Is the iPhone bad for the American economy? - <AUTHOR> http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/01/11/is-the-iphone-bad-for-the-american-economy/

<comment><USER2> > China gets the credit for 100% of the iPhone's export value, even though it > is only assembling the product designed elsewhere from parts that are made > elsewhere.

More than anything, this just points to the absurdity of the way these metrics are calculated. An American company sells something to an American consumer -- along the way the product is assembled in China for tens of dollars -- and the American trade deficit between the US and China grows by $500 for each unit sold. Ridiculous.

<comment><USER3> No, it's not.

The components that China imports from elsewhere to assemble iPhones will be credited as China's import value. The same happens recursively for those countries that export the components to China until it eventually traces back to U.S. export.

If you just look at the difference between China and the U.S., then yes it will look bad. But the two thing will cancel out each other in the whole system.

The metric is fine. Just don't take it at face value. The sad part is that it is often abused for political reasons.

<comment><USER2> Not really. Check out this WSJ article: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870482810457602...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704828104576021142902413796.html)

"Mr. Lamy said if trade statistics were adjusted to reflect the actual value contributed to a product by different countries, the size of the U.S. trade deficit with China—$226.88 billion, according to U.S. figures—would be cut in half."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I question the assumption that Americans need jobs more than Chinese do.

Does anyone else ever read this sort of thing and just get _floored_ by the implicit, unquestioned calculus which says that benefits to Chinese workers are worth nothing and that their lost jobs and misery are completely unimportant, so that the only relevant point under discussion is the number of American jobs? Coming next: Someone realizes that many Chinese people have kidneys which could be transplanted into Americans, thus resulting in an improvement in the average American kidney.

<comment><USER5> Furthermore:

Adding a job in China isn't really in competition with adding a job in America. If anything there is a synergy. If Chinese factories can pump out goods cheap for American designers, that means we can hire more designers, and profitably sell more things globally.

<comment><USER4> I don't _expect_ them to understand that part. Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage is non-obvious. The proposition that Chinese workers are sentient, and therefore objects of moral value, is somewhat more elementary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >If production was moved from China back to the U.S., they figure that Apple could still get an acceptable profit even though labor costs incurred in the manufacturing process would be significantly higher, while contributing to U.S. jobs and exports:

You mean if production was moved from China back to the U.S. _through government intervention_? Then there would still be an "acceptable", _as determined by the government_ , profit?

I don't mind editorials, but I'd wish they would make their politics explicit rather than hiding behind the allure of objective reporting.

<comment><USER7> > You mean if production was moved from China back to the U.S. _through > government intervention_?

Oh, come on, it's a hypothetical. They're not seriously suggesting that it will or should be done, and therefore they don't have to provide a _how_. They're just running the numbers for the sake of a comparison. You're overreacting.

> Then there would still be an "acceptable", _as determined by the government_ > , profit?

Um, no. As determined by researchers Yuqing Xing and Neal Detert from the Asian Development Bank Institute, authors of the study, and the people that came up with the _purely hypothetical_ scenario.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> So if I understand the process:

1\. American company creates a design in an air conditioned office in CA.

2\. The Chinese company produces units from that design for <$7 a piece under relatively terrible working conditions.

3\. The American company then sells the completed devices for hundreds of dollars taking pretty much all the margin for themselves.

It sounds like we are already the benefactors of the current arrangement.

The article is lamenting about how unfair it is to America because we can't take that last $7 off the table? Even I'd call that greedy.

<comment><USER7> It's not really that simple. First of all, from the article:

"It costs only US$6.50 per unit to assemble all parts and components into a ready to use iPhone. The assembly cost accounts for merely 3.6% of the total manufacturing cost."

So the Chinese company _assembles_ (not produces) units for $6.50 a piece, which is only a tiny fraction of the total manufacturing cost. The other $180.55 of the cost of manufacturing comes largely from American countries.

And no, the article is _not_ saying it's unfair that we can't take that last $7. In fact, just the opposite. It's lamenting the fact that most trade deficit calculations use the _entire manufacturing cost_ (~$190 in this case) rather than just taking into account the value added ($6.50) by the exporting country. Calculating the figure this way makes the situation seem much more dire than it actually is, which results in extremist cries for a trade war. The author of this paper seems to think the $7 of value added by China is perfectly fair, and he's just trying to get others to realize that this figure is more accurate and applicable than the standard calculation.

<comment><USER8> Only a small fraction of the parts in an iPhone come from America -- the majority come from Taiwan, Japan, China and 3 other countries. So yes, China probably gets more of the entire manufacturing cost of the iPhone than the US does. But not by much. The US, of course, should be able to book that sweet sweet margin of profit that Apple enjoys. (Or should the Bermuda tax haven Apple presumably employs book the profit?)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Only if you believe the purpose of an economy is to minimize its trade deficit. How preposterous.

</comment><comment><USER10> Excellent article that works through all the nuances of international trade, in particular the economics and reality of trade with China on high technology products. I went into it worried about the link bait tunnel, but came out quite pleased with the overall analysis.

I particularly like this line (quoted) form the WSJ: "Trade has always benefited the U.S. economy. So rather than launching a trade war with China over $6.50, here's a better agenda for the 112th Congress: Focus on policies that will help Americans and U.S. companies better capitalize on a global economy."

</comment><comment><USER8> Actually, the number should be even higher in favour of America. If an iPhone that contains $171 worth of parts (source Broadpoint AmTech) and $6.50 worth of labor sells for $500 from China to Europe, currently China gets credit for $500 worth of exports and gets "charged" for the parts it imports from the US, Taiwan, Japan, etc. However, shouldn't the US get credit for the 500-171-6.55=322.50 worth of "value add" that it's design and marketing adds to the bag of parts and labour? In other words, the iPhone should be adding over a billion in "exports" to the US economy, rather than being almost 2 billion in "imports" as is currently calculated, or adding 50 million to exports as the Time article proposes.

</comment><comment><USER11> Hasn't Andy Grove been talking about this for a while?

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-01/how-to-make-an- amer...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-01/how-to-make-an-american-job- before-it-s-too-late-andy-grove.html)

<comment><USER8> No, Andy Grove is on the other side of the debate. This article says that the iPhone is good for the economy. It's Andy Grove that's saying its bad for the economy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have a trade deficit with my grocery store. I'm pretty sure most inhabitants of the industrialized world do. Why isn't Time running a story on that?

</comment><comment><USER13> The sooner these trade metrics are recalculated the better. The misinformation from bad trade data can be disasterous for economic policy and ammo for fruitless political infighting.</comment>


Ask HN: Why is Google not marketing their Primer app? - <AUTHOR> Google Primer is really good application but, I've never seen any marketing effort spent by Google on it. I don't want this app to die like Google's other A/B test plans. <comment><USER2> The point of the application is to educate on how to market. Google is a marketing company, that makes money off ads people buy. I don't think the service will be depreciated any time soon.</comment>


Molecular Visualisations of DNA [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.wehi.edu.au/education/wehitv/molecular_visualisations_of_dna/ <comment><USER2> That video was from 2003. Here's a more recent visualization (2011) by the same person: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMPXu6GF18M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMPXu6GF18M)

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's the link to the actual video:

[http://www.wehi.edu.au/education/wehitv/molecular_visualisat...](http://www.wehi.edu.au/education/wehitv/molecular_visualisations_of_dna/)

</comment><comment><USER4> be sure to check out Bjork's music video:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa1A0pPc- ik](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa1A0pPc-ik)

<comment><USER5> Thanks for that. I found it to be quite fascinating but at the same time somewhat unsettling. The depth of complexity seemed limitless. As though there would be no end to the layers of abstraction one could reason about - and must reason about, if we are to truly understand ourselves.

<comment><USER4> I think finding it unsettling is actually a good reaction. I think people get too encultured into simplistic views of the world. It's good to recognize how fundamentally deep and _strange_ the universe is with respect to our everyday experience of it, if for nothing more than the sake of perspective.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've spent a great deal of time wondering why biological systems are so complex. Seeing this videos leads me to ponder this question yet again. I keep coming back to the same answer. Evolution as a process proceeds forward without regard for complexity. In other words, the outcome of an Evolutionary does not have to be simple - it just has to work. I fear that most biological systems are in many ways unnecessarily complicated, which makes research in Biology and Medicine even more difficult.

<comment><USER7> Maybe that is 'simple' when solving the problem nature had, it's just that we're not used to this kind of problems.

<comment><USER8> Nature does not solve problems. Molecules bump into each others. There's no purpose in their doing so. There is not simple for nature and complex for us. If you want a scientific approach to complexity, you would not insert a term in the definition that reads as 'us', or 'nature', or frogs.

<comment><USER7> Alright, there is no inherent purpose (something I always say to others and here I am giving the opposite impression :) but if we agree that things 'are' because they sustain some abstract structure in some context then can't we allow saying 'to sustain' is a problem to solve ? and if the context is very diverse thus high in complexity. And as we lack information, the observed structure will elude our understanding, 'complex for us'. From my very limited point of view, I'd believe nature follow some sort of simplest path possible (~lagrangian) law, hence my 'simple for nature' expression.

Feel free to correct me further.

<comment><USER8> Living organisms are not structures. Not sure if that's what you say, but I have heard this many times, in the context of origin of life. Where life is seen as self-replicating structures.

The complexity of a geometrical structure (like a cube, or a protein) is one thing. The complexity of a process that fulfills a function (engine of a car) is another thing. One is static, the other is dynamic. One just sits there. Like a pile of rocks. The other one takes an input and process it into an output, in a specified, repeatable manner.

A pile of rocks, in a particular context, solves the problem of surviving the surrounding conditions. Is it the simplest solution? Who cares!

DNA replication on the other hand? What did Mother Nature drink to come up with this problem and try to solve it?

<comment><USER7> That's why I added 'abstract' it's not fixed, things move underneath but the abstract properties remain.

Funny about the rock thing, I never know what to make about them, I would need to add an 'adaptability' rule to my core ones.

DNA replication did not emerge from the early organisms. Before replication, we could investigate about DNA or prototypical forms of DNA as forms of variable input transformation. This kind of meta-encoding (sorry programmer POV leaking) of input tranformation is probably not the first minimum but pressure + time pushed the versatility needs up (again programmer POV).

<comment><USER8> I'm a programmer too, but also a physicist, and it's also hard for me to read through explanations/narratives that use a lot of metaphorical language. And there's a lot of that in evolutionary narratives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A fully functioning life-form depends on so many things going right. With such precision needing to be met, I'm just surprised that there aren't more debilitating genetic diseases out there and that so many people are seemingly healthy.

Of course, it also has plan B and C in case plan A fail and is remarkable at adapting. Just for example, look at all the people with genetic diseases still hopping along day after day.

</comment><comment><USER10> The WEHI videos are really fantastic, because they do a good job of 'random- walking' components into place. Compare and contrast the WEHI videos to the Harvard molecular visualization videos, where pieces come together with unrealistic symmetry:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_zD3NxSsD8&t=2m50s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_zD3NxSsD8&t=2m50s)

<comment><USER11> This unrealistic symmetry and lego like snappiness, plus: in almost every visualization of these tiny tiny structures and processes involving them most of the "environment" is missing!

Think about all the school, high-school and even college visualizations showing the organelles f.e. just hanging there pinned into place. Between them wast areas of ... what?

Now look around you. What do you see? Maybe the furniture of you room resp. office... now wave your hand in front of your eyes (nooo, they are not laughing AT you ;) ... did you feel the interaction of the molecules "in the air" with those of your skin? They are filling the gap between us and the things we are capable to perceive with our eyes...

The "invisible" content of these gaps is interacting with the visible parts. At molecular levels those invisible elements contribute hugely to the non- deterministic, non-lego like snappiness, to the "random walk" way of things working out.

This kind of insight I think should be replacing the "deterministic machinery" view when describing and picturing molecular and micro-biological processes.

Visualizations by Dr. David S. Goodsell present this kind of ideas in a fascinating way.

(you can stop waving your hand now ;)

<comment><USER10> I don't think the 'missing environment' is as much a big deal. Without getting too reductionist: You have to isolate the components that you're showing otherwise it's just a big mess that's hard to understand. I think the implicit "there's actually a lot of stuff in between there" is not a big deal, much as the implicit "these molecules aren't really colored" is not a big deal in the service of explanatory power.

The reductionist view is not complete, but it's not wrong. Hypersymmetric assembly and molecules that 'know where to go' is wrong, and in a very subtle way that biases perception. The guy who makes the harvard video, in his TED talk, goes on and on about beauty in science. Well yeah, he created that beauty himself. The real system is sloppy and kludgey.... which I suppose could be 'beauty' in its own way, but very different from the way it's presented.

<comment><USER11> I agree.

>>You have to isolate the components that you're showing otherwise it's just a big mess that's hard to understand.

That's for sure. No way to depict all of it at once...

>>I think the implicit "there's actually a lot of stuff in between there" is not a big deal, much as the implicit "these molecules aren't really colored" is not a big deal in the service of explanatory power.

I disagree partly here. I imagine (hope! ;) "professionals" do know about the missing and false color "stuff" BUT every picture flushed towards __broad public __(vs professional publication f.e.) consumption should contain as much context as possible, context "disturbing" the mechanical picture presented of bio-molecular actually all natural reactions today. "knowing where to go" is wrong as you say and it would not "fit" / "work" / "be accepted" / "look believable" the moment the surrounding soup gets visible.

Leaving this kind of context out, i think, propels many misunderstandings about the way science is actually understanding nature.

>> which I suppose could be 'beauty' in its own way, but very different from the way it's presented.

Very true.

cheers

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If any one is looking to get into BioTech Ion Torrent is always hiring good engineers. We are looking for folks that know Python, C++, CUDA.

</comment><comment><USER13> Second part (DNA replication) reminds me of a really complex machine. Like a sewing machine, that cuts and folds and splits threads.

<comment><USER14> Like a sewing machine, that cuts and folds and splits threads.

And in doing so makes another sewing machine.

Life is awesomely complex stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> There are some other great biomolecular visualizations out there, particularly around kinesin

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-uuk4Pr2i8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-uuk4Pr2i8) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sRZy9PgPvg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sRZy9PgPvg)

<comment><USER16> This is actually a heavily criticized animation within the computational biophysics community. Our intuition for physical determinism breaks down at the nanoscale. One major fault of this video is that, at low Reynolds number, there's essentially no inertia. So the representation of kinesin taking deterministic, 100% processive steps is an absurd idealization. The motion is dominated by thermal fluctuations (which, by the way, are occurring on a nanosecond timescale).

At the same, even as a biophysicist, I think these animations are superb learning tools. Those beautifully rendered animations actually describe the mechanism in far greater detail than, say, textbook diagrams. One should just be aware that fluctuations dominate at these scales.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I remember watching these animations in high school biology class. They've definitely had this big long-term impact on how I visualize and reason about cellular and subcellular components. Just always see little components bobbling around and randomly flipflopping.

<comment><USER18> Growing up in an environment that was in certain regards ignorant, even hostile against science and technology I remember hearing about DNA for the first time I had this uneasy feeling that DNA is pretty much like computer code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm wondering if the replication process has some sort of unit tests stored somewhere. Thank you for posting this!

<comment><USER20> More specifically, it's DNA-Polymerase who proofreads. You should also check out the T-Cells (innate and acquired immunity) work. It blew my mind the level of complexity, diversification, etc: There are cells that perform profiling, cells the memorize information about viruses (that's how vaccines work) already encountered, etc.

Molecular biology is like entering the rabbit whole.

<comment><USER14> Imagine a wormhole opening up in front of you and a computer from the unimaginably distant future drops out in front of you.

You very likely wouldn't know it's even a computer. Countless billions of hours a futures mankinds time has been poured into it shrinking each component to the atomic scale. Generation after generation of hardening against future hackers attacks, and even self aware viruses have increased the machines complexity beyond human understanding. The code the computer interprets would be a lost language from a civilization that doesn't exist yet.

And that is pretty much where we are in understanding the interworkings of DNA today. Nature has a 3 billion year jump on us, and it's going to take us a long time to unravel it all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Nature is awe-some!

</comment><comment><USER22> (2003) - but still cool :)</comment>


Tell-Tale Signs of the Modern-Day Yuppie (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp8QH64.html?articleId=2&WT.mc_id=2016-CPLTEST-FB-MC0-3 <comment><USER2> There are so many buzz words in this article I can't figure out the actual point the author is trying to make. Is it "how to spot someone who isn't homeless that's young and lives on their own and is therefore a yuppie" or "not being homeless or living with your parents is so uncool it's deserving of being called a yuppie, so down with the yuppies," or "the history of the yuppie?" All he seems to be trying to do is extend this buzzword to another buzzword that's so generic and can be applied to so many different people it means nothing.

<comment><USER3> It felt wordy to me. Like the author was afraid to repeat any word (besides yuppie) while striving for a formal sounding analysis. Very painful to read.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So are we now shifting yuppie to mean a young person with the audacity not to be broke? Most millennials are apparently lazy shits, and we need to rescusitate "yuppie" to help put a finger on why we hate the rest of them.

It now stands for Young Un-Poor

</comment><comment><USER5> This takes the cake as the most arrogant, and yet vacuous, article I have ever read in my life. It's an academic sounding ramble with a flimsy premise and no resolution. gg nytimes.

</comment><comment><USER6> > Chuck Taylors

Since when are Chuck Taylors hipster shoes? Those feel more like Hot Topic frequenting high schooler apparel than hipster. Cats out here are all about some expensive af boots.

</comment><comment><USER7> You're either a yuppie or you're fucked, so... take your pick.</comment>


Ask HN: How to find remote internship/junior role as a student - <AUTHOR> Hello everyone,
I was actually about to start a remote Working Student position in a big company, which i found out of the blue on Reddit, but last second they decided not to hire any working students due to the unstable market.
So after that i started searching for other Working Student positions, but either they required On-site or German language knowledge(Working Student is used a lot in Germany).
Looking at remote positions worldwide, i can only find full-time Software Engineer positions with atleast 1-3 yrs of experience. Most Intern positions are Onsite and most Junior positions require 1yr of experience/Internship.
I would say i have more experience than the average student(maybe not from those who visit HN though) and i thought i would apply to those Software Engineer positions and progress quickly but they have responded that i lack work experience, rightfully so.
So i am stuck in a limbo where Internships are on site and Junior positions MAY BE remote but perhaps i'm not qualified for those.
So, what i am asking is, do you have a site/platform which i can perhaps look for such positions? I scrolled through all of Who is Hiring (September 2020) and found very few junior positions.
PS: here is my CV https://alextselikas.eu.org/CV.pdf,i would appreciate it if someone could take a look and tell me what role he would categorize me?(Intern or Junior perhaps)
I am also based in Europe
Thank you for your time and best regards
Alex <comment><USER2> I got a number of internships in high school by just cold emailing a TON of startups, and making it very clear that even though I didn't have a ton of experience, I loved programming and learned quickly. I had a low success rate -- but I really only needed one person to say yes!

I recommend emailing the highest-up person in each company whose email address you can find (or guess and check, via a service like [https://email- checker.net/](https://email-checker.net/)). Also, don't constrain yourself to advertised positions -- I never applied for an internship for which there was a listing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the advice! I actually started doing the same. If there was position for a Software Engineer, i ask if there is room for a quick learning intern.

Thanks again!

<comment><USER3> Lookup Wonsulting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Check outreachy.org

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the link! very interesting. However the program is intended for minorities in the tech space (ex. women,trans etc.). I feel silly applying as a white straight male.</comment></comment>


The Truth About Hair and Why Indians Would Keep Their Hair Long - <AUTHOR> https://www.thehairshaman.com/native-americans/the-truth-about-hair-and-why-indians-would-keep-their-hair-long/#.UVyEQSOuQKd.facebook

<comment><USER2> I'm r/skeptic/</comment>


Not Only Is Google Places Going After Yelp, They're Doing So With Yelp's Content - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/26/google-yelp/ <comment><AUTHOR> The reason I posted this to HN is that it suggests two big things.

First, that Google is using the threat of search indexing to steal content for their own sites beyond what would seem fair use.

Second, that Google is preinstalling its own apps with Android which seems eerily similar to what MS did with Windows and IE.

<comment><USER2> Now wait a second; Google is stealing Yelp's content? Since when does Yelp "own" my reviews? When Yelp begins paying for the content others are generating for them then we can consider the moral outrage of this "theft".

<comment><USER3> Have you reviewed their Terms of Usage before you put in your reviews?

<comment><USER2> Yes. Have you?

Section 5, Part C. Ownership

As between you and Yelp, you own Your Content. We own the Yelp Content, including but not limited to visual interfaces, interactive features, graphics, design, compilation, computer code, products, software, aggregate user review ratings, and all other elements and components of the Service excluding Your Content, User Content and Third Party Content. We also own the copyrights, trademarks, service marks, trade names, and other intellectual and proprietary rights throughout the world (the "IP Rights") associated with the Yelp Content and the Service, which are protected by copyright, trade dress, patent, trademark laws and all other applicable intellectual and proprietary rights and laws. As such, you may not modify, reproduce, distribute, create derivative works or adaptations of, publicly display or in any way exploit any of the Yelp Content in whole or in part except as expressly authorized by us. Except as expressly and unambiguously provided herein, we do not grant you any express or implied rights, and all rights in and to the Service and the Yelp Content are retained by us.

Your Content is defined in Section 1, Part B. Content.

"Your Content" means Content that you submit or transmit to, through, or in connection with the Service, such as ratings, reviews, compliments, invitations, check-ins, messages, and information that you publicly display or displayed in your account profile.

<comment><USER4> So based on that, and I am not a lawyer, google is in the clear if they just scrape the user content and republish it so long as they are able to calculate the average user rating on their own. They would do this anyway because they are pulling information from many different sources and aggregating the score there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is Google using its search monopoly power like Microsoft to crush competitions? Where is DOJ when you need them?</comment>


First iPad Commercial Released - what do you think? - <AUTHOR> http://www.apple.com/ipad/gallery/#hardware06

<comment><USER2> I would ask anyone who is criticizing the ergonomics of the iPad to think about how they interact with a book, magazine, or newspaper. None of those have what I would call a great analog UI, but they have stood the test of centuries.

The iPad is very similar. Yes you will not type a manuscript on the touch screen. Will people spend half an hour poking around links on Zappos while watching TV? I think so. Is it any harder to hold than a hardcover book? No. Will the occasional moments of interaction be any more burdensome than a large newspaper? heck no.

Think about how much navigation you can do without typing. I could plow through twitter, gReader, a couple news sites, an ebook chapter, all without needing to launch a keyboard. And thats what people will value.

<comment><USER3> Honestly, my biggest concern is that its form factor means I won't really able to take it places. Large clamshell devices transport easily and you don't have to worry about damage to them. The iPad seems like it's going to be a strictly bathroom-and-coffee-table device, which is great for what it is, but it feels like it should be so much more.

<comment><USER4> You could always just cover it in something protective? There is no doubt in my mind that someone is going to make it some "armor."

<comment><USER3> Yeah, certainly. I'd just feel really nervous about taking something with that large of an exposed screen anywhere. I'm already nervous enough as is about my phone. Seems like a recipe for scratches/cracks/destroyed screens. You could get a padded case with hard backing on one side, I suppose (effectively duplicating the clamshell protections). Still, though, where are you going to take it? Haul one of those out to dinner with you and folks are gonna be staring at you awfully fully.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is the interface swift and responsive, or does the music trick the brain?

Gosh I wish my desktop at work were that slick.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, interesting how everything in the clip suggest speed. The music, the quick cut, starship Enterprise hitting warp.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9KTnsGsd_0>

(For those without Quicktime)

<comment><USER8> Maybe it's because I use Safari on Mac, but it actually uses the <video> tag so it's somewhat more portable.

<comment><USER7> Interesting. It bricked for me on not having Quicktime installed, so I hunted it down on YouTube. (Firefox 3.6 / Windows 7 PC).

<comment><USER9> Firefox only does Theora/OGG for HTML5 <video>. Safari only does H.264/mp4, and Chrome does both.

<comment><USER10> It works in FF 3.6 on Mac.

<comment><USER11> Using QuickTime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I love the _Gang of Four_ influenced Post-punk revival music, which I think was a great choice. It appeals to older guys like myself who are fans of the late 70s genre as well as teenagers like my nephews who are into the revival acts. I was pleased they didn't talk over it. I usually hate advertising, and go out of my way to block it, but I watched this a number of times.

</comment><comment><USER13> Uncompelling. It fails to answer the question, "What can I do with this thing that I can't do right now with my phone or laptop?"

Compare it to the original TV ads for the iPhone, which were both beautiful and informative: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lfmlKYZ-vU>

<comment><USER14> And you think that's what this is for?

The iPhone was a phone game-changer. Smart-phones had been around quite a while, but few did them very well at all, much less super-user-friendly. The tablet market, for comparison, has been languishing in cheap crap that barely works, or large, very expensive, poorly programmed (for tablet experience) laptop computers that swivel. Battery life has also typically been very short.

Now, what's the exact opposite of all those?

It's not meant to compete with a laptop or a phone, it's meant to open a new market, or at the least change the _tablet_ market.

<comment><USER3> My counterargument to this has been that the iPhone succeeded so wildly because it was so many devices or references that you'd otherwise carry. Phone, camera, GPS, MP3 player, map, contact book, and who knows what else. It consolidated a lot of existing things-in-your-car into one pocketable device. The iPad (and tablets in general) don't do that. They are, at worst, really big iPod Touches, and at best, underpowered laptops that are relatively hard to type on. They don't really address any gaping holes in the user market, except "I'd like my phone to have a bigger screen when I'm reading a news article on the john", which is an awfully narrow use case for a device that expensive.

I'm sure it's going to sell decently, but I really don't think it's going to become integrated into our daily lives like the iPhone has. It'll sit on coffee tables and bathroom reading shelves and be useful there, but it's not going to become the extension of our connected lives like our smartphones are. Even if it's meant to be an in-between between a tablet and a phone, I'm not sure what problem they're trying to solve. It feels like they're inventing a problem, wrapping the solution in shiny Apple plastic, and marketing it as a world-changer. Remember the Apple TV?

The most revolutionary thing about it is the battery life for a device with a display of that size. It'll be interesting to see how it actually holds up in real-life usage; if Apple has managed to actually crush it out of the park like they're promising, that technology is going to get a lot of use. I don't think this application of it is going to be quite the revolution that some are hoping it'll be, though.

<comment><USER14> I've seen that side argued before, and it definitely has merit. I'll still disagree, especially as some phones did nearly all that anyway, but it is valid.

As to the AppleTV in particular, I'm not surprised it didn't do very well. DVRs have actually gotten pretty good, and they're usually bundled with your connection, so there's _huge_ competition in that market. Also, most people aren't particularly interested in watching youtube on their TV, so the internet-capable side of it is largely wasted.

But I'm _hugely_ interested in UI, so I probably see more influence than it actually has.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think it's an interesting start. It shows off the UI of Apple's software quite well. It'll be very interesting to see the different interfaces from third-party developers that Apple will surely be showing off in their ads after the iPad ships.

</comment><comment><USER16> When I watched the iPad "promo" on the Apple website, I noticed that it seems like it might be uncomfortable to hold in the upright position.I'm seeing this now in this TV ad as well (when the iPad is vertical, notice how the thumb and hand rest on it. I'm not sure what, but something makes it seem like a slightly uncomfortable position)

Obviously going to need to try it first hand

<comment><USER17> the video shows it used while propped against crossed legs or on your lap with both feet raised on an object (or sitting on the floor with knees up). I wonder how it feels otherwise?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It shows off some of the high-interest use cases, but it doesn't quite have that appeal that Apple's advertising usually does. Seems rather generic and unmemorable to me.

<comment><USER18> Reminds me of the first iPod commercial.

Which reminds me of how sad I am that the Propellerheads never made another album.

<comment><USER19> And now I'm sad too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The ergonomics look a little forced - they show several positions of holding it, none look that comfortable.

<comment><USER20> about 22 secs in, they show the iPad being used to type something.

from what i can tell the iPad is being held by one thumb.

I cant see how you could type on a device resting on your legs at a 45degree angle, and hold it with just the end of your thumb. its not a recipe for a stable surface

<comment><USER21> iPad has IPS screen so you can pretty much hold it at any angle without losing quality of the picture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think apple should port quicktime for linux if they want me to care.

<comment><USER22> Wow, downmoded to negative 3 for merely asking for compatible player. You apple fan boys sure have thin skins.

Oh, and please down mod this comment as well. This will definitely prove your point.

<comment><USER14> No, downmoded for snide tone and no value. That's pretty frequent here.

<comment><USER12> I'd argue that it's pretty infrequent here, thankfully. Read a Reddit or Digg comment thread recently?

<comment><USER14> Referring to the downmoding, or the comment type? I was referring to the downmoding of snide / valueless, not the frequency of comments that fit those criteria.

Bad comments are refreshingly rare, in my experience. It's part of why I _really_ like YC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the iPad. Could anybody clarify?

Is it just a regular tablet? What OS does it run? Is it free? Can I change it to GNU?

<comment><USER24> _Could anybody clarify?_

You can find quite a bit of information about it here: [http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/29/apple-ipad-the- definitive...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/29/apple-ipad-the-definitive- guide-so-far/)

 _Is it just a regular tablet?_

It's an iPhone with a huge screen, on steroids ;-)

 _What OS does it run?_

As far as information like this is available before launch, it will probably run a custom version of the iPhone OS.

 _Is it free?_

As you might understand, the iPad itself isn't free. The software on it is (very) probably propietary.

 _Can I change it to GNU?_

In time, it will probably be possible to run a *nix distribution on the iPad, just as you can run these on playstations, xboxes, wifi routers etc.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Cloud computing companies? - <AUTHOR>

Hello, I would like to invest in cloud computing companies...
Can you provide me with a list of leading cloud computing companies that I can invest it.. by buying it's stocks? Like Amazon for example.
Thanks in advance. <comment><USER2> Cloud is a pretty broad term. I divide it up into two categories: hardware/infrastructure type stuff ie- amazon web services, rackspace, etc. and then the software side (SaaS)- salesforce, google apps, basecamp, wufoo,etc. I don't think the public markets would be the best bet or even a good bet at all to place a sole bet on the cloud computing market. Most of the innovation in the space will come from small startups that will one day be big. Most of the big companies doing it now that you can invest in a) have it as a very small part of their business and/or b) just say they do "cloud computing" by playing buzzword bingo. If I personally had a ton of money, i would be angel investing in as many great SaaS/business web app companies as possible.</comment>


Best times to post on Hacker News? - <AUTHOR> https://email@example.com/what-is-the-best-time-to-post-to-hacker-news-829fad3eac71#:~:text=Overall%2C%20it%20appears%20that%20the,5%20PM%20and%206%20PM. <comment><USER2> This is true for all social media. Post in the evening.

For sites like instagram, post in the evening according to your local time.

For sites like Reddit, HN, post in the evening according to US time.</comment>


Salary Guide – 2016 - <AUTHOR> http://www.cybercoders.com/insights/magazine/salaryguide/ <comment><AUTHOR> Great insight on compensation data.</comment>


The Selling of Attention Deficit Disorder - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/health/the-selling-of-attention-deficit-disorder.html <comment><USER2> I don't know. I just don't know.

I earned a perfect score on the SAT and was voted "Class Genius" in the yearbook, but barely graduated from high school. I was dismissed from university.

I went to work for a machine learning company, where we (self included!) did some really neat stuff, including some heroic pre-sales-meeting coding that saved the day in a minor way. But I was fired six months in for low productivity and low engagement.

Was it brain chemistry? ADD? Millenial entitlement? The Bipolar Lisp personality? Depression? SAD? A once-seen-impossible-to-unsee glimpse of the Gervais Principle? ([http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais- principle-o...](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or- the-office-according-to-the-office/))

Who knows.

What I do know is that

\- a) I may have something, but at least I am _lucid_. This is an understandable HN comment. I write many of them, and they seem to get ok ratings.

\- b) I have spent, and could spend, a lot of time trying to nail down exactly what's up with me. I have very little to show for it.

So I'm trying to just capitalize on the "lucid" part. I'm building stuff. I realize I'm the proverbial crank working alone, but I'm trying very hard to avoid the common pitfalls---setting hard deadlines, getting customer feedback, getting appropriate exercise and social interaction, etc. And it's working. Things are happening. Milestones are being reached.

It's the best I can do.

<comment><USER3> This is an honest post, thanks for sharing.

I am confused by something though. I have only (to my knowledge) known one person that got a perfect score on the SAT. The reason is that it requires both reasoning as well as 'stamp collecting'\--(i.e. book knowledge). If you didn't bother to learn all the obscure vocabulary words used on the SAT that most high schoolers don't know--(extol, capricious, etc.)--then you must've been an exceptional reader. Where did you get this other knowledge? Did you just read a lot?

If you 'barely graduated' high school and got dismissed with university, then you must've simply not done the work. I've known plenty of people that were smart, but lazy.

If you are gifted at a young age, it's easy to get relaxed... become lazy and satsified with the easy victories. The only way you can break this cycle is to endeavor to place a hurdle in front of yourself, one that you can't easily jump.

<comment><USER4> I also got 1600. I read a lot. In high school (many years ago) I made a game of starting my math homework when the teacher started collecting it, and usually finished in time. I got very used to skimming by. I did graduate from university, but it was by the skin of my teeth. Other than that, OP's experience was very similar to my own. Depression played a huge role in all of this.

(I'm doing fairly well now, but it was a bumpy road.)

<comment><USER5> Is there a name for people who go through this kind of life trajectory? I want to know if there is some kind of consensus on how to snap out of it.

<comment><USER6> "Underachievers"?

My college GPA ended up at 3.1. During the last two years, I got into a pattern of signing up for a full-time courseload and then completely ignoring (and failing) one of the classes (if this happens to you, I can only advise formally shifting to part-time status). I can provide some observations on particular things that got me through some classes:

One class I failed because I showed up on the first day, determined accurately that the subject material was quite easy, and stopped going for a while. I showed up again in the fourth week of class, and learned that I had already managed a failing grade for myself -- one component of the course grade was a series of four pop quizzes, of which two had already happened, and to pass the course overall it was necessary to pass each component.

Since that class was required for a CS degree, I had to retake it. Having failed it on a technicality pissed me off, so I showed up regularly and was quite vocal in class, and the professor (not the same one) became very familiar with me. When late in the term I finally flaked on a homework assignment, I felt enough of a connection to him that I spoke to him after class, saying I had been a little busier than usual and hadn't done the assignment (I made no offer to get it in late). He whacked me on the arm with the papers he was holding and said "do you need more time? Take another day!", at which point, obviously, I had to complete the assignment. I never missed another one.

So one lesson is: _you will do work for a personal connection that your work ethic would not have motivated you to do_. Wounded pride helps too.

I had a class in which I was one of four students. No real problems there either; it would have been too embarrassing.

Lesson: _close oversight can keep you working_.

In one class, I was already established in a flaking pattern when a girl in the class came to me and asked to be my partner (our university encouraged pair programming). From that point on, I had nothing better to do with my time than work on the class assignments. Impressing a professor didn't register with me, but impressing a girl did.

This one is kind of a special case of the first "lesson", so I'll say _it helps if the reason you 're working is something_ you _find compelling_.

This last point is something I have no personal experience with, but I imagine having friends who thought working on something potentially productive was a fun way to spend time would help me a lot. "Hey, let's take a udacity course together!" "Hey, let's learn rails and set up a website!" That kind of thing. Peer group matters too. :/

<comment><USER5> This tracks pretty much exactly with my college experience, ugh. The worst part was that I always used to think of myself as a very independent person who didn't need anyone else to get things done. When I finally came to realize the important of social motivations, I had to face the fact that I was just in denial for years, making myself miserable for no reason to live up to some ridiculous individualistic ideal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As a person with ADHD, that article was too long to hold my attention (no, I'm not making a joke here).

Also, as a person with ADHD who takes Adderall I don't see what the big fuss about it as a drug/medicine is. It works. I don't (personally) note any side effects, and don't see any reason that I'd stop taking it. Before taking Adderall I was essentially self-medicating my ADHD with copious amounts of coffee on a daily basis. Yet, no one talks about the drug of caffeine in such a negative way.

I wasn't ever diagnosed or treated for ADHD as a kid and I had huge issues with organization and focus in my younger years. I think if I had the 'focus' that I have now due to Adderall that I could have done significantly better in school and in my early career.

With Adderall I am no longer late to everything. I use my calendar effectively. I don't lose things (as much). I get probably 4x the amount of coding done per day. I'm better in conversation. I get through to do lists far quicker (and remember to use the list).

Over diagnosed? Sure. But I don't see why this drug is so demonized, where nicotine, alcohol and caffeine are just kinda standard parts of society and accepted.

<comment><USER8> I think it's exactly the same thing as coffee, and it's not a medical condition at all.

Coding really _IS_ naturally boring and mind numbing. That's neither your imagination nor subjective experience. No one ever steps through a series of break-points in a debugger, or skims through 1,000 lines of log output, and thinks: "YEAH, MAN! THIS IS REALLY LIVING!" It pretty much requires an altered state to enjoy this stuff.

I think the truth is that modern society measures "success" in radically different and totally unnatural ways now.

Look back at history, and there's a famous correlation between the introduction of coffee, tea and chocolate to Europe, and the age of enlightenment. ([https://encrypted.google.com/#q=caffeine+enlightenment+histo...](https://encrypted.google.com/#q=caffeine+enlightenment+history))

The reason pills are used on kids is because they won't reliably drink coffee on their own. Meanwhile, many parents won't subject their kids to substances other than normal, healthy food, unless they're comforted by rational, selfless purpose. Without an appeal to authority, in the form of a soliciting a qualified doctor's auspicious opinion, parents would just let their kids be kids.

The industrialized world is obsessed with abstract achievements, and rigid behavioral norms. Most people have a hard time resisting the trend, and sometimes do so at their own risk. All of it is artificially tied to quality of life (more than survival) by social pressures, so it's not so much survival instinct, so much as it is envy or maybe a desire for inclusion that drives the behavior.

It's not the drug that's demonized, but the fact that it has become a prerequisite for staying competitive and Keeping Up With The Joneses, so to speak.

<comment><USER9> _Coding really IS naturally boring and mind numbing. That 's neither your imagination nor subjective experience. No one ever steps through a series of break-points in a debugger, or skims through 1,000 lines of log output, and thinks: "YEAH, MAN! THIS IS REALLY LIVING!" It pretty much requires an altered state to enjoy this stuff._

That's just not true. I'm a counterexample.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't know if I really have ADD. There's no real physiological test for it, just self-assessments and the rejection of the null hypothesis upon the introduction of various drugs.

What I _do_ know: until I started treatment for ADD, the entire concept of "willpower" or "motivation" just didn't make sense to me. It was something other people had, maybe; or perhaps they were lying. But with treatment, "motivating myself" into doing things for merely their effects on my long-term goals is a perfectly obvious thing to do. It's very similar to what it felt like to go through puberty and gain a sex drive—but what I've gained is a drive to succeed in life.

Watching my own behaviour, introspectively, is fascinating. I keep expecting to hear a little voice that says "eh, that's too much effort; it makes me tired just to think of doing that." That voice was a persistent companion for most of my life. Now, that voice is just not there.

<comment><USER11> It would be great if we could experiment upon you. Every three months we'd start you on a new regime of pills. You wouldn't know if they were meds or placebo. The people giving them to you wouldn't know either. The people writing the report wouldn't know, until after they'd written the report.

Obviously we can't do this. But I dearly love to know what the results would be.

For what it's worth: I suspect you would tell the difference between placebo and med. I'm not so sure about everyone taking those meds.

<comment><USER10> It _is_ a lovely idea. I would go even further; I wish for a world where everyone is given a "neuropharmapseutical chemistry kit" for their 13th birthdays (along with RISUG for boys, and a few other things) and told to play with their own brains (using a paired mobile app that gives them things like daily dual n-back tests) until they find a happy optimum.

Fill the kit with agonists, reuptake inhibitors, and antagonists for every major neurotransmitter—serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine, GABA, acetylcholine, glutamine, histamine, etc.—in liver-keyed prodrug form. Provided as well would be something like an Epipen, full of a chemical that would preferentially react with (and thus neutralize) any prodrugs left in your bloodstream, in case of emergencies. (Not that your liver will let you process the prodrugs into amines quickly-enough to harm you physically, but there's always the chance of, say, sudden suicidal ideation.)

But ignoring futurism, we've always got gwern: [http://www.gwern.net/Nootropics](http://www.gwern.net/Nootropics)

<comment><USER12> Interesting, but above all else it would require enough testing technology to be able to say you have stabilized back to your regular levels (or stabilized at all) before trying out the next new thing. Otherwise you are simply wildly screwing around with your chemistry and hormones to an extent that you may not be able to accurately measure the effects of any one specific drug on its own, because the effects are fluctuating and your body is constantly trying to adapt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I recently talked to my doctor about possibly having ADHD and when he asked me what brought me to seek help I mentioned that I had read some success stories on the internet. Stories about people who first described my symptoms and then described the incredible success they had achieved with Adderall or Concerta. I was referring in part to comments I had read here on Hacker News in the past.

He suggested that at least some of this could be attributed to advertising by drug companies and the agencies that represent them. That these days, with most people first turning to the internet before a doctor when it comes to health issues, a new guerrilla style of marketing had become increasingly popular. Something to keep in mind.

</comment><comment><USER14> ADHD is overdiagnosed and is often used as a catch all solution for boys being boys. Our school system simply does not approve of kids having energy, being a bit aggressive and playful.

That said, as an author, I have focused on adult ADHD. In adults, it is often overlooked, and is estimated at around 4.4% prevalence ratio (the reasonable figures I've seen range from 4-5%.)

Treatment of ADHD can be lifechanging and allow someone to succeed where they were struggling and suffering before.

<comment><USER15> > Treatment of ADHD can be lifechanging and allow someone to succeed where > they were struggling and suffering before.

This. 1000 times this. At 33, I didn't think I could just now be diagnosed for ADHD. Low and behold, I have ADHD and OCD. Being able to get help for both...

Yeah, life changing is a good way to describe it.

You mention you are an author focused on adult ADHD. If you ever want to talk, I'm more than happy to share. If I can help one other person like me, it would make all the struggle worth while.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> As someone with deep experience in this field once explained to me, "The big drug companies don't sell cures. They sell _diseases_." By which he of course meant they sell the _idea_ of the disease, for which -- if whipped up to be scary and believable enough -- the consumer won't hesitate to reach out to "cure."

<comment><USER17> One of the oldest examples of this phenomenon I can think of is how halitosis wasn't considered nearly as much of a problem before the promotion of Listerine as a cure for it in the 1920s.

<comment><USER10> You can turn your perspective on this the other way as well, though. Do you know how hard it is to sell cryonics, life-extension research, etc? Because, you know, "death isn't that big a deal."

Sometimes, a horrible thing goes unrecognized because we've all just learned to live with how horrible it is, and to stop wasting emotional energy despairing about it. When a cure _does_ then come about... some company has to remind people that the problem is a problem in the first place.

Some "non-problems" are Emperors wearing some very compelling New Clothes.

<comment><USER12> Cryonics and life extension _research_ are not the same as an actual cure that works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Something that was briefly mention but not really explored in the article is the amount of abuse of drugs like adderall among students, specifically students in advanced placement and gifted programs.

Speaking as a high school student taking finals in the coming week, I'd estimate that around 30% (roughly) of my peers are taking adderall at some point in the coming week without any kind of prescription or oversight. It's not like it's difficult for them to get said drugs; as the article states 1 in 7 people are diagnosed with ADHD by the time they're 18.

What that means is that you've got teenagers taking serious prescription medication without knowing what an appropriate dosage is and possible side- effects, _and_ you have students who actually need said medication to stay focused and productive selling it and not taking it.

The sad part is that this isn't addressed at all. Most of these students are great kids placing in the top 10% of their class and thus it's assumed that they're somehow immune to substance abuse. All of the drug education focused at students assumes that teenagers are doing drugs or drinking for recreation and doesn't touch on prescription abuse and better ways of dealing with things like over-scheduling and stress.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think the underlying problem with our society's approach to mental health, is that people are still too judgmental.

Mental health simply creates a category of people who are immune from judgement on certain issues. Not that there is no stigma associated with mental illness, but the categories are "sold" as relieving the person from other people's unfair judgements. Even if other people still judge, at least the diagnosed person knows for themself that the judgement is unfair.

But this is really just a hack. If a person tends not to concentrate easily, we should take that as the base fact in itself. Rather than trying to make a false distinction between a failure of character or willpower, and something outside of people's control, we should be accommodating of people's abilities, and focus on helping people to achieve the best no matter what the source of their learning problems.

Of course there is one issue that is harder to deal with this way, and that is academic assessment. I think the solution to this is for academic assessment to measure as closely as possible the skills that the trained person should be able to implement. Time constraints are a part of any work, so I think providing extra time for people with ADD is unfair, but in general exams shouldn't place an excessive focus on speed or time management.

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't suffer from ADD/ADHD but I grew up during the 90's, when lots of kids in school, around me, were being put on all kinds of prescription medication, but most prevalent were the ADD/ADHD prescriptions.

Of the roughly 20 names I can remember, who I know for a fact were prescribed ADD/ADHD medications, AND who I knew growing up both before the medication and after, there was only one guy that obviously had problems, and he was a jerk in general, and I avoided him as a rule, regardless of whatever medical attention he may have been receiving. I'm convinced that the rest were pretty much plied with drugs in the name of school grades, and there was no medical basis for their "treatment". I'm sure there were many more than the ones I knew.

Years later, now that I am hopelessly dependent on my morning coffee, and can look back on past events equipped with a firm understanding of the nature of stimulants and their affects, from both a therapeutic _and_ recreational perspective, I am all the more convinced that doctors are providing performance enhancing drugs as study aids, where no medical condition exists. Some weak-willed parents are simply swept up in the sales pitch and follow trends like mindless zombies, and other zealously ambitious parents don't even think twice about subjecting their kids to unnecessary medicine if it means success and bragging rights at dinner parties. Still other parents know what the drugs do based on first hand experience, and feel no qualms about providing their kids with something they'd readily consume themselves.

The only thing that gnaws at me, is that in quiet suburban parlance, people will happily refer to prescribing their kids "meds" with jaunty, upbeat names conceived by marketing departments, but never _EVER_ will anybody admit to what's really going on. The first time I found a bottle of generic medication in my friend's bathroom medicine cabinet, the reality of all this dawned on me.

      AMPHETAMINE SALTS, 20MG

After years and years of middle school D.A.R.E. seminars, where local sheriffs brought in the folding display cases packed with examples of marijuana, blotter acid, coke vials and packets of crystal meth; after all the TV and radio public service announcements, after school specials, very special episodes of such-and-such-sitcoms, sunday school sermons, and heart-to-heart conversations with adults I could trust; after all the music videos, and tabloid coverage of celebrity scandals, episodes of Jerry Springer, and everything else, there in my hands I held doctor-prescribed amphetamines that my friend had been taking daily since he was a kid.

It was then that was when I realized everyone around me, young and old, all of them were just a huge band of highly-skilled bullshit artists.

<comment><USER20> > weak-willed

Can you provide a definition for this? I'm fucking sick of people going through this process:

1\. Struggle to understand someone's problem.

2\. Give up.

3\. Blame the victim.

If you see a problem, fix it. But nothing in your comment was at all helpful for the same people you were criticizing. This may come as a shock to you, but people struggle from different problems than you do. Some of them may seem easier to you because you don't experience the same thing.

<comment><USER19> "Weak willed" was referring to the parents, not alleged sufferers of ADD. Did you read the whole post, or did you just scan for words you don't like?

In context, "weak willed" referred to the fact that parents let themselves be convinced that their children had ADD when they should have known that they were being sold drugs that were merely performance enhancers.

Overall your post comes across as an angry rhetorical rant, while the original post had some interesting content.

The "solution" that I imagine the poster would propose is to recognize that Amphetamines offer advantages to almost anyone, and that either we should be honest about their use as performance enhancers, or find ways to distinguish between a genuine need for them, and their use for enhancement.

<comment><USER20> Interestingly, while you are correct in my misunderstanding, I still have the same gripes. I personally take offense when someone attempts to illustrate their point with pejoratives rather than reason.

<comment><USER19> "weak willed" may have negative connotations, but I can't think of a less loaded word that would express the poster's meaning better.

"suggestible" comes to mind, but I don't think this is really the same thing.

And if the poster really believes that the parents are weak willed, I don't think that saying so can be considered as failing to use reason. In fact censoring oneself to use adjectives that carry less negative connotations, is a violation of reason.

<comment><USER20> Simply observing that most parents don't research the medication they give to their children would suffice. I don't see any reason to attribute character weaknesses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The main issue here is that people that don't fit the norm get labeled as sick - either (or both) by themselves and by society, and drugs will make you or your kids 'normal'. Or 'better', as some of those ads are trying to tell you. We live in a meritocracy, and if you're not able to be awesome, you need to be treated.

ADD and ADHD are both horribly overdiagnosed conditions. Kids will be hyperactive and hard to control, either by themselves or depending on what you fed them fifteen minutes earlier (sugar).

I could rant more, but it's late and my brain's fried.

</comment><comment><USER22> This is a throwaway account. This piece is outrageous. It is not about the selling of ADHD, it's about the selling of ADHD medications, which are useful for everyone. There should be a discussion about their use in the general population, for improving concentration, focus, memory, and behavior. This would not actually be a discussion about ADHD.

I hate that these news pieces gloss over the importance of understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of actual ADHD. I think we have an epidemic of ADHDDDD. ADHD Definition Deficit Disorder. If you have the following symptoms:

1\. You think ADHD is not real. 2\. You think everyone has ADHD. 3\. You think ADHD's status as a disorder is up for debate. 4\. You think ADHD is just overdiagnosed, and not also dangerously underdiagnosed.

You may be suffering from ADHDDDD.

The best way to sort all of this confusion and controversy out is to educate people about what ADHD really is, with detailed information about individual cases [1]. Let's focus on the people who are actually suffering, instead of all the people who are both inappropriately buying and selling the disease. Proper knowledge of the former would lead to a self-regulation of the latter. If people actually knew how ADHD really manifests, then we'd stop flinging and/or sullying this useful clinical label.

I have adult ADHD and am in my late twenties. I was an amazing student as a kid. I am a software engineer at Google. I have no problems with the law or with substance abuse. I do have lots of problems though. I was diagnosed recently and started treatment, so I have not been impacted by a lifetime of "selling the disease", but I have always been impacted by a lifetime of the disease itself. My life is _fucking weird_. I just learned how to tie my shoes. I can't eat without making a mess. I talk to myself to keep myself stimulated. I could go on and on. Most people can barely fathom some of these behaviors.

If what you or your loved ones are dealing with is not really fierce and bizarre, then you can dismiss your concerns about ADHD. Regardless, if you have problems that might be addressed with stimulants, welcome to the club.

[1] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/adhd_prog...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/adhd_prog_summary.shtml)

</comment><comment><USER23> I have often thought that if Einstein was a young person in a public school today they would probably put him on ritalin. It also appears there are a lot of dangerous side effects to these drugs that I think may be causing some of the things in the news lately, I tried posting some articles about this issue but it got blocked probably because some of the language getting snagged by HN's key word filters maybe.

<comment><USER24> Einstein had all kinds of struggles in his personal life. Maybe he could have been happier and even more productive. Don't be selfish and cruel to Einstein. He's not your physics monkey. He deserved happiness as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Meanwhile, I still have to get my stimulants illegally.

<comment><USER26> It's really easy to fake ADD at a psychiatrist's office. They're working off a checklist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> There's a major black market at my college (top 10 liberal arts) for Ritalin and Adderall. At least half the students I know have, at some point, taken it as a study tool. It's super frustrating for the kids of have ADHD, because they need it to get on par with other students. Then other students take it to get another leg up.

<comment><USER28> The problem is the idea that academics need to be fair in some way. You could say that it's frustrating for people with dyslexia that other students use spell-check, since dyslexics need it just to be on par.

Everyone should be able to easily obtain such useful medications.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm European, I live in Greece/Italy/Czech Republic. We don't we have ADHD or ADD as a notion in Europe.

I'm having a hard time believing that _it 's an actual problem_. But on the other hand dismissing easily something that people here believe they are affected from, it's wrong.

<comment><USER24> And the Greeks, Italians, and Czechs are so perfect that there is no room for the concept of ADHD in their societies? I had a close European friend whose existing psychiatric treatment could have greatly benefitted from an ADHD awareness. The doubting of ADHD (caused by anti-Americanism) has a negative impact on European society.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Leon Eisenberg words 7 months before his death: _"ADHD is a prime example of a fictitious disease"_ according to Der Spiegel.

[http://www.worldpublicunion.org/2013-03-27-NEWS-inventor- of-...](http://www.worldpublicunion.org/2013-03-27-NEWS-inventor-of-adhd-says- adhd-is-a-fictitious-disease.html)

</comment><comment><USER31> I've been on adderall for awhile, and while it has had a marked positive effect on my ability to focus (which has been life changing), the negative side effects suck. I've looked into DIY biofeedback setups, and look forward to the day cheap off-the-shelf biofeedback setups become available for treating ADHD.

<comment><USER32> Try some l-theanine. It smooths out the jitters and the comedown effect. Take 100-200 mg every time you take Adderall and also before you go to sleep.

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

<comment><USER31> I've tried l-theanine after finding it was the active ingredient in those "neuro bliss" drinks (and having noticed a positive effect, placebo or otherwise, from them). I honestly didn't notice a whole lot of difference taking the extract solo, but I'll give it another shot as I still have a bunch of them. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I tried so many different cures... just couldn't stick to any of them for any length of time.

</comment><comment><USER34> (Using a throw away account because of the stigma)

For those who are curious if ADHD is real? I can tell you, from my personal experience, it is.

I grew up with it all my life. It is hell. Then I randomly decided to try Paleo (cutting out gluten, sugar, grain and caffeine). And my ADHD is gone. I can focus, my mental fog is lifted, my lethargy is gone, I have the ability to enjoy normal activities.

* My personal Proof: In the last 2 years about 15 times I have cheated on my Paleo diet, by eating bread or a decent amount of sugar. About 12 out of 15 of those times my brain chemistry was quickly affected. I had my old impairments and extreme inability to focus.

* I realize the causes for ADHD for me are not necessarily the same as others. It's probably a host of causes that affect the brain in a similar way. However, I am sure there are more people out there who are like me. FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE MY ALLERGY TO GLUTEN: ADHD IS A REAL DISEASE. AND IT IS HELL.

## What it feels like to have ADD/ADHD

Because I can intentionally turn off my ADHD by eating Paleo or turn it back on, like clock work by eating grain or sugar, I can tell you what having ADHD is like in a very exact way.

# Eating Paleo for 3 weeks straight (no ADHD):

I still don't feel like doing work often time. Some time work sounds fun and some time it doesn't. Its the same feeling I saw most my peers in college have towards work.

If I don't feel like doing something I really have to find a reason to make my self do it. (Basically the standard thing non ADD people say).

# With ADHD (eating a piece of bread)

Unexplainable feeling of mental uncomfortableness (EXTREME, HORRIBLE, and PAINFUL boredom) that can only be slightly assuaged with heavy distraction.

Want to know what it feels like?

\- Imagine being on a 10 hour flight that just landed, you can't wait to get up and walk out into the terminal, however, each person in front of you is taking longer and longer to get their stuff. Before you know it you have been sitting in your seat for over an hour waiting to get off. You are sitting in your seat unable to comfort your feelings of boredom and discomfort with the wait. Now multiply that negative feeling by 10. You might start to be rude to people just so that you have something to distract your pain with. You might start making dumb noises so people will stair at you and give you attention. This attention will help distract the unfathomable boredom/pain you are feeling.

(In one of my college classes I would take my rolling chair and go up and down a slight ramp in the class room while the teacher was giving lecture. I knew I was being and idiot. I knew I wanted to pay attention to the teacher and learn. However, the brief and little relief this distraction gave me was incredibly tempting. I would rather do things that made me feel pathetic than feel the pain of ADHD.)

\- Imagine your mental capacity to think and remember words is cut by about 20-50%

\- Imagine your motivation to work towards your dreams is cut by about 20-50%

\- Imagine you can't think of anything in the world that would excite you. Everything seems so un entertaining and boring. And this is not depression. I can be extremely happy and simply just eat a piece of bread and my whole mental mood changes. I feel like I am under a drug that gives me ADHD. It doesn't make me depressed. It just makes everything seem so un satisfying (in regards to entertainment). Growing up I couldn't play video games longer than 20 mins, even for the most critically acclaimed games, I would become mind numbingly bored.

So thats what having ADHD is like, its REAL (well I can only speak for myself).

I'm probably a lot like many people here reading this on HN: I am extremely smart but struggled in school due to my ADHD. I got good grades in physics classes such as special relativity and decent grades in advanced math classes such as calc III. In spite of my ADHD. I wouldn't study or do homework. Well sometimes I would copy homework. And luckily I took enough a way from lecture to get good grades on the tests.

However, I never ended up finishing my degree because as time went on I couldn't keep up the good grades as my programming classes depended more on more doing actual work. I remember getting an B in systems programming in C class because I set the curve on all the tests. I finished many of the programs (starting the night before they were do), however I didn't even turn in the last three programs (I felt so pathetic). But soon the demands in classes start to become greater. They weren't just programs I could do in a 12 hour marathon the night before. I even tried 5 different ADHD drugs over a 1.5 year period, none of them really helped enough to be worth the side affects. I didn't like not feeling like myself and the ups and downs as the drugs take affect and then wear off. Though, god damn it did feel nice to finally not feel the pain of ADHD for a few hours. I

I ended up dropping out, however, luckily a few years later I discovered Paleo. I now wake up at 5am every morning. I am writing a book in the mornings and I am a lead dev at a great company where I easily put in an 8-9 hour a day every day. (When I was in college I interned at Microsoft I couldn't work for more than about 2 hours a day and I wouldn't even stay on the campus for more than 4-6 hours out of the horrible pain of the boredom.) I would arrive at work around 10:30 am, take a 1.5 lunch and then leave by 2pm or 3pm and head back to my company provided apartment. I hated my self and it was horrible. Now, I am proud of my self and love doing 10-11 hour days of work (including the book). And I don't take any drugs, I don't even drink coffee or tea! Zero caffeine.

This person's book [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp7E973zozc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp7E973zozc) and listening to music is my caffeine. If I don't feel like starting some work, I remember that "doing the things I don't feel like doing is the only way I will get the things I want". I then put on my headphones and listen to music that pumps me up. After a few minutes I get into my work and have a hard time remembering to stop for lunch.

# Final Words

So if you think you have ADHD please try Paleo for 30 days, then eat a meal with a bunch of bread and sugar. See if you see an instant stark change in your mental make up. The easiest (so probably the most effective) way to eat Paleo for 30 days is to buy a bunch of meal sized Tupperware, each week go to costco and find some cooked meat (chicken, pulled pork, etc) with no sauces or added wheat. Just meat. Buy some different frozen vegetables (no white potatoes), buy some cooked sweet potatoes or squash, buy some fruit for snacks. Make your 14 lunches and dinners on Sunday. Put them in your fridge and bring your lunch to work. I also make scrambled eggs for 7 days on Sunday and put them in Tupperware. If you have prepped food you are much more likely to succeed against the temptations of cheating. Know: the first 5 days of taking sugar and grain out of your diet are going to be the hardest you will be hit with withdrawals. For some people this feels like getting the flu!

A good primer on the Paleo diet [http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/paleo-diet- craze-pt-1](http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/paleo-diet-craze-pt-1)

More info about Paleo (know this diet has become a fad, not all websites promoting the "pale diet" are actually promoting the real diet. I recommend, at least initially, only using Loren Cordain, PH.D as a source for information. His book "The Paleo Diet" is great. [http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/paleo-diet-craze- pt-1](http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/paleo-diet-craze-pt-1)

<comment><USER19> I would like to see less stigma attached to ADHD, and more attached to advocating unhealthy diets. The consensus by experts is that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for your health.

I would ask anyone trying to cure their ADHD, cancer, etc. to take a look at

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascula...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascular_disease_controversy)

and "Dietary Guidelines for Americans" [http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm](http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm)

<comment><USER34> The latest peer reviewed research completely disagrees with you. This is the diet humans and our ancestors ate for 2.5 million years and up until the past 10,000 years. This is the diet you and I were evolved to eat. The most recent peer reviewed research shows that saturated animal fats are extremely healthy (1)(2) if they come from wild or grass fed animals.

Please read this response by Dr. Cordain (to a similar set of statements). "It is obvious that whoever wrote this piece did not do their homework and has not read the peer review scientific papers which have examined contemporary diets based upon the Paleolithic food groups which shaped the genomes of our ancestors.... five studies (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7); four since 2007, have experimentally tested contemporary versions of ancestral human diets and have found them to be superior to Mediterranean diets, diabetic diets and typical western diets in regards to weight loss, cardiovascular disease risk factors and risk factors for type 2 diabetes.

The first study to experimentally test diets devoid of grains, dairy and processed foods was performed by Dr. Kerin O'Dea at the University of Melbourne and published in the Journal, Diabetes in 1984 (6). In this study Dr. O'Dea gathered together 10 middle aged Australian Aborigines who had been born in the "Outback". They had lived their early days primarily as hunter gatherers until they had no choice but to finally settle into a rural community with access to western goods. Predictably, all ten subjects eventually became overweight and developed type 2 diabetes as they adopted western sedentary lifestyles in the community of Mowwanjum in the northern Kimberley region of Western Australia. However, inherent in their upbringing was the knowledge to live and survive in this seemingly desolate land without any of the trappings of the modern world.

Dr. O'Dea requested these 10 middle aged subjects to revert to their former lives as hunter gatherers for a seven week period. All agreed and traveled back into the isolated land from which they originated. Their daily sustenance came only from native foods that could be foraged, hunted or gathered. Instead of white bread, corn, sugar, powdered milk and canned foods, they began to eat the traditional fresh foods of their ancestral past: kangaroos, birds, crocodiles, turtles, shellfish, yams, figs, yabbies (freshwater crayfish), freshwater bream and bush honey. At the experiment's conclusion, the results were spectacular, but not altogether unexpected given what known about Paleo diets, even then. The average weight loss in the group was 16.5 lbs; blood cholesterol dropped by 12 % and triglycerides were reduced by a whopping 72 %. Insulin and glucose metabolism became normal, and their diabetes effectively disappeared.

The first recent study to experimentally test contemporary Paleo diets was published in 2007 (5). Dr. Lindeberg and associates placed 29 patients with type 2 diabetes and heart disease on either a Paleo diet or a Mediterranean diet based upon whole grains, low-fat dairy products, vegetables, fruits, fish, oils, and margarines. Note that the Paleo diet excludes grains, dairy products and margarines while encouraging greater consumption of meat and fish. After 12 weeks on either diet blood glucose tolerance (a risk factor for heart disease) improved in both groups, but was better in the Paleo dieters. In a 2010 follow-up publication, of this same experiment the Paleo diet was shown to be more satiating on a calorie by calorie basis than the Mediterranean diet because it caused greater changes in leptin, a hormone which regulates appetite and body weight.

In the second modern study (2008) of Paleo Diets, Dr. Osterdahl and co-workers (7) put 14 healthy subjects on a Paleo diet. After only three weeks the subjects lost weight, reduced their waist size and experienced significant reductions in blood pressure, and plasminogen activator inhibitor (a substance in blood which promotes clotting and accelerates artery clogging). Because no control group was employed in this study, some scientists would argue that the beneficial changes might not necessarily be due to the Paleo diet. However, a better controlled more recent experiments showed similar results.

In 2009, Dr. Frasetto and co-workers (1) put nine inactive subjects on a Paleo diet for just 10 days. In this experiment, the Paleo diet was exactly matched in calories with the subjects' usual diet. Anytime people eat diets that are calorically reduced, no matter what foods are involved, they exhibit beneficial health effects. So the beauty of this experiment was that any therapeutic changes in the subjects' health could not be credited to reductions in calories, but rather to changes in the types of food eaten. While on the Paleo diet either eight or all nine participants experienced improvements in blood pressure, arterial function, insulin, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglycerides. What is striking about this experiment is how rapidly so many markers of health improved, and that they occurred in every single patient.

In an even more convincing recent (2009) experiment, Dr. Lindeberg and colleagues (2) compared the effects of a Paleo diet to a diabetes diet generally recommended for patients with type 2 diabetes. The diabetes diet was intended to reduce total fat by increasing whole grain bread and cereals, low fat dairy products, fruits and vegetables while restricting animal foods. In contrast, the Paleo diet was lower in cereals, dairy products, potatoes, beans, and bakery foods but higher in fruits, vegetables, meat, and eggs compared to the diabetes diet. The strength of this experiment was its cross over design in which all 13 diabetes patients first ate one diet for three months and then crossed over and ate the other diet for three months. Compared to the diabetes diet, the Paleo diet resulted in improved weight loss, waist size, blood pressure, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c (a marker for long term blood glucose control). This experiment represents the most powerful example to date of the Paleo diet's effectiveness in treating people with serious health problems."

References

(1) Frassetto LA, Schloetter M, Mietus-Synder M, Morris RC, Jr., Sebastian A: Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter- gatherer type diet. Eur J Clin Nutr 2009.

(2) Jönsson T, Granfeldt Y, Ahrén B, Branell UC, Pålsson G, Hansson A, Söderström M, Lindeberg S. Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2009;8:35

(3) Jonsson T, Granfeldt Y, Erlanson-Albertsson C, Ahren B, Lindeberg S. A Paleolithic diet is more satiating per calorie than a Mediterranean-like diet in individuals with ischemic heart disease. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2010 Nov 30;7(1):85

(4) Jonsson T, Ahren B, Pacini G, Sundler F, Wierup N, Steen S, Sjoberg T, Ugander M, Frostegard J, Goransson Lindeberg S: A Paleolithic diet confers higher insulin sensitivity, lower C-reactive protein and lower blood pressure than a cereal-based diet in domestic pigs. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2006, 3:39.

(5) Lindeberg S, Jonsson T, Granfeldt Y, Borgstrand E, Soffman J, Sjostrom K, Ahren B: A Palaeolithic diet improves glucose tolerance more than a Mediterranean-like diet in individuals with ischaemic heart disease. Diabetologia 2007, 50(9):1795-1807.

(6) O'Dea K: Marked improvement in carbohydrate and lipid metabolism in diabetic Australian aborigines after temporary reversion to traditional lifestyle. Diabetes 1984, 33(6):596-603.

(7) Osterdahl M, Kocturk T, Koochek A, Wandell PE: Effects of a short-term intervention with a paleolithic diet in healthy volunteers. Eur J Clin Nutr 2008, 62(5):682-685.

View full response for all references [https://www.facebook.com/notes/the- paleo-diet/dr-cordains-re...](https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-paleo- diet/dr-cordains-rebuttal-to-us-news-and-world-report- top-20-diets/10150212424887973)

<comment><USER19> There seems to be a methodological issue where you are copy-pasting arguments that support your view, without noting that other sources, including the one's I linked, in turn make arguments against the ones you have copy-pasted.

I think that the consensus of medical experts trumps a minority opinion, and that is my basis for making this decision.

I don't have time to read 1000s of articles or summaries, and even if I did, I don't see how my judgement on the matter would be superior to an expert's. Similarly, you are not actually addressing the sources I quote, and so you are making an appeal to authority, just a weaker form of authority.

See also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet#Intervention_s...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet#Intervention_studies) for a critical discussion of the studies you mentioned.

<comment><USER34> The research backs up the claim that saturated fats are good for you "in regards to weight loss, cardiovascular disease risk factors..." I don't see how there are any conflicts.

Honestly, this is why I am glad I made these statements with a throw away account. Look your are obviously not interested in having your mind changed. You can keep eating the food that has lead to more heart attacks and other food related deaths per person than any other time period. Or you could be willing to learn a little. Learn that the latest peer reviewed research shows grain and sugar are causing the epidemic we are in. Research that shows saturated fats are what our ancestors ate [1] and are extremely healthy (if coming from wild or grass fed sources, thus high in omega 3 fats).

[1] [http://thepaleodiet.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/CRC- Chapt...](http://thepaleodiet.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/CRC- Chapter-2006a1.pdf)

At the very least do you not agree with the author of Brain Grain? [http://www.drperlmutter.com/about/bio/](http://www.drperlmutter.com/about/bio/)

"David Perlmutter, MD, FACN, ABIHM is a Board-Certified Neurologist and Fellow of the American College of Nutrition. He received his M.D. degree from the University of Miami School of Medicine where he was awarded the Leonard G. Rowntree Research Award for best research by a medical student. After completing residency training in Neurology, also at the University of Miami, Dr. Perlmutter entered private practice in Naples, Florida."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> How come that children in, say India have survived without any medication or even diagnostic of A.D.H.D?)

The answer is, probably, in that the environment and conditioning has a much more to do with these dynamics than medication, so in a less stressed and more friendly environment (which Hindu/Buddhist communities traditionally have) such "disorders" are "self-corrected" by some natural behavioral "therapy", and, perhaps, much less frequently developed in the first place.

In contrast, in social shitholes like Russia number of so-called "problem children" is uncounted, and traditionally the traits described in DSM for a full spectrum of so-called "disorders" are considered quite normal. It is very common scene in Russia when a kid cries "hysterically" non-stop, while parents just scream back or and hit them. This is not exactly A.D.H.D case, but an illustration of what environment does.)

hint: before down-voting try to estimate the population of Hindu and Buddhist countries, which accounts, roughly, to a half of the population of the globe, compared to 300MM of Americans.))

<comment><USER5> This does not reflect my experience growing up. Have a google of Taare Zameen Par, a movie about what an autistic child in Indian society goes through. I believe it is on Netflix.

<comment><USER35> I need no movies to know what autism is.)

About movies, is Asperger-like behavior of De Niro's character Travis in Taxi Driver is explicitly described in the screenplay or was a side-effect of a good acting?) And that Jean Reno as Leon, you know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> TLDR

<comment><USER37> I love the irony.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> worst part is that sales of Phil Collins' albums has been increasing!

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timmy_2000](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timmy_2000)

<comment><USER38> to whomever downvoted me-watch the episode. it is relevant</comment></comment>