Google's Marissa Mayer: Girls Can Be Geeks, Too - <AUTHOR> http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/22/google-s-marissa-mayer-girls-can-be-geeks-too.html?from=rss <comment><USER2> It'd be nice for Newsweek and other outlets to cover Mayer and her good work without it repeatedly being yet another spin of the old "Girls can do it, too!" trope.

Yes, they can do it, they've always been able to do it. Stop pretending it's surprising or 'news,' and you'll have fewer people incorrectly feel women are out of place in technology.

<comment><USER3> Till that 15 to 17 percent changes (and it doesn't look like it will any time soon), that won't happen.

<comment><USER4> I'm curious if this is not only an effect, but also a cause. If the news reports that it is unusual for women to be in computing, doesn't that in a small way reinforce that message within popular culture? Newsweek should know better.

<comment><USER3> So basically you want newsweek to lie in order to promote a social cause? Because right now it is unusual, so that is how they should report it.

Isn't that called propaganda, and is the job of the government and ad agencies? (And they've both certainly done it successfully for plenty of causes they've decided were important.)

Journalistic integrity is important - even if it goes against your social cause.

This is a very common complaint about journalists, that by reporting on it, they are causing it. It might be a valid complaint, but any attempt to fix it makes it worse.

<comment><USER5> I think that article was essentially a propaganda piece, albeit unintentionally. My guess is that Newsweek puts out blurbs like that in order to reach out to a targeted demographic, in this case women.

The whole question of media bias really comes down to the bottom line. If a format of words plus carefully chosen images favored traditionally conservative causes (which for the most part they don't) there would be widespread complaints about right wing media bias. AS it is, I think there is very little remanent of journalistic ethics in mass media.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Disclaimer: this post may overstate things :-)

Have you ever seen the show SciGirls on PBS? In the episode "Robots to the Rescue" <http://pbskids.org/scigirls/video2?asset=show110> , some high-school girls "team up with" actual roboticists to help develop a rescue robot. I put "team up with" in quotes because the girls totally outclass the roboticists. Sure, the girls are interested in "science" but they are totally not nerds. And they are planning MIT- or CMU-level behavior into these bots, and I don't mean wishful thinking but carefully planned and organized ideas, to the level that I think with more time they would have written the code themselves. (Spoiler: the hardware can't keep up, and the bots do almost nothing useful.) They collect useful data from the experiment and actually advance the project in the time they are there. Really impressive.

</comment><comment><USER7> Ada Lovelace and Marie Curie started us down a path that brought us to programmable ICBMs. Yeah they can do it, and they can kick ass at it.

Also, my wife is better at math and understanding mathematical concepts than me, so I find myself asking her to help me wrap my head around programming problems, even though she's not a programmer and doesn't know how to code.

<comment><USER8> I don't think anyone believes that there has never existed a woman who was good at math/science. The questions some people have are about averages and gender roles. Offering specific "counterexamples" always strikes me as an odd thing to do in discussions about workplace or classroom diversity.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Does anyone know which books they are referring to in this quote from the Google founders?

"You know, we have seven engineers, and they're all guys. But we've thought a lot about how we want to start our company, and we've read a lot of books, and we know that organizations work better when there is gender balance. So it's important to us that we have a strong group of women, especially technical women, in the company."

<comment><USER9> Here's a report by McKinsey that suggests "a correlation between high numbers of female senior executives and stronger financial performance" [PDF]:

<http://www.positude.com/Images/A_Business_Case_for_Women.pdf>

<comment><USER10> Could this be correlation without causation?

You see a lot of diversity at some of these blue chip companies (Coca-Cola, Pepsi, JNJ, AmEx) but maybe that is because they are so large and well known that they have an imperative to be diverse.

Conversely you might have some unknown/private company that isn't really in the public eye and as a result does not have a mandate to have a ton of female senior executives (maybe Aramco?).

<comment><USER9> Hmm, interesting. Why would larger companies have an imperative to be diverse? Legality?

<comment><USER11> The bigger you are, the clearer it becomes if you have gender biases in your hiring, pay or advancement. Walmart is a current example.

eg. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/business/04lawsuit.html?_r...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/business/04lawsuit.html?_r=1)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So, at the risk of being flamed into oblivion - wouldn't a great way to attract more women into engineering be to stop fawning over them as soon as they show up, treating them like they're a rare and special orchid?

"oh you're a _woman_ engineer, oh how wonderful!"

How creepy. How about we just call them engineers and call it a day?

</comment><comment><USER13> Profit-maximizing firms are gender-blind. The fact that Google wouldn't hire anymore men until they hired a women is a huge problem and does the opposite of helping the "more girl geeks" cause.

<comment><USER14> Right. Let Google's failure to make bucketloads of money be a warning to other firms that might have similarly laughable ideas!

What a waste, that company really looked like it might be profitable one day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Here's my question. Where are the girls in FOSS? Given that 15-17% number, you'd think there would be more. What are the barriers?

<comment><USER16> Here's a couple of presentations which address that question:

* <http://webchick.net/files/women-in-floss.pdf>

* [http://infotrope.net/blog/2009/07/25/standing-out-in-the-cro...](http://infotrope.net/blog/2009/07/25/standing-out-in-the-crowd-my-oscon-keynote/)

<comment><USER17> (somewhat off-topic) Sometimes FLOSS is put forward as _the_ meritocracy in the world of software development, as opposed to big business ruled by bean- counters and arbitrary quotas. Yet when it comes to gender ratio, it's implied and/or assumed women and girls are driven out of FLOSS for some irrational reasons, and the gender ratio in the big business is the natural one. Why such assumption?

A honest question; as I don't know the reasons and reasoning behind all that.

<comment><USER15> It is a meritocracy in that simple projects often only have 1 person working on them. One would think, given that , there'd be more women involved, as there's no discrimination there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Pfft. Anyone who has spent 15 minutes around Bio and Chem girls knows that they can be hardcore geeks. :)

</comment><comment><USER19> > ... in our hiring practices we make sure there's a woman engineer on each > interview, and I think that makes a big difference in terms of how engineers > relate to each other. Because there are a lot of male engineers who can only > really relate to other men.

Really? Does anyone else have a problem with this?

</comment><comment><USER20> OT: She is the cutest geek ever. They should have a movie based on her with Diane Kruger playing the lead.

</comment><comment><USER21> sure they can, but they don't, because i think they are more concerned about what people around them think about them, while boys are more confident and pay less attention to the opinions of others. thats why boys are not afraid of being called a geek and pursuit their ideas and keep working on things they like while girls mostly would give up and do something thats considered cool/awesome/whatever. some women journalists are complaining about low number of women in executive positions in tech startups and blame men for that but the fact is that while those guys who now hold executive positions were considered geeks and not cool and were working on tech related stuff in their dorm rooms while the girls were busy partying and trying to fit in with the crowd. yes girls can be geeks, and they should if they like that. geeks would welcome that :)

</comment><comment><USER22> I am sure there is some great content and all, but did anyone else click on the story just to see if there was going to be audio or video of her awkward laugh?</comment>


Yahoo to Acquire Xoopit for About $20 Million - <AUTHOR> http://kara.allthingsd.com/20090721/yahoo-acquires-xoopit/

<comment><USER2> I'm happy for the founders (not sure about the VCs...couldn't have made much if $6.5M raised) but for the life of me don't understand why it's worth $20M. I was an early user of Xoopit (for Gmail) and uninstalled it after a week. Using search was faster and easier.

Edit: at least for Gmail, Labs can easily add Xoopit's functionality.

<comment><USER3> Never underestimate the huge mass of non-technical people on the internet. I found it refreshing to stop by wifi-enabled cafes and just LOOK at what people where doing online. You will be surprised.

<comment><USER4> This would be the killer app for my mother who uses her GMail account to store photos people send her to her ISP email where the quota is low. But, she uses Internet Explorer, despite my attempts to convert her to Firefox. This is great bait.

<comment><USER3> With productivity apps you're selling to two audiences: 1) the actual end user, and 2) the tech geek who is set to choose an appropriate application for the end user.

From my experience, stuff like AVG anti-virus, Adaware, Spybot S&D and LogMeIn started spreading from the ground up, spearheaded by tech support guys and the token kid in the family who is "good with computers". As more and more elderly and non-technical people move to web applications (and not just websites) you will see a new category of bi-targeted applications that help tech savvy people "help" and "reach" their non-geek family and friends. Case in point, YOU looking for stuff for your mother (note this new stuff is a "web app" :-)

Web app marketing will need to shoot from a double-barrel, and a new style of "Easy enough for your boss/family to use" marketing will have to be born.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bought to motivate people to start developing/integrating with yahoo mail.

<comment><USER6> It would be interesting if Yahoo mail took a labs approach and then opened it up to the development community. Gmail labs has some great features. But I would love to be able to directly interface with an API as opposed to hacking together an extension.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yahoo will take forever to integrate. Mail is an enormous system. I cannot imagine this will go well or quickly.

Goodbye, Xoopit, we hardly knew you.

</comment><comment><USER8> Good to know that Yahoo has 20 million to blow while laying off another 5% of their workforce.

<comment><USER9> You got that from techcrunch? They made it up.</comment></comment>


Clive Thompson on How Group Think Rules What We Like - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/st_clive_thompson/ <comment><USER2> FTA:

> Eventually, some of the previously top-ranked songs began to creep back up, > and previously bottom-ranked ones slid down. And people in the upside-down > world downloaded fewer songs overall.

Funny how the article emphasized our sheepishness while relegating clear counter-evidence to the dregs of the article.

Also: why is the article titled, "Clive Thompson on How Group Think Rules What We Like", if not to trade on Thompson's presumed popularity? (Disclosure: I've never heard of him. Not sure if that should make me less or more susceptible to the groupthink of seeing his name in the headline.)

</comment><comment><USER3> _they ranked the fake-high ones high, even downloading them, while snubbing the fake-low ones. Apparently, flat-out lying works. But only sometimes. Eventually, some of the previously top-ranked songs began to creep back up, and previously bottom-ranked ones slid down._

My takeaway: Societal cues are a heuristic that can help people make decisions more quickly/efficiently. However, these can be overturned (when wrong) by actual evaluations of intrinsic quality.

I actually don't see anything wrong with that system.

</comment><comment><USER4> What's ironic is that HN is just like that. A very meta link.

</comment><comment><USER5> I had trouble parsing that headline - a rousing game of "find the verb."</comment>


Show HN: Prototype Speech Assistant - <AUTHOR> https://tap2speak.tk/ <comment><AUTHOR> Made this little prototype speech assistant for people who've speech difficulties using the web speech synthesis api's. Basically tap to select words and utter</comment>


Ask HN: How long is your daily commute? - <AUTHOR> Please mention the mode of transport as well. <comment><USER4> Morning: 50 min on foot, or 35-50 min by bus. If the cops would just bother to enforce the parking lots^H^H^H I mean bus lanes it could be 25-30 min consistently.

Evening: 30-75 min by bus or half/half walking/bus. When it's long most of the time is spent waiting for a bus with a ridiculously infrequent and poorly thought out schedule, aggravated by bunching. (Poorly thought out as in two buses scheduled within 5 min of one another and then no buses for half an hour, repeatedly. It's mystifying.)

</comment><comment><USER5> It used to be 1hr each way and getting worse [[https://audit.wa.gov.au/reports-and- publications/reports/mai...](https://audit.wa.gov.au/reports-and- publications/reports/main-roads-projects-address-traffic-congestion/demand- road-network-increased-traffic-congestion-predicted-get-worse/)], then moved and am now 7-14 minutes away (depending on trains at a level crossing).

</comment><comment><USER6> None -- I work from a home office. It used to be 2 hours per day.

<comment><USER7> Same here, but I had 1h per day back in the days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm in consultancy so it changes from time to time. Currently it's about 2 hours one way in the AM, 2 to 2 hours and 15 minutes in the PM. That's 4 hours a day. 20 hours a week. I hate it. The company won't let me work from home.

</comment><comment><USER9> Around 6 minutes via car each way.

</comment><comment><USER10> About 35 minutes.

5 min walk to the bus, one bus stop then hopping on the subway for 20 min, luckily I don't have to change so I can just relax for those 20 min. Then a 10 minute walk to the office.

Not too bad at all for living in a nice suburb of Stockholm.

<comment><USER11> Since you are in Stockholm, I'd like to ask: is it feasible to commute by bike in winter?

My impression was that Stockholm is pretty small compared to other capitals, and also well connected with bike lanes. But I visited during summer I don't know about the situation in winter.

<comment><USER10> There are a lot of people who bike all year. Though less than in spring- autumn.

You probably need/want winter tires for your bike and it may be cold but sure, it is possible. The bike lanes are usually cleared quickly when it snows.

For me the biking distance would be 14km or so. A bit further than I personally want to bike but not an uncommon biking route.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Average about 2.5 hours total: 45 minutes x2 for the Caltrain to and from the South Bay, and another 60 minutes of biking to and from the train station. This is at a cost of $190.80/month for the Caltrain monthly pass.

</comment><comment><USER13> 12 minutes via car each way - about 5 miles. Have been considering biking to work and home but there was quite a bit of road construction this year - <USER2> next year (snow will be here soon)

</comment><comment><USER14> With skytrain, around 20 minutes if I go after the morning rush. Looking to get a bike to get it down to some 5 minutes or less, although the traffic is dangerous.

</comment><comment><USER15> By public transportation: 45 minutes each way ± 10 for vehicle delays, since the system I use is inefficient. Good time to read and listen to podcasts, though.

</comment><comment><USER16> From home to bus stop 5 minutes, take bus to office which would take around 1 hour, then 10 minute walk to office.

so in both ways, i would take around 2.5 hours.

</comment><comment><USER17> 45 min. walk to the University in the morning 45 min. walk back home at the end of the day

I used to take the bus and it was 10 min. walk + 15 min. bus.

</comment><comment><USER18> Current: 8-10 minute walk each way (Austin)

Previous: 20 minute subway there, 45 minute subway back (NYC)

Before then: 60 minute drive each way (VA)

</comment><comment><USER19> 2 -> 2.5 hours one way

Bus to train station. The trains and buses rarely match up so there's a good bit of wait time at either end.

<comment><USER20> where is that?

<comment><USER19> Wilmington De to Philadelphia.

For comparison driving is about 30 minutes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> 40 minutes to work and at least 40 minutes back, depends on traffic. I am driving 31 miles by car to work.

</comment><comment><USER22> 50-80 minutes depending on direction of travel and traffic, on a motorcycle (legal lane splitting in California)

</comment><comment><USER23> Most days is just zero as I usually work from home. If I go to the office I cycle for about 15 minutes.

</comment><comment><USER24> Depending on traffic, anywhere from 30 - 50 minutes in the AM and 25 - <USER3> minutes PM (by car).

</comment><comment><USER25> zero commute now. But to share, I used to commute 2.5 hours ONE way daily (Car + Bus combo). Yea, don't ask. I did it for almost 2 years. Job was good, money was good except for that commute. Now I work for myself from where ever I want :)

</comment><comment><USER26> 25 mins in the morning and 35 mins in the evening. I walk back home from office.

</comment><comment><USER27> Morning: 15-20 minutes, by subway. Evening: 20-30 minutes, by subway.

</comment><comment><USER28> 42 minutes Tube each way, hopefully off peak + walking. An hour door to door.

Time to read.

</comment><comment><USER29> 20 minutes by public transport each way + 10 minutes walk each way.

</comment><comment><USER30> 0 minutes, I work remotely from home (or wherever else I want)

</comment><comment><USER31> 20 min in the morning, 30-40 min in the evening. (by car)

</comment><comment><USER32> By Car, 8.5 miles. AM 20-30 minutes PM 30-40 minutes.

</comment><comment><USER33> My last commute was ~40 minutes each way. Edit: Car.

</comment><comment><USER34> 20 minutes door-to-door in Osaka subway.

</comment><comment><USER35> 10 seconds, I live across the street.

</comment><comment> r-s 8 minute bus ride + 2 minute walk.

</comment><comment><USER36> 30 minutes by bicycle each way

</comment><comment><USER37> 45 minutes in a vanpool.

</comment><comment><USER38> 30 minutes by car each way

</comment><comment><USER39> by car between 45 min and 60 min each way.

by train 2 hours each way

<comment><USER40> Which do you prefer?

<comment><USER39> I prefer the train as I can do something productive, but if I have to work late as I usually do, the train schedule does not work off peak hours.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> 20 minute walk</comment>


Pinterest quietly modifying users links to generate affiliate revenue  - <AUTHOR> http://llsocial.com/2012/02/pinterest-modifying-user-submitted-pins/ <comment><USER2> I have absolutely no issues with this:

1\. It's the most scalable way for them to generate revenue without shoving ads down your throat.

2\. Skimlinks doesn't "modify" your links, they simply put it through a redirect to see if it affiliates. The link you've submitted to Pinterest will likely stay as is.

3\. If users submit affiliate links already, then services like Viglink/Skimlinks don't overwrite your cookie (i.e. Reaffiliate it) so those users will continue to see revenue.

<comment><USER3> It's awesome that skimlinks exists...years ago I worked for a company that relied on affiliate revenue and we had someone working full time to maintain relationships. I imagine they lose some of the pickier affiliate programs, but this is an awesome way to test out the revenue model.

It also brings up another interesting point. If this revenue model works for pinterest, it means it could also work for pinterest users. Someone can create a browser plugin that automatically converts user links to affiliate links when they get posted to pinterest, and kicks back the commission to the poster. Probably too hard to distribute the plugin, but still thought it was worth mentioning.

<comment><USER2> Skimlinks does have subids I think, so technically they could "share" the revenue with users if they wanted to. Hypothetically.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _Not disclosing this modification is putting individual stores at a > disadvantage when they and their customers are putting in the work of adding > pins._

I find it hard to sympathize for the trivial "work of adding pins" when it's Pinterest that created the universe in which those pins even exist and the community that gives them value.

> _One specific, problematic issue is that when individual online stores pin > their own content, it is unlikely they would insert an affiliate code. But > if the store has an affiliate program, it is highly likely that those links > now will have an affiliate code in them that gives Pinterest a percentage of > any sales._

It's also hard to sympthasize with online stores having to cough up some money for marketing directly to Pinterest's community.

<comment><USER5> Easy solution for the store, terminate the affiliate relationship.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> They should disclose this, but it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It's a good way to make a little money that costs the users nothing (except for users who've attempted to use their own affiliate links).

<comment> k-mcgrady Why do you think they should disclose it? (I'm actually curious). The only users affected are those using their own affiliate links so it would have no effect on the vast majority of users.

It seems to me that companies are being asked to disclose more and more these days even when it doesn't really affect users and the company has no reason to disclose the information.

<comment><USER7> I think it's smart to have it disclosed somewhere (FAQ) because people that know what affiliate links look like can figure it out themselves anyway by looking at the links.

<comment> k-mcgrady But why does that matter? What does anyone gain from knowing that they are using affiliate links? What does anyone lose from not knowing?

<comment><USER7> I don't think there is an effective way to hide the use of affiliate links, so they may as well disclose it in their FAQ or TOS just to avoid complaints that they're not being genuine towards their users.

<comment><USER8> Sure there is, if you are talking about the links on the pinterest items users hover over and not the eventual destination url of the merchant. Just use an in house link shortner that does a lookup to the original destination url, identify if an affiliate program exists, modify if needed and complete the redirect.

<comment><USER9> Unless you use an iframe, the affiliated URL will be in the user's address bar at the end of the exercise either way. If you do try to trick that away, there'll still be an HTTP request to the URL unless you proxy the entire page. Someone interested or sufficiently bored will be able to see what is going on.

<comment><USER8> "Effective" masking of links is relative. To some members of the HN community saying that it is impossible to mask the links is the only empirically correct statement. But my aunt and her pinned collection of knitting crap isn't going to break out an HTTP sniffer to see what is going on behind the scenes, the masking of overt monetization so users continue to labor under the delusion that they aren't being marketed to could be all that is needed to be "effective".

Camouflage doesn't render a soldier invisible but that doesn't mean it's not effective.

<comment><USER9> It'll only be effective until a well-placed, shrill-toned media story exposes it to everyone. Be upfront about it and you'll be less likely to find yourself on the wrong end of "deception" charges, however trifle and ultimately meaningless the deception is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The article is almost 1000 words, but the title of HN post is more than enough to describe what's going on.

<comment><USER11> He could've just pinned that photo showing the link.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> DuckDuckGo (the search engine) is doing the same. E.g., search for something that returns Amazon search result, and the link to Amazon will have their affiliate tag included.

A positive point, however, is that they are open about this on their website: [http://help.duckduckgo.com/customer/portal/articles/216405-m...](http://help.duckduckgo.com/customer/portal/articles/216405-making- money)

<comment><USER13> It is not really the same as DDG is providing the links itself while pinterest is modifying user submitted links. However, I have no problem with either of them. It would be nice of they said it in their FAQ (or wherever) as DDG did.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Does Stack Overflow also do this, at least with Amazon links? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong because I wouldn't want to spread misinformation. But IIRC Amazon links turn into something like "rads.stackoverflow.com/..." which I always assumed were affiliate. I think it's pretty reasonable, as others have pointed out.

<comment><USER15> Yup, Stack Overflow does do that: [http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/26964/auto- inserting...](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/26964/auto-inserting- stack-overflow-affiliate-into-all-amazon-book-links) and [http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/11/our-amazon- advertising...](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/11/our-amazon-advertising- experiment/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> It seems like almost no one here takes issue with this... Would it be cool if Google inserted affiliate codes in it's search results (those that apply)? Slippery slope perhaps? Is it really that different?

<comment><USER3> Even on Google, that doesn't affect the user at all. I wouldn't mind.

However, it would definitely piss off the affiliate program...who should just boot Google from their program.

Now that I think about it more, that's the real problem with this. The businesses are most likely getting sales anyway, and pinterest can't argue that they're doing anything special to generate the sale. Since pinterest can't censor links to these merchants, they'll probably end up getting booted from their programs.

<comment><USER8> "and pinterest can't argue that they're doing anything special to generate the sale."

You can't be serious. The sales would never have been generated in the first place if pinterest never existed. Your logic would seem to preclude any affiliate program in existence. If I have a blog reviewing my favorite books, and being a book lover I want to make it easy for people to enjoy books I recommend so I go ahead and place links to Amazon. Should Amazon say "well you we're going to link to us regardless, so you aren't eligible."

<comment><USER17> "The sales would never have been generated in the first place if pinterest never existed."

That's true, the sale would never had been generated if Pinterest never existed. But the key point here is that the sale would still have been generated even if Pinterest was dropped from the affiliate program. The user generated link would still exist.

As a blogger you could say well I'm not going to link to any Amazon products now. Pinterest doesn't have that luxury. They could remove any links that they can't monetize but users would revolt since they are the ones adding the content and links.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I remember reading Posterous is using skimlink's competitor Viglink <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1309403>

The real question is WHY would companies let Posterous or Pinterest become affiliates at all? Where are the incremental sales? It makes sense for businesses to encourage USERS to become affiliates and promote their products, but allowing user-gen site to monetize their users' links does not encourage their users to link and promote products more.

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't really see the problem here. At most it should be an update to their TOS and call it a day.

</comment><comment><USER20> It appears that Pinterest is violating the Amazon Affiliates operating agreement.

[https://affiliate- program.amazon.com/gp/associates/agreement...](https://affiliate- program.amazon.com/gp/associates/agreement?ie=UTF8&pf_rd_t=501&ref_=amb_link_84018271_7&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=&pf_rd_s=assoc- right-1&pf_rd_r=&pf_rd_i=assoc_join_menu)

Specifically:

      "Prohibited Paid Search Placement" means an advertisement
      that you purchased through bidding on keywords, search
      terms, or other identifiers (including Proprietary Terms)
      or other participation in keyword auctions. "Proprietary
      Term" means keywords, search terms, or other identifiers
      that include the word "amazon," "endless," "Kindle,"
      "smallparts," "myhabit," or "Javari," or any other
      trademark of Amazon or its affiliates ( see a non-
      exhaustive list of our trademarks), or variations or
      misspellings of any of those words (e.g., "ammazon,"
      "amaozn," "endlss," "enldess," "smalparts," "kindel," and
      "javary"). "Redirecting Link" means a link that sends
      users indirectly to the Amazon Site via an intermediate
      site or webpage and without requiring the user to click on
      a link or take some other affirmative action on that
      intermediate site or webpage. "Search Engine" means Google,
      Yahoo, Bing, or any other search engine, portal, sponsored
      advertising service, or other search or referral service,
      or any site that participates in any of their respective
      networks.

Pinterest falls under both "Redirecting Link" and "Search Engine" parts of this clause.

In addition:

Section 10 requires affiliates sites to state they are an affilliate:

      You must, however, clearly state the following on your
      site: "[Insert your name] is a participant in the Amazon
      Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising
      program designed to provide a means for sites to earn
      advertising fees by advertising and linking to [insert the
      applicable site name (amazon.com, endless.com,
      smallparts.com or myhabit.com)]."

<comment><USER21> You're totally off base on the first part.

1) Prohibited paid search placement: This only applies to bidding on placement on search engines. Pinterest has not bid on terms on their own site, so that section has no relevance even if Pinterest itself could be considered a search engine.

2) Redirecting links: This prohibits placing links that point to an intermediate page that then redirects to Amazon. Pinterest is linking directly to Amazon (with affiliate identifiers in the query string), not to an intermediate page that performs any redirection.

<comment><USER22> Any idea what the "redirecting links" clause means for URL shorteners and other redirect-based services?

<comment><USER23> I think it has to be taken in the context of paid search placement. You can't arbitrage/hide the traffic source(and the keyword for paid search) from amazon through redirection.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Really surprised that no one has a problem with this.

How would we feel if PG turned every Apple, Amazon, or other ecommerce link into an affiliate link, with our name pinned to it? Horrible decision on their part, and I think it's going to bite them in the ass when the average user gets wind of it.

<comment><USER25> The average "Pinterest User" has no idea what an affiliate link is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> 15 days ago, in a PR piece about Pinterest, I wondered just how, if at all, it was different from Tumblr.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3501938>

Well, now I know.

<comment><USER27> It's not enormously different, but A) you're encouraged to break things up by category ("Clothing", "Art", "Household Items"), B) you can follow all of a person's categories or just some of them, C) it's got a strongly consistent aesthetic - Tumblr is far more customizable (think Facebook vs. Myspace), D) grid-based layout rather than vertical blog style (though Tumblr allows this as well)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This reminds me of the debate on Path's address book upload activity. I don't think it was malicious. It could be covered in a TOS update. But I rarely read the TOS for a site. When I do, it's a serious investment of time to understand what they're trying to say.

I think we need to simplify TOS language and standardize on a set of images to represent privacy, affiliation, and payment terms for a service. I would actually read an at-a-glance TOS summary.

What if you could parse a website's TOS and generate the summary? Startup idea :)

<comment><USER29> It's been tried <http://khulaproject.com/>

I don't think it's a particularly viable business, it might be a good feature of a larger business that was focused on helping customers navigate the complexities of modern life; but on it's own, the value in one instance is too small to motivate purchasing.

<comment><USER30> It's not a viable business, the potential for revenue generation is very small without resorting to questionable tactics (see TRUSTe). I was hoping it would function more as a community effort with the human-readable TOS hosted on the relevant site much like Creative Commons. Sadly I think the human-readable TOS is going to have to come from the business itself (or possibly from an established user-rights organization, i.e. CC or EFF).

As for Path's storage of user contacts; while I find the practice sketchy, especially since I just signed up for Path and had no idea this was happening, but not unexpected especially considering facebook's status as a 'role-model' for privacy issues.

Side-note: Khula Project in its current form is deadpooled. I do plan to relaunch sometime in the future with a project more focused on information distribution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is what deal forums have done since time immemorial (1996-ish).

</comment><comment><USER32> Don't see why they should/would disclose this to users. Does not affect the end users experience unless they are in fact adding their own affiliate links. I find the point the author made about bloggers disclosing the use of affiliate links a stretch. I can see his point but pinterest is not a blog, they're a business and want to/should produce revenue.

</comment><comment><USER33> I don't see this as a problem at all. From a user perspective, I would much rather see this than flashy banner ads polluting the experience.

The same thing happens on sites such as RetailMeNot.

Good on Pinterest for monetizing and they should continue being aggressive and explore other opportunities.

</comment><comment><USER34> Skimlinks has officially responded - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3566369>

</comment><comment><USER35> Has facebook experimented with converting links into aff links when possible? How much would that be worth...</comment>


Jennifer Widom Named Dean of Stanford School of Engineering - <AUTHOR> http://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/27/computer-scientist-jennifer-widom-named-dean-stanford-school-engineering/ <comment><USER2> She is a wonderful teacher. When the very first MOOCs were introduced, I took AI taught by Sebastian Thrun, Peter Norvig and Databases taught by Jennifer Widom. I could contrast the teaching style of these experts. Jennifer Widom is approachable, methodical, breaks down complex topics into easily manageable chunks and pushes you hard with attainable goals. The other two geniuses (Norvig and Thrun) will present something that you will have struggle (with frustrations because denial isn't an option with them) to get it. I loved her way of teaching and I am glad she taking on responsible roles.

<comment><USER3> In these sets of MOOCs, there was also Machine Learning taught by Andrew Ng and I had your same Widom like experience with Andrew Ng. After taking so many courses in life - physically and remotely - I can safely say that Andrew Ng is the best teacher I've come across. The best part was how we actually gave insights in Machine Learning rather than leaving it like something esoteric. It changed my perspective and added a lot of value to my professional career.

Recently, I tried to take the Neural Networks from Jeff Hinton and I realized how much I missed Ng's lectures.

<comment><USER4> I took Geoff Hinton's Coursera course about 3 years ago, and it remains my favourite online course I've ever taken. While I do understand that it may have felt a bit theoretical and heavy, I also think that this theory is more important to understand in neural networks than in other areas of ML e.g. for debugging issues. I also loved his wry sense of humour and turn of phrase.

I felt that Andrew Ng left out a lot of the details that I was curious about. For example, I remember he introduces logistic regression and cross-entropy, but he kind of just writes down the equations and says they differentiate nicely, he never explains where they actually come from, or even points the interested viewer where to look for more information (short answer : information theory, also this post [https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/how-to-assign- part...](https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/how-to-assign-partial- credit-on-an-exam-of-true-false-questions/) is a great explanation for cross entropy)

<comment><USER3> > While I do understand that it may have felt a bit theoretical and heavy, I > also think that this theory is more important to understand in neural > networks than in other areas of ML e.g. for debugging issues.

This is the same argument people gave for Machine Learning but Andrew Ng showed us otherwise.

> I felt that Andrew Ng left out a lot of the details that I was curious > about.

This is exactly the beauty of Ng's ML course. The fact that Andrew Ng made you curious makes CS229A (Applications of Machine Learning) a very successful course. Now, if you want to satiate that curiosity I will recommend you CS229 [0]. It contains all the theory and math and YET that course is as beautiful as CS229A. This further proves the point that you do not need theory to be boring to achieve your objectives. If you want to teach something, you will find a way. Au contraire, Jeff Hinton's course makes me not want to even touch or understand Neural Networks again. FYI, I have a Ph.D in Computer Science and I work as a Data Scientist. If this is my view, imagine what it would be like beyond the us elites?

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A89DCFA6ADACE599](https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A89DCFA6ADACE599)

<comment><USER4> > FYI, I have a Ph.D in Computer Science and I work as a Data Scientist. If > this is my view, imagine what it would be like beyond the us elites?

The probability, linear algebra and calculus material required to understand this should be covered in undergraduate courses. Which part exactly did you find so hard?

<comment><USER3> This isn't about the content but the structure and explaining the intuition behind algorithms. There are insights behind every algorithm which needs to be put down explicitly in simple English; not mathematical symbols. A course should be accessible to everyone given the prerequisites. Just because a course is easy for me, does not mean its a good course. The Hinton course is not palatable and you can clearly see that in the discussion forums.

Andrew Ng's CS229 course goes beyond the mathematics and explains the magic behind these algorithms. Unfortunately, I know many people who use the mathematics trope to not share these insights and keep them closely guarded to their chest.

<comment><USER5> I remember taking Ng's course soon after having taken a similar course. While his offered insights were occasionally useful, I found a number of them distracting, especially when they differed substantially from what I had learned in the other course. I found most of his explanations simple but some of them were unsatisfactory, as the suggested motivations did not imply the taught solutions. This was forgivable where I knew of several alternatives, but not when the information was new to me.

His class left me thinking I was able to apply problems to solutions, not the other way around. I will agree that he was a better teacher than Norvig and Thrun, and more engaging (though less holistic) than Widom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I first heard of her when she wrote about taking a year off and traveling with her family [0]. I've taken 6 months off and would love to do it again.

[0] [http://cs.stanford.edu/people/widom/yearoff.html](http://cs.stanford.edu/people/widom/yearoff.html)

<comment> et-al Thanks for sharing that link. On a tangent, I love these old university personal pages. In an age of impermanence, it's endearing to stumble upon web pages still up 20 years after they were made.

I've used the Arroyo Seco River Hike guide from another Stanford alum quite a bit:

[http://theory.stanford.edu/~rvg/arroyo/](http://theory.stanford.edu/~rvg/arroyo/) (mildly NSFW)

And Ed Corbett's tide charts for the Bay Area are priceless (though I noticed he hasn't updated them for this year):

[http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/edc/tides/2016/tides_2016.ht...](http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/edc/tides/2016/tides_2016.html)

<comment><USER7> > I've used the Arroyo Seco River Hike guide from another Stanford alum quite > a bit:

[http://theory.stanford.edu/~rvg/arroyo/](http://theory.stanford.edu/~rvg/arroyo/)

Casual nudity! On a work website. Love it.

edit: update looks like they're part of a community of nudist hikers, the South Bay Naturists. Nothing wrong with that, though bold to post about it on your work website.

<comment> et-al Whoops, thanks for bringing that up. Luckily most folks in the States aren't at work, but let me email the mods.

To continue the conversation, I think that site was more of a personal site just hosted on Stanford--not necessarily a work site.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Her Databases MooC is now offered as a series of self-paced mini-courses:

[https://lagunita.stanford.edu/courses/Home/Databases/Enginee...](https://lagunita.stanford.edu/courses/Home/Databases/Engineering/about)

<comment><USER8> I have taken also other MOOCs (Machine Learning, Probabilistic Graphical Models, Functional Programming Principles in Scala, ...) and Widom's databases MOOC was by far the best planned, best designed and best executed.

There was quite a lot of homework, but it was all well planned and served a purpose, you could do all the SQL, Xpath, JSON, ... query exercises in the browser without needing to install anything, and the system gave good feedback when you did something wrong. That environment was very well implemented.

The course was packed with theory and practice, there was minimal extra chatter in the video lectures, almost every minute of the lectures was used to cover the material, and the lectures provided just the right amount of theory for doing the exercises, and the exercises covered almost everything from the lectures. Good video lectures are more dense, and proceed faster than live lectures, because when you miss something, you can always rewind and watch the last minutes again.

<comment><USER9> Good summary - mirrors my experience. I wrote down my impressions after I took it: [https://henrikwarne.com/2011/12/18/introduction-to- databases...](https://henrikwarne.com/2011/12/18/introduction-to-databases-on- line-learning-done-well/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Congrats! I acquired more practical knowledge in her CS145: Intro to Databases than any other single class.

<comment><USER11> Also got a lot from it, she's a very good teacher and will make a great dean.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Very impressive credentials and a well-deserved appointment. Being appointed Dean of the School of Engineering at one of the world's most prestigious universities has to be close to the top of career achievements for an academic.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, there really is almost nowhere further to go in an academic engineering career. She will probably retire there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I took a course on databases through Stanford Online or something like that years ago, she was great. Glad she's moving up in the world.

</comment><comment><USER15> I can honestly say that taking Widom's Intro DB class in the late 90s set my entire career trajectory. It may have been the most influential class I took at Stanford. I am very grateful for her teachings and guidance.

</comment><comment><USER16> How much influence do deans have at Stanford? I think she's a great teacher, but from my experience, your teaching ability is irrelevant when it comes to your responsibilities as Dean.

<comment><USER17> Please tell us more about your experience in being a Dean

<comment><USER16> I have no experience being a dean. I do have experience being managed by one. I personally didn't see any correlation in their effectiveness and their popularity as a teacher. If you have any evidence stating there's a correlation I'd love to read it.

<comment><USER18> I'm sure there's some correlation between teaching ability and money raising, one of the more important aspects of being dean. They both stem from being a good people person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> who cares? we seem to obsess over the elites when America is built off people going to state schools.

</comment><comment><USER20> And the thermo guys are out. Might be a good time to recognize your University runs an isolated HCI group in it's CS department and about 4 different "Design" groups within the School of Engineering that are _NOT_ connected to HCI in anyway...

Meanwhile the only course I know of at Stanford that teaches Arduino is at CCRMA.stanford.edu

<comment><USER10> > Meanwhile the only course I know of at Stanford that teaches Arduino is at > CCRMA.stanford.edu

I don't understand why this is an issue. Why would you want that when Stanford and almost every other school offers Intro to Electrical Engineering? It will contain everything you need to know to hack away at Arduino and a lot more.It's EE40 as I recall and after the first two weeks of that class you should be able to play around with Arduino. Why would you want to waste thousands of dollars in tuition for knowledge you can pick up in a weekend at your local hobbyist Meetup for $20 or less

Do you also bemoan the fact that Stanford doesn't offer a class in how to use Google or an Intro to Typing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Preface: I hold a BSE Product Design 2009, Stanford. I conducted research at the CDR. I took courses at the d.school and CCRMA. I attended weekly HCI research meetings for 3 weeks and saw Ed Catmull present to the HCI group once.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DESIGN ISSUE.

Please understand that Stanford's School of Engineering pretty much owns and grossly mis-manages the teaching and cooperation amongst different groups with an interest in DESIGN that there are 6 programs in design that aren't interrelated, HCI belongs to Computer Science, Design Impact is it's own program, the d.school doesn't grant degrees, I'm not sure what the "Design Group" in Mechanical Engineering is, but it is related to the only PhD design Program at Stanford, the CDR, and product design have no formal linkages. It would not be common for a Product Design student to ever know or encounter a CS HCI student, except by coincidence or other interest.

This represents an important change in leadership in the school of engineering. Previously it was my understanding the SoE was being run by the thermo guys who are totally clueless to the importance of Design. Stanford Engineering owns Stanford Design and is an extremely fragmented program which completely ISOLATES the Computer Science Department (a part of the School of Engineering) has ZERO ties to 5 other DESIGN programs at STANFORD within the SoE.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

Lastly the only course that teaches anything to do with arduino is at CCRMA.[6]

[1] Center for Design Research cdr.stanford.edu

[1] HCI hci.stanford.edu/

[2] Design Impact – A Master of Science in Engineering Program at Stanford designimpact.stanford.edu/

[3] Hasso Plattner Graduate School of Design aka d.school [https://dschool.stanford.edu/](https://dschool.stanford.edu/)

[4] ME Design Group [https://me.stanford.edu/groups/about-design- group](https://me.stanford.edu/groups/about-design-group)

[5] Product Design [https://majors.stanford.edu/product- design](https://majors.stanford.edu/product-design)

[6] CCRMA.stanford.edu (pronounced "kharma")

<comment><USER21> First, I'm not clear how your comment is relevant to the post.

Second, I think the "design" situation at Stanford would make a bit more sense to you if you took some time to better understand the academic field of HCI, of which design is just a small sub-area. Browsing the list of papers at last year's CHI is a good place to start [1].

Third, several HCI students are co-advised by design faculty in mechanical engineering and HCI faculty. Several HCI students also both take classes and physically work out of the d.school. CCRMA members routinely attend HCI lunches.

Fourth, product design is no more relevant to the academic research that takes place in HCI than it is for the many other sub-fields of computer science for which building systems is a major aspect.

[1] [https://chi2016.acm.org/program/?tab=chi2016-schedule](https://chi2016.acm.org/program/?tab=chi2016-schedule)

<comment><USER20> This is relevant because design is being controlled by the school of engineering and they are not managing it well. There are too many non-related groups. Yes some extraordinary students work between these silos, but it would be far better for the School of Engineering to restructure it's design groups or to let Design become a school outside of the School of Engineering.

There are no formal connections between the groups. Yes, I am an example of a student who attended CCRMA, Winograd's HCI group, CDR, d.school. I graduated with 185 credits, 15 of which were basically useless nothingness because I couldn't actually enroll in the courses I was taking and professors had to admit me to their special research courses like ME 293Q.

It is a disaster in terms of organizational structure and it's all due to SoE Politics.

It's relevant because now the Dean seems to be someone who has an idea about the modern world and isn't focused on hard sciences like thermodynamics or materials science.

Also why are you referencing academic papers? PhD programs are for producing professors, that's not the topic of discussion. We're talking about education.

Last I prove conclusively that Product Design is indeed relevant and thus refute your wide, incorrect, sweeping assertion. Again I personally know a Stanford product design student who conducted academic research in HCI.[1] Please do not make such sweeping assertions when you're not actually informed. I know its appealing and sounds nice, but its totally inaccurate. Even you yourself speak of students working between the Silos. To ascribe hate onto Product Design seems like misplaced anger.

[1] see [http://designimpact.stanford.edu/about/faculty/](http://designimpact.stanford.edu/about/faculty/) "Sean Follmer"

<comment><USER21> Thank you for clarifying why this is relevant.

To be clear, I am not claiming that Product Design has no place in HCI. I'm claiming that its just as relevant to many other areas of computer science as it is to HCI.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Are Rotisserie Chickens a Bargain? - <AUTHOR> https://priceonomics.com/are-rotisserie-chickens-a-bargain/ <comment><USER3> The value is more than the price cooked versus DIY. To me it's a bargain because I'll eat something way worse for me if I'm in a rush and there's nothing available. We don't want to stop at McDonalds because I'm running late from work, my wife and daughter had an activity until 6, and we already ate everything in the fridge. Boom, chicken.

EDIT: I don't want to entirely rag on McD's. I lost a bunch of weight when I was in consulting and ate every meal on the run. Of the fast food chains, they have some of the most reasonable items with easy math on the calories. Pro tip: Egg McMuffins and regular cheeseburgers are 300 calories each. I'm not saying it was healthy, but I did control my calories and lose weight. I am likely partially embalmed from the trans fat and sodium though. Hopefully we can agree a supermarket rotisserie chicken is a superior option :)

<comment><USER4> rotisserie chickens are pumped full of sodium.

<comment><USER5> There is no longer an official upper limit on cholesterol intake, and (for most people) sodium intake being harmful has also been debunked. Saturated fats also have been shown to have no link to heart disease.

[http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/02/2...](http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/02/25/new- dietary-guidelines-fat-cholesterol.aspx)

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end- th...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-the-war-on- salt/)

[http://www.eufic.org/page/en/show/latest-science- news/fftid/...](http://www.eufic.org/page/en/show/latest-science- news/fftid/Study-no-association-dietary-saturated-fats-cardiovascular-disease- risk/)

<comment><USER6> I thought the big risk with salt was strokes, not heart attacks:

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782060/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782060/)

"Results There were 19 independent cohort samples from 13 studies, with 177 025 participants (follow-up 3.5-19 years) and over 11 000 vascular events. Higher salt intake was associated with greater risk of stroke (pooled relative risk 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.43; P=0.007) and cardiovascular disease (1.14, 0.99 to 1.32; P=0.07), with no significant evidence of publication bias. ... The associations observed were greater the larger the difference in sodium intake and the longer the follow-up."

<comment><USER7> Same phenomenon. AFAIU, recent research suggest that the variance seen in such studies is caused by subgroups with impaired kidneys or other issues that interfere with blood salt homeostasis.

It's not controversial that sustained salt concentration is bad for cardiovascular healthy, or that higher salt intake correlates with worse cardiovascular health in large populations. The issue is whether healthy _individuals_ should care about salt.

Or to put it another way, salt isn't like sugar. A high sugar diet leads to insulin resistance, which leads to higher blood sugar concentrations, which leads to higher rates of related ailments.

It was once thought that a high salt diet directly led to hypertension, etc, etc. But that doesn't appear to be the case. Healthy people seem to have no problems clearing an excess salt (in amounts significantly greater than thought) from the body, even if sustained over their entire lifetime. And, somewhat contentiously, some research suggests that the recommended salt intake might be detrimental for some people, with the negative effect being masked by the subgroup who benefit from lower salt.

That's my understanding of things, anyhow.

It's probably a little like acidosis--a rare condition that gave rise to fringe concepts like the "alkaline diet". Consuming acidic foods is never going to cause problems for healthy individuals. The mechanisms for maintaining blood pH (calcium, rate of respiration, etc) are just too robust to even be minimally taxed by acidic foods (excluding extreme scenarios). If acidic foods cause or contribute to bad blood pH, you already have other serious problems.

The difference is that a substantial fraction of the population does have trouble excreting excess salt, and this readily shows up in epidemiological studies of dietary salt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Something kind of similar goes on in the produce aisle with bags of apples vs individual apples.

Bags of apples have a very high percent mass loss when peeled and rotted parts cut off and served into apple pies or apple sauce or canned into brandied apples and are very small making a huge amount of labor to peel like ten mini apples per pound.

Individual apples are large and about can select externally flawless apples, and the surface area to volume scaling means for a given amount of finished product your compost pile will have maybe half the compost. Also the labor demand is immensely lower, it takes just as long to peel a baby apple from a bag that smaller than a baseball as it goes to peel a freakishly large individual apple thats bigger than a softball.

Solely on price per pound, bags of apples are mystifyingly cheaper than individual apples per pound, but in terms of final product and factoring in the labor annoyance of prep time, individual apples are often a much better deal.

I suppose much as there are people shocked that I find applesauce making and brandied apple canning fun and recreational and stress reducing, there probably exist people who are shocked that everyone doesn't find apple peeling and coring to be meditative and chill. For people who enjoy spending hours peeling tiny little apples, a 5 pound bag of little apples must be pure joy to them.

<comment><USER9> That reminds me of the pistachios WITH shells Vs. pistachios without shells. A bag without the shells is way more expensive per pound, but from what I've read it ends up being a bit cheaper per nut because those shells weigh something. Plus those things are just hard to get out of the darn shells sometimes.

<comment><USER10> I would say that you should pay a bit extra so you don't have the emotional cost of having that one pistachio you couldn't possibly open.

<comment><USER11> I've opened that pistachio with force. You're better off leaving it closed!

(It seems from my exhaustive studies that pistachios that "won't open" aren't worth opening.)

<comment><USER12> Agreed. To me the pistachio that can't be opened is equivalent to the clam that doesn't open in the pot. Now you won't get sick from the pistachio, but the quality is never the same.

<comment><USER13> That's an old wives' tale. The clams, mussels, etc that are most resistant to opening are the ones that were in the best health, and thus the _safest_ ones to eat.

<comment><USER12> Source?

<comment><USER13> Just google [unopened clams safe]. It's all over the Internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> From the article: _Customers can thank Boston Market—which opened its first store in 1985 in Newton, Mass., under the name Boston Chicken—for the modern rotisserie chicken industry._

This was a surprise to me. In Italy "Rotisserie chicken" have been a common urban offering since at least the '60s, probably even before. No idea about other parts of Europe or the rest of the world, but I distinctly remember small stores displaying roasted chickens since my childhood.

The only recent innovation is that you can now find these in larger supermarkets and that most of the stores are now managed as some franchise.

<comment><USER3> I can confirm, Italian, but I grew up in the US. When I was a kid, we roasted a lot of chickens because la rosticceria wasn't a thing in the neighborhood - in South Philadelphia or then out in the NJ suburbs. When Boston Market opened up, we ate a LOT of that.

It was odd to my folks because it's the most basic of prep, and you could pretty much get a roasted chicken (or many other meats prepped the same way) on the go anywhere in Italy. It's fast food that isn't total shit.

<comment><USER15> Yep, I remember when Boston Market came along in the 90s, it really spread like wildfire, seemingly overnight. They were quite popular, and no one else was doing rotisserie chicken at a mass scale like that before them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> They're an even bigger bargain at the end of the night. When I worked 2nd shift I would stop at Kroger on the way home at 10:30pm, grab a baguette from the bakery for 50 cents and a rotisserie chicken for $2.99, both half-price because I assume they throw them out at closing time. Cheap dinner and lunch for the next day.

<comment><USER3> My local supermarket (Hannaford) starts discounting after the lunch and dinner rushes by a dollar or two to move the chickens that have been out for more than a couple of hours. Whatever's left gets chilled and sold in the cold case at an additional discount later on that night and the next day. Honestly I think they're a bargain at full price because they're not terrible for you and they're fast - we don't always have time to cook, and given the alternatives, it just makes sense to grab a chicken. As a practical matter, we also get another one on the weekends when we grocery shop, pick it as soon as it comes home and just keep it in a container for a few days to snack on. Even with the added "solution" its way healthier than what we'd otherwise get into.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I greatly prefer rotisserie chickens from grocery stores to baking my own, just for the convenience. The fact that it's typically cheaper than buying and baking your own is a huge factor as well.

I really want to recommend trying baked cornish hens at home to anyone who hasn't eaten them. I buy a 6-pack at Costco for about $18. A single one by itself is an entire meal for me. If I'm really, really hungry, I'll eat it with a side like pita bread or rice. Fat, water, and seasoning pool under it to make really tasty drippings that you can use for either.

They're super easy to prepare and bake. I just spray it with cooking oil, salt and pepper it, and stick it in the oven at 400F for an hour. The great thing about it is that it's really difficult to overcook it due to the fat from the skin, and the small amount of meat compared to a whole chicken, so you can play around with higher temperatures and times without having to worry about ruining it.

They taste sooo good, especially the crisp skin. It's one of my favorite things to eat.

<comment><USER18> > _The fact that it 's typically cheaper than buying and baking your own is a > huge factor as well._

As stated in the article it's only cheaper if your unit of measurement is a whole chicken regardless of size. Per pound they are typically 2x more expensive (or even more).

Cornish hens are my jam, they're great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The chart shows you can save $1-$2 per chicken that feeds about 3 people? I think it'd be difficult to find 3 people unwilling to chip in 50 cents to turn a raw chicken into a cooked one. And pricing seasoning ingredients by just the percentage they used is disengenious. I've never gotten to the bottom of any of herb bottle before it went stale.

The rotisserie industry is a bargain for consumer and seller. It's easy and automated for stores to produce at scale and a real time saver for the customer. Not to mention I can take it prepackaged to a picnic.

<comment><USER7>
      I've never gotten to the bottom of any of herb bottle before it went stale.

Me too until I discovered Litehouse Freeze Dried Herbs. Normally the bottles are $4.99 at my local Californian supermarket, but sometimes they're on sale for $3.99, and the other day they were on sale for $2.50 (I stocked up). I especially like their freeze dried, diced garlic, which is a darn good substitute for freshly chopped garlic.

The freeze dried stuff doesn't last forever, either. But the Litehouse bottles are good size. Even the end of a bottle is more fragrant and tasty than brand- new dried herbs. And it's super convenient picking more up at the grocery store.

At $4.99 it's competitive with bulk freeze dried herbs, which made me wonder if that was a sustainable price. Seeing it for sale at $2.50 I'm even more convinced that it's not profitable and they're having trouble getting traction in the market. I'll be sad if it goes away. I've always avoided herbs in my cooking because fresh herbs are inconvenient; most dried herbs suck; and if they don't suck they don't last long anyhow. This affordable freeze dried stuff is amazing, but probably too good a thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I like to maximize the value of my rotisserie chicken dinner by cooking all the leftover scraps and bones in a pressure cooker. After an hour, you got yourself a stew!

Use ice cube trays to make broth cubes and store in the freezer for future meals.

<comment><USER21> Whenever getting a chicken it's worth using the bones to make stock afterwards. We regularly roast a chicken, and then after the dinner we'll strip the remaining meat off and boil up the bones. Then we can make a chicken risotto the next day with some lovely rich stock and leftover chicken bits.

Making stock is something I wish I'd started doing a long time ago.

<comment><USER22> that stock is also good for cooking noodles, especially asian styles like ramen or udon but also for western chicken noodle soup or matzo ball soup.

nearly every culture has an awesome chicken noodle dish.

<comment><USER21> Oh yes. A lovely silky finish to noodles, and always good in soup.

Adding a dollop of really thick, jelly-like stock helps a huge number of dishes. And it's made from something you'd otherwise typically just throw away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I get 5-6 meals out of a $14 organic rotisserie chicken for my wife and I.

2 from the wings and breast. Then we slowcook the carcass into bone broth which becomes the basis of an awesome soup. I've got thai curry chicken soup on the stove right now.

</comment><comment><USER24> Cooking a whole chicken is a major pain. If not for rotisserie chickens, I would only buy chicken in the form of pre-butchered packages of breasts, thighs, or legs (and the occasional bag of frozen buffalo wings).

The pre-butchered meat is usually a way better deal. Boneless chicken breasts, which are the most expensive option, are often as cheap as $3.50/lb - <USER2> the same as a roto chicken. And it's pure meat, extremely healthy, and only takes 20-30 minutes to cook.

(But when you have a 2- and 4-year-old, sometimes those 20-30 minutes make all the difference. So I eat roto chicken about once a week.)

<comment><USER25> > And it's pure meat, extremely healthy, and only takes 20-30 minutes to cook.

It is unfortunately also the part of the chicken that is least flavorful.

<comment><USER26> Larger packages of boneless skinless thighs are about the same price. They cook faster.

I guess they tend to have a bit more fat on them than the breasts. And more fat in them. But not to an absurd level.

<comment><USER27> Thanks to that extra fat, thighs have the added benefit of not drying out if you dare cook them past 165. A lot of breasts these days are also enormous and require extra prep work to make them reasonable to cook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Costco rotisserie chicken is probably the best existing deal out there right now. $4.99 for 2-3 days worth of food.

I infrequently make my own rotisserie chicken and it costs me at least $12, including chicken, spices, etc.

</comment><comment><USER29> BUT what about the psychological value of _feeling_ like you're getting a deal, even if you aren't actually getting one?

E.g. People from this research actually experience more pleasure when they believe a wine is expensive: [http://time.com/money/3846874/expensive-price- tag-cheap-wine...](http://time.com/money/3846874/expensive-price-tag-cheap- wine-brain-placebo-effect/)

> "Expectations truly influence neurobiological responses," write the authors.

</comment><comment><USER30> > Without including the cost of our time, it came to a total of 52 cents.

I think that's the major point for anyone: time.

For the sake of a few dollars my time is more valuable or at least better spent doing something else.

I think that is also a reason for many thing such as my region where people hire a guys with a snowblowers to clean out their driveways. Pay $200 for four months and you don't break your back it's worth it.

</comment><comment><USER31> At the supermarket Wegmans where I live, an entire fresh rotisserie chicken is $5. It's a total steal if you're a starving college kid, as you can easily make a couple meals out of it. These used to be HUGE chickens, however they've noticeably got smaller, but still easily two meals.

</comment><comment><USER32> Store-roasted chickens drive me crazy because every chicken in the case is 4 pounds or more and all the roasted chickens started out smaller. I'd like to buy a 3 to 3.5 pound bird small enough to roast in a pan but they use them all and don't sell them.

<comment><USER33> There's a breed called Cornish Hen or poussin, usually 2.5 to 3 pounds. You might have to search at a fancier store, or like I do at a Mexican butcher, but they are easy to cook and delicious.

<comment><USER32> Cornish Hen bothers me because it's just marketing. It's just a young chicken! It doesn't even have to be a hen! So as a person who appreciates basic honesty I avoid them. Also we are fortunate to spend the autumn and winter in an area with actual game birds that are easily taken, and delicious.

<comment><USER34> Ummm...did you ever look it up?

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

"a young immature chicken (less than five weeks of age), weighing not more than two pounds ready-to-cook weight, _which was prepared from a Cornish chicken or the progeny of a Cornish chicken crossed with another breed of chicken_ "

<comment><USER34> OK, I/wikipedia is wrong! The definition has been updated

[http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/fsis- content/fsis-q...](http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/fsis-content/fsis- questionable-content/oppde/rdad/frpubs/99-017p/default/ct_99-017p)

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/9/381.170](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/9/381.170)

 _Current class definitions state that a bird labeled as a Rock Cornish-type chicken must be ``the progeny of a cross between a purebred Cornish and a purebred Rock chicken '' (9 CFR 381.170(a)(1)(ii)), or ``a Cornish chicken or the progeny of a Cornish chicken crossed with another breed of chicken'' (9 CFR 381.170(a)(1)(i)). While this statement was appropriate when these chickens were originally developed over 40 years ago, today it is doubtful that any purebred Cornish or Rock lines exist in commercial chicken production. The names ``Rock Cornish game hen'' and ``Cornish game hen'' are now used to identify a very young, very small, whole chicken that is marketed as an individual serving. Although the names refer to hens, either sex can be used since birds of this class are sexually immature. The names ``Rock Cornish fryer,'' ``Rock Cornish roaster,'' and ``Rock Cornish hen'' are no longer meaningful because these birds cannot be reliably distinguished on the basis of progeny from other existing classes. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to define the Rock Cornish game hen or Cornish game hen class only in terms of age and weight and to delete the class of Rock Cornish fryer, roaster, and hen._

Also of interest

[http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/2007-0048F.htm](http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/2007-0048F.htm)

 _Cornish Game Hens Comment: One comment from a trade association stated that the term ``hen '' as used in the ``Rock Cornish game hen'' or ``Cornish game hen'' class may be misleading because the term hen implies that these birds are female while the definition states that the birds may be of either sex. The comment suggested that FSIS change the name of this poultry class to ``Rock Cornish game bird'' or ``Cornish game bird.'' Another comment from a poultry producer said that the proposed ``Cornish hen'' definition is inaccurate because it allows industry to call a bird that is not necessarily Cornish, and not necessarily a hen, a ``Cornish hen.'' The comment suggested that FSIS add a definition for ``poussin'' to describe the next youngest bird than the ``Cornish hen'' if the Agency decides to keep the term Cornish hen. The comment suggested that USDA review the literature produced by the North American Meat Processors Association (NAMP) as it applies to usage of the term ``poussin.'' According to the commenter, because USDA is attempting to have its regulations reflect usage in the poultry industry, it must consider not just the production level, but also the market. Response: FSIS disagrees that the terms ``Rock Cornish game hen'' or ``Cornish game hen'' are misleading to consumers and that the Agency should change the name of the class to ``Rock Cornish game bird'' or ``Cornish game bird.'' The existing terms for this poultry class, which provides for the use of the term ``hen'' for young immature chickens of either sex, has been in place since FSIS established this poultry class definition. The term ``hen'' can be used for immature chickens of either sex because birds of this class are sexually immature. FSIS is not aware of any data to support that consumers are misled with the reference to ``hen'' in these terms. Changing the name of the class is likely to spur confusion. FSIS also disagrees that the proposed ``Cornish hen'' definition is inaccurate because it allows industry to call a bird that is not necessarily Cornish, and not necessarily a hen, a ``Cornish hen.'' The existing standards in FSIS' regulations do specify that a Cornish chicken be the progeny of a Cornish chicken crossed with another breed of chicken. However, FSIS continues to believe that it is doubtful that any purebred Cornish lines currently exist in commercial chicken production today and, therefore, the birds cannot be reliably distinguished on the basis of progeny. FSIS also disagrees that it should add a new poultry class that would define poussin. The poultry classes in 9 CFR 381.170 represent poultry that are typically marketed to consumers and are more broadly used than the standards for poussin in NAMP's Poultry Buyers Guide._

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Relative to whole raw chickens? Sure, rotisserie chickens may not be cheaper but that doesn't mean their value isn't a bargain.

</comment><comment><USER36> They're a bargain at Costco, assuming you need to buy other stuff there, otherwise the value of time to park and walk to the back of the store might dominate.

</comment><comment><USER37> They're a bargain unless your free time has no value.

<comment><USER38> Some people like cooking and don't see free time as fungible for work/freelance/learning

<comment><USER37> Sure, I like cooking too. However, I have a family, a full time job, my wife has a full time job, and we can't always allocate the time to roast a chicken.

<comment><USER39> > However, I have a family, a full time job, my wife has a full time job, and > we can't always allocate the time to roast a chicken.

I'm in the same boat you are, but reading it put like that ('we can't always allocate the time to roast a chicken') kinda puts it in perspective. That's _terrible_ , for you and for me alike. 'Doesn't have time to cook a bird' sounds awful, and is.

<comment><USER37> Specifically, I mean: after I come home from work/picking up kids, there isn't really time to cook a chicken. Normally, I plan for this on the weekends by using my free time to cook items that can be reheated. For example, precook rice, some casserole. Veggies can be prepped from raw in ~5 minutes using a microwave. However, by the end of the week, people are tired of leftovers, so the convenience of being able to get a precooked chicken provides real value.

Note that rotisserie chicken isn't just a cooked chicken. It's been brined for many hours (it takes time to prep the brine, then dry the chicken after brining), which makes the meat moist, it's been roasted evenly on all sides (hard to do without a rotating axle), and placed into a convenient container.

It seems totally reasonable to swap the time to make an item that is pretty hard to reproduce at home (I don't want to manage a rotisserie or do brining on a regular basis).

<comment><USER40> > It's been brined for many hours (it takes time to prep the brine, then dry > the chicken after brining), which makes the meat moist

For what it's worth, there are a number of simple recipes for roasting chicken that don't require brining or any long marinating period but still come out nice and moist.

Even a basic roast will be fine as long as you don't overcook it.

<comment><USER37> Ah, but it's not that simple. A chicken is not a spherical piece of uniform meat. Getting the temp right and pulling the chicken at the right time (so that the legs are fully cooked while the breast is not) isn't really easy. Techniques like spatchcocking make this easier, but it all trades off time and convnience.

Ultimately, however, brining has outright phenomenal effects on meat tenderness and moisture that simple cannot be replicated by timing and temperature changes. It creates complex chemical changes in the muscle that lead to a far simpler cooking process, and the meat also stays moister longer than cooking. This is covered in detail in cooking chemistry books.

See, for example: [http://modernistcuisine.com/recipes/injection- brining/](http://modernistcuisine.com/recipes/injection-brining/)

"Yet the perfect roast chicken is nearly impossible to achieve in practice. The temperature required to brown and crisp the skin is so high that it leaves the meat underneath scorched and dry. The dark thigh and leg meat similarly need higher heat than is ideal for the white breast meat. Brining the chicken in salt water can help the delicate breast meat retain more juice at higher temperatures, but the brine has the same effect on the skin, which then ends up unpleasantly chewy."

This is basically scientific fact: you cannot achieve what you want without brining without putting in effort and time.

<comment><USER40> > Getting the temp right and pulling the chicken at the right time (so that > the legs are fully cooked while the breast is not) isn't really easy.

It's not trivial, but I think it's pretty easy after you've done it a couple of times.

> Techniques like spatchcocking make this easier, but it all trades off time > and convenience.

Right. I do something similar, though I cut the legs all the way off. It takes a couple of minutes, but it's pretty simple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Wow HN, you are eating way too much rotisserie chicken!</comment>


Harvesting friction energy in self-sustaining water motion sensors - <AUTHOR> http://www.tribonet.org/harvesting-friction-energy-in-self-sustaining-water-motion-sensors/ <comment><USER2> Why triboelectricity is better than piezoelectricity? Why did not they use piezo instead? Does anybody know?

<comment><USER3> Probably to hit the novelty requirement of publishing. Exploring every avenue and balancing the literature across all possible harvesting methods.</comment></comment>


Do-it-Yourself Vaccines for Covid-19 - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-it-yourself-vaccines-for-covid-19/ <comment><USER2> >Some scientists are self-administering an untested product. Is that legal?

Yes, of course. Obviously.

>Some scientists are self-administering an untested product. Is it ethical?

Who cares? They are self administering.

This whole article can be summed up to "Bureaucrats are annoyed that some scientists aren't playing ball with their giant piles of unnecessary paperwork and invented regulations."

<comment><USER3> Is that at all obvious? Suppose there are serious side effects and the scientist loses his arm. You bet that people will say it was unethical by the lab provider to let them try.

<comment><USER4> I mean, there's plenty of recreational activities where the participant has a pretty good chance of losing their arm or worse. Nobody seems to argue about the legality, let alone the ethics of BASE jumping, wingsuiting, free solo climbing, or technical diving.

And unlike scientific experimentation, these don't even come with any sort of broader social benefit. We let consenting adults mix wildly speculative breathing gasses so they can dive 500 feet underwater. Pretty much for no other reason than it's cool. Why not let scientists do the same if it might cure a pandemic that's killed millions?

<comment><USER3> free solo climbing in the office building?

The point is that the university is providing equipment and allows this to take place in their labs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Good lord

\- we have an opiod crisis - thousands overdosing and commercial providers making billions and a larger drug and alcohol abuse problems (plenty of folks injecting and drinking things they shouldn't).

\- we have a pandemic - thousands dying and millions impacted. Thousands not even wearing masks, going to covid parties etc.

And we get this - legal and ethical issues around someone taking some pretty innocuous stuff that may or may not reduce various risks around exposure where there are public benefits - and taking it themselves.

Has the US become the country of can't do news writers, outraged and offended at everything. We get it - don't wear masks - they don't help, take off your mask if healthy, don't get tested unless you traveled to china. How about trying out some of these ideas (testing, mask wearing, vaccines)?

</comment><comment><USER6> Also notably in this article; major life saving discoveries would have been delayed. Maybe we'd still be arguing if bacteria cause gastritis and peptic ulcers.

"Improving" the ethics of medical research will have a cost of 10s of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives. Maybe more. Entire towns worth of people condemned to disease and suffering. I disagree with any ethics system that thinks that is a good outcome.

</comment><comment><USER7> I distinctly remember that Scientists researching Ebola ended up getting Ebola - and perhaps the same for Zika too. I also know many people who work in the field of Psychology whom have the condition they research to some degree.

I have zero idea how ethical any of it really is, but, it exists out there. It seems like something that should at least be declared in any research outcomes.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'd like to suggest a title change to somehow illuminate the fact that scientists are the ones doing it themselves, not the general public.

<comment><USER9> There are "non-scientists" who are doing this too, though they aren't highlighted by the article.

Zayner: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-25/one- bioha...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-25/one-bioha..).

Justin Atkin: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjDH6bXF4ow&t=67m47s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjDH6bXF4ow&t=67m47s)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> TLDR: gasbags oppose scientists brewing their own vaccines for specious reasons.

 _" A second misconception is the idea that this is research that could benefit others."_

 _" Senior scientists benefit from many layers of privilege: investment in their education, expertise in specialized areas, and access to information or materials. Arguably, these privileges come with a responsibility to use expertise for the benefit of society. "_

Seriously, while there may be good reasons this behavior is unethical or bad or whatever, the clowns who wrote this disjointed nonsense are apparently unable to discover them.

<comment><USER11> I guess you didn't get the memo that only approved experts can do "science" now[0]. Return to your pod and await further instruction from the authorities.

[0]: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you- must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science/#665e06cf535e)

<comment><USER10> The levels of insanity among "muh experts" is really reaching some kind of escape velocity of stupid. On a given subject we've traditionally delegated to "experts" I might as well ask a fry cook or stevedore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Good of them to do it, and I admire the risk taking aspect of it. however, it's a gambit and a forcing function, where it comes down to the researchers word they tested on themselves, presumably to achieve a fast tracking of some sort, or to force a decision point. I can think of a lot of people whose word they tested something on themselves would be suspect, especially in a situation where it was in a situation with a high cost to reverse the decision they were forcing. In negotiations, it's called a commitment ploy. So some scientists would I take their word, sure. Most? Absolutely not.

</comment><comment><USER13> whoa, detail from: 'Many cardiac procedures are based on a 1929 experiment by a German doctor who inserted a catheter into his own heart'

> In 1929 the physician Werner Forssmann saw a picture in a book showing how a > tube was inserted into the heart of a horse through a vein. A balloon at the > other end of the tube showed changes in pressure. He was convinced that a > similar experiment could be carried out on people. Despite the fact that his > boss forbade him, Werner Forssmann conducted the experiment on himself. From > the crook of his arm he inserted a thin catheter through a vein into his > heart and took an X-ray photo. The experiment paved the way for many types > of heart studies.

nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1956/forssmann/facts/

> He persuaded the operating-room nurse in charge of the sterile supplies, > Gerda Ditzen, to assist him. She agreed, but only on the promise that he > would do it on her rather than on himself. However, Forssmann tricked her by > restraining her to the operating table and pretending to locally > anaesthetise and cut her arm whilst actually doing it on himself [more]

reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/hbjm5w/til_the_first_man_to_perform_a_cardiac/fv96mpo/

</comment><comment><USER14> [https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/07/29/1005720/george-c...](https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/07/29/1005720/george- church-diy-coronavirus-vaccine/)

This article gives more details

</comment><comment><USER15> Based on my understanding of immunology I don't think this peptide nasal spray is very likely to be an effective vaccine. In order to actually trigger an immune response, the peptides would need to get taken up by cells and displayed on MHCs. I don't think simply spraying them into the nose will be good enough. It's an interesting idea but I think they should test it on animal models before dosing humans.

<comment><USER16> Well, I think they're trying to stimulate mucosal immunity, rather than trigger MHC presentation. But yes, more research is needed to determine effectiveness.

"This highlights one important advantage of an intranasal vaccine: a robust mucosal immune response should greatly reduce or prevent this systemic response by abrogating initial infection."

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Here's my own personal vaccine for Covid-19:

A daily dose of zinc plus a zinc ionophore, as been shown to prevent or lessen the effects of coronavirus (not just Covid-19)[0]

An ionophore is a fat-soluble substance that can transport non-fat soluble elements across the cell membrane. Zinc-ionophores are zinc transporters in and out of the cell and can increase the effects of zinc in the cell.

There are several zinc ionophore options:

Prescription: Ivermectin, (Hydroxy)Chloroquine

Over the counter: Quercetin, EgCg (Epigallocatechin Gallate), Reservatrol

Personally I take quercetin and zinc every day and wear a mask in public just so others feel comfortable.

[0] Just google coronavirus and zinc ionophore</comment>


XKCD: Time - <AUTHOR> http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Time <comment><USER2> Am I the only one who is completely underwhelmed by this one?

I mean, yeah, the _concept_ is cool if you hear about it, very modern art. But in effect it's just a comic strip story that is very inconvenient to read. And the only thing that makes it special is exactly this inconvenience?

Thanks, but checking back every hour or writing a script in order to see what happens to two stick figures that were (at the time I first saw it) just sitting there and doing nothing is not worth my... time.

<comment><USER3> I wonder if the recent xkcds represent Randall starting to explore the possibilities of his medium. He now has a huge community of followers, and he is creating comic-based experiences which are themselves creative platforms. It's like he's saying "here's a new toy, let's see what you can do with it". Next stop - Randall starts controlling the hive mind via comics.

<comment><USER4> Done and done: <http://xkcd.com/426/>

Edit: A little more context- <http://blog.xkcd.com/2012/02/27/geohashing-2/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Much easier to use/browse version: <http://geekwagon.net/projects/xkcd1190/>

It's still ongoing. I bet most people (like myself) completely missed what was going on here when they first saw it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's another animated version:

<http://xkcd.aubronwood.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> As much as I love the fancy XKCDs with scripting, I do wish that sometimes Randall would post some background info on them _(maybe a week or two in the future after people have had their fun reverse-engineering them)_ rather than having to wade through dozens of pages of a forum thread to see what was going on.

<comment><USER7> I respectfully disagree. I think it adds to the art of it for him to not come out and tell his followers exactly what it means. 'Time' is more about the emotion of the comic than a rational explanation, or a joke (like 'nerd sniping').

<comment><USER8> Exactly like nerd sniping. It's a self-selecting filter. If you don't like it or don't get it, but still come back to read more, guess there must be something for you somehow. But the target are the nerds that get sniped, not those who get frustrated because there's a lack of information.

I think. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I logged into a chat that room my friends and I hang out in a few days ago, and mentioned that 'Time' was still going.

Then it occurred to me: I wonder if that is the punchline. Randall sits back and cackles with glee as thousands of otherwise intelligent people wake up every morning and exclaim to their friends, with complete surprise: "Hey guys! Time is still going!"

<comment><USER10> Until one morning they wake up and exclaim to their friends, with much more surprise: "Hey guys! Ti

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I assume that eventually this will just show a flat (relative to the circumference of XKCD-Earth) expanse of sand due to entropy (maybe followed by a few exciting moments when it gets swallowed by its start red-gianting, is swallowed by a black hole, then billions of years of nothing pending the heat death of the universe).

</comment><comment><USER12> The poor server already had load issues. The HN crowd has made it almost inaccessible.

Maybe somebody experienced in configuring MediaWiki could help them with some performance and scalability tips. Also, somebody could help with making the URI look better.

<comment><USER13> No amount of experience with MediaWiki will stop it from being the massive, bloated beast that it is. Your only hope is reverse proxies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Isnt this pretty much a version of Johnny Castaway? Which I have to add was, all those years ago, a lot more interesting and engaging. At least Johnny had a goal.

</comment><comment><USER15> I tried to inspect elements and started recording the network requests in Safari, until I got tired saving pictures manually.

Any one?

<comment><USER16> Have a look at the (293 page) forum thread. You're not the first one to think to do that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I didn't realize there were names for the characters.

</comment><comment><USER18> I see the video as a reminder that the time you wasted watching this video is like a sand castle, wasted, forever.

<comment><USER19> Time enjoyed is time not wasted.</comment></comment>