The Horrible Future of Social - <AUTHOR> http://ted.io/the-horrible-future-of-social.html

<comment><USER2> I see this every time I go to Disney World (I live nearby). It's almost impossible to enjoy a single ride or fireworks show without a ton of people videoing the whole thing or taking horrible pictures of it with a smart device of some sort. Rather than enjoying it and capturing some deep memory of a moment with their family, they have their face stuck in a digital device capturing a crude facsimile of the experience that they will likely never look at ever again.

I will never forget when a dad was trying to get a good shot of Cinderella Castle and _totally_ missed out on their daughter meeting a princess (I think Tiana from Princess and the Frog was walking over to her character spot or something) for the first time. Hugely important moment for his daughter completely and utterly squandered in chasing this lifecasted copy of life. She was excitedly jumping up and down and waving to and got a big hug from the princess, and her dad was swatting her off at first, then completely ignoring her.

I've lived here (Orlando) for two years and it's only getting worse. I've almost given up on being able to ride Pirates of the Carribbean and being able to experience it the way the Imagineers wanted you to. The constant flash and glowing screens from people posting pictures of the Jack Sparrow animatronic on Facebook completely ruin it. Fireworks are an exercise in frustration as some joker always sticks his iPad in the air to try to capture a picture. When the first one looks terrible (as they all do), he tries over and over and over. By the time he's frustrated enough that he's not getting good pictures, the show is over and he's just missed the whole thing.

It's depressing to think how many other experiences people are cheapening and/or missing out on simply because they feel some weird compulsion to SHARE the experience with others rather than LIVE it.

<comment><USER3> I was at a dance club the other night. I saw a couple sitting in the corner. They didn't dance at all. They just sat there looking depressed. A little later I noticed they had their phones out and were taking photos of each other as though they were having a big time partying. Then they put their phones away and left.

<comment><USER4> This is the world we live in. A world where being seen enjoying something matters more than actually doing it. People's need for social validation is so strong it sometimes saddens me.

The positive point is that we (as in, hackers) are on the side of building things and solving (although sometimes artificial) problems, so we can at least make what we can to benefit from people's behavior.

<comment><USER5> Me: we have to get home before the hurricane.

My wife: hold on, I have to get a picture of WAWA.

Me: ... why?

My wife: I checked in!

Me: But why do you need a picture?

My wife: so the timeline looks good!

Me: ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That which is shallow but useful can have its legitimate place in life, though it lacks character: a daily commute on the freeway might suck, and might not match the joy and invigoration of a brisk walk on a beautiful day, but it has its place if you need to get to work miles away and if your area lacks public transportation to get you there efficiently; living in the suburbs might suck compared to the excitement of an upscale urban environment but millions of people manage just fine with the tradeoffs that suburban living entails and get by just fine without the excitement; so too social networking sucks when compared to any one of countless ways of interacting that are intimate, personal, intellectually stimulating, or whatever, and for which the strictures of the social network have no room, but all sorts of people nonetheless get by very well interacting at the social networking level for the utilitarian goals for which they use such services, not caring one whit about intimacy or other elements that make the experience a fundamentally shallow one.

Social may be shallow but it has its place and, as long as we have freedom, you can use it or not according to taste. One can find fault with it but that does not mean it has a "horrible future." Criticism of this sort is thus misplaced, in my view, in spite of the limitations of the venue.

<comment><USER7> I think that the bigger problem is when people begin using "social networking" while they are actually doing the intimate, stimulating, exciting things in real life - either looking for validation or because its easier to bury your head in your phone than it is to participate in social interactions.

For example, checking Facebook while out at dinner with friends, or uploading photos of a party while you are at the party. What could possibly be happening on the internet that is more important than being out with friends?

Fair enough if you want to check facebook while you are waiting on a train killing time, but when you are actually doing the things you _hope_ to be reading about on Facebook/Twitter/Intagram, something seems very wrong.

<comment><USER8> I was watching some video the other day where Jon Stewart made a random appearance. All the people around him had their phones out taking pictures of him instead of actually experiencing him being there. It was like proving to other people that they'd had an awesome experience was more important than actually having that experience. Or like they were going through life as tourists, making sure they checked every box and shared it all with other people to make them jealous. "Been within five feet of a major celebrity - check".

<comment><USER9> Isn't it kind of cynical to assume the reason they are taking a picture is because they want to brag about it to their friends? I have I'm guessing 10-20k pictures I've taken in the last 12 years. I've taking probably > 1k pictures with my phone this year. I've shared less than 2% of them.

I happen to enjoy looking back at all these photos. They bring back memories of various events in my life. IMO, memories I'd likely not think of without something (like a photo) to trigger the memory.

Take more pictures not less.

Also I don't see a problem with sharing. It's not a substitute for face to face time but it's connecting with people MORE not less. Go back 25 years and you could rarely connected with anyone unless you were with them. Now you can connect all the time by sharing your experiences. Some people do it brag, most do it to share and connect. At least in my experience.

<comment><USER10> I don't disagree that people are not doing it to brag but perhaps as someone else mentioned the memory that has been captured is now not as fulfilling or vivid or "memorable" as it should have been if the phone wasn't such a distraction.

Going back 25 years, I think you'll find that people rarely connected in as wide of a network but the circle of friends they did connect with was possibly on a much more fulfilling and deeper level and they got significantly more out of it than a shallow network of thousands of "friends".

I too feel that it's easier than ever to connect with friends on Facebook but somehow the convenience has also made the friendship feel more superficial. Whereas before I had to make an effort to write a birthday card or give someone a call, today, I simply click and write "have a great birthday". Engaging with Facebook has almost become like tending a farm in Farmville, I see alerts, I do routine actions that keep up the appearances of being "social" and that's it. It's sad that I think back now and I don't even remember how my friends sound because we interact in person and on the phone so much less.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Meh. This is a touch over-the-top.

You know what Facebook is to me nowadays? It's another flavor of Gmail. Sometimes I send and receive messages there. It's plumbing. Sometimes I turn the spigot on for some updates, then turn it off and go about my day.

I think pro-social and anti-social pundits are both wrong about the upside and downside of social. Social is neither the next giant leap forward, nor is it the downfall of humanity. It's kinda like Gmail.

<comment><USER12> Except FB (well, plus mobile), has managed to change people's behaviors. Your flight is delayed, you are sitting at the airport lounge - and everyone is monkeying with his or her device. No more talking to strangers.

Gmail hasn't done that.

<comment><USER13> No, Gmail didn't do that - but people still avoided social interaction in those kinds of situations by reading magazines/newspapers/books or playing gameboy, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The author doth project their personal insecurities too much. If people want to form a social network around sex (and hell, there's already heaps, adult friend finder and clones, sex forums etc etc) then I think it's fantastic that the internet allows such varied forms of sexual expression and discourse.

<comment><USER15> Downvoted for A) Use of antiquated language solely for the sake of making yourself seem smarter. B) A needless insult to the author.

<comment><USER16> You're objecting to paraphrasing a quote from Shakespeare? I generally don't think people are trying to show off when they're referring to something that's in as many high school curriculums as Hamlet...

And it's a quote that provides a nice succinct way to convey a certain meaning, that I'm not sure I disagree with in this case.

<comment><USER15> I actually missed the Hamlet reference to be honest. Now it seems much less obnoxious. Thanks for clearing that up. My apologies to the parent for that portion of my comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "You were repulsed by the above description of this imaginary site."

No really, no. Everything described already exists (except the sex-cred, and the geo-tagging is rather manual); simply not on the open internet.

<comment><USER18> I'm pretty sure the sex-cred and other stuff already exists as well. There are active user-driven communities for swingers and kinky people much as there are for every other specialist hobby/lifestyle.

<comment><USER19> There are online communities, but not the sort of gamification he referred to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> For me, commenting on the sex angle in the article misses the point. The author was kind enough to put the relevant text in bold, specifically 'cheapens the experience of something very important'.

I'd argue that this is already happening with something very important, our human friendships. Facebook and sites of its ilk encourage us to build shallow relationships with many and fool ourselves into thinking we're sharing something of merit.

I believe in personal responsibility, so I'm not saying Facebook, Twitter, etc... are forced upon people, we can choose to leave them alone if we see fit and plenty of people do just that. It's our job to fit technology around our own wants and needs, not be led by technology.

Anyway, interesting article, thank you to the author.

<comment><USER15> Facebook tries to monetize the difficulty of letting relationships go. I realize this, so I don't accept friend requests from former friends/acquaintances. You're only my friend on Facebook if we're _actually_ friends. I have 15 Facebook friends, and I care about all of them.

<comment><USER21> As someone with hundreds of 'friends', I'm curious about how you use the site differently than me. How often do you log in? Do you participate every time you log in? Do you have a group chat with all your friends?

And how weird is it to have all the activity from your friends' posts elsewhere (comments/likes on public posts) in your news feed? It would seem like if your friends did it as much as my friends do, you'd see more strangers on facebook than friends.

<comment><USER15> I get on a few times a day for a few minutes at a time, but I'll stay on for 20-30 minutes if I'm having a good chat with someone. I've found that most of my friends prefer to text.

If I don't see anything new in my feed, I don't stick around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I've noticed an interesting pattern among some people I encountered. Usually the ratio of activity on facebook (not just "sharing", but also instant messaging and status updates) is inversely proportional to their social activity in reality. Exceptions aside, it seems facebook always has been and always will be to large part a substitute for social activities/interactions in reality, which we would have liked to happen but couldn't make happen, whether it's because of social anxiety, shyness or geographical distances. people with richer social lifes need to cater to these needs less, whereas people with fewer real life social activities resort to facebook to get their fix.

<comment><USER23> It's especially problematic since Facebook's newsfeed algorithm seems to promote posts by exactly those who interact with me a lot on Facebook, which is correlated with living on Facebook a lot, which is (as you said) correlated with how much real life they have to talk about! Missing out on my acquaintances' big life events is one reason I've been experimenting with <http://WikiSapien.com/>

<comment><USER22> interesting project - is it yours (judging by your username)? and if so, how's it any different from facebook? do you put more intimate information on it and befriend less people?

<comment><USER23> It's different in that it's not a social network: I don't want friending, I don't want engagement, Facebook also does personal communication in a great way. I just want it to be a good source of basic information on who someone is; answer their question and get them on their way. Another difference is that (partially due to optimizing for engagement) elsewhere it is easy to find someone's most recent actions, but it's also easy to miss out on bigger long term things. I dont want it to be chronologically sorted in such an extreme way. As I say: find out who someone is, and not just what they had for lunch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Most any article that says we're moving /toward/ some sort of new technology based sex solution is most likely missing many examples of it having happened well before the author even thought of the topic.

<http://bedposted.com/> <http://ijustmadelove.com>

Lesson: Sex is probably smarter and faster than you. (I say this having run a site on sex and technology for near 8 years now. I now accept being constantly comfortably behind the curve.)

<comment><USER5> I think you missed the point. The author is not trying to make a point about sex, but rather uses that as an example of something he thinks is currently out of scope for social networking fads.

<comment><USER24> Yeah, realized I totally missed forest for trees with my comment, and I do agree with the general message of the article.

That said, it's easy to miss the forest when you're being whacked over the head with the trees.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Heh. The author is completely wrong. Sex is not something important. It is a basic human bodily function, alongside eating and sleeping. For nearly the entirety of our evolution, sex was used primarily for bonding, its reproductive role is rare in comparison. It most certainly is a prudish view that sex should be hidden away out of some misguided belief that it makes it 'special'.

We could treat eating the same way. Never admit you eat, or if you do only speak of it in terms of immature titillation and euphemisms. When you do eat, never do it with anyone else, not even friends you consider very close, because that would somehow taint everything. There is at least one culture that adopted this exact view, their views on eating mirroring our with regards to sex. Eating with someone you are not married to was considered highly taboo, while having sex with various people for fun was understood as something so fundamentally human that restricting access to it would be impossible.

And ignoring whatever moral implications the culture you grew up in pounded into you as a child, just consider the basic biological matters. Abstinence is horrendously dangerous to health. Ever read a news story about how 'sex reduces the chance of heart attack by one half', 'frequent orgasms extend life', etc? Those stories are interpreting fact from a prudish perspective that limits sex severely. View the exact same facts from a perspective of frequent sex as part of basic human interaction and the headlines would read 'abstinence doubles the chance of heart attack', 'orgasm starvation cuts years off life', etc. There is good biological evidence that human beings evolved having sex after nearly every meal, along with sleeping in two blocks rather than one.

The real kicker is the origin and reason behind why we believe sex should be hidden and that it is somehow 'special'. That was invented in the Industrial Revolution. Prior to that, no one in the lower class even had private bedrooms. Families slept, and screwed, in common rooms. They had to import views on sex from cultures with dowries, and children being viewed as the property of their fathers making sex a property crime against the father. And we preserve a remarkable amount of this framework even though we don't recall where it came from. None of their motivations exist any longer. We have effective birth control, and we have evidence for the suffering attempts to destroy sex cause. Eventually, hopefully, as a culture we'll grow up enough to ask ourselves what evidence we have that sex is somehow 'special' and what consequences such a view inflicts on people.

</comment><comment><USER26> I was more amused than repulsed by the description, and I thought quite a few people would probably end up using this product if it existed. To paraphrase George Costanza, if I were a different person, I could see myself using it.

 _What is truly horrifying about sex.ly is that it so utterly and absolutely cheapens the experience of something very important._

It doesn't cheapen anything. Making love is just for fun for most young people, and then most of them grow up to be pleasantly surprised to discover a depth to life that they were unaware of before. A product like this doesn't change the attitude people have towards sex in the first place. Of course some people never discover that same depth, or perhaps discover something else that others don't see. That's fine too.

The attitude of "I see depth to life that the morons [watching football/using social/smoking marijuana/insert activity here] don't see" is really the 21st century version of the inquisition. A lot less bloody, perhaps, but still very counterproductive to social (pun intended!) development.

<comment><USER27> Good points.

 _What is truly horrifying about sex.ly is that it so utterly and absolutely cheapens the experience of something very important._

 _Translation:_ I see other people doing something in a way that I don't like. This is wrong and their values are wrong. This makes me feel funny. They should not do as they do. Instead, they should do as I do. Then they will be right, like me.

<comment><USER28> It will truly be a brave new world when people are expected to not stand up for their own values.

"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference which is an elegant name for ignorance." ― G.K. Chesterton

<comment><USER27> Big difference between saying "I find that unpleasant and I prefer not to participate in it" and "that is a terrible thing and no one should participate in it". In the case of an activity which harms no one, I prefer to skew toward the former.

Standing up for your own values is fine and good. The part I was objecting to was the OP (1) making the assumption in his article in his article that everyone reading also shared his values and (2) suggesting that those values ought to apply for everyone, not just himself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> _You were repulsed by the above description of this imaginary site. But not because of some prudish reasons, not even because it had to do with sex. No. You were repulsed because sex.ly violates something very deep and fundamental about humanity. But what, in particular?_

Mind read much?

My feeling upon reading this was hardly the horror that the writer anticipated. Probably more of a "meh, it takes all kinds".

I can see this being a private, niche site for swingers or exhibitionists. Most people probably wouldn't go for it. But that doesn't make it _wrong_ or _horrible_ or the emblem of what is, in the author's mind, wrong with social media.

 _Reduction ad absurdum_ fail.

<comment> X-Istence These websites already exist. Fetlife, Adult Friend Finder, Bedpost and others. That isn't even counting all of the sub-reddits dedicated to this in some way shape or form.

Honestly I wasn't repulsed, I was intrigued and interested in seeing how this social network sets itself apart from the rest of them. Not sure why the author tried to tell me that I was repulsed when I wasn't.

<comment><USER27> Good point. Yes, such sites do exist, and they serve a niche demographic of people who are interested in 'alt' sexuality. People who do their own thing and don't hurt anyone else

The aggressive moralizing in the OP biased me against any otherwise good message in his blog post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I absolutely loved (and was repulsed by the reality of) this segment: "Our daily existence transformed into database entries in some NoSQL database on some spinning disk in some rack in suburban Virginia."

<comment><USER30> Imagine the horror when you find out all the worldly financial assets you've accrued over your entire life are just a few database entries dispersed over a few databases on some spinning disk in some rack in some datacenter somewhere?

<comment> X-Istence Now if only they would have some disk corruption in my favour :P

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is pretty much Jaron Lanier's argument in You Are Not a Gadget (reviewed here: [http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2010/02/review-you-are- no...](http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2010/02/review-you-are-not- gadget.html) ). They both have a point; systems which reduce human relations to very simpleminded database formalisms cheapen them.

But they ignore that the human spirit is (or so we should hope) strong enough to survive Facebook if it is strong enough to survive the other insults and depredations it has been subject to throughout history. Facebook may slap a reductive meaning onto the word "friend", but I haven't noticed that truly interfering with real friendship.

<comment><USER32> Jaron Lanier is a cynical charlatan. It takes a pretty negative worldview to say that the relationships people have on Facebook are the sum total of the nature of human relations, that the entire social phenomenon is a lowest- common denominator operation. The human spirit doesn't have to be strong enough, even without hope. "Facebook killing the human spirit" is an instance of a phenomenon _that has never happened_.

<comment><USER31> Well, I agree that he is about 80% wrong, but I don't think he's a charlatan -- I'm pretty sure he's sincere in his beliefs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> If he'd described a social gamification platform for serial killers or rapists, I'd be "disgusted".

Truth is that I had a girlfriend that was tracking her orgasms on a freaking leaderboard in 2004. I'm not sure I was shocked by it then.

Frankly, I don't mind people checking in on their phones in social situations so long as they are discreet and I'm not talking with them at the very moment. I can appreciate why others might feel differently, but I'm secretly relieved that I've been given implicit permission to check my email, too. You can pretend like that's a horrible way to live, but I do just fine socially.

I'm glad I'm addicted to email and not smoking cigarettes.

</comment><comment><USER34> >You were repulsed by the above description of this imaginary site.

Thanks, I was not aware that I found that hypothetical sight repulsive. What I do find repulsive is the idea that I should repulsed by something which "utterly and absolutely cheapens the experience of something very important", When I am not the one who determined that the 'thing' in question is very important.

What you described in your imaginary site sounds like a product for people wishing to engage in casual sex. It provides a service to record previous partners, and presumably help find new ones. It also provides a service as a background check for partners by showing you reviews from others they were with, as well as "heads up"s. Planned support for Geotags, which seems good as sex tends to be a geographically bound activity (in-airplane geo-tags seem unnecessary though).

If I want to link the physical act of sex, which I do for physical pleasure, with the emotional experience of a strong, personal relationship, than I would probably not use a service designed around the premise that I would be having sex casually, with many partners. But why should I want to make that connection?

</comment><comment><USER35> If you sympathize with the author, you may enjoy reading _The Society of the Spectacle_ by Guy Debord, a classic criticism of society in the era of mass media. I think it would be very good if more people from around these parts read this.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle>

</comment><comment><USER36> Here is a whole gamified dating concept video <http://designtaxi.com/news/353161/The-Future-Of-Dating/>

Such extrapolations rarely come to pass. Yes there might be new crazy services and some people will use them. But will a significant proportion of the population use them often? Will it change the world? Did foursquare? Did Twitter?

No. Some things just stay in their bubbles. There will be new crazed trends that come along and everyone will forget check ins, social networks, gamification and do them.

Reality shows used to be the new thing. So are there run a startup reality shows today? Bitcoins are a new currency. Will people start their own currencies and governments in 15 years? Instead of startups you start governments! Then 3D printers can make military drones and these governments fight each other!

Fortunately most trends just don't get very far. There is a constant stream of new trends to divert people's attention.

<comment><USER37> Hindsight is 20/20. Motorola invested millions in Iridium, thinking that the new cell phones were just a passing fad, but Nokia managed to flood the mobile market faster than Motorola could put up satellites. It's a case example of project execution failure.

That said, Sex.ly probably won't take off :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grindr>

<comment><USER39> Funny. Because I specifically remember 3 instances where I walked by people (in two different countries in fact!) and saw them checking Grindr.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> It's a bold step to say that it's bad for people to cheapen their life experiences. While I personally agree with the author, other people choose to live their life in a way that is meaningful to them, in their own ways. Who am I to say their facebook, foursquare, twitter, etc. interactions are meaningless and without value? These are subjective measurements. The real question is: are people getting value out of these interactions because they are told to get value out of them, and if so, is it done disingenuously? Case in point, a gambling company (or certain gaming companies starting with the letter Z... I kid, I kid) tend to focus on the compulsive nature of humans in a predatory way. This is where true marketing responsibility comes into play: am I creating a system of measurably-destructive behavior in my users? You can measure the detrimental impact of a user's addition, you cannot measure the meaningfulness of a tweet to it's tweeter.

<comment><USER41> I think the right question to ask is whether the service is improving peoples lives or not. Social networks are useful and improves life in many ways, but their mission is to maximize sharing, user engagement to drive ad revenue, regardless of whether this is good for the users or not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I really don't need to know who's the local Mayor of Anal.

<comment><USER43> I didn't, yet now that you mentioned it, I'm kind of curious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> "In the old world products were scarce - this meant that companies who provided product could profit from the demand. In the digital world, where abundance is key (creating a digital copy costs next to nothing) it is a customer's attention that has become scarce. This means that the customer now holds the value - not the company." - Chris Saad

Some people did see this commoditisation of human behavior coming back in 2005 and promoted the idea of the 'Attention Economy' which had a goal of putting people back in control of the content they create and view online with tools like the Attention Recorder from Attention Trust (now defunct, but you can read about it here <http://p2pfoundation.net/Attention_Trust> ).

The current idea of social is to capture much more than eyeballs and clicks of course, with checkins for places, Runkeeper and many other health apps for tracking/sharing activities, and so on... nearly everything we do is a potential data point for commercialization that a startup will want to capitalize on. This is fine if the user clearly understands the relationship.

I expect it was too early when the 'Attention Economy' ideas emerged but now perhaps we'll see projects that resurrect some of that early work and build on it to empower users of social tools to take control of both their attention and the data points they are sharing.

addl reading: <http://p2pfoundation.net/Attention_Economy>

</comment><comment><USER45> It's all a matter of perspective, e.g an accurate sexual behavior network would be of tremendous value to epidemiologists and public health practitioners, not to mention when people need to notify former partners about disease diagnoses.

The core argument here appears to be the "cheapening" of experience driven by "social", without any acknowledgement that social also enables _new_ experiences. Sure, facebook has cheapened the value of remembering a friend's birthday, but it has also enabled more immediate involvement with friend's who you don't get to see that often (geography, parenting, loner-ism, etc).

"Social" changes all kinds of things. It's consequences are far-reaching, and we're just barely starting to figure them out. The advent of the automobile "cheapened" travel experiences, but also made travel accessible to the masses, not to mention a slew of modern conveniences. As a society we're still trying to find the right balance for how we use cars (greenhouse gases, near-surface pollution, exurban isolation, etc). People who write "cars are ruining society" essays don't actually contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way. To be dismissive of all things social based on such a small sample of human experience feels short-sighted (and out of place in a technology- oriented discussion community).

Aside: The closing reference to Philip Larkin is amusing, as he was a racist and misogynist. He decried the "backward" steps post-WWII society was taking with regards civil rights.

</comment><comment><USER46> Exaggeration to make a point. A worthy point, although one I'm not entirely in agreement with. I enjoy the "lifecasts" of others in some respects because otherwise I wouldn't know anything about what they're up to. I'm lucky if I can have a meaningful, real-world conversation with a single-digit handful of folks over the course of a week. Dozens? Hundreds? No way. But if I can see them post a joke or a beautiful photo or just a kvetch about a bad day, I have a connection with them that I simply wouldn't have otherwise. Yes, it can get absurd. Yes, sex check-ins might be in vogue at some point. But we don't have to throw the baby out because the bathwater has gotten quite murky. (P.S. That came out a bit too hard on the original author. I really enjoyed the read, thanks!)

</comment><comment><USER47> This article is hugely exaggerated. Once all is said and done, you're simply attaching more relevant data to a photo which helps remember important moments. My grandparent's photo albums and scrapbooks have now been replaced by my TimeHops and SnapJoys.

</comment><comment><USER48> Wow, While trying to see reactions to the word hate, I saw ALOT of whatever statements. o.0 Anyway, I didn't hate the idea. In fact, it seems kind of interesting. I really do believe his reaction is completely cultural. Sex is doesn't need to be kept a secret. And his reaction seems to be that. Privacy is rather outmoded concept, at least when you can find anything about anyone at at anytime. Given a month and some meager resources, you could find a lot about a person. Humans aren't random. We are completely traceable, to a point where anything we do is predictable on a scatter plot.

</comment><comment><USER49> This reminds me of One of my favorite moments in the past couple of years is when I went to see Joanna Newsom in concert. Just before she sat down to perform, the host for the theatre said "now, I want you all to put your cameras down and your cell phones. Really enjoy the music. You can tell everyone how it was after the show. Seriously, this a real experience and you don't want to miss it taking pictures."

Everyone in the audience put away their phones/cameras almost immediately. The result? You could actually see people enjoying the music; not just bragging about being there.

</comment><comment><USER50> He's right * 100. Some of us can't understand being "internet social" just to get us more fake friends with fake laughs.

Your grandpa didn't need to update his status every 10 minutes and he was the fucking man.

</comment><comment><USER51> I guess it's a nice thing about the internet that people can be disgusted by casual sex like the author and not realize there's a vibrant set of sites and people who are totally into it. He can have his own set of internet sites he visits, etc.. The various sex social networks are pretty damn useful if you want to help sort out who on the internet will actually meetup and who is just an online scammer, which are endless on less complex sites like craigslist, so they really have a powerful utility for people looking to get laid casually.

<comment><USER19> I must be in the minority for not thinking he was referring to Adult Friendfinder, Fetlife, or Grindr with this. I saw it more as Zyngafication. Pop-ups and badges and er, ahem, viral aspects and "achievements".

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Or you do what I do. Grow older, have a kid, and only login in to sporadically see the photos your wife posts of your child.

I've tuned it out. I suspect other people as they get older will too.

</comment><comment><USER53> I think this Collegehumor sketch is relevant: <http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6415974/foursquare-for-sex>

</comment><comment><USER54> I find it funny when people protest about the way social sites cheapen life experiences. Somehow it is assumed that people have an innate need for privacy. Privacy is mostly social conditioning (have you seen kids playing?). Social sites bring forward that repressed part of the human nature because they give incentives, but the drive is always there. Its just human nature, revealed. People say that they are repulsed when the curtain is lifted but who says that that isn't social conditioning too?

<comment><USER19> "Somehow it is assumed that people have an innate need for privacy."

It makes me sad that someone with your attitude will probably end up an employee of a Social site, if you aren't already.

<comment><USER54> Nice ad hominem and public display of self righteousness, care to respond in a civil grown up and rational manner?

<comment><USER19> It is not an ad hominem to be disappointed that some still believe that the desire for control over one's own privacy is an entitlement, not a right.

I am not "uncivil, immature, and irrational" simply because your personal opinion differs from mine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I think this short film neatly illustrates the cheapening of social experiences with too much tech: <http://vimeo.com/49425975>

</comment><comment><USER56> This article addresses a simple fact of life, where there is energy, people will try to create something there. Lots of people are making things for the internet.

"The horrible future of social" isn't bad. It means the internet is so great that we have all kinds of people making all kinds of things.

If it truly has no value, people won't use it.

This is the reason McDonald's exists, it isn't new or unique to social.

</comment><comment><USER57> 1) Isn't this grindr for straight people?

2) Coming from my first point, a much better article about the potential pitfalls of socializing parts of our inner lives (with real live examples) can be seen here:

<http://narrative.ly/2012/10/lost-in-space/>

It's not as negative, but there still is a hell of a lot to not look forward to.

</comment><comment><USER58> Notably, a lower-tech version of this social dynamic (particular the sexual version) appeared in a high school in California this year[1]. We think of these things as incredibly immature and disrespectful, but it appears that they happen anyway.

[1]<http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133713n>

<comment><USER59> These stories are perennial in the media. They are inevitably exaggerated or outright fake. Remember, their sources are kids who are bored and want to be on TV.

<comment><USER19> Yep, like <http://www.snopes.com/risque/school/bracelet.asp> or "rainbow parties". Kids also enjoy pranking the media.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I liken online social experience to that of looking a window.

A window has two main viewing states.

You can either look 'at' a window, or you can look 'through' a window.

huh? What the hell does this have to do with social networking?

Social networking is not the beginning of social. Experience is the beginning of social, social is just a way to share and solicit experiences.

So with this in mind, what are the different types of 'experience' going on in the window analogy.

Looking "through" the window is being in the moment, looking through the glass and seeing the world without the frame, taking experiences as they come and letting them exist inside of you as memories, allowing them to shape you and then letting that change in character effect others. Through is just living and being.

Looking "at" the window is seeing the glass, seeing the frame and putting all experience through a context. The context here is the social capital or the commodification of that experience for in order to enhance perception of self.

'At' is translating all experience into trade-able emotional commodity.

If you live in the 'at' state you live in a "what used to need to be seen, now needs to be shared to be believed."

Experiences become worthless unless A) you can prove that they happened, B) that you can show it to someone.

Just my thoughts

</comment><comment><USER61> The Horrible Future of Blogging. I give you, the professional complainer...

</comment><comment><USER39> relax mate. I don't think the majority of humanity is so dumb enough to be bought into the whole social hype, each time someone creates another "Facebook for ABC" online. Sure, it doesn't help when senseless media and VCs hype it up even more so, but most of us don't really buy into it. FB, Twitter etc should be just natural extensions to our real social life (plus a little bit more). Taking things too far as you did on your blog assumes that we'll just buy ourselves into these crap.

</comment><comment><USER62> I often think the same thing about cheaply available photography. What was tourism like before cameras? Whatever he's talking about has already happened.

</comment><comment><USER63> I generally recommend watching "black mirror" - a funny 3 episode satirical tv thing which is about this very topic. it's worth people's time

</comment><comment><USER64> This app actually already exists in the app store.

</comment><comment><USER65> Might not have the same specs but close, <http://www.guyskeepscore.com/>

</comment><comment><USER66> There will always be those who proclaim outrage and lament change.

Change always causes loss, but we often gain more. Naysayers may help us keep track of what is lost, but best to ignore them otherwise.

Because of agriculture, we don't know how to hunt and gather. Because of home theaters we don't go to the movies. Because of air flights we are separated from our families and miss much of what we fly over.

Indeed. The sky is falling.

</comment><comment><USER67> <http://www.guyskeepscore.com/>

</comment><comment><USER68> Way to go, I am sure some crass go getter is staking this concept out as we speak.

</comment><comment><USER69> the closing comments are much like Dylan Moran's rant about cameras (warning, typical foul language):

      Would you please - stop - taking - pictures - on your
      tiny - annoying (whispering) fucking camera. This is
      happening to you in real time, you are having the
      experience. It's not much point to verify that you
      were at the event when you're actually here.

(quote taken from [http://funnycomedianquotes.com/funny-dylan-moran-jokes- and-q...](http://funnycomedianquotes.com/funny-dylan-moran-jokes-and- quotes.html?p=9) but I can't seem to link directly to it.)

The quote as I remember it live was slightly different, something about not living your life because you were too busy filming it for youtube.

</comment><comment><USER70> Sounded pretty cool.

Just one gripe. He forgot the 'like' button.

</comment><comment><USER71> I thought this was called adultfriendfinder?

</comment><comment><USER72> I'm so going to build sex.ly!

</comment><comment><USER73> This is ~6 years too late.

</comment><comment><USER74> Sex.ly for YC '13!

</comment><comment><USER75> "No. What is truly horrifying about sex.ly is that it so utterly and absolutely cheapens the experience of something very important."

I would say: it "logical-ize" it - in the computing meaning of the "term". And here come the question: is it good? Maybe no because the logic of such an app is a cheap one but maybe yes because it becomes more logical in the sense of rational.

"What is so attractive with this logic is that.. it _is_ logic" - Triumph of the Nerds</comment>


Ask HN: How to Approach Algorithm Studying? - <AUTHOR> I'm using leetcode.com to study algorithms and I'm finding I'm actually struggling on my first pass.
Generally, I can intuit the "brute force" solution, but the "right" answer with linear/constant time often requires looking at the answer.
Should I expect that with practice, I'll eventually get better at quickly finding the optimal solution?  Or, is it expected that optimal solutions are "memorized" similar to how hard sciences like ME / EE / CE memorize formulas?
Take ThreeSum problem for example.  I was able to write the brute force solution without any prior knowledge of the problem.  In an interview with time constraints this WOULD have been my solution.
I now understand that's not the right solution.  I've looked at the answer, and I have the "right" solution memorized.  That kind of feels like cheating though  Should I have been able to write that "right" solution straight away, with no prior exposure to the problem?
Just trying to understand what my goal is in this process, and what is considered "success" for my studies. <comment><USER2> I'm also trying to figure this out, here's my approach so far.

1\. Categorize - Can I identify what type of problem this is? (ie Graph problem, bit problem, sliding window, etc.)?

2\. Plan a solution - Can I come up with a strategy to solve it?

3\. Based on how I felt about 1 and 2, am I confident enough to dive in and solve it?

3A. If yes, as a final check, go to the discussions and see if you can get some confirmation that you had the right approach just by reading the titles. For example, if you were thinking that this was a backtracking problem because that was the only way you thought it could be solved and you see that the most upvoted posts are talking about priority queus, you probably had the wrong approach. Otherwise if it looks like you were on the right track, only then should you go ahead and start coding it.

3B. If you had the wrong approach or if you weren't confident that you could solve it, then go ahead and learn from the solution.

You will learn a lot from the solutions that others posts but you will hardly learn anything by wasting hours on a flawed solution.

To be clear, to get good requires going well beyond the fundamentals, you need to learn from the best of the best in order to stand a chance.

<comment><USER3> great advice. id say limit yourself to 10 mins to come up with a solution, and focus on getting a solid intuition consistently

<comment><AUTHOR> Let's take ThreeSum as an example.

Imagine you're encountering ThreeSum for the FIRST TIME as I did a few days ago. I'd never before seen this problem.

What should my EXPECTATION OF SELF be for this? What is reasonable for someone STUDYING to improve at algorithms. What would be considered SUCCESS?

Should I .... be able to intuit the O(N + NlogN) solution?

Ok maybe you would agree that's unreasonable to be able to just come up with naturally having never seen the problem before.

Should I ... be able to intuit the O(n^2 * logn) solution?

Even that solution might reasonably evade someone? Or not?

Should I .... be able to intuit the brute force solution O(N^3) but have the O(N + NlogN) solution memorized?

From wiki [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3SUM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3SUM) ... it appears that the O(N + NlogN) took formal algorithm research and study. Perhaps it's unreasonable to expect myself to on-the-fly solve some of these algorithms with sub-cubic time?

<comment><USER4> I would count the stages of success like this:

1\. Brute force it. -> That is actually the most important step. In regards to this one specifically, I would be surprised if interviewers expect more than O(n^2).

2\. Guess what the best runtime would be. -> If you can reason why you expect what to be the best runtime, it should bring you through all interviews.

3\. Get good solutions, but memorizing won't help you in the real world (though it might in some interviews). Interview situation is pretty unique. In a normal work environment, you can search the internet, argue with collegues, sleep over it. If runtime is essential for the program you are writing, it cannot be expected of anyone to come up with best solutions on the fly.

Regarding brute force solutions, they can still vary in quality. Is it correct, easily understandable, without side-effects?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Let's take Euclid's algorithm which gets the greatest common denominator between two given numbers. Euclid was a mathematician and "father of geometry". According to Wikipedia, the algorithm was improved a long time after he first described it. That means his one wasn't even the best!

Now we have programmers being tested in hour long interviews... how could they come up with this stuff on the spot?

There is a reason why people have to study for tech company interviews. Knowing the solution to a problem that is similar to the one that is being asked will go a long way in the interview.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's exactly what I'm trying to get at with this post.

I initially started my study of algorithms about a week ago, with nearly a decade of professional programming experience under my belt.

I quickly realized that expecting myself to find the optimal, or even near- optimal solution, was setting myself up for failure. Yet (hence this post) I wasn't sure if that was the case for other people.

I continue to wonder what other people's experiences have been like in the pursuit of algorithm study. Do you find that the intuitive, brute force solution is readily available in your mind, but that you have to "peak" aka "cheat" to find the elegant / right solution? Or are most people finding themselves able to just tackle the problems outright, getting (or nearly getting) the optimal (or nearly optimal) solution on first pass...?

<comment><USER5> Personally I am the same as you. My first attempt is never the optimal solution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> agree w/ another comment that suggested going through an algorithms textbook first. (MIT 6.006 online is also good.) i speak from experience: in some cases there might be tools missing from your algo toolbox and it could be worth more studying to fill in gaps.

for example, consider the maximum subarray problem (LC 53). this is a dynamic programming problem. but if you don't know DP, you could spend a long time staring at this problem without progress. even looking at the solutions won't be that informative if the concepts of DP are not familiar. MIT's 6.006 course takes _four_ lectures to cover DP (not including the recitations!), which should tell you something.

</comment><comment><USER7> In your place, I'd work through a basic algorithms + data structures book first, doing the exercises etc before attempting leetcode.

Learning via attempting leetcode problems directly seems suboptimal, like trying to learn calculus by taking timed exams vs working through a basic text first.

my 2 cents. fwiw.

<comment><USER8> And what will your goto algorithms and data structures book be?

<comment><USER9> I would suggest "The Algorithm Design Manual" by Skiena. It helped me a lot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Again what I'm basically asking is -

Should you be MEMORIZING solutions, or, expecting yourself to come up with the O(N)/O(1) solutions on your own?

<comment><USER10> Why are these the only options? Why can't you just know there is a solution, and know where you can look details up? Expecting to find ideal solutions on your own every time is tedious and taking time away from solving the actual problem you are working on.

<comment><AUTHOR> Because that's not how interviews work, basically.

Trust me, I understand that in the real world that's exactly how you would approach these problems.</comment></comment></comment>


Obamas War on Hackers - <AUTHOR> http://blog.erratasec.com/2015/01/obams-war-on-hackers.html?m=1

<comment><USER2> > The new laws make it a felony to intentionally access unauthorized > information even if it's been posted to a public website.

Ah. So that's what it's all about. It's an anti-Snowden law (among other things).</comment>


IPads Are Already 7% Of Global PC Market - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/ipads-are-already-7-of-global-pc-market-2011-1#ixzz1BX7wzCtJ

<comment><USER2> I don't know if iPads should be lumped in with the "Global PC" market. To me, the iPad serves a different function than a PC. . . can't write code on a PC or cannot easily type. The iPad seems to me to be one of those "for entertainment purposes only" devices.

But it will be interesting to see how the adoption of tablets and such like the iPad affect the related industries of books, magazines, etc.</comment>


Citymapper Mobility Index - <AUTHOR> https://citymapper.com/cmi <comment><USER2> I wonder what this actually represents in Tokyo, where I live. Trains, restaurants and more are packed as usual, though Citymapper claims it's one of the least mobile cities now - guess that might be more a representation of the fact that barely anyone here uses Citymapper at all since the data is much worse than local apps, and whoever is might be risk averse? Not to mention, when I used Citymapper I pretty much never hit the Go button, which would mess with their definitions as well.

</comment><comment><USER3> Needs more cities but very cool.

TomTom do similar -

[https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/traffic-index/wuhan- traffic/](https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/traffic-index/wuhan-traffic/)

This data is underrated. Or maybe it's well rated and used in silos in fintech and security.</comment>


China airs documentary proving military university is hacking U.S. targets - <AUTHOR> http://www.geek.com/articles/news/china-airs-documentary-proving-military-university-is-hacking-u-s-targets-20110822/ <comment><USER2> Note that this news comes from The Epoch Times, which belongs Falun Gong, an anti-PRC organization.

The Chinese government (CCP) declared Falun Gong illegal on 1997. The two parties have been "attacking" each others ever since. Falun Gong once interfered TV satellites in China. And Chinese government has banned all websites related to Falun Gong (using Great Firewall, of course).

All the sites in the screenshot are related to Falun Gong. That's why they are on the "target list". This is not evidence that China is hacking U.S. agencies. I am not saying that China has never done that - I mean even if China is doing that, they will do it secretly and will never disclose it on a propaganda TV program.

I personally think this news is misleading by not disclosing all the information.

<comment><USER3> The targets are related to Falun Gong (which is explicitly mentioned in the article). More importantly, the _source_ of the attacks is a hacked machine at the University of Alabama.

Sure, all of the politics about China and Falun Gong are not mentioned, but they really aren't completely relevant to the fact that China is using American computers for their hacking.

<comment><USER4> Given that Falun Gong is led by a fellow who has claimed he can levitate and control people's actions with his mind, I would want some third-party collaboration of their "evidence". Pretty easy to cook up screenshots and such.

<comment><USER5> The word you want is corroboration unless you mean for a third-party to help Falun Gong in their fight against the PRC.

To corroborate:

to make more certain; confirm.

Example: He corroborated my account of the accident.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, that was an early morning typo.

<comment><USER5> Typo is for letters, I don't know the equivalent for choosing the wrong word.

<comment><USER6> Malapropism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Computer hacking as a new battlefield is inevitable if not already a reality.

Much like how at one time in the US there was no Air Force and airplanes were part of the Army, right now there is no Cyber Force and hackers are part of the Air Force. If computers really are a new theater of war, there probably needs to be a new branch of the military to recruit, train, and deploy new kinds of hacker-soldiers.

The hacking operations of the Chinese right now are like American high- altitude spy planes and satellites flying with impunity over the China and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The longer the US delays to enter the cyber arms race the more it risks conceding dominance for the foreseeable future.

I could actually see a lot of positive economic synergy if the United States were to establish a Cyber Force to recruit and train computer security specialists.

EDIT: I recognize the US does have a Cyber Command. It's in the Air Force. The point is it's under-funded, understaffed, and under-publicized. Recruitment is pretty much limited to a handful of people already in the Air Force with computer backgrounds. There are no commercials on TV or recruitment offices to tell people to join the hacker corps like there are for the other military branches.

Mixing geeks with paratroopers isn't effective. The US needs a new branch that can make its own rules, recruitment standards, and awards to be truly effective in a different kind of war.

<comment><USER8> >there probably needs to be a new branch of the military to recruit, train, and deploy new kinds of hacker-soldiers.

Agree, but I'd suggest it likely that this branch is already well-established and operational, if hidden from the public eye.

<comment><USER9> why people still think it's ok to have secrets in a government?

is it the many movies where the hero help the gov to hide some alien invasion to prevent panic that causes people to think this is right?

<comment><USER10> Because people who wish you harm for various reasons really exist, and nobody's figured out how to tell the entire world every detail about our defensive capabilities without substantially weakening them in the process.

I'm a little-l libertarian and I'll happily join the calls for "more transparency" where appropriate, but "government should have no secrets", especially in the area of self defense, is not a realistic position. It's an abusable-but-necessary evil.

<comment><USER11> I don't want to be dragged into politics right now, but

> Because people who wish you harm for various reasons really exist, and > nobody's figured out how to tell the entire world every detail about our > defensive capabilities without substantially weakening them in the process.

..sounds like security through obscurity to me.

<comment><USER12> No more than keeping your encryption keys a secret is security through obscurity.

Even if you're transparent about your overall scheme, you need to keep some execution details hidden.

<comment><USER9> no. security and government decency is telling everyone "we spend x billions here and use z and y to encrypt access to it"

what happens is "we spent x billions on toilet seats (to quote an alien movie) and password go over the air unencrypted, but we are not telling you the frequency"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think sometime in the last year or two this issue has transformed into something that you could argue one way or another to something that's obvious: the Chinese are actively and purposefully trying to break into computers around the world. This is a policy of their government.

Motives are still unclear. Everyone seems to agree on punishing dissidents and suppressing political groups they don't like. Most folks (I think) think it's pretty obvious they're trying to steal U.S. (and foreign) military secrets. Industrial secrets also look high on the list. Perhaps it's all of the above. And more. My money says they're out to steal anything they can.

Now that the discussion is beginning to yield conclusions -- most people agree that this exists and is a problem -- the interesting thing is what to do about it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see a lot happening in the next couple of years. But pressure will increase domestically in democracies to provide some kind of relief from this. Would a new administration in the U.S. be more confrontational? Would we start a more public counter hacking effort? Does this just heat up more and more as both sides escalate without dealing with the underlying problem? Or does one side or another try to get some resolution? If the politicians continue to dodge it, does it at some point just blow up?

This is going to be a fascinating story to watch play out over the next decade or so.

<comment><USER14> Could the US create a "digital moat" isolating China's internet? Would that be considered an act of war if the network was disconnected on US soil (e.g. MAE- West)?

<comment><USER15> that is unfortunately double-edged proposition as severing the Internet connection would also mean that US couldn't spy on China as well. The goal of Internet war isn't to avoid it, the goal is to win.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Later in the video that this article talks about there is a picture of a "US hacker", running "hack.bat" in a Windows 2000 command prompt. hack.bat copies "ph0rce.jpg" out. There is an IP address visible which looks like 22.214.171.124, that resolves to a subdomain of iss.net, an IBM security site. Not really sure what to make of the combination of the bizarre "hacking" and the real IP addresses.

Some more translated bits and pieces from 03:46 in the video, when it starts talking about US capabilities:

* US first to introduce the concept of network warfare, also first to put into practical use

* In 2002 the US army established the world's first hacker unit, and in 2006 officially made this unit a core part of the airforce capabilities, with a general leading it and an operational remit consisting of 541 locations

* The unit has 3000 to 5000 experts in network warfare, and 80000 soldiers. The training of the unit started officially in 2007.

* Army, navy, and air force all have computer response squadrons to maintain network security.

* The US is the pacesetter in computer technology, so its economy relies on this technology more than other countries, meaning it pays particular attention to network security.

* Other countries such as South Korea, Japan, India, UK also have network warfare units

<comment><USER17> Based on the assumption that the network the computer is attached to is the same network as iss.net is attached to.

I could make you a video where I attack every IP address on the net if you like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think it's important, when viewing anything put out by the chinese government, to take the information with a huge dose of skepticism.

This shows a simple GUI with a list of Falun Gong targets and an "Attack" button. There's no reason to believe this is an actual tool, or to believe that the Chinese government _accidentally_ allowed this to be filmed and published. This is almost certainly a propaganda effort, intended to show the Chinese people that the government is ready and willing to attack the technological infrastructure of its enemies. There are very few Falun Gong sympathizers inside China, and the majority of the population would view this video snippet with pride.

</comment><comment><USER16> The geek.com article adds little if nothing to the original, available at:

[http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/slip-up-in- chines...](http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/slip-up-in-chinese- military-tv-show-reveals-more-than-intended-60619.html)

The above also has links to the original video in Chinese.

<comment><USER19> "little, if anything" is the English idiom.

<comment><USER16> Oops, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The screenshot does not show any IP addresses at all. The drop down does say something about Falun Gong and the buttons do say what the article claims (about "Attack" and what not) but aside from that, the rest is just hearsay.

So we have a screenshot of a window that could be created by anyone, reported by the Epoch Times (a Falun Gong media outlet). That fails the smell test.

As much as I don't like the Chinese government's position with regards to what it views as dissident organizations, the evidence is not there and this sort of article runs the risk of being a "must be true because I don't like 'em" sort of thing.

</comment><comment><USER21> For anyone interested, CNBC recently produced a "special" called "Code Wars: America's Cyber Threat"[1], which talks about cyber attacks against American interests.

In my opinion, the show was technically weak and seemed more concerned pushing fear-uncertainty-doubt than factual information (on actual cyber attacks against American interests). For example, the show referenced the "Northeast Blackout of 2003" as an example of the potential damage hacking an energy utility could do ... except, as the show quickly (and a little more quietly) pointed out, the event was caused by mechanical failure.

Overall, cyber attacks are a concern, but not necessarily more so than other threats and certainly not as great as some would like you to believe.

1\. <http://www.cnbc.com/id/42210831/>

_Edited for clarity._

</comment><comment><USER22> Given that hacking is considered an act of war... where does this lead? [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230456310457635...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355623135782718.html)

<comment><USER23> At the point where hacking isn't _really_ considered an act of war. Obviously neither side actually does consider it an act of war, or else they wouldn't dare. If "hacking is considered an act of war" were ever a bluff, then it has been thoroughly called long ago.

Anyone enthused about going to war against China about this? Anyone? Anyone? Nope. I guess it's not going to happen then.

And of course I think we can only assume that the US is hacking 'em back.

It's like spying. It's officially against "the rules", and everybody acts shocked, _shocked_ when they catch foreign spies within their country, but everybody is constantly doing it to everybody and everybody knows it.

<comment><USER24> "Hacking" is like "terrorism"; it's not an end state. It's "spying" when it's done for "spying". It's an "act of war" when it's done to shut down the power grid.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So what in the video "proves" it's a live situation? Probably half the countries in the world have some giddy geeks in bunkers demoing their their own LOIC clones.

</comment><comment><USER26> It's depressing that this is so out in the open, and it seems like there's nothing America can do to defend itself.

<comment><USER27> > _"it seems like there's nothing America can do to defend itself."_

We could consider a legal requirement to disclose security breaches. If every firm that failed its customers had to admit it to the market, I would think financial pressure would move us toward more effective security fairly quickly.

<comment><USER21> States have already been passing such laws for security breaches that contain personal identifiable information since 2002:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_breach_notification_la...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_breach_notification_laws)

It has to be considered that effective security has significant costs financially and non-financially. (An example of a non-financial cost is a overly difficult registration process for a web application that requires long, complex passwords with multiple security questions and answers.)

<comment><USER27> I was thinking more about the systems for major banks, defense contractors, industry suppliers, etc.

And effective security wasn't meant to imply the best thing you can think of. It would be a huge step forward if more people simply did the things we all know we should be doing: e.g. policies of accounts not having more access than necessary, network security not 100% focused on the firewall, etc.

<comment><USER21> _It would be a huge step forward if more people simply did the things we all know we should be doing..._

That's what I mean by "effective security".

Although security breaches at banks should fall under such laws (especially since they have personal identifiable information), I do not believe defense contractors, energy concerns, industrial suppliers, etc, should even acknowledge such breaches simply because of national security.

<comment><USER27> > _"That's what I mean by "effective security"."_

That stuff doesn't cost all that much more. It's non-trivial, sure. But it's not going to make a huge impact on the bottom line. A demand for it would end up costing enterprise software suppliers quite a bit in one-time costs to clean up their code-bases and standard install practices.

> _"I do not believe defense contractors, energy concerns, industrial > suppliers, etc, should even acknowledge such breaches simply because of > national security."_

Perhaps not to the general public, but certainly they should be required to disclose to their clients.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The Reddit thread yesterday has some detail and discussion.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/jqnpa/oops_china_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/jqnpa/oops_china_accidentally_broadcasts_evidence_of/)

</comment><comment><USER29> I don't see how this proves state collusion in hacking rather than just some individual working on their on behalf? While we all know this is likely, I don't get the "proving" claim. Did I miss something in the story?

<comment><USER30> Yes, because the title of the software says "Denial of Service Network Attacking Tool, By Chinese P.L.A. Electronic Engineering Institute, Version 1.0"

Btw the Institute website is <http://www.eei.edu.cn/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Another thing - does this tool _looks_ like anything that can be used for hacking? Even Hollywood does a better job at showing 'hacking scenes'...

For me, that's +1 on my fake-news detector.

</comment><comment><USER32> Why not think this was made by some Chinese dissident at Alabama/Birmingham? Not that it's likely, but its absurdly credulous to link it.

</comment><comment><USER33> Link is inaccessible from safari on iPhone. Most frustrating.

</comment><comment><USER34> and now we get to see how the people's liberation army responds to an 'internet scandal' in the west.. my guess? ignore it completely ';-)</comment>


Don't fear the robots; they won't kill jobs - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wallace-robots-commentary-idUSKBN14A2CL <comment><USER2> From the article: "But the new jobs panic is exaggerated and misplaced. For one thing, political and social caution may block some of the potential uses"

Sounds to me like: Our worry & tendency toward caution is unnecessary, because our tendency toward caution will keep us safe?</comment>


Computing sin and cos in hardware with synthesisable Verilog - <AUTHOR> http://kierdavis.com/cordic.html <comment><USER2> While CORDIC is great for fixed point, it has limitations for floating point. The original 8087 fsin and fcos instructions used CORDIC, but later versions of the architecture switched to polynomial approximations, see [https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/f8/9c...](https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/f8/9c/x87TrigonometricInstructionsVsMathFunctions.pdf). Today it's possible to develop implementations of these elementary functions on x86 CPUs that are more precise and more performant using regular multiply/addition/fused multiply add than even the current improved post- CORDIC fsin and fcos functions.

The main issue is that having an instruction executing a fixed-function block with a given (high) latency and little if any pipelining tends to be far worse than having many more fully pipelined multiply/add instructions. The other issue is that argument reduction and approximation over the reduced domain are not independent. For some parts of the domain, such as computing the sine of a number very close to a multiple of pi, you may need to spend more cycles reducing the argument accurately to counter cancelation effects. However, as the reduced argument is then very close to zero, a simple polynomial suffices.

So, for most modern systems, I'd put the effort in efficient pipelined fused- multiply-add and use that for all elementary functions. Fixed-function hardware for elementary functions has generally been proved sub-optimal.

<comment><USER3> > For some parts of the domain, such as computing the sine of a number very > close to a multiple of pi, you may need to spend more cycles reducing the > argument accurately to counter cancelation effects.

I'm curious about this. How would you compute FLOAT32_32 (or FLOAT64_MAX) mod PI with correct rounding?

<comment><USER4> The most approachable explanation I know of is K C Ng's: [https://www.scribd.com/document/64949170/Ng-Argument- Reducti...](https://www.scribd.com/document/64949170/Ng-Argument-Reduction- for-Huge-Arguments-Good-to-the-Last-Bit)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What a well explained and simple article. Though it would be nice to know why each optimisation is made wrt the eventual hardware.

<comment><USER6> I think the author was assuming that the reader was already familiar with FPGA design, in such designs it is straight forward to synthesize adders and shifters but you cannot synthesize a multiplier (for example).

<comment><USER7> You can synthesize simple integer multipliers, just not floating point multipliers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Oh wow, I literally _just_ finished my quadrature sinusoid DDS generator using MyHDL last night. I didn't use CORDIC but rather a LUT. I found out I can optimize generating quadrature sinusoids by having two separate LUTs where each one stores from 0 to pi/2 and the other from pi/2 to pi, and this has an advantage because when the sine output takes inputs from the first LUT, the cos output takes inputs from the second LUT and vice versa, thus saving duplicates.

I'm still cleaning up the testbench code and I plan to put out a blog post here if y'all are interested: hatsunearu.github.io

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure I followed, but I thought that the standard approach was to only store a quarter of a cycle (0 to pi/2) in the LUT, and use symmetry to generate the rest of the cycle. Is the advantage of having two LUTs that you can index into each of them separately?

<comment><USER8> edit: and yeah, the two LUTs allow me to index into them separately, and also guarantees that every quadrature combination never indexes into one LUT.

OK so the problem is kinda twofold with that... First of all my application needs two sinusoids at quadrature (it's for downconversion in my SDR), which using that approach I believe I need dual read port RAM which takes up two RAM slices in my FPGA so I'm not losing anything by taking my approach.

Secondly I tried doing that but I seem to get an "off by one" error--basically if you subdivide 0 to pi/2 with let's say 2^10 points, you either:

a) the last point (index=2^10-1) corresponds to sin(pi/2) b) the last point + 1 corresponds to sin(pi/2), and the actual last point is sin(pi/2 - (pi/2) / (2^10))

the a) approach that means when you sweep through 0 to 2^10 - 1, the next index isn't 2^10 - 1, but rather 2^10 - 2, which means you'd need some annoying logic rather than simple bit slicing.

the b) approach you'd have you make a special case and it's all too annoying.

Maybe I'm just not creative enough but I haven't been able to come up with an elegant way of doing it with 0 to pi/2 LUTs (just by using simple bit slices)

I also haven't looked at any actual implementations (actually I couldn't even find them lol) other than the basic description on wikipedia. Maybe that's why.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nice read! I have 2 questions:

When calculating K, the author says "It can be shown through the use of trigonometric identities that:" and proceeds to show a formula. How exactly does this happen?

After calculating K, the author assigns it to c in the cordic function, but not to s. Why?

<comment><USER11> To your first question:

tan β_i = sin β_i / cos β_i = 2^{-i}.

So cos β_i = 2^i sin β_i. Square and use Pythagoras for cos^2 β_i = 2^{2i} (1 - cos^2 β_i).

Solve for cos^2 β_i and take the positive square root for 2^i / √(1 + 2^{2i}) = 1 / √(2^{-2i} + 1).

To your second:

I presume the author multiplied 1 by K to get c <\- K. When you multiply 0 by K you still have s <\- 0 though. I haven't figured out the justification for moving the multiplication from after to before the loop but if it works for c it works for s too.

edit:

If you write

        c_new ← cos α[i] × (c - tan α[i] × s)
        s_new ← cos α[i] × (s + tan α[i] × c)
        c ← c_new
        s ← s_new

with a complex variable z = c + is (changing the index variable to j) you get

        z ← cos α[j] × (1 + i × tan α[j]) × z

which makes it more obvious (to me) that you can pull the multiplication by cosines out of the loop.

        z <- 1      # c=1, s=0
        z <- K × z  # c=K, s=0
        ...loop...

<comment> seedless-sensat To the second question, I am also struggling to follow the step "Let's move the multiplications by cos β_i into a separate loop".

The recursive construction of `c` doesn't allow the betas to be pulled out. The i-th term is multiplied by beta_i to beta_n, but not beta_0 to beta_{i-1}.

Clearly the method must work, but I'm not sure what I'm missing.

Edit: ignoring `direction`, I can prove this step by induction for both c(i) and s(i) together. At least to me though, this it isn't a simple algebraic simplification.

<comment><USER11> I got it. In terms of a complex variable, mathematically the loop before that step is

        z = Π_j cos β[j] (1 + i direction_j 2^{-j})

So the step corresponds to the trivial rearrangement

        z = ( Π_j cos β[j] ) ( Π_j (1 + i direction_j 2^{-j}) )

<comment><USER11> This is what's happening mathematically: [https://i.imgur.com/MclfpEN.png](https://i.imgur.com/MclfpEN.png).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Isn't it simpler (and more efficient) to build a interpolating polynomial approximation for sin(x) for the range [0,pi/8) (using Chebichev iso Lagrange interpolation fe)

</comment><comment><USER13> Is this just an example? Because if I wanted to rotate a vector, I'd do it with vectors, not trig. Which requires multiplication and addition, right? What am I missing.

<comment><USER14> missing the "in hardware" part?

target may be a simple microcontroller or fpga that lacks multiplication.

<comment><USER13> Yet is has trig? Come on.

<comment><USER15> It doesn't have trig. The algorithm just requires 32 precomputed trig results that are stored in a lookup table.

<comment><USER16> Indeed, I have used CORDIC for rectangular-to-polar on a little micro without multiply (and power-constrained by a coin cell). I made a code-generator for this, see [https://github.com/markrages/cordic_polar](https://github.com/markrages/cordic_polar)

<comment><USER13> Very sweet!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> man-and-laptop How is CORDIC different from e^x ~= (1+x/N)^N where N is a power of 2?

<comment><USER11> You mean if you insert x->ix and N->2^N and use exponentiation by squaring? Then you get

        fun cis(x) {
            c, s <- 1, x >> N
            for 0 .. N-1 {
                c, s <- c*c - s*s, c*s << 1
            return c, s
        }

By comparison, CORDIC has only additions and shifts in the loop. CORDIC is also online in the sense that you don't need to know N up front, you can keep iteratively improving your approximation until you reach the limit of numeric precision. But with this function you need to know N up front.

If we're talking about fixed-point numbers, the initial assignment of s <\- x>>N here is also scary since it is the only place in which x feeds into the algorithm and the shift means that the only a small number of the bits of x are actually used in the calculation. In the worst case, if you increased N a lot in the hope of getting more accuracy you could shift all the bits of x off and get the answer 1, 0 for every angle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> How would one build an asynchronous implementation of this circuit in an HDL

<comment><USER18> Why?

<comment><USER18> Replying because I can't edit.

This is way too complex, a purely combinatorial version would never meet timing in a design where you cared enough to make it in an FPGA. The question doesn't make sense on it's face. You want a pipelined version.

I asked why to get to the bottom of wht he's really asking.

<comment><USER19> You could use multi cycle paths so this doesn't limit your global timing. Then you would save the registers. This is much more useful for ASIC design, because on an FPGA the registers are there whether you use them or not.

However total latency will be lower than a pipe-lined version which is nice if that's what your optimizing for.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, but if you were using a more advanced technique like that, you wouldn't be asking on HN how to unroll that loop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is incredibly slick. Is it used in real hardware?

<comment><USER21> CORDIC? Yes. It's what most if not all scientific calculators use.</comment></comment>


There's new appetite for peddlers of cheap eats - <AUTHOR> http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2009/02/23/story1.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting article on concept of _"White labelling"_ of food stuffs. Anyone know of software/web app examples of this? ~ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-label_product> via <http://jontangerine.com/log/2009/12/introducing-analog>

Who is the _"Richelieu"_ of software?</comment>


Ask HN: Anyone from Malaysia on HN? - <AUTHOR> Looking to connect with someone to see if there are any local conferences/meetups available to attend next week. <comment><USER2> Hi, from Malaysia but staying in SG</comment>


How do I manage all the good links of Hacker News - <AUTHOR>

Everyday I read a lot of articles on Hacker News, what is the best way to manage all of these good links and articles. Sometimes it is an article, I can send it to Instapaper, sometimes it is a reference document, I save it to my Favourites bar in the browswer Chrome, sometimes it is a source code in GitHub, I added it to my watch list, etc. The question is: How do I manage all of these good links, when I want them, I can easily find them, from every places that I saved. Someone has a good solution for this? Please share. Thank you. <comment><USER2> Upvote the things you like and go to <http://news.ycombinator.com/saved?id=pnhoang>

<comment><AUTHOR> Ahh ok, thank you. I do not know that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I signed up for Pinboard[1] to manage interesting links I find. All links I save get tagged with meaningful tags so they're easier to find later.

[1] <http://www.pinboard.in>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, I'll see, but social networking tools are too many. I use almost everything, but the problem remains how to look at what you want to find in one place.</comment></comment>


Let's Take Back The Certificate Authority - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/i-m-h-o/ccbb7c52f2ac

<comment><USER2> I ran the technical side of a global CA for 5 years (left the industry early this year) and I can tell you that while validation (outside of EV) is relatively simple, the technical/legal/audit aspects add up to a significant cost.

If you want to run a CA you need to obtain sufficient funding (on an ongoing basis, these aren't all one-time costs) to do things properly. Properly means expensive audits, expensive HSMs, expensive secure rooms with multi-factor authentication to enter, auditing of all actions, long-term record retention, reliable and performant OCSP responders, endless documentation (DR, secure hardware lifecycle policies, etc), being an active member of the CABForum to drive your agenda and keep abreast of changing industry requirements, and much, much more. Of course, by doing so you are attempting to upend a multi- billion dollar industry, so expect a political fight with the CAs and potentially the browsers as well...

These problems are part of what lead people to prefer replacing the industry (DANE, Convergence, TACK) over building a non-profit CA in the existing model. Of course, replacement comes with its own huge set of obstacles.

All that said, if you're a company with a bunch of money you want to spend on this problem, let me know. I am willing to lend a hand.

</comment><comment><USER3> I disagree with this completely. The CA Model is absolutely flawed, and this is just patching a flawed model. I'd love to see a push for [DANE]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS- based_Authentication_of_Na...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS- based_Authentication_of_Named_Entities)) - where you publish your public key in DNS. When doubled with DNSSEC, this means your IP address is irrefutably tied to your domain and so is your TLS public key.

<comment><USER4> DNSSEC has the problem that you rely on root certificates as well - which are ultimately controlled by state actors. Where this goes we know already.

<comment><USER3> Well we have a hell of a lot more transparency about where that key is, who generated and has access to it. There's a video of the entire ceremony online somewhere, at the moment I can only find [this summary]([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9j-sfP9GUU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9j-sfP9GUU))

<comment><USER4> My critique goes more in the direction of DNSSEC being a centralized infrastructure. I didn't mean that it is easily subverted but its possible, especially for an US state actor. Its definitely more transparent as SSL CA's for sure. However, for my communications I'd like rather rely on an infrastructure which is independent from centralized resources.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A lot of folks don't realize this but it's not just web browsers that you need to worry about. When your app connects over SSL to any service that it's consuming you need to be properly authenticating the remote server. For external HTTP requests (ex: to an external REST services) many programming languages/environments piggy back on the host machine's list of trusted roots (ie. the same ones that your browser uses) but a lot do not. They may just skip over the authentication piece of the SSL handshake.

This is _especially_ true for database drivers. If your database driver includes a "use SSL" flag but you're not actually specifying a pre-shared certificate to authenticate the remote server then it's probably not authenticating the remote server[1]. Think about that for a second ... How would it?

I wrote about this a little while back[2] and gave a talk that went into this in a bit more detail this week (slides should be up next week). The gist of it is that if you don't authenticate the remote server (by authenticating its SSL cert) you're vulnerable to a MITM attack _every_ time you connect. Not just the first time, _every time_. With SSH we're used to pinning remote host keys the first time you connect but with SSL there's no such thing[3] and you have to be careful to handle it properly.

[1]: I say "probably" here because it's technically possible that your remote server has an SSL certificate that is signed by the same set of trusted CAs that you use for HTTP requests _and_ your DB driver actually validates it but it's not likely. Most database SSL certificates are either self-signed or self-signed via a CA signing cert controlled by a DBaaS. For example for RDS, Amazon signs the SSL certificates for all MySQL databases with a single CA signing cert: [http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/CHAP_M...](http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/CHAP_MySQL.html#MySQL.Concepts.SSLSupport)

[2]: [http://blog.jackdb.com/post/55178133114/using-self-signed- ss...](http://blog.jackdb.com/post/55178133114/using-self-signed-ssl- certificates-with-jackdb)

[3]: No reason there couldn't be SSL cert pinning and it's something we've considered for our product. However you can't really automate it (you need a user to say "this is okay...") so we decided to have it be a manual step that you can just click to fetch/import: [http://blog.jackdb.com/post/55349902000/auto-importing- ssl-c...](http://blog.jackdb.com/post/55349902000/auto-importing-ssl- certificates-into-jackdb)

</comment><comment><USER6> Doesn't this already exist in the form of CAcert?

<comment><USER2> CAcert doesn't have a WebTrust audit and is therefore not included in many cases. They've talked about audits in the past but every time it comes up it eventually stalls. I have no insight into their process, but I'd suspect it's a combination of people who oppose the concept of WebTrust audits and also that when they speak to auditors they discover they would fail such audits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> How does this proposal compare to TACK: [http://tack.io](http://tack.io) ?

<comment><USER8> What about Moxie's other project, Convergence? [http://convergence.io/](http://convergence.io/)</comment></comment>


Two Sources of Stress that (probably) apply to you - <AUTHOR> http://dalethoughts.com/2012/03/two-sources-of-stress-that-probably-apply-to-you/ <comment><USER2> Stress comes from change and change means you don't know what will happen. Coincidentally, you never know in life what will happen so at worst you could be stressed to max merely for being alive.

There are two approaches to this uninviting uncertainty. Either you try to block it out or you accept it as a fact of life. In the first case you want to build as many static and seemingly permanent corners in life as possible, using methods such as routines and risk-avoidance. In the latter case you set out to do whatever you must because you don't know if you'll live tomorrow and you have nothing to lose.

Most people settle with something in between. If you intend to block change, it will break through somewhere else and you suffer again and that is like patching a sinking ship. If you intend to accept change, you demand a lot from yourself and you will certainly be tried for that up to the highest standards, but you will possibly come out if not enlightened at least balanced and realistic about life.

Stress is good. It shows you're holding on to something you shouldn't be holding on to.

<comment><USER3> Exactly. Being unable to accept and digest changes gives you a feeling of living on the edge (sinking ship), being crushed by life's urge to change you - it's horrible. I've been there, not long ago.

Aging people often seem to experience that - there are the ones who get along with their age's demands and sacrifices, while others become addicted to plastic surgery (patching the ship).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Another source of stress is: Striving to be somewhere else. Whenever you take a shower, or eat, or lie in bed, and you feel that you ought to be somewhere else (working) that's stress. That not only applies to whereabouts, but also to situations like "I should be ready with X so I can take on Y". To reduce that, you have to establish a clear declaration of working and resting time - resting means really switching off, not allowing thoughts to pull you back into work mode.

EDIT: I think the word I would use for countering this type of stress is "dedication".

<comment><USER4> Exactly right! If we don't 'live in the moment,' focusing on whatever we are doing, that is stressful and increases unhappiness. Pardon a cliche, but it is so very correct: people who live in the past tend to be depressed, people who live in the future tend to be anxious, and people are generally happy when they are absorbed in their current activity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think this can be simplified down to a single word - uncertainty. Thats the cause of stress.

<comment><AUTHOR> Certainly, but it's a little more nuanced. If the uncertainty is on your end (the decision making part), then it's fixable.

If, on the other hand it's something completely out of your control (waiting to see if you were accepted into college), then the uncertainty is of a different nature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Related:

<http://lesswrong.com/lw/th/harder_choices_matter_less/>

<comment><USER7> That is so true. The way I phrase it is: "the hard choices are the ones where there is no wrong choice". One of the choices may be slightly "more right" than the others, but none of them are bad choices and the unknowables completely swamp the knowables, so just make a decision and move on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The OP describes one of the strategies that David Allen recommends in his famous book: Getting things done.

It is about freeing the mind for productivity by getting rid of all distractions. The challenge is to identify the distractions and get them done immediately.

If you want more discoveries of that kind, this book is very useful.

<comment><USER9> what if your entire job is a distraction?

<comment><USER10> stop doing it

<comment><USER9> ok, i will. let's see what happens :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I agree with the author's first point in full. The second I feel is moot.

"Decide what your priorities are quickly and follow through. If you feel compelled to change your priorities, do it quickly."

You shouldn't do/think/execute anything you regard as a priority unless you can do so without second-guessing yourself. This is about being content with your decision, which usually only happens when you've weighed out the pros/cons and understand most of the implications.

That being said, I agree with manmal that having a "clear declaration of working and resting time" is hugely important. Otherwise you end up treating others poorly because when you're spending time with them, you're actually focusing your attention on stuff you "have" to get done, and as a result you don't contribute 100% to the current social situation (bad).

</comment><comment><USER12> It's interesting that the trait of unmade decisions is framed in the context of stress.

My experience on the flip side is that a couple of kids I went to school with, who have since been very successful, actually made decisions very quickly. To the point where some must have just been guesswork or ini-mini-miny-mo (although no doubt the fact they were successful means it'll be dubbed as "instinct").

So while I'm still pondering decision 1, they already decided 5 things. Sure, 3 failed, but 2 were good decisions. And since I noticed that in them, I've noticed it in other successful people.

It's not a broad brush assessment, but something to think about. Two steps forward and one back it probably better than one step forward in the long run. So just make the damn decision and see what comes of it.

<comment><USER13> IMO, the unmade decision is a symptom.

In my personal experience, I start deferring things when there's something else going on that I don't want to deal with. Usually the something else is that I haven't accepted that I "don't know" something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> "there are good perks (company issued iPhone!)"

That sounds like a source of stress right there. If the company gives you a phone I assume it means they own your ass every moment of every day.

<comment><USER15> It's all perspective, I guess. I was pissed when I joined a shop that _wouldn't_ give me a phone. I had been cell phone free for 5 years and didn't want my own. Instead, I get a per-paycheck stipend to cover work-induced costs.

The up-side, however, is that I felt free to unplug my desk phone and totally ignore it. For some reason, that _really_ reduced my stress.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I came to the same conclusion about a month ago. Some of the examples he listed I solve by tossing a coin and leaving it up to chance. I only do this when I really don't care about the outcome. Before tossing the coin, I make sure of this, if I prefer an outcome, then I don't need to toss. There was a famous quote that more or less said the same thing.

<comment><USER7> Tossing a coin is actually a great mechanism for bringing your unconscious into the decision. Flip the coin. If you suddenly feel yourself wishing it fell the other way, then your gut is telling you to to go with the other decision. Most likely your gut doesn't care and you can just go whichever the coin falls.

</comment></comment><comment> one-man-bucket Sorry for being off topic, but I thought the correct word would be "applies" in this sentence. Could anyone educate me, please?

Sinc., a swede

<comment><USER17> The subject in this sentence, "two sources of stress," is third person _plural_. Verbs are only conjugated with -s for third person _singular_ in English.

One source of stress _applies_

Two sources of stress _apply_

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> my main source of stress is information overload. most of the news and blogs i read everyday are not directly actionable, and it's taking up mental space.

<comment><USER18> But what is preventing you from reducing your information overload. Stop following some of the news,blogs etc. To me though passive information makes me feel aware , too much of it comes in the way of actively improving oneself.

<comment><USER19> Information overload can be a huge opponent sometimes. I had a hard time fighting it, so much that I still consider it a true addiction (and still avoid falling on the same trap again).

When I started using firefox for the first time (whoa, tabs!), I started opening dozens of tabs at the same time, thinking I would read them all, one after another. But I could not, and their contents were interesting enough to prevent me from closing them. This habit followed for a long time, I installed a session saver, then I started using a feed reader. I had dozens of subscriptions and, if I didn't check my feeds for a whole day, soon there would be a hundred of them in my inbox — and I _had_ to check them, or else I could lose information.

The stress came from the fear of losing information. It didn't matter if it were tabs, saved sessions or feeds, the idea of not reading any of those interesting articles was something hard to accept. I had to learn how to let this river of information flow without wanting to consume everything. No more feeds, no more than 9 tabs opened, no more saving sessions. This works for me now (most of the time).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is it a coincidence that the title of the next story down (as of right now) has "Kids" just after the 'you' in the title here?

</comment><comment><USER21> This is a great post. This buggs me all the time, but I thought I am the only one because nobody turned it into words.

<comment><USER22> ditto

<comment><USER23> Since you are new here, rather than downvote you I'll point out that single- word or otherwise low-content comments are magnets for down votes. If you agree with another comment and you want to let that commenter know, but don't want to comment in depth, use the upvote arrow. Hope this helps :)</comment></comment></comment>