Do you have any references to back this up? I'm curious specifically about your claim that caffeine negatively affects adrenal glands.

<comment><USER8> I don't have any specific scientific papers to cite (although I have seen them), I do have personal anecdotal experience and this article that I read a while ago about it: <http://www.integrativepsychiatry.net/adrenal_fatigue.html>

My personal experience was this: extreme fatigue during the day (it was difficult for me to stay awake and not nap when doing anything sedentary), daily allergies that fired up (very badly) for no allergic reason, and a general sense of sluggishness.

Once I cut out stimulants (it isn't just caffeine, but the amphetamines in decongestants, ADHD medications, etc...) and started taking pills with desiccated adrenal gland tissue and thyroid boosters I could stay sharp _all day long_ without ANY caffeine or naps. I slept really well every night, and a general sense of well being came back.

This coupled with my improved diet in general (paleo diet, no grains _at all_ , high in animal protein and vegetables) made my life so much better. My body feels good, finally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This article mentions several problems caused by stiff muscles and strategies for coping and preventing them. It may be useful to understand the mechanisms that cause and perpetuate this problem.

There's the muscle sheaths that have stiffened by the lack of use of the full range of motion and the constant deposition of collagen, which literally glues the sheath to itself. This tight sheath can impair blood flow to a muscle, especially when the muscle is contracted for a long time. The contracting muscle presses out against a tight sheath. Blood takes the path of least resistance.

That lack of healthy blood flow can cause the sarcomeres, the contractile unit of muscle, to get stuck in their contracted position. This is how a muscle gets tight and actually shorter.

When a muscle gets very stiff, a trigger point can develop. A trigger point is just an area where many sarcomeres are tight. We certainly notice trigger points, but the muscle gradually hardens for a while before a trigger point develops.

The hard muscles are shorter and thicker and this makes manipulating the sheath to break up the collagen much harder. But if the muscle is softened first, it can be done.

Massage is how you soften the muscle and get the sarcomeres in it functioning again. Massage pushes depleted blood out and then new blood is pulled in from the capillaries.

But there's still one other factor and that is the way muscles communicate with each other to accomplish work. When one muscle is engaged, other muscles receive nerve signals to help. And if there is a trigger point in one muscle, other muscles are engaged via the nerves.

So you may have a tense muscles but it may be another muscle that is the root cause. All of the muscles need to considered and massaged in a systematic way.

<comment><USER11> _All of the muscles need to considered and massaged in a systematic way._

I wish I had realized this years ago. I developed RSI symptoms, or at least they became severe enough that I took note of them, about two months ago. I did a lot of research after that and ended up booking my first ever massage.

When the therapist started working on my forearms, she explained that I was _very_ tight, and she wasn't surprised it was causing me pain. Oddly, my left arm ended up being the worse off of the two. After the massage, I felt great and could type relatively normally again without pain.

She also told me that my neck muscles were essentially made of stone, and asked me if I regularly got headaches (I did).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't underestimate the value of regular massages. It would probably cost around $1k/year to go once a month, but I think it's worth it to keep yourself at the top of your game. Therapeutic massage is often used to manage chronic pain, so I see no reason why it couldn't also be used to prevent it (or cure it if you're in the early stages).

<comment><USER10> Massage addresses one piece of the puzzle and to me is primarily a coping mechanism. It does not necessarily addresses the underlying problem.

It depends on the therapist; some are really good and some approaches work much better than others. But this problem is clearly not addressed properly for most people. Many suffer for years with it and a quick trip to a nursing home will confirm that.

<comment><USER11> I didn't mean to imply that massage, and _only_ massage, would rid you of pain permanently.

You need to take good care of yourself in general in order to stay healthy - eat right, sleep well, keep yourself hydrated, and sit/work comfortably.

It just seems to me that a lot of programmers already take care of some of these items - the fact that I've even _heard of_ Herman Miller chairs is evidence that at least some programmers take these things seriously - but RSI is still a huge concern in the industry.

I think if you're already sitting right and taking care of yourself, you could still be slowly damaging yourself because you're still locked in a static position for large portions of the day. Your muscles get used to working together as a single muscle, and they start locking together and essentially becoming that single muscle. Massage helps relieve muscles in spasm, and deeper massages will help break the "supermuscles" apart so they act individually again.

RSI is an issue every programmer (or any other person sitting at a computer all day) needs to be aware of, and the more preventions and cures we can throw at it, the longer we'll be able to stay healthy and productive.

<comment><USER10> sorry, didn't mean to say you implied. just reiterating something.

Sitting all day is just an aggravating cause, not the underlying cause. A muscle gets stiff under a light load only when circulation is impaired. A muscle with good circulation will not get stiff.

So it isn't that we sit for long periods. Its that we haven't fully exercised our full range of motion on a regular basis. We haven't kept the normal deposition of collagen from essentially gluing our muscle sheaths into something stiff enough to impair blood flow to the muscles inside them.

That's my theory anyway. And part of my understanding is that this situation is totally reversible.

<comment><USER11> Reversibility is dependent on the type and extent of the damage. If the damage is isolated to the muscle, then it probably is reversible to a certain extent. First, the muscles in spasm (constant state of tension) need to be massaged back to pliability, then you need to focus on stretching the muscles so they can better manage repetitive stress, and once the muscle is relatively healthy again you can begin strengthening it to withstand added tension and pressure and to heal itself better. As programmers, we're constantly abusing our arm muscles, and they will wear down over time. The trick is to minimize the abuse, and maximize your ability to regenerate, and hopefully you can get to a state where you heal more at night than you damage in the day.

Now, prolonged stress and inflammation (and certain physical abnormalities) can cause damage to the nerves themselves and nerves suck at healing. If you start having problems with sensation (feeling cold or numb), that's the result of nerves under attack. Prolonged attack equals irreversible damage.

As far as your notation about collagen gluing muscles, that sounds about right to me, and is sort of part of what I was saying earlier. Also, collagen is largely made up of water, and this is why it is so critical to keep yourself hydrated.

Also, muscles locked in static positions (I assume as a result of spasm) can begin to act as a single unit rather than individual muscles. When this happens, your body can actually try to sort of "heal them together" and the muscles can literally begin to bind to each other. Massage, particularly deep tissue massage, can help to break these bands apart so your muscles become independent again.

That's my understanding, anyway. I'm definitely no expert in this, and my knowledge largely comes from online research, and the book "It's Not Carpal Tunnel."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm a bit surprised Zed didn't mention getting a standing desk, or better yet building one (it's simple and cheap to do so).

I think standing desks are an obvious remedy for back pain and discomfort. Your "core muscles" are used more than if you were sitting down, and it reduces the pressure on your spine caused by sitting upright in a typical office chair.

A good, low-tech way to do this is to buy an unfinished door and paint or finish it yourself. If it has a doorknob cutout, just use it for cable management. Then get a pair of adjustable Stanley FatMax workhorses and you're in business:

[http://www.amazon.com/Stanley-11031-Telescopic-Plastic- Sawho...](http://www.amazon.com/Stanley-11031-Telescopic-Plastic- Sawhorse/dp/B000MIVTJG)

<comment><USER13> I just sit in a 120 degree angle and have never had problems with my back, wrists, neck or anything. Just make sure the screen is high up that you don't have to bend your neck...

<comment><USER14> Unless you have specific support for that, as in a special chair/desk setup, that's horrible advice. I'd almost like to see what you're doing since I can't imagine it being comfortable. You got a picture maybe?

<comment><USER11> Didn't the BBC recently report about a study which concluded that obtuse sitting angles were actually better for your back than right angles? (As always, acute angles suck) If that's true, then his 120 degree sitting position might not be horrible after all.

That said, if he's in essentially a lying position all day, there could be other issues (like loss of muscle definition) at play.

<comment><USER15> I read that as well (can't recall where).

Here is one reference I did find: <http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/DEA3250notes/sitting.html>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This will probably be controversial, but I believe that RSI (and typing- related carpel tunnel) is psychosomatic. I experienced what I thought was chronic RSI that I wasn't able to solve through any other means but reading Dr. John E Sarno's "The Mindbody Prescription" which I highly recommend reading.

For 1.5 years I was not able to type without pain. I was able to rid myself of this pain in weeks through a psychological approach. It's been over 7 years since then and I haven't had problems.

I also play guitar, bass guitar, and drums. It can be painful sometimes to play a lot if I haven't been practicing, but that pain goes away immediately, and I don't believe it contributes to a permanent or long-standing problem.

Ergonomics is good for being comfortable and pain-free. And exercise is good for general health. But I don't think not doing so is going to give you chronic pain.

Of course you should see a doctor to rule out diseases like multiple sclerosis.

Here is a document that explains Sarno's ideas: <http://www.rsi.deas.harvard.edu/handout.doc> Google cache of it for HTML: [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&v...](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CBoQITAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwebcache.googleusercontent.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcache%3A6ZpktcdKS0kJ%3Awww.rsi.deas.harvard.edu%2Fhandout.doc%2Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.rsi.deas.harvard.edu%2Fhandout.doc%26cd%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&rct=j&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rsi.deas.harvard.edu%2Fhandout.doc&ei=eM9eTLyWCML58Abz7byzDQ&usg=AFQjCNFDePk4TJUp7Sv8KeGlXMzQIEYArw&sig2=WpLK0EBD_odWgNcFL4_Etg&cad=rja)

Keep in mind that this does not mean "it is all in your head"... The problem does cause a physical condition in your body, but the cause of it is psychological.

<comment><USER14> I agree, it is psychosomatic, although that's usually a term used by bad doctors to wave away real problems with people. I think a better way to explain it is that your body is controlled by your brain, and if you control it wrong you can cause damage. Same way if you punch or kick something wrong you can break your hand, if you spend 8+ hours a day typing with tension, poor technique, bad posture, and ignoring pain signals then you'll hurt your hands.

So yes, learning to control you body and how you use it is generally a good idea. In general I think that's all Sarno's method does. It just makes you focus on how the motions should be done in a more relaxed manner, rather than tense and harmful.

Combine that with the wrist exercises and you'll be even better off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Seriously? 65 comments and the top voted is about (off-topic) hygiene? With a community such as this, I expected a lot more advice and personal stories. To be fair, I guess this did get posted early on a Sunday.

Many thanks to Zed for bringing it up the topic. I think it is always good for the programming community to hear different views on it. As we rely more and more on computers, mobile devices, etc., we're going to see these sorts of injuries more and more and I'm not sure the medical community knows how to deal with them yet.

I read HN sometimes and there are so many people doing full time jobs, then coding at home, then playing guitar on top of that! It is depressing to read because I'm lucky if I can make it through lunch without my arms hurting some days. I don't think people in my camp speak up enough (partly because we are trying to type as little as possible). I haven't played my guitar in years while I try to cope. I've been to some physical therapy, but found that it didn't improve things much short or long term. If you do visit a doctor (which you probably should), just be aware that they may suggest surgery. Personally, I don't think that is the answer to RSI in most cases.

I weight lift occasionally but I can't tell whether it is helping or hurting. I've always been curious about yoga, I just need a kick in the pants to get started. So, there's my personal story.

As far as advice, I don't have much since I haven't actually found something that works well for me. I read "It's NOT Carpal Tunnel Syndrome" which was an short, interesting read, but ultimately didn't help me with my particular problem. It does have good general advice, a section with stretching exercises and nerve glides, etc.

<comment><USER14> Hey, just from what you're saying it sounds like your wrists have gone a little too far. If you have constant pain in your hands from typing, and you can't play guitar, and this fact is consuming your life, then you should do something about it. I don't know if that's surgery, but you should at least talk to a specialist about your pain (not a general practitioner), and see what they say. Also try to take a week or more off and not touch a keyboard or guitar. If that helps then it may just be you need to change how you do things with your hands.

<comment><USER17> It isn't my wrists; it is my forearms. From my reading and (ortho) doc visits, Radial Tunnel Syndrome is the closest diagnosis to what I experience. It could just be tendinitis, though. I agree I need a week off, but from my past experience I know a week isn't enough. I'm going to try and take several weeks off later this year.

Maybe my writeup sounded worse than it is. It isn't totally consuming my life, but it has been worsening again lately so the topic has been on my mind. I am not always in pain. I go through periods (days-weeks) of relative normalcy, but other periods where the pain is worse. I haven't played guitar because I try not to stress my arms while I'm home. I try to stay off the computer at home too, but you see how that is working out... I need some mental fortitude/willpower, too.

What do you mean by "change how you do things with your hands"? I've tried a few different chairs, chair/desk heights, keyboards, and mice. My latest is putting my MS Natural 4000 in my lap to type. I think that is an alright position for my hands, but I wish its keys had a little less resistance than they do.

<comment><USER14> Try this real quick:

1\. Get a friend and ask them to help you. Take your index and thumb and touch them together tight as you can then have your friend try to slowly pry them open. Try to remember how weak or strong your hands were. Try a couple fingers to get an idea.

2\. There's two bones in your forearm that join at your wrist. Take your other hand, and squeeze these two bones together at points along your forearm down to your wrist. Squeeze really hard for about 10-20 seconds then relax and shake your hand after each squeeze.

3\. Now relax for a bit and do your other arm equally, then do those wrist exercises I gave you. Rotate them, warm them up, and do the stretches very carefully and slowly. Rotate your wrists after every one and shake them.

4\. After you're done, have your friend come back and try the strength test. See if it improves. If it does, then do this every day, no matter what, before you do anything with your hands.

That squeezing of those two bones helps relieve pressure in there and takes it off of nerves in your wrist. Give it a try but as usual don't do it if it hurts too much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Mental health should be on that list.

<comment><USER19> Funny, but not nice and not necessary.

Downvoters: you are aware that Zed lists problems _he_ has struggled with and that his generalization of this list to 'common problems programmers face' is perhaps not warranted for all problems mentioned? If it was a serious suggestion, jacquesm would have included an explanation of why programmers would commonly face mental health problems.

<comment><USER20> Everyone, and I do mean everyone, with a mental health issue understands the first problem with mental health: People try to laugh it off, or hide it out of fear that others will laugh it off. Since people literally end up dead at an early age because of this attitude, your flippant comment seems likely to be downvoted by folks who have encountered mental illness, and that is a lot of people. Such is the risk of being flippant. Fortunately there's a -4 limit and you'll live.

Do you really need an explanation of why programmers might be at risk of mental health problems? To first order, Zed's list speaks for itself: being in poor health tends to depress you, especially the part about bad sleep. The depression and the health effects feed back on each other in a nasty way.

But I'd add that loneliness is a big factor. These days we have amazing tech like IRC and Twitter and HN, and it's easy to imagine that we can have rich social lives without ever seeing another person except through the medium of text. Well, your brain, designed and conditioned as it is for the presence of actual physical humans, may think differently. I spent eighteen months working as a solo consultant in my office, meeting clients only via email and the occasional phone call, and it eventually drove me bananas. My wife still laughs about the day I took half an hour off to go to the barber and then _raved_ about the awesome social experience.

Even if you work in an office the isolation can be frustrating, because as a programmer you routinely work on problems that nobody else understands or wants to understand - even your fellow programmers, who are trying to focus on problems of their own. To interact with others you need to really break your focus, but that causes you to slow down, so maybe you try not to do it, and before you know it everyone else has gone home and it is dark and you're wandering through an empty parking lot...

Remember, solitary confinement is one of the worst tortures you can inflict on a human.

<comment><USER21> > My wife still laughs about the day I took half an hour off to go to the > barber and then raved about the awesome social experience.

I had the same experience working for a company where I was on my own and the people weren't friendly. I ended up loving the staff in the nearby Cafe Nero because they were friendly and asked me how I was and sometimes had a little chat. When I finally left that job, I left them a massive tip... I actually wanted to leave a gushing thank you card but at least I still retained some sense of perspective to know that that would have probably weirded them out.

All day I was on messenger and forums and had music playing but having no friendly contact with humans for hours has quite an effect.

<comment><USER22> It wouldn't have weirded them out--it probably would have made their day. Why not err on the side of maybe delighting someone? Worse case scenario, it weirds them out and you never see them again anyway!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is decidedly unscientific and at least in the small part I read clearly uniformed. Eyesight problems from LCDs have nothing to do with fonts. It's staring at something that's bright and at a close range for hours at a time. Even if you were just watching YouTube for 8 hours a day you'd suffer.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, a lot of eye health seems to be voodoo bullshit. But, you got any links to references on this? It might help people who have the problem.

<comment><USER24> This is an New Scientist article on an epidemiological study on the causes of myopia. The link is to a blog which copied the content. The original is behind a paywall. The fact that this paper is behind a paywall makes me freaking mad because it could literally save the eyesight of a huge number of people.

Original Article: [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427331.100-generatio...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427331.100-generation- specs-stopping-the-shortsight-epidemic.html?page=1)

Actual Content: <http://www.sunilreddy.com/?p=1429>

An excerpt: On average the children in Sydney spent nearly 14 hours per week outside, and only 3 per cent developed myopia. In contrast, the children in Singapore spent just 3 hours outside, and 30 per cent developed myopia. Once again, close work had a minimal influence; the Australian children actually spent more time reading and in front of their computers than the Singaporeans

<comment><USER23> From what I've read it's not proximity that matters. It's brightness at close range.

<http://www.poynton.com/notes/brightness_and_contrast/> gives us a good setup procedure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Something that worked really well for me is having several hobbies outside of work. It prevents me from just coding for 12 hours a day, and makes my life so much more enjoyable.

A really big one for me is mountain biking. I always found it to be a great escape from whatever I had going on - school, work, relationships - you can really forget about all of that stuff on trails. Mountain biking at times feels more like an addiction, to be honest. Indeed, I own a shirt that reads "Mountain biking is as addictive as crack, but twice as expensive". I start feeling bad about myself and getting a bit anxious if I don't go out on trails for several days in a row. It sure feels great afterwards though - really push yourself, have fun, get that dose of adrenalin and be physically exhausted in the end. I always solve my toughest problems after "hardcore" biking sessions :-)

Having talked to some hospital staff during my several biking-related emergency room visits, I can tell you that some forms of it (downhill-type stuff) are very hard on your joints, so don't over do it. If you're really into downhill racing and freeride, mix in several good XC sessions for cross- training. You'll be stronger and healthier.

P.S.: another thing that really helps is having an active S.O., someone who'll drag you out of your work-mode and take you hiking several times a week, and who will want social interactions outside of "reading HN".

<comment><USER26> I'm addicted to Swing Dancing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> When you sit all day with your hands on a keyboard, your shoulders are constantly in internal rotation. Try this quick test:

Hold a couple pens loosely in your hands with the points facing out, and stand naturally with your arms at your sides. Where are pens pointed? If they are pointed forward, then you've got excellent posture. If they are pointed diagonally inwards, you have slight internal rotation. If they are pointed almost straight inwards, then that internal rotation is severe.

The point of this is that pushups, and everyone's favourite lift, the bench press, promote more internal rotation. Most office people would be far better served performing more pulling exercises than push. So deadlifts, rows, pull downs, pull ups, etc.

</comment><comment><USER28> As a medical doctor, i think its a good article

the hacker community is not thought about in the medical community overall

</comment><comment><USER29> My eyes used to be my weakest link. Then I got a pair of Gunnar Optics computer glasses. They soften the contrast of bright screens with their yellow tint, cut glare, have a slight corrective factor, and reduce airflow around my eyes keeping them more moist.

They work wonders.

</comment><comment><USER30> While we're on the topic of computer use issues, thought I'd share something I discovered for mouse use. I realize lots of us like to go solo keyboard, but for when you have to use a mouse, try this:

Put the mouse (m] sideways pointed left at the bottom left side of your keyboard:

      [Keyboard]
      (m]

Rest your elbow on the desk, so your arm is parallel to the keyboard.

I've been doing this for a few months now, and it's been a huge improvement. It might take a while to get used to the mouse being perpendicular to the pointer orientation on screen, but maybe not (didn't for me). The position is somewhat adapted from the tai chi standing practice posture.

<comment><USER31> I can confirm that this setup has legs, long-term. I've been using my mice that way for over a decade now, after accidentally stumbling onto it.

A good cordless mouse makes this configuration much more convenient (I'm still using an aging Logitech G7, for example).

Curious, do you write left handed? I do, and so does the only other person I know of that uses this setup.

<comment><USER30> Actually no, I'm right-handed. I don't even remember how I ended up with the setup... maybe my mouse just gradually moved leftwards across the desk in search of better comfort!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I cannot stress how important it is to stay healthy. I used to be a competitive natural bodybuilder (which isn't the healthiest thing, overall) and a personal trainer, so being healthy was always a part of my life. After I graduated college, I didn't have enough time for them and let myself go. As a result, I get sick more often, and have back pain.

I'm currently in the process of getting back into shape (not as a competitive bodybuilder, but just general fitness). So please, if you can avoid becoming unhealthy, do, and stay fit. There's literally no downside to it (that I can think of).

<comment><USER33> It's effortful, time consuming, boring, and involves changes of behaviour, self image and thought processes, and involves potentially standing out against peers, family, friends, colleagues and industry culture.

If there were _literally_ no down sides, everyone would do it by default.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> It's hard to take health advice from a guy who considers martial arts to be a qualification in dispensing them. Especially when he trots out bullshit old wifes tales like caffeine leading to dehydration.

<comment><USER35> Indeed. Studies have shown that those that are used to caffeine don't get dehydrated from drinking caffeinated beverages.

The NYT examine this here: [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/health/nutrition/04real.ht...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/health/nutrition/04real.html)

<comment><USER36> Really, though, you shouldn't need Zed, the NYT or anyone else to tell you whether coffee is dehydrating. You _should_ be able to tell, for yourself, one way or the other.

For myself, it's headaches and feeling "parched" (for lack of a better term), preceded by the usual coffee-smelling piss. I usually don't let it get that far, but once my head starts to ache I quickly switch over to green tea and/or water.

Whether the latest journal reports caffeine is or isn't dehydrating may be _interesting_ , but should mean fuck-all to your daily routine. Don't look for authorization in science. Look for it in careful examination of your own experience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> It sounds like a lot of these are symptoms of the _real_ problem: People are so hell-bent on hyper-focusing for long hacking marathons that they ignore warning signs and neglect their bodies.

Also: I did Aikido for a couple years, too, and know _exactly_ which wrist stretches he means. They're great pre-typing stretches.

</comment><comment><USER38> I disagree with his advice on vitamin D, especially for those over 40 who have lost most of their ability to synthesize it from sunlight. See:

[http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/getting- vitamin-d-...](http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/getting-vitamin-d- right.html)

</comment><comment><USER39> Something that really upped my motivation for running is using my cellphone's gps to log data. I coded a small web-app to show a little bit of stats (<http://fitness.marc-seeger.de/category/joggen> / <http://github.com/rb2k/run-a-log>) as my first little project with ruby/sinatra. My inner nerd loves to collect data and do stuff with it and my body is probably thankful for it (just finished my 800th recorded kilometer)

p.s. I currently use "cardio trainer" on android which would also offer a webinterface to data. Before that I used MyTracks (android), Nokia Sportstracker (Symbian), jogstats (webos)

</comment><comment><USER40> I've suffered from the low back problems he mentions, but mine was not primarily caused by sitting for long periods of time. It was from playing sports when I was younger--I really messed it up.

However, I recently got an ergonomic chair after minor back surgery and it is awesome! It has made a big difference in how I sit and I am much more comfortable with it.

I would also add: don't sit at your desk and eat your lunch and surf to HN. :) Go outside for a 20-30 minute walk. Walk somewhere different every day and look at things you haven't seen before. Not only do you get good exercise, you will spur your creativity and curiosity.

</comment><comment><USER41> I can definitely see how bleeding out of your rectum might interfere with your programming flow.

<comment><USER42> I believe a tight bubble (intestine + vein) of blood hanging out of your rectum (i.e. an actual hemorrhoid) would actually be more distracting than the bleeding, which would be a relief.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> If you don't read the rest of this, get a styrofoam foam noodle around 12" in diameter and 3 feet in length. Lie on it to relax and stretch your back. Back stores have them. They're expensive but I use mine twice a day.

For those of you who type like madmen with no regard for ergonomics and work breaks, I did that since I was 9. I have systems in place to avoid that now. Through grade school, high school, college. I was a blazing fast slouch typer. After I graduated from grad school, I started getting pains. So I would rest up and be as good as new overnight. There reaches a point where if you ignore the problem long enough it becomes persistent. Finally, it became such that even after a weekend of rest it would (pain, soreness) still remain. Maybe at a level three out of ten. I went to see a physical therapist and he tested my grip strength - my left hand was stronger. And I'm right handed. Leaving out thousands of ergonomics purchases, the best thing you can do is to start a swimming program. Swimming is zero-impact; you're not pounding the pavement. It is excellent for working your full body. Swimming is hard if you don't know how to swim because you're basically putting all your energy into fighting water resistance. Elite swimmers are three times more efficient than average swimmers (91% of energy fighting water vs 97% for average swimmers - <USER2> they can put 9% towards forward propulsion). Total Immersion has an awesome swim-like-a-fish program (<http://totalimmersion.net>). For eyestrain, rest your eyes by looking at least twenty feet away every twenty minutes for at least twenty seconds (the 20-20-20 rule). If you wear corrective lenses, ask your optometrist for a computer Rx (that you can use while screen working). WorkPace software from Wellnomics is awesome because it forces me to micro- pause every 4 minutes for 20 seconds and stop working for 4 minutes every 14 minutes. Believe me, I am a very efficient programmer. Also, use the mouse with your non-dominant hand.

For those of you who don't have health issues, realize that you will not take endless, pain-free typing for granted once you have soreness that becomes persistent. The only true rehabilitation would be to stop typing all together for a long time (2 years). Until then, I'm appreciating my job for what it is - something in the short term. Diversify your portfolio of skills - don't be over-weighted in tech. Start creating things that you own.

<comment><USER11> _micro-pause every 4 minutes for 20 seconds and stop working for 4 minutes every 14 minutes_

I doubt that's feasible for anyone working in an office, rather than for themselves.

I ran the numbers a bit, and I assumed: a) that you work 4 minutes, break 20s, then work for - i.e. the clock resets _after_ the break, b) the 14m breaks are wall clock, not non-break time, and c) when you return from a 14m break, the 4m clock resets.

According to this, you're taking 19m of breaks per hour. I'd be fired if I only worked 2/3 of every hour.

Edit: For anyone interested, I did this in Excel and it breaks down like this:

work 4m, break 20s, work 4m, break 20s, work 4m, break 20s, work 1m, break 4m, work 4m, break 20s, work 4m, break 20s, work 2m, break 4m, work 4m, break 20s, work 4m, break 20s, work 1m20s, break 4m, work 4m, break 20s, work 4m, break 20s, work 1m, break 4m

<comment><USER43> It only counts active time (keyboard activity, mouse movement). For instance, I naturally pause for some time while thinking. If you take a break, the counter will reset automatically. Yes, it has driven my co-workers nuts when they try working on some code but I tell them to relax.

As for being fired, I've proven that I can get more done than others in this setup. It's not quantity of code, per se, but fixing three to four times more bugs than other devs. That's my niche - I love fixing bugs. I don't understand why other developers claim to not like fixing bugs. For me, quality balanced with efficiency is utmost.

Getting laid off would be a nice clean break.

<comment><USER11> That makes sense, I suppose. I guess I was thinking about it more in terms of my own habits - since I got "carpal tunnel" (or whatever it really was that was killing my wrist last month), I've taken regular breaks where I stretch my wrists. I wasn't thinking about your setup as being strictly about "keyboard time."

Thanks for the clarification.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Laptop ergonomics deserves a special mention. Because it forces your line of sight and wrist level to converge, there really is no ergonomic option -- either you hunch or you scrunch. Elevating the screen and either using an external keyboard or external monitor really helps.

<comment><USER45> Actually my Macbook Pro has improved my ergonomic situation. I use the built- in zoom tool, (it's the reason I bought a mac, as I have low vision) and because of the zoom feature, I can put the laptop wherever I find it comfortable but still see things. The zoom keeps me from hunching over or leaning in.

Also, I use my middle finger on the trackpad, as I need to use the middle AND index fingers to "right click", and this slight turn of my wrist completely removed the wrist pain I get from using a mouse or a normal trackpad.

<comment><USER44> But don't you end up angling your head downward to see the screen? Or angling your forearms upward to reach the keyboard? All the ergonomics material I've read suggests keeping these on the level, or possibly even angling your forearms down a bit into your lap. Almost impossible to do with just a laptop.

<comment><USER33> I've wondered about this ever since reading Peter Cochrane's comments on it. When people want to concentrate on things, we hunch over them. Nobody reads a book at arms length, head up. Nobody knits or threads a needls at arms length, or does any kind of paperwork that way. Why do we compute that way?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Here's an easy way to release some muscular stiffness if you're having lower back pain while sitting.

Stand up and feel your lower back and whether you can massage it easily.

With your arms back at your sides, bend both legs just 1/4 of the way down. Do this 3 to 5 times.

Now stretch the front of each thigh by holding the foot to your butt. Don't use a lot of effort to do this. Just hold in place for 5 seconds or until it completely stretches.

Now feel your lower back again and see if you can massage it. If its much easier to massage now, the source of your pain is your tight thighs. But now you have a way to cope with and reduce the consequences of this tightness.

</comment><comment><USER46> Another useful thing is <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myofascial_release>.

Go pick up the hardest foam roller you can handle and start rolling:

<http://www.amazon.com/Foam-Roller-6-x-36/dp/B000Y4W9VA/>

It has done wonders for my body.

</comment><comment><USER47> 1\. RSI: Take a week off, then, switch to Dvorak (maybe get a Kinesis keyboard if that helps you as well).

2\. Back: Standing desk w/ nice architects chair.

3\. Eyes: Get a Kindle and read PDF's/etc on it instead of computer.

My quick $0.02 on the problems I've helped resolve from your list Zed.

The other problems, I have yet to tackle, but, I probably should sooner than later! Great detailed post.

</comment><comment><USER48> On Vitamin D, you need to be careful because it can also mess up your calcium levels. If you calcium levels change, then it can affect your magnesium levels. If your magnesium levels drop, then your muscles will hurt hard core. If you ignore the pain (and deal with it like a real man), then you will die.

</comment><comment><USER49> Most of the problems mentioned won't even happen in the first place if one takes regular breaks.

I recommend WorkRave for this: <http://www.workrave.org/>

<comment><USER50> Or follow my twitter bot: <http://twitter.com/officeworkout> (strictly non- scientific)

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> This is an interesting thing for Zed to share.

Sleeping on your back is something that can exacerbate sleep apnea, so I would modify his otherwise quite pleasant sleep suggestions with that in mind.

<comment><USER52> If you have sleep apnea, go get yourself a damn CPAP machine and wear it when you sleep. Sleep apnea is almost, but not quite, as bad as never even sleeping. That means dozing off during every quiet moment of the day, having waking hallucinations, waking up just as tired as you felt when you went to bed, even sleeping all weekend. Your concentration and mental abilities end up just plain shot. I've known two people with sleep apnea and they both turned their lives around considerably when they had it treated.

<comment><USER51> There is essentially a continuous normal distribution of "apneic" sleep features. There is no bright line between apnea and not apnea, though we create lines for simplicity's sake. Of course if you need CPAP, use CPAP. But there are plenty of people who have soft tissue that closes off the upper airway to a significant degree only when supine. These are the people who don't need to deal with the modest but non-zero risks associated with respiratory assistance — all by just sleeping in a different position.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> CS departments should make all students attend a short course covering all of Zed's topics and the personal hygiene and mental health issues mentioned in this thread.

<comment><USER54> Or better yet companies that expect people to sit at computers for 40-60-80 hours should. One good thing about meetings: sitting in them is easier on your hands, if it doesn't drive you crazy...

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Semi-fast once a week. Much easier than trying to calculate your calorie count each and every meal.

I skip dinner and breakfast the next morning, so I'm without food for 24 hours.

</comment><comment><USER56> Very well written and practical. Thanks for sharing this.

</comment><comment><USER57> What's a door jam?

<comment><USER58> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Door_jamb&oldi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Door_jamb&oldid=376045823&printable=yes)

Depending on the context that inspired you to ask, the literal explanation may not help.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Zed, you forgot kidney stones. One of the consequences of too much caffeine is it's easy to be dehydrated, which puts you at risk of kidney stones. Which essentially means you get the dubious pleasure of pissing razor sharp calcium rocks out your urethra. It hasn't happened to me, but it has happened to friends; based on their experiences, I wouldn't recommend it.

<comment><USER60> Happened to my father & it was the most agonizing experience I have seen him go through. Kidney stones cripple you with pain, you can't sit, you can't lie down. It rips basic comfort out of your life for weeks on end.

</comment></comment><comment> jc-denton EXERCISE REGULARLY.

Nobody forces you to drink coffee.

Really I don't think it's so hard to do programming w/o becoming a complete nerd.

</comment><comment><USER61> Run, Forrest! Run!

</comment><comment><USER62> But trust me on the sunscreen…

</comment><comment><USER63> Give up guitar. Write less. Think. Solve problems in ways that use least typing.

<comment><USER14> Well that'd be no fun.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What text editor you use for coding? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Butterflies! No, really, just VS Code ATM.

</comment><comment><USER3> Eclipse for Java, vim for anything else.

</comment><comment><USER4> Mostly Eclipse, sometimes Emacs.

</comment><comment><USER5> Sublime text. And qtcreator

</comment><comment><USER6> For Java: NetBeans

For everything else: emacs

</comment><comment><USER7> VS Code

</comment><comment><USER8> emacs as of ~2 years now.

I'm a total convert!

</comment><comment><USER9> vi

<comment><USER10> You're a really tough guy, doing without syntax highlighting and even half of the keyboard. I need Vim for my work.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Where to get dedicated or cloud Solid State Disk based server - <AUTHOR>

Suggest me some hosting cloud/no-cloud provider to get an server with SSD. <comment><USER2> <http://www.hetzner.de/en/hosting/produkte_rootserver/ex8> (dedicated server in eu)

<http://serveraxis.com/vps-ssd.php> (vps with ssd in usa)

</comment><comment><USER3> <http://relbit.com></comment>


Automatically Encrypting all Incoming Email - <AUTHOR> https://grepular.com/Automatically_Encrypting_all_Incoming_Email <comment><USER2> What's the point? This is equivalent to putting all postcards you receive in a safe so that no thief can read them if he breaks into your house.

I would think there is also other important data besides only mail on a PC, why not just go the safe route and encrypt your hard disk the proper way. File-by-file PGP encrypting stuff does not look like the best solution to me.

<comment><USER3> This makes most sense to do on hardware you don't own where the government can use a law from the 80s that says the government can read any email that's on hardware you don't own that's over 180 days old.

[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/emailprivacy/](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/emailprivacy/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice idea, but it breaks email search and thus is a no-go for me. I find myself seaching my mailbase quite often and if search does not work, i'd just as well delete them right after reading.

A possible solution could be to script my MUA using IMAP to decrypt incoming mail automatically and store them locally in a truecrypt container. No sure how well this would work.

Other solutions to the "search encrypted mails" problem?

<comment><USER5> Maybe Fully Homomorphic Encryption will help here? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption)

Not sure how practical this is at the moment, or will be in the future. Hopefully an expert can weigh in ?

<comment><USER6> I don't consider myself an expert, but I see homomorphic encryption and secure multiparty communication trotted out as potential solutions to similar problems all the time. It (no offense) rarely seems like the speaker has more than superficial knowledge of HE and SMPC work.

I've looked into both in an extremely limited fashion, but am not an expert. And I've spent far more time looking into SMPC than HE. So take the rest of what I'm going to say with massive amounts of salt (I'd love to be corrected by an expert in any of my commentary).

Right now there are huge efficiency hurdles that must be overcome before these solutions are remotely tractable to general computation problems. All that HE and SMPC give you is an extremely expensive way to do addition and multiplication on fields. An intelligent observer may point out that's all you need to do computation. In GF(2), addition is the XOR operation and multiplication is the AND operation. Anyone that's taken a computational organization class knows these two gates are all you need to construct a general purpose computer.

The real show-stopper is the cost. SMPC requires communication between participants for all multiplication operations. This means every AND operation requires "mixing" to regain randomness and maintain secrecy. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of AND operations required for one cycle of even the most simplistic processor. That's not even touching the necessity for simulating RAM with GF(2) multiplication/addition, which would require AND operations for each multiplexing gate used.

A paper I found indicated that SMPC processor emulations are still struggling to run in the MHz range [1]. And that's without knowing what kind of communication is allowed between the participants (I'm guessing it's running on a local network).

Again, I know very little about HE. But I'm under the impression that there are still similar efficiency hurdles. I've also heard some troubling reports on patent grabs for FHE schemes [2].

1\. [http://u.cs.biu.ac.il/~orlandi/icassp- draft.pdf](http://u.cs.biu.ac.il/~orlandi/icassp-draft.pdf)

2\. [http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz/2012/04/04/38707/](http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz/2012/04/04/38707/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A nice approach, I will look at implementing it on my setup at home; Probably worth noting that if you are taking these steps then running it all out of an encrypted filesystem is probably a sensible addition. Although if you are looking at doing this you probably _have_ an encrypted filesystem already.

<comment><USER8> And likely have plain-jane, no TLS SMTP mail being delivered which means it's trivial for your upstream provider to read your (unencrypted) email.

<comment><USER9> Exactly. So why bother at all right? Root password? "root" will do. Encrypted partitions on the server? Useless. SSH keys? Silly overengineered junk.

Following the same logic, why bother setting strong passwords on Gmail? Or even bother at all with 2FA, I mean, after all, somebody can just read your unencrypted email in transit anyway, right?

This comment is not helpful at all. The original article did not mention with a single word the NSA or anything like it[1], but he _is_ worried about things being stolen or hacked.

> So what does this get me? If somebody steals my laptop or phone, they can't > access my email from my IMAP clients local store because it's all encrypted > and my private PGP key is password protected. If somebody guesses my IMAP > password, or uses an exploit to gain access to my account, they can't read > my email because what they retrieve is encrypted.

And for both scenarios, the proposed tools are very much helpful.

[1]: Partially because the article says "Published @Thu, 13th Jan 2011"

<comment><USER8> >Exactly. So why bother at all right? Root password? "root" will do. Encrypted partitions on the server? Useless. SSH keys? Silly overengineered junk.

>Following the same logic, why bother setting strong passwords on Gmail? Or even bother at all with 2FA, I mean, after all, somebody can just read your unencrypted email in transit anyway, right?

That's not even remotely what I'm claiming. Stop being a dick. Yes, you should always have good passwords on your accounts and use 2FA. But if you want to send something secret across the Internet you might want to choose another method than (unencrypted) email.

>This comment is not helpful at all. The original article did not mention with a single word the NSA or anything like it, but he is worried about things being stolen or hacked.

If someone really wants to read your mail they'll compromise the host your mail is on and read it before you get a chance to encrypt it. In that case this "solution" does nothing. It keeps a casual person out but does nothing to stop a more advanced attacker.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wouldn't it be way easier to just encrypt the partition? Ubuntu for example has an easy-to-use feature for that. The idea of email encryption is not least to avoid interception in the clear.

Or am I missing something?

<comment> mike-cardwell You should do both. The solution described in the article provides several extra levels of defense against different types of attack that full disk encryption doesn't provide. If you actually read it, you'll know this...

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> How could this be translated to Postfix, for a Postfix novice?

<comment><USER12> If you're using procmail as your delivery agent, then adding this to your procmailrc should work:

      :0fw
      | /path/to/gpgit.pl firstname.lastname@example.com

Be sure to also enable opportunistic transport-layer encryption in Postfix (it's pointless to encrypt mail upon receipt if it just traveled in the clear on the Internet) by putting this in main.cf:

      smtp_tls_security_level = may
      smtpd_tls_security_level = may
      smtpd_tls_cert_file = /path/to/cert
      smtpd_tls_key_file = /path/to/key

You need a SSL cert for this, but it can be a self-signed cert. If you're on Debian (probably Ubuntu too) you can use the snakeoil cert (/etc/ssl/certs/ssl-cert-snakeoil.pem and /etc/ssl/private/ssl-cert- snakeoil.key).

<comment><USER11> What if you aren't? :)

<comment><USER12> Aren't using procmail? You could try using a Postfix content filter:

[http://www.postfix.org/FILTER_README.html](http://www.postfix.org/FILTER_README.html)

I've got no experience with them though.

<comment><USER11> Indeed. Thanks a lot for the link.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/world/asia/inky-octopus-new-zealand-aquarium.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0 <comment><USER2> A number of years ago I kept two octopuses in captivity and I always enjoy reading articles like this, I wish more people took an interest in them and I'm glad to see the audience at HN does.

They really are remarkable animals and unbelievably inquisitive. Trying to keep them from escaping, even from a relatively small 250 gallon tank was always a challenge and I can only imagine how difficult it is to retrofit the larger tanks they inhabit at public aquariums to be escape proof.

They two I kept were incredibly tactile in their curiosity and loved exploring my arms/hands whenever I put them into their tank. They would readily eat small crabs and shrimp right from my fingers and seemed to like playing tug of war, clinging to my hand with a few tentacles and them some of the heavier rocks with the others. Lego blocks, clear acrylic piping, small plastic toys would keep them busy for hours on end.

Many people don't realize this but they are unfortunately (or fortunately for humans) remarkably short lived. Most species live only for 1-1.5 years and even the Giant Pacific Octopus usually only lives for 3-5 years. I would always jokingly remark to friends that if they had a longer life span on the order of a decade or more, they probably would have invented some kind of breathing apparatus and conquered land long ago. They would probably have a much more advanced space program by now as well.

<comment><USER3> _remarkably short lived._

I suppose that also means they reproduce very quickly, which is a good thing in light of the other discussion here about sustainability of consuming them as food.

<comment><USER2> I believe in most, if not all, species of octopus the male dies after mating and the female dies shortly after the eggs in her care hatch. Also depending on the species, anywhere from 20,000-200,000 eggs will hatch and I've read that only around 1% will make it to adulthood.

In captivity octopuses are considered relatively difficult to keep due to their sensitivity to water quality. They have a fairly narrow band of acceptable levels of pH, ammonia, nitrite, and salinity. Copper is pretty much Kryptonite to an octopus. I'm unsure what the potential is for large scale changes in oceanic chemistry but I imagine it would be devastating to octopuses, along with overfishing.

I'm actually curious how serious a threat overfishing is. Seeing as how difficult they are to contain I wonder if most commercially available octopus are specifically fished for or are just a byproduct of some other fishing and whether this has a large affect on their populations.

<comment><USER4> > I'm unsure what the potential is for large scale changes in oceanic > chemistry

We are down from pre-industrial 8.25 pH to 8.08, and no sign of slowing. Major changes are certain. I don't know if this means the water will dissolve more metals like Cu, but it seems possible.

Source: [http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Time...](http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Time- Series)

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the info, very interesting and troubling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A similar interesting octopus story not mentioned in the article:

A particular light in a German aquarium kept short-circuiting and no one could figure out why. Using camera surveillance it was finally discovered that every night, the octopus would climb to the edge of his tank and shoot a jet of water on the light, shorting it. It was speculated that the light had been bothering the octopus' nocturnal routine.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3328...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3328480/Otto- the-octopus-wrecks-havoc.html)

<comment><USER6> Their answer was to hang the light higher. No explanation for keeping the nightly illumination.

<comment><USER7> That article is depressing. They nonchalantly attribute the behaviour to boredom and belittling the creature like a child: "Otto is constantly craving for attention and always comes up with new stunts so we have realised we will have to keep more careful eye on him".

Let's not attribute any aspect of his behaviour to the crippling reality of captivity. Oh, no.

<comment><USER8> There is no more evidence for your theory than theirs. Neither can be proven. So "let's not attribute any aspect of his behaviour" to anything is the only correct response.

<comment><USER9> No evidence? You do know that light plays a significant role in circadian rhythms in most animals and can have dire effects on physiology, right?

<comment><USER8> So that is evidence that the light is motivating the octopus is it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It upsets me to no end that we find evidence such as this piece that cephalopods are actually (relatively speaking) remarkably more intelligent than common wisdom pertains[0], and yet the culinary abuse and harm (i.e. 'live sushi/sashimi') of these creatures continues.

[0] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_intelligence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_intelligence)

<comment><USER11> Are you against eating all animals or is there a cut off point of intelligence after which it stops being okay?

Most of what is/isn't acceptable to eat is based on history and popular socially accepted practices, not whether people think their prospective dinner is intelligent. Pigs are more intelligent than dogs yet the latter are not eaten in the western world and I wouldn't want to live in a world without the (delicious) former.

<comment><USER12> Although not the OP, I have a fairly strong opinion on this. In order of importance everyone should

* Make their own decisions on what to eat.

* Understand the externalities, exogenous, and endogenous process and consequences of their decisions.

* Take full personal, civic, and environmental responsibility for those decisions.

Essentially, as long as people are forthright, honest, and accountable about what they eat, where it comes from, and the ecological footprints their choices implicate, then have at it, eat whatever.

<comment><USER13> Is this really how you feel taken to its logical extremes? Do you think humans should be allowed to eat other humans? Other live humans?

Eating is clearly a very personal thing, but it's silly to pretend that morality suddenly ceases applying.

<comment><USER14> What about meat grown in a lab, so no being had to die for it.

...what about human meat grown in a lab...?

<comment><USER15> as someone who considers themselves an animal-rights moderate, I am 100% OK with lab meat. No sentient beings suffering = no problem!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> >Inky is not the first octopus to attract the spotlight. In the summer of 2010, Paul, an octopus in Germany, gained worldwide attention when he appeared to correctly pick the winning team in all seven of Germany's games at the World Cup in South Africa — a feat that inspired a song. He has been immortalized in Oberhausen, Germany, with a six-foot plastic replica of him clutching a soccer ball.

To me, this cheapens the article. There are readers who are going to think that the octopus actually predicted those wins, when any thoughtfully rational observer would understand that it was merely a lucky happenstance.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, your basic octopus scam where you get a bunch of octupi and have them predict results from sports games, and advertise the results of the one that has managed to "predict" the most results.

<comment><USER18> Nope, it and only it was seriously followed by tabloids and reputable newspapers alike at least from the second match on.

Sure, it was chance. But not a "pick a winner in hindsight" scam.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > "He managed to make his way to one of the drain holes that go back to the > ocean, and off he went," Mr. Yarrall said. "Didn't even leave us a message."

Yes he did - the message was 'I don't want to live in a glass box'

</comment><comment><USER20> In 2016, Inky Dufresne escaped from Shawtank Prison. All they found of him was a muddy set of prison clothes, a bar of soap, and an old rock hammer, damn near worn down to the nub.

</comment><comment><USER21> The linked video is amazing. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yHIsQhVxGM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yHIsQhVxGM)

And here's a "tool using" octopus - carring a coconut shell to hide in. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DoWdHOtlrk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DoWdHOtlrk)

</comment><comment><USER22> Kind-of off topic I guess, but we were just visiting an aquarium in Seaside OR a couple weeks ago, and they famously have an octopus in the tank, with no top on it that you can stand next to and watch it swim around.

While we were there, it was dancing for us, speeding across the tank like I'd never seen. He really looked like he'd love to be free. So the question had to be asked, "What if he wants to get out?"

The aquarium attendant told us something in the vein of, if he gets out, he gets out. If he wants to be free, he will get free.

I thought that was an interesting answer, though I'm still not sure how I feel about it. I can tell you that if it tried to get free while I was there, I'd probably get the heck out of the aquarium. It resembled an alien, and I'm afraid of most giant things from the sea.

</comment><comment><USER23> I wonder if Inky knew that the drain hole led to the ocean, or if it was a just a lucky break.

<comment><USER24> It was a dark, tight space, which octopuses enjoy. He may have entered it simply because it seemed more comfortable than where he was.

<comment><USER25> Are they certain Inky isn't still in there?

<comment><USER26> Yes.

> The aquarium's manager, Rob Yarrall, told Radio New Zealand that employees > had searched the aquarium's pipes after discovering Inky's trail, to no > avail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Just because something has complex self-preservation behaviors does not mean that thing is displaying consciousness. Complex behaviors are witnessed in insects and microscopic organisms, yet they have nothing like a brain.

What's more, we're computer scientists. If anyone should be aware that something can seem intelligent without sentience it should be us. Who here _hasn 't_ explored chat bots or game AI mechanics? Yet these inventions are remarkably simple compared with even the most basic of evolution's creations.

Are venus fly traps sentient because they catch food in their "mouths"? Of course not. Our knee-jerk reaction to equate behavior with sentience illustrates just how bad we humans are of seeing reality without an anthropomorphic lense.

It is far more likely that human beings became unusual because of our sentience, not that animals remain base in spite of theirs.

<comment><USER28> There's no evidence yet that humans are sentient either. It's all wild speculation. Many complex behaviors observed in humans have been reproduced with very simple algorithms.

<comment><USER27> The simple difference being that we are humans, and can easily extrapolate to the rest of our species from ourselves.

As for other animals, I'm not so convinced that the same extrapolation stands.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm currently reading The Soul of an Octopus and it's really joy inspiring. Part pop-science, part memoir, part inter-species romance. If you just come in for science you'll be annoyed by Clever Hans effect and confirmation bias, but that's all pop science writing on animal intelligence.

[http://amazon.com/The-Soul-Octopus-Exploration- Consciousness...](http://amazon.com/The-Soul-Octopus-Exploration- Consciousness/dp/1451697716?sa-no-redirect=1)

<comment><USER29> if anyone's interested in a science fiction take, Steven Baxter's "Manifold: Time" has a subplot involving intelligence-enhanced cephalopods. It's one of my favorite hard sci-fi reads…

<comment><USER30> Thanks for the recommendation, that looks really interesting. I'm always on the look out for interesting hard(er) scifi.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> it's behavior like this that caused me to no longer be able to eat octopus, which was one of my favorite foods. but after learning that they are capable of planning and puzzle-solving... i felt guilty after every trip to the sushi place.

</comment><comment><USER32> Amazing. Most humans couldnt come up with an escape plan like this.

It's possible he exhibiting long term goal oriented planning here.

Have we considered octopi might actually be more intelligent than humans?

Wouldn't it be funny if in the future we figured out how to communicate with them and they ended up solving our hardest problems or making breakthroughs in physics and math?

<comment><USER33> Octopi aren't more intelligent than humans, because intelligence in humans is partly external.

We're fairly dumb as feral individuals, but give us a herd memory for science and math and we can fly to the moon.

Octopi not only don't live very long, they're also aggressively solitary. So they have the usual smart-animal problem of starting life as a blank slate with a few baked-in instincts and no way to learn from previous generations.

The blank slate cycle has been repeating for millions of years, so they're unlikely to change now.

If they did, we'd be in trouble.

<comment><USER32> What if we shared all of our knowledge with them to fix the blank slate problem?

But you're right. A single human with no knowledge is not very intelligent. It's disconcerting if you think about it.

<comment><USER34> Sometimes I feel we are precariously positioned at the tip of human achievement. I think we're lucky that the earth is abundant in resources to make up for our mistakes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Great article until they conflated stupid human sports superstition with cephalopod intelligence.

</comment><comment><USER36> Why is this news story everywhere?! Hacker News, Google News, newspapers, facebook feeds, ... it's like it's following me everywhere I go!

Is there some secret octopus cabal out there that's advancing the secret octopus news agenda?

<comment><USER37> I'm noticing a lot of Reddit posts showing up here that don't seem all too related to tech. Perhaps Hacker News is just growing to that size where it starts to get off topic sometimes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Supposedly octopuses have a my h more distributed neural system. Most of their neurons are in their tentacles (we also have neurons in our body, but mostly the brain). I'd love to see an fMRI.

</comment><comment><USER39> Not to sound too negative, but I kind of feel like the timing of this story is suspect. It seems to be on the heels of numerous articles [1][2][3] from Pixar talking about their new character, which is an octopus, escaping and rescuing Dory the fish.

FWIW, I am a huge fan of cephalopods and have a large octopus tattoo enshrining my admiration for the animal. They certainly are highly intelligent, so the story isn't impossible.

[1] [http://zap2it.com/2016/04/finding-dory-director-hank- septopu...](http://zap2it.com/2016/04/finding-dory-director-hank-septopus- sneak-peek/)

[2] [http://www.awn.com/animationworld/ultimate-sidekick- finally-...](http://www.awn.com/animationworld/ultimate-sidekick-finally- discovers-herself-pixar-s-finding-dory)

[3] [http://article.wn.com/view/2016/04/07/8216finding_dory_8217s...](http://article.wn.com/view/2016/04/07/8216finding_dory_8217s_8217_hank_is_the_8216hardest_characte/)

<comment><USER40> But the story doesn't even mention Pixar or Finding Dory? Is this some sort of new ultra low-frequency subliminal advertising? Or are you just being a little paranoid? You're the one who brought it up, maybe you're the one working for Pixar.

<comment><USER39> Well, I could be for sure. The new Pixar has a story has a central character that is an escape artists octopus. Certainly could be coincidental.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Offtopic (sorry) - why is it that I can't read this short article in full in one screen on a 4k monitor? And why is it that when I move my mouse around, I get about 10 different places where a mini dialogue pops up? Somebody needs to make a new internet.

<comment><USER42> The proper agency has been notified, please stand by for wish fulfillment.

<comment><USER41> Dang, last time I worked with one of those agencies, they never got back to me. Still hopeful! ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I am looking for a big enough crack in my cubicle wall to escape too!

</comment><comment><USER44> The bit with the jailbreaking octopus from _Finding Dory_ comes to mind.

</comment><comment><USER45> Octodad anyone?</comment>