Unconditional handouts benefit recipients and their neighbours: study - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2019/11/23/unconditional-handouts-benefit-recipients-and-their-neighbours-too <comment><USER3> *in certain parts of kenya, according to one study.

Does anyone have a link to the actual paper? I think HN knows by now that most publications miss the nuance of most publishings.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, that's the real problem here. We've long known that limited forms of communism, such as cooperatives and communes, can function extremely well in small self selected populations, but fall apart when they get big enough to be taken advantage of by bad actors. I think there's a future for basic income, but I'm not going put faith in it for broader adoption without vastly broader study.

<comment><USER5> And capitalism?

<comment><USER6> Capitalism is a system that builds some form of increasing prosperity using people's selfish behaviors.

Historically, outright capitalism at scale had outperformed outright communism at scal. Europe is actively experimenting with small admixtures of communism / socialism to overcome some of the shortcomings of capitalism, as they see it.

<comment><USER5> how long do you think history is?

<comment><USER6> Capitalism proper only exists for a few centuries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you want a serious analysis of money handouts by a macro hedge fund manager, including how it worked in the past, look up Dalio's PDF on the topic:

[https://economicprinciples.org/downloads/MMT_%20MP3_MK.pdf](https://economicprinciples.org/downloads/MMT_%20MP3_MK.pdf)

Universal Basic Income is just one of the configurations in which the next big stimulus may be deployed. There's plenty of others, and it's informative to understand the continuum.

</comment><comment><USER8> Why does this and general basic income generate so much anger?

<comment><USER9> People don't get pissed when income from a shared resource (petroleum for instance) is divided among people living on the land or in the country. People get pissed when the taxes they pay (for improving infrastructure and governance) is directed towards subsidizing the living of others (even though in the long run, it might be in many ways beneficial as a society). In many ways it is natural for them to be unhappy about this. I think, there needs to be more education on the benefits (as a social net, they themselves may be the beneficiaries) that alleviates people's fears on such UBI plans and shows the overall societal benefits. Also more longer-term experiments to confirm if it really helps.

If society makes progress and does move to a model where machines are doing most of the work, and there is more free time for people and most people don't need to do any work for their living or will not be able to find work for their living, we will definitely need to look at this model or any other alternate model that may come about as a result of natural experiences with such progress.

<comment><USER10> We're already at a point where machines do most of the work.

There are so many homeless Americans because our government has failed to manage the resources of our country to provide even a basic poverty level standard of living for everyone. There are countless reasons and studies about how or why this occurred but I think the reality is rather simple. People in power exploit those they control to get more wealth and power. Whether it's the manager at mcdonalds or bezos himself, if they can abuse their power they will. The reason there is so much anger against handouts to the destitute is because this reduces the power these oligarchs hold. Unless you're topping Forbes richest list then you're a peon in their game and they're not going to capitulate to the life of a pleb without a fight that'd make Hitler look like Rosa parks.

<comment><USER11> >"There are so many homeless Americans because our government has failed to manage the resources of our country to provide even a basic poverty level standard of living for everyone."

Americans enjoy a higher general standard of living than most others in the developed world precisely because our government has a relatively hands off approach to "managing resources".

Homelessness is the result of addiction and mental illness. The government could pour huge sums of money (even more than it already does) into initiatives focused on addressing these issues and the broken people that comprise the homeless population will still not get better.

<comment><USER12> > Americans enjoy a higher general standard of living than most others in the > developed world

I'd question that. Rich americans maybe. But the average american has to deal with long working hours, poor access to high quality food, extortionate costs for healthcare, cities where you can't walk anywhere, etc.

Homelessness is indeed a difficult issue. But what about the people working 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs. They'd benefit big time from mote government support.

<comment><USER13> > But the average american has to deal with long working hours, poor access to > high quality food, extortionate costs for healthcare, cities where you can't > walk anywhere, etc.

I'd question that. Poor Americans maybe. But the average american has relatively average work hours[1], shops at large grocery stores or supercenters[2], and has among the highest median income in the world(adjusted for PPP)[3]

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#OECD_ranking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#OECD_ranking)

2\. [https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2015/august/most-us- hou...](https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2015/august/most-us-households- do-their-main-grocery-shopping-at-supermarkets-and-supercenters-regardless-of- income/)

3\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income#Gross_median_hou...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income#Gross_median_household_income_by_country)

<comment><USER14> Including part time workers distorts the average.

 _On average, a full-time employee in United Stats works 1,768 hours per year, or 38.6 hours per week._ By comparison, _Europeans work up to 19 percent fewer hours annually compared to those working in the US._. Even more extreme _On average, a full-time employee in Germany works 1,363 hours per year, or 34.3 hours per week_ That's the equivalent of 26 days more per year full time Americans are working.

Median income PPP is not that great of a means for comparing standards of living. The US bottom 25th percentile earn less than 1/2 the 50th percentile. I would argue for disposable income PPP after taxes, food, shelter, and medical care at the bottom is more representative as a minimum standard of living.

<comment><USER13> The original comment I responded to compared the average American to the average citizen in the "developed world". I'm using OECD countries as a proxy since the term "developed" is ambiguous. But comparatively, US workers are only slightly above the OECD average in number of hours worked per year (1,781 vs 1,763).

>The US bottom 25th percentile earn less than 1/2 the 50th percentile.

Again, only considering the average American here. I would agree that it's worse to be poor in the US compared to a lot of other countries due to fewer social safety nets.

<comment><USER14> OECD is a common list for developed countries. But did you ever really look at it? It includes included Mexico and Turkey with a ~10k per capita GDP. Even Latvia, Chile and Hungary @ 15k USD seem a bit underdeveloped. Czech Republic and Slovenia at 20k per capital are borderline but probably fine. Granted things change somewhat when you look at PPP, but large PPP differences generally mean an underdeveloped economy.

[https://www.oecd.org/about/document/list-oecd-member- countri...](https://www.oecd.org/about/document/list-oecd-member- countries.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Unconditional" is a nice euphemism for "free". There is no such thing as a free handout (and, thusly, an unconditional handout), unless it's coming in the form of manna from heaven.

In these limited studies that don't affect the inflation rate or the greater macroeconomic picture, there appears to be no conditions, especially none imposed on the recipients.

If you expand a study like this, in your mind, to include e.g., the entire population of America, you don't need to be a PhD economist to see that there are certainly conditions involved.

<comment><USER16> There are always at least some constraints on the givers, e.g. there is X amount of money available to be distributed in a given time period. This should not be conflated with conditions that the recipients must first meet. The article is referring to this second type.

<comment><USER15> The reason there are no conditions for these recipients is because this is a small, controlled experiment, with outside resources.

If you expand this experiment to include the entire population, then each recipient has to meet the condition of welcoming expansion (inflation) of the money supply, each time they receive a payment (unless each recipient is also taxed 100% of what they receive each month). Inflation comes at the expense of savings, and also discourages lending (since the money repaid will be worth less - e.g., Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, et al).

Given the aforementioned circumstances, if you are a saver (with money to lend) OR a borrower (e.g., attempting to grow a business), then you have to accept that these activities will be economically discouraged by the inflationary effects of this income payment system. Only economic inactivity is rewarded (e.g., folks who retire without savings, folks without a job, etc.) without conditions.

This is all axiomatic and completely provable with syllogism alone, except for in one scenario: new wealth is discovered (free energy, manna from heaven, altruistic robots, etc.).

<comment><USER17> Very little of what you've typed out is actually correct.

1 - Creating money out of thin air does not necessarily lead to inflation. How do we know this? Because Europe and the US created a ton of money out of thin air after the financial crisis but were unable to meet their already historically low inflation targets. 2 - Inflation isn't always hyper inflation. You've mentioned the 2-3 countries that have experienced hyper inflation in the past few decades. You've ignored the fact that nearly every other country in the world, including the richest countries in the world, have been experiencing inflation every year for several decades. A certain amount of inflation is a good thing. In fact, the only major economy that has experienced deflation for any sustained period of time over the last few decades was Japan, and that was a massive concern.

3 - Inflation helps lending. In fact, deflation on the other hand discouraged lending. Inflation means that in order to retain the value of the money you've earned, you have to invest (I.e. lend). In deflationary scenarios, the value of your money goes up simply by virtue of sticking it under the mattress. Hyper inflation is a completely different situation, and the lack of lending there probably has a lot more to do with the fact that there are no economic opportunities in a country whose economy is so bad that it's suffering from hyper inflation.

4 - How in the world is inflation benefiting people who don't have money (retired folks without savings, or folks without jobs). Inflation means that whatever money they do get (by begging?) only buys them less than it would have without inflation.

You clearly know very little about economics, and your insistence that this all axiomatic indicates you've likely not even done a cursory study of macro economics, but are convinced whatever you've concluded from certain basic principles is obviously correct, even if it diverges from what the entire academic (and investment and government, for that matter) fields say about those situations.

<comment><USER15> 1\. e.g., quantitative easing is literally described as "an unconventional form of monetary policy, it is usually used when inflation is very low or negative" - just because we are not able to meet a specific inflation target does not mean that creating money does not the create inflation… this is some of the most basic monetary economics stuff

2\. At what point did I state that inflation is always hyper-inflation? It is perfectly appropriate to bring up hyper-inflation in a conversation about money creation where the money would be created at a rate of no less than $335 billion per month (e.g., UBI of $1,000/mo), which would be the greatest expansion of money supply, in PPP terms(and 25% expansion of M2 per year), in planetary history.

3\. Pray tell... if the inflation is due to an increase of the money supply at the inter-banking level, then of course loans are easier to be had. If you already have loans, then of course you are in a great spot when inflation ramps up. If you're trying to get a loan and the money supply is increasing at 25% per annum, you will likely need to be lent money at a rate higher than what usury laws allow...

4\. Never said that either. What I said is that those people are the only ones that will benefit without condition, because inflation does not affect them (other than price stickiness in their assets, if they choose to sell them - they can also thank money expansion for this, one of the known failings of New Keynsianism)

Pertaining your last point about the divergence of my thinking from the boundless wisdom of academics... Don't fall for the college tribe common look no further than Paul Krugman for an example of how Neo Keynesian economics will lead you down a path of endless failure (search for his predictions - <USER2> we know, predictions are the best way to test a theory). New Keynesianism economics will go down in history as the single failure that collapsed the Occident into an inescapable swamp of debt. You sound like you're in junior high or early high school, so you still have time; trust me, do not waste your time studying economics in college. And if you do, at least seek out some place that teaches Austrian School economics at least from a historical perspective (like Booth).

Hey there :) no need to reply if you don't want to; I already know you read it all

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> After living in a very poor region of the US for a few years, coming from quite affluent areas like Silicon Valley/SF, I've grown to substantially disapprove of handouts.

At the local grocery store, 90+% of the people I follow through the cashier lanes are paying for their groceries with EBT. What I see these folks buying is carts full of overpriced packaged foods with out of control kids often carrying tubs of Ben and Jerries ice cream one per child. They are absolutely not spending responsibly and living frugally, their lives of excess are being subsidized and as they say easy come, easy go.

When I socialize with the locals, they're all on food stamps and promote it as a way of life if they learn I'm not currently taking handouts. I'm literally peer pressured to get on the EBT program, many have argued they want as many people on it as possible because the more people supported by it the less likely it is to be taken away. These are perfectly capable people who choose to spend their lives horsing around and smoking pot all day. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, but I do take issue with deliberately abusing social programs to fund it.

One annoying effect is because of these programs, I'm surrounded by people whose lives are precariously built upon a system that can vanish rather suddenly from political events like the current president getting elected. There's been murmurings of EBT qualifications changing to cut down spending on these programs, and many expect it to happen should this president be re- elected. If that occurs, the crime in my community (and many like it) is going to absolutely _explode_ because the programs have been supporting lives for too long and these people have grown far too comfortable on unstable ground.

When I see a headline "Unconditional handouts benefit recipients and their neighbors" I immediately think to myself "It's not unconditional when the program is conditional on the current government's decision to continue it". When you have large-scale populations becoming entirely dependent on such programs for their livelihoods, and yes, in poor, low-cost areas you can and people will 100% survive off as little as $1000/mo, you have a weaponized community where the trigger for releasing rampant crime and instability concentrated in low-income neighborhoods is the single decision to cut handouts.

Now I don't think having these programs is a good idea at all, it seems to create more problems than it solves. I would rather us find ways to wean people off EBT to the point of all but eliminating it, and forget this UBI- like crap unless it's more permanent, like in the form of an amendment to the constitution.

<comment><USER19> "Their lives of excess"? No one on EBT is living a life of excess, and they are just as deserving to enjoy ice cream or other pleasures of life as you are. There's nothing irresponsible about buying ice cream or anything else in a grocery store. You're being ridiculous and cruel.

<comment><USER20> >There's nothing irresponsible about buying ice cream or anything else in a grocery store

That's a debatable point when you consider the context that these people, many of whom are perfectly capable of working, are living exclusively off of the labor of others, perhaps not entirely with the laborer's consent. Is it just to force someone to work without benefit for someone else else's survival? What about for someone else else's comfort?

Some reservations over such handouts are entirely justified. You have no right to force others to toil for your pleasure, that's a form of oppression.

<comment><USER21> > You have no right to force others to toil for your pleasure

No one is being forced to work! They can simply live a life of "excess" off government assistance right?

All they have to do is trade in their current friends, their standard for home ownership, their dreams of financial stability, any ability to pay for their kids' emergencies / college / wedding ...

This society has determined that the people who cannot fully take care of themselves should still be taken care of and given a microscopic slice of a tiny sliver of dignity, and that it's worth the cost of some percentage of bad actors milking the system.

It's not perfect but I am okay with that trade off.

<comment><USER20> This is not black and white. The point is that there is some cutoff between full welfare for all of life's luxuries and literal table scraps. Some of us think spending a month worth of food stamps at Walmart on junk (where there are cheap healthy alternatives) is past the line of the minimum that people deserve for free. And it may be anecdata but anyone who's been to Walmart on EBT day has seen plenty of people making this choice.

<comment><USER21> I am so sorry but it is exactly black and white:

Society sets up rules, most people follow most of them. One of the policies society has agreed on is that if your life is totally fucked financially you can get some table scraps from the government so that you don't die as a direct result.

Some people are bad actors, which society will tolerate up to a certain level, so long as it means that the worst off people in the country can eat if they jump through some hoops.

That said if you see someone you suspect is scamming EBT etc please report them. Same goes for when your friend gives you a stock tip that's a little too hot or your folks tell you they didn't report some income.

<comment><USER20> >can get some table scraps from the government so that you don't die as a direct result.

I think you've missed my point. By black and white I mean we are debating over where the appropriate line is between table scraps and government subsidized golden toilets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> [https://outline.com/NeLHSV](https://outline.com/NeLHSV)

</comment><comment><USER23> Benefit recipients and their landlords. Fixed that for you.

</comment><comment><USER24> Unconditional handouts are only good for the person handing things out.

<comment><USER25> Can you explain your comment? I'm having a hard time understanding how giving someone something without conditinos benefits the giver more than the receiver (or, as you say, _only_ the giver)

<comment><USER26> People aren't going to vote against the hand that feeds them. Money is a proxy for the top of the hierarchy of needs, and if people are going to be voting merely to satisfy their hierarchy of needs then other policy comes second.

Say you've got one party running for office that promises to continue handouts, or perhaps expand them, but also is highly authoritarian, but there's another party that wants to protect fundamental freedoms but wants to reduce handouts. Who do you think has the upper hand in that scenario? It'd be one thing if the populace was well educated and had an interest in their own freedoms, but we're not exactly known for that these days.

This is one of the reasons that California is in the state that it's in. It dwarfs all other states in welfare spending, has the most homelessness, has an exponential feces and public urination problem in its big cities, and the return of medieval illnesses. The problem is unlikely to resolve any time soon because enough voters are dependent and detached from society that those in power can sit back.

That's why there are people who are wary of handouts. It's not that they don't want to help other people; it's that handouts are an easy way to influence the populace, and once you give out handouts, it's extremely difficult to take them away, lest you are willing to lose elections.

<comment><USER27> >>People aren't going to vote against the hand that feeds them.

This is demonstrably false. Here in the US, conservative states are net recipients for federal aid, yet they continue voting for the party that is determined to shrink the federal government and abolish many of the aid programs they are benefiting from.

<comment><USER26> How often do conservatives successfully run on the platform that they're going to end handouts? (Besides Trump)

<comment><USER28> Have you ever spent any time south of the Mason-Dixon line?Conservative "austerity" is the bastard stepchild of Jim Crow and it's pretty much been the central party plank for decades.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Data from a responsive redesign - <AUTHOR> http://electricpulp.com/notes/you-like-apples/

<comment><USER2> That's quite useful to know.

I theorise that the mobile transactions would just move to desktop if the users can't use it on their phone.

Have you got enough data to check that theory out?

<comment><USER3> Often, no. When I'm buying something, I might be in the position where I either buy it online or a store, and if I can't see what's going on, I'll just head out to the store. If it's not a necessity, I'll just forget about it many times.

I am but one data point, of course, but I am not a unique snowflake in this regard.

<comment><USER2> I hope that you are quite typical, otherwise I've wasted quite a lot of time on mobile sites. - Well, wasted in terms of profit, but I suppose even then it's better to give the customers a better experience.</comment></comment></comment>


On the scalability of Perl development practices - <AUTHOR> http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=704810

<comment><USER2> There's not much specific to Perl in this post. Open source in general tends to give you multiple options to any common problem. The proprietary world tends to be the opposite. I thank my lucky stars I get to work with open source software almost exclusively and the flexibility it provides is probably the biggest reason.

</comment><comment><USER3> Seems a bit pointless to complain that a language based on the notion that "There Is More Than One Way To Do It" offers too many choices on what to use.</comment>


Psychedelics could heal brain cells in people suffering from depression: study - <AUTHOR> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/psychedelic-drugs-brain-repair-lsd-depression-anxiety-lsd-dmt-amphetamines-ketamine-a8395511.html <comment><USER2> Lately, all this media attention to psychedelics reminds me of this Terence McKenna quote:

"[W]hy this[psychedelics] is not four-inch headlines on every newspaper on the planet I cannot understand because I don't know what news you were waiting for, but this is the news that I was waiting for. It's an incredible challenge to human understanding to try and make sense of this."

from [https://www.asktmk.com/talks/Rap+Dancing+Into+the+Third+Mill...](https://www.asktmk.com/talks/Rap+Dancing+Into+the+Third+Millenium?query=four- inch%20headlines)

[https://youtu.be/adDRsqEj4PU?t=1641](https://youtu.be/adDRsqEj4PU?t=1641)

<comment><AUTHOR> _" [W]hy this[psychedelics] is not four-inch headlines on every newspaper on the planet"_

Psychedelics might reveal to you that the neat little reality that you thought you had all figured out is a lot stranger and different from from what you thought it was, that your understanding of it might be all wrong, and that your place in it might not be all that cozy and secure. The experience could put everything in to question for you.

A lot of people feel threatened by that, so they try to push it away, lock it up, turn it off, or dismiss it.

Contrast that reaction to that in some other societies with a long tradition of psychedelic use. Psychedelic experiences there usually confirm the world view of the society, and tend to be very positive and accepted.

<comment><USER2> Another Terence McKenna quote I'm reminded of!

"The British enzymologist, J. B. S. Haldane in the 1920s, in an essay, said, "The universe may not only be stranger than we suppose; it may be stranger than we can suppose," and I suggest to you that as we look back over human history, every pinnacle of civilizationf whether it be Mayan or Greco-Roman or Song dynasty, has believed that it was in possession of an accurate description of the cosmos and of man's relationship to it. This seems to go- this seems to go along with the full flowering of a civilization. But, from the point of view of our present civilization, we regard all those conceptions as, at worst quaint, at best half right, and congratulate ourselves that our civilization, at last, has its finger on the real description of what is going on. " from [https://www.asktmk.com/talks/Psychedelic+Society?query=stran...](https://www.asktmk.com/talks/Psychedelic+Society?query=stranger%20than%20we%20can%20suppose)

<comment><USER3> Eh, I'm not saying we have a full picture of what's going on, but the scientific method is much more effective at helping us arrive at a real description of what is going on than any arbitrary religion of the past.

<comment><USER4> The scientific method is the most important tool that humanity has ever developed, without question.

That being said, the belief that the scientific method can build up arbitrarily accurate models of any observable phenomena is without foundation, yet some behave as if it is obviously true.

Until we have something like a unified model of physics, there is no reason to believe that statement to be true.

(and in fact, the scientific method has led to results like Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which makes it perhaps more likely for it to be false)

<comment><USER5> I question that the scientific method is the most important tool humanity has ever developed.

Maybe numbers and language (especially written) are more important. Oh ya, and fire.

But the scientific method is way up there in important, no argument there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I recommend reading the LSD Clincial Handbook:

[https://www.maps.org/resources/responding_to_difficult_psych...](https://www.maps.org/resources/responding_to_difficult_psychedelic_experiences/185-handbook- for-the-therapeutic-use-of-lysergic-acid-diethylamide-25)

LSD changed my life, and continues to do so.

If you live in California, check out MAPS and Psychedelic Seminars.

I'm a huge advocate because I have experienced first hand the profound transformation that occurs as a result of a psychedelic experience.

<comment><USER7> Not to negate this anecdote, but just to point out your mileage may vary. The research on this subject is still in its infancy.

I know a lot of people are looking for that "magic-bullet" panacea for all their small woes (social anxiety, minor depression, etc) and have tried everything under the sun (exercise, all kinds of diets, all kinds of books). It's been my experience with the people I knew personally who did acid/psylocibin didn't always improve as much by my measure as they did by self-report.

<comment><USER6> I hear ya. My anecdote is unique. If I provided more context, and told you my life story, it might make better sense. And it's impossible to assign responsibility solely to psychedelics, but after years of hospitalizations and addictions and depression and suicidal attempts and witnessing a few friends suicides, there was a turning point in my life, and it conincided with my experimentation of LSD and mushrooms, something I only put together years later in hindsight.

I think the psychedelics nurture the ability to recognize that feelings and narratives are not representative of reality, that there are multiple realities bound up in which perspective you possess, or which one possesses you.

The ability to detach from self, to recognize a spectrum of truth, of perception, is one of the greatest benefits of psychedelic experiences.

I've used LSD for years off and on, and I can't tell you how many times I've taken it. So many I lost count long ago. It's a beautiful experience, and it helps me and everyone I share it with to this day.

I have friends who remark what a profound life changing experience it was for them years after our trip together, and it always catches me off guard. You never know how profound it affects a person. Sometimes it takes years to recognize the shift that took place.

Either way, I think there is so much promise. I'm a huge advocate, and I think people who struggle with mental health issues should definitely explore psychedelics (I would caution those with schizoid tendencies/ family histories). Anyone with anxiety, depression, addictions, compulsive thoughts... there is much promise there.

<comment><USER8> >I think the psychedelics nurture the ability to recognize that feelings and narratives are not representative of reality

>The ability to detach from self, to recognize a spectrum of truth, of perception

It sounds a lot like meditation and buddhist practice. I mean, I already hear that everywhere and there are some clinical trials with meditation too. But your narrative fits nicely. That's cool.

<comment><USER9> Yes. In his book Waking Up, Sam Harris (yes, that Sam Harris), makes this same connection. He does it in a very sensitive way too, without suggesting psychedelics as a shortcut to mindfulness.

Edit: I've never experienced psychedelics myself, but have had been using mindfulness/meditation to come to terms with these same ideas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I could see this seriously being a net positive in the care of people say dying from cancer, depression from paralysis etc. Not all of us can lift weights or simply go for a walk, but our minds yearn to be free.

<comment><USER11> This is already being done. In Switzerland.

Summary: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4086777/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4086777/)

The MD's website [in german]: [http://www.petergasser.ch/](http://www.petergasser.ch/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I recommend reading "How to Change Your Mind" by Michael Pollan if you're all interested in the history and details of psychedelics. [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36613747-how-to- change-y...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36613747-how-to-change-your- mind)

Based my reading of that, what these researchers are doing is _not_ prescribing psychedelics to patients with mental disorders and giving the whole "take one time a day with food". What these researchers are finding is that the drugs can be very effective in a therapeutic setting with a guide (trained therapist or otherwise) to coach and conform the experience to reach a goal. In other words to those familiar with these drugs, set and setting. That is, mindset and surroundings are at least as important as the drug itself to achieving anything. Without that, it's just a drug experience. This is very unique compared to the drugs we're used to.

No medication will ever be a miracle drug, and most drugs show a significant decline in effectiveness once they're out of small trials and methods have standardized. However, any drug or therapy that sees orders of magnitude of improvement over existing drugs and therapies is promising and not worth dismissing simply because of a moral panic from the 60s or the Puritan ideals of our Western culture. Given time and the leeway to experiment, hopefully we will find uses for this class of drugs that have gone shunned for decades for no reason other than someone's moral qualms.

<comment><USER13> The trouble is that talk therapy is already too expensive for most patients, and unless you plan to have people tripping with a therapist who is a complete stranger ( _not advised!_ ) you're going to need to charge for some preliminary sessions. If a typical therapist charges $100 per hour -- and that's optimistic, in fact I've never paid less than $125 -- then the cost of treatment quickly runs into four figures.

That's already more expensive than a year on SSRIs, as crazy as that might sound. Human interaction is shockingly expensive.

<comment><USER12> The cost is something to consider, but let that not dissuade us from exploring the opportunity. There are many therapies that are covered by insurance due to their medical backing. Insurance companies would rather pay for life-saving procedures that are hundreds of dollars rather than trauma, end of life care, or life insurance payouts. The evidence needs to be persuasive, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> So, precisely the wrong approach would be to block research of any kind by continuing the severe prohibition of these substances.

<comment><USER15> Perhaps we need a new category of prescription, e.g. "for use only under direct supervision of a qualified medical professional"

In other words it could be dispensed in a clinical setting, but not via a pharmacy or other "take home" pathways.

I'm thinking that must already exists for certain surgical anesthetics, etc.

<comment><USER16> > I'm thinking that must already exists for certain surgical anesthetics, etc.

Correct. You can get cocaine when you're at your ophthalmologist, but not from your pharmacy.

<comment><USER17> For that matter, heroin is used as a morphine alternative in some UK hospitals, and morphine itself is another example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've had great experiences with LSD, experiences that may have even changed my trajectory in life.

That being said I would never recommend LSD to someone undergoing serious mental health issues. IMO not safe at all, you can really end up in a bad place.

<comment><USER19> A clinical setting is far different than giving someone some tabs and letting them loose at a concert or house party.

<comment><USER20> A clinic, concert, or house party are all terrible settings for taking LSD. They are confined, crowded spaces. You want something wide open, in nature. Try the mountains, or the desert.

<comment><USER21> Well, just don't get lost. I've taken LSD hundreds of times and the worst was undoubtedly in nature (it was my fault, but I'm sure I'm not the first to make this mistake). I've done it plenty of times at house parties and it's been fine. My objection to a "clinical setting" is being alone with someone you don't know that well, and like you said, being confined and expected / forced to stay with that person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm very excited to see the results of this study [1], testing the effects of a one-time dose of psilocybin (magic mushrooms) on a sample size of 400+ suffering from treatment-resistant depression.

The podcast episode referenced in the article is also well-worth listening to. They talk about the current state of the research, the regulatory process, getting funding, etc.

[1] [https://boingboing.net/2018/05/23/depression-the- psychedelic...](https://boingboing.net/2018/05/23/depression-the-psychedelic- cu.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> Highly recommended:

The Psychedelic Explorer's Guide, by Jim Fadiman ([http://www.psychedelicexplorersguide.com/](http://www.psychedelicexplorersguide.com/))

<comment><USER16> If you're interesting in taking psychedelics, this is the best book to read beforehand. I seem to remember Neal Goldsmith's Psychedelic Healing book also being good, but it's been too long since I've read it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm really worried about the subset of the population with preexisting mental disorders such as manic depressive disorder, schizophrenia, and depression who will suffer a psychotic break from the use of these substances. Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I've heard and read it seems like there's no way to know what will happen until you try it. A certain percentage of the population goes to hell in the most literal sense of the word possible. Anecdotally, the people I personally know who have tried psychedelics (maybe 6 or 7 people, all who did no know one another) seem to have a weird mental frailty to them, where because their ego disappeared(?) briefly and psychedelics were allowing mental connections that wouldn't have arisen without psychedelics, they begin to question everything, almost like a rebuilding of their fundamental axioms from scratch. There's also a strange fervor for others to try it, even from people who have had bad trips.

Joe Rogan had Michael Pollan on recently[0], who wrote The Omnivores Dilemma and a new book How To Change Your Mind[1] which talks about the benefits of hallucinogens. They also briefly talk about the psychotic breaks some people will experience as a result of widespread use and shrug it off like it'll be fine. Aldous Huxley wrote a book about his use of mescaline called Doors of Perception[2] which felt almost unintelligible and very strange to me as a person who has not (and will not, as my mental health is great but I'm certain I'm at risk of a psychotic break from hallucinogens due to family history) done psychedelics.

[0] [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tz4CrWE_P0g](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tz4CrWE_P0g)

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Change-Your-Mind-Consciousness- Transc...](https://www.amazon.com/Change-Your-Mind-Consciousness- Transcendence/dp/1594204225/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1528824854&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=michael+pollan&dpPl=1&dpID=41yw3Jt4KaL&ref=plSrch)

[2] [https://www.amazon.com/Doors-Perception-Heaven- Hell/dp/00617...](https://www.amazon.com/Doors-Perception-Heaven- Hell/dp/0061729078/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1528825040&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=doors+of+perception&dpPl=1&dpID=61ybO4ucZvL&ref=plSrch)

<comment><USER24> I have permanent visual disturbances and suffered long-term panic attacks and anxiety as a result of psychedelic use. Things got better over time, but not completely back to normal. I'm not advocating for the continuation of our current legal strategy, but I feel like these drugs need to come with strong cultural wisdom about their appropriate use and potential for abuse.

Anyone who's been in a psychedelic community for long(stoners, deadheads, etc) knows at least a few people who have been temporarily(1 day - 1 year) or permanently fried from having experienced one or many trips. I feel like there is often a backlash against our regressive legal approach which tends to accentuate the positives and diminish the negatives but really we need information. These drugs can permanently change your personality in some ways that will generally not be seen as positive. Yes, they can have many good effects but that comes with a small risk of extreme side effects.

<comment><AUTHOR> Are these people "fried" because they used those substances, or because of how they used them, or how they viewed, integrated (or not-integrated) their experiences?

A visual distortion is a good example. When experiencing a visual distortion, it is possible to feel anxious about the appearance of such a distortion, or instead one could be indifferent to it, or even enjoy and welcome it. It need not be negative.

More research is certainly needed on the negative experiences people sometimes have with psychedelics (so far, most of the research has focused on the positives), but I have a strong feeling that how people approach their experiences, what they expect to happen, and how they interpret what happens plays a very critical role on whether the experience is positive or negative for them. This is the old "set" (or "mindset") part of "set and setting" that's critically important for their constructive use.

Also, it may be possible to work through any anxiety or negative effects one experience with a therapist. Panic attacks and anxiety, for instance, are things that therapists tend to be actually really good at treating.

<comment><USER25> Depends on the distortion. A visual distortion means that you aren't seeing things as they really are. That could be problematic for your ability to drive, or to ride a bike, or any number of other activities. You could be indifferent to that, but it could still be a genuine problem for your ability to function.

<comment><USER26> Even without visual distortions, none of us ever see things as they are :)

As a fun fact, you can drive on LSD if you're experienced with psychedelics and know you can trust yourself, at least under doses <150ug. Absolutely not recommending it to anyone, but the visuals don't really get in the way. (I've only driven on acid once, when I witnessed a really, really bad skateboarding accident and had to rush a stranger to the ER).

IME most people handle psychs fine, some can handle practically anything, and some will lose connection to reality and basically forget how rational thought works on an eighth of mushrooms. There's little indicators that have given me an idea of how someone might react, but you never know for sure. Thus why the advice to have a trip sitter is always given - personally I've never needed a trip sitter, but I've seen people who absolutely did.

<comment><AUTHOR> _" you can drive on LSD if you're experienced with psychedelics and know you can trust yourself, at least under doses <150ug. ... Absolutely not recommending it to anyone, but the visuals don't really get in the way."_

It's not just the visuals that are the problem. Temporal distortions are common -- you can feel like time has stopped or slowed down or sped up or gone backwards. Also, you might get disoriented or confused -- not understanding where you are or what you're doing or how a steering wheel works while you're on the freeway is probably not the wisest or safest thing to subject yourself or others on the road to. Or you might get irresistibly entranced by a fleck of paint on your dashboard, which could look like a whole animated world to you, while you should be keeping your eyes on the road, etc, etc, etc.

You know how there's a warning not to drive or operate heavy machinery on some medications? Well, that warning should be on psychedelics, only times 1000.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I tried Psychedelics for my depression, and my roommate has been self medicating similarly. I think they can help - but they're going to make the current opioid epidemic look like child's play. I have very carefully limited my intake - and I'm finding that I don't like a lot of what I've found. I'm definitely finding my roommate is becoming a worse person, and well on the way to all of the ugly things that we associate with drug use.

<comment><USER28> What are the ugly things associated with psychedelic drug use? I would think the 'worst' would be becoming a full blown hippie and remove yourself from society but still that would be a personal choice. What are the traits you see as a worse person?

<comment><USER29> Thats clever! Warp a persons mind with drugs and then chalk up any extreme behavior change to personal choice.

<comment><USER28> The adjective worse was what I was asking about. What is worse about a person that decides to live off the grid? or not care about materialistic things? Yes the decision/change was extreme and caused by the experience of the drug use but why classify it as worse? I'm not saying drugs are safe, just that I've never heard of people doing psychedelics and behaving like alcoholics, addicts of pain killers, etc. That is why I asked what examples of 'worse' did he notice, I want to hear from his experience maybe he is on to something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Original article: "Psychedelics Promote Structural and Functional Neural Plasticity" [https://www.cell.com/cell- reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(18)307...](https://www.cell.com/cell- reports/fulltext/S2211-1247\(18\)30755-1)

</comment><comment><USER31> I don't know how legitimate these stories are, but some folks swear that they've gotten rid of various addictions after their trips on Ayahuasca. This is apparently a mixture of plants that some tribes in South America have been using for self-medication for ages.

<comment><USER29> Yeah, let's take medical advice from ancient intoxicated tribesmen. That will work out great.

<comment><USER32> excuse me sir, your western chauvinism is showing

<comment><USER29> I'm just a rational adult whose skeptical of practically everyone. My comment can be applied to all cultures throughout history.

Your thought-terminating-cliche however is clearly biased.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Sam Harris just did a very interesting podcast with Micheal Pollan about this:

[https://samharris.org/podcasts/127-freedom- known/](https://samharris.org/podcasts/127-freedom-known/)

He wrote a book about it also: [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594204225](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594204225)

</comment><comment><USER34> My experience tells me that excessive MDMA use makes the drug not work, and results in severe depression. I've experienced it, I've seen others experience it. Neurotoxicity would seem to be the explanation.

<comment><USER35> MDMA is not a "proper" psychadelic imo

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> An interesting point is that since taking SSRIs LSD and mushrooms have a much more diminished effect on me which anecdotally seems to be common.

<comment><USER14> The SSRIs cause more circulating seratonin, which means there is less seratonin waiting to be released by the action of the LSD. Your high will be diminished, but also will last longer.

<comment><USER37> You're probably thinking of MDMA, which releases serotonin. LSD doesn't release seratonin, but it does have similar shape to serotonin and therefore can trigger the same receptors that serotonin does.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> The possibilities for psychedelic drugs to treat and shed insight into mental health issues are exciting. But I think it's worth pointing out (especially if you are a recreational user or are considering it) that we don't understand the side effects very well. Low resolution, we know they don't kill you or lead to addiction (though they can cause problems in people with underlying mental health problems).

But I'm concerned about the subtler, not-obviously-harmful-but-not- necessarily-desirable ways in which they permanently alter the brain. Slate Star Codex has a few recent articles that are worth considering:

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/06/06/hppd-and-the-specter- of...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/06/06/hppd-and-the-specter-of-permanent- side-effects/)

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/28/why-were-early- psychede...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/28/why-were-early- psychedelicists-so-weird/)

<comment><USER16> The risk of HPPD seems to be very related to frequency of use, dosage, how strongly the substance binds to the receptor, and the anxiety levels of the person taking it.

It's a risk that should be taken very seriously, but if you're just taking a low dose of mushrooms once a year or so it's not a huge risk.

<comment><USER39> This is a tough subject. Like the first link in GP's post notes, HPPD can't really be caused by LSD persisting in the body. The article presents another hypothesis, where LSD might kill off important neurons. But LSD and other psychedelics have been taken by millions of people, and the odds of getting HPPD seem fairly low, although significant.

Is it reasonable to assume a direct chemical action as the cause here? We accept that e.g. PTSD results from experienced trauma, and psychedelics like LSD can certainly induce very intense mental states. Could that not be enough to explain "flashbacks" etc?

<comment><USER16> > Is it reasonable to assume a direct chemical action as the cause here

I don't think so. There might be a chemical cause, but to me the correlation with anxiety makes it more likely that it's a state-shifting phenomenon, more like depression.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> There's some evidence to suggest that they could also mitigate or repair TBI and other types of brain damage. Hopefully the NFL will throw some money at research and end up becoming a proponent of this type of cure.

<comment><USER41> >they could also mitigate or repair TBI and other types of brain damage. Hopefully the NFL

they could be especially effective in mitigating TBI if taken right before the game :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> It's just important to understand that it goes both ways. These drugs can also bring up mental issues. They are powerful in both directions.

</comment><comment> gm-conspiracy But how can a drug company patent that?

<comment><USER43> It's pretty easy. You just get a specific version you patent through the FDA and that will be the only one doctors are allowed to proscribe because it's FDA approved.

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/15/fish-now-by- prescriptio...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/15/fish-now-by- prescription/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Tell that to Anthony Bourdain...

</comment><comment><USER45> This is wildly speculative, as expected. Some mice grew dendrites. That doesn't mean anything about humans and doesn't come close to meaning anything about depression. It's not that simple.

<comment><USER46> I don't think the claim is 'it's that simple', but rather 'this warrants more research into the subject'. As usual. But that's not a bad thing.

<comment><USER45> Sure - if the underlying hypothesis that it's the plasticity that makes ketamine effective is true, these things also promote plasticity so it's worth looking into. Speculative news articles like this though mostly serve to have people debate and form opinions well before evidence is presented, though, as is what is happening in this thread.

There's a very long road between showing that these drugs promote neuritogenesis and proving their clinical effectiveness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Or one could lift weights, which is even safer and has many positive ancillary effects. [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article- abst...](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article- abstract/2680311)

<comment><USER48> A lot of people just want a no-effort cure-all. Things like exercise, meditation, healthy eating--all of which can help with mental health problems --require concentrated effort over a long period of time, and thus are unlikely to be preferred over a pill.

Before anyone gets upset, I'm not saying that pills are bad, I'm just saying that many rely on them without making an effort to make other positive changes to their life.

<comment><USER49> "Mental health" and "making an effort" are two dangerous terms to combine in the same argument. Just getting out of bed every morning can already be a big effort for many people with mental health problems, much bigger effort than exercise is for many sane folks; it should be appreciated as such.

<comment><USER47> Your point is taken, but one must remember that in the end we are all of us responsible for our own lives.

There's a reason why people who lift joke that the heaviest weight in the gym is the front door.

One approach that has worked well for many is establishing positive habits to displace negative ones. That takes a while, but there are tricks to help, like having a group to hold you accountable.

<comment><USER49> Accountability works for procrastination and things that, as you say, can be described as negative habits or character traits. Depression is a completely different beast.

Depression is like I'm sitting on your chest and tell you that breathing is easy and all you need is to do it rhythmically.

Depression is like that day your brain doesn't function properly after not sleeping during the night, but every day for years and regardless how much you sleep.

Depression is not a bad habit, just like the flu is not a warm and fuzzy feeling.

<comment><USER50> Agreed.

Furthermore, what is somewhat amazing is that, on a Good Day (or less depressed or in-remission day, or whatever one wants to call it), one can also look back on a Bad Day, just yesterday, and be mystified why that seemingly dead simple task [1], seemed completely overwhelming to the point of impossibility.

Like many diseases of the brain, including dementias and schizophrenia, the sufferer can seem and even _be_ fully functional when the disease isn't (as) active, including being prone to falling for the same fallacies as everyone else.

In the throes of the symptoms, however, the brain just isn't working the same, so it's not fair, compassionate, nor reasonable to extrapolate about habit formation or responsibility from an unafflicted brain. It can get a bit too easy to blame the victim that way.

None of this is to say that encouraging good habit formation or increased patient self direction/determination can't be helpful, when possible. I'm just saying not to start with that as an _assumption_ and that it likely isn't even possible for the more severe cases.

[1] taking out the trash, running the dishwasher, or even just getting out of bed

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Could be, maybe, let's just wait until thousands more die because they were denied access to these illegal drugs. Then we'll publish some "new" findings and maybe in 30 years, the filthy peasants will be allowed to use drugs under extreme supervision.

<comment><USER52> Could you please not post indignant rant-style comments like this to Hacker News? It isn't that you're wrong, but that the genre does more damage to the forum than the rightness of the comment does good. A lot more, actually, so we need people to just not do this.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER51> Hmm yeah, shadowban this account then I won't post anymore, at all. I'd be really grateful, too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Having controlled psychedelics could be safer - especially in the raving community where too often deaths occur from dangerously mixed and pressed substances.

There has to be a more comprehensive study done on its neurotoxicity. Or more studies in general. But who will pay for it and why?

<comment><USER54> "too often deaths occur from dangerously mixed and pressed substances" \- citation needed, compared to other risk factors

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Can I please get my (giggle) medical LSD? I need to take my medicine before I go into the Flaming Lips concert. (giggle)</comment>


Trump's EPA Won't Evaluate Asbestos Already in Homes - <AUTHOR> http://www.newsweek.com/pruitt-trump-asbestos-chemicals-trump-962703 <comment><USER2> It is correct that asbestos that is encapsulated and not releasing anything into the atmosphere is perfectly safe. It's not like it's radioactive. The problem is when you do any kind of renovations and break up and release the asbestos particles. Unfortunately, asbestos removal does exactly that. If it's not done properly it turns a safe situation into a health risk. And proper removal is expensive. A low-cost bid for asbestos removal is more than likely going to leave you with a bigger mess than you had to start with.

<comment><USER3> IRL isn't the problem with asbestos limited to workers who come into contact with asbestos every day in an industrial setting? Busting up asbestos in the course of a remodel(or a dozen remodels) isn't enough exposure to cause any of the chronic problems asbestos is so famous for, IIRC.

<comment><USER4> This is absolutely not true and is quite dangerous advice.

The problem with workers who worked with asbestos in factories or mines is that a very high percentage of them got Mesothelioma, and within a relatively short time frame - maybe 15 - 20 years. People exposed for a short term like with house renos, typically take up to 45years for it to occur.[0]

It kills something like 90% of people within 5 years of diagnosis. And it is a painful and horrible way to die. Maybe 30% of new cases being diagnosed currently in the US are from builders or home renovators, rather than miners.

[0][https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3741803/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3741803/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Isn't it the job of property inspectors to make those kinds of determinations?

Why would the EPA be evaluating existing individual homes? Isn't the EPA supposed to be responsible for more general and global environmental concerns?

Asbestos hasn't been used in new homes for quite some time. Everyone already knows the risks and how special care is needed for removal and renovations. What's to research? Seems like the status quo of don't do it going forward and be careful with older properties is fine.

None of that is going away. Seems like this is being blown out of proportion. What new danger is going to happen because of this?

They aren't relaxing the existing ban on asbestos in new homes.

<comment><USER6> I'm not taking a wider position here but, in my personal experience, the statement "everyone already knows the risks" doesn't seem to be very true at all. A number of people I've come across have attempted highly hazardous removal projects on their own. When I ask them why they did it, they just sort of shrug it off claiming either (1) getting mesothelioma in 15-30 years is "too far in the future" to care about, or (2) the "whole asbestos thing" is a scam.

It seems to me that these incidents can only rise with the growing popularity of do-it-yourself home renovation (and the countless TV shows on the topic), not to mention the _terribly incorrect_ advice I find on the web about how to do this safely...

It's sad to see people cause long-term contamination of their homes during renovation, only to raise their children in them or sell them off to some unsuspecting buyer. I can't really see how this _won 't_ end up costing lives...

(just my 2¢)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Not that I'm pro-Trump, but asbestos is indeed quite benign if not freely inhalable; and the most carcinogenic type, blue asbestos (crocidolite) has been banned in new products for many decades (that is unlikely to change.) The only type in active use is chrysotile (white asbestos), and there is evidence to suggest that low exposures to it are not so harmful:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3581056/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3581056/)

Inhaling fibres of anything is not healthy, but some are more harmful than others. In fact one could say the tobacco industry has done far more harm to people than asbestos.

</comment><comment><USER8> All to the benefit of Russia. Isn't it curious that so many of Trump's actions benefit Russia and China?

<comment><USER9> How does not reevaluating asbestos in homes benefit Russia?

<comment><USER8> Russia is still the largest asbestos manufacturer: [https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/business/global/city-i...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/business/global/city- in-russia-unable-to-kick-asbestos-habit.html) and: [https://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-10708279/asbestos- indus...](https://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-10708279/asbestos-industry- still-strong-in-russia)

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

Guess who else is pro-asbestos? The Russian mob: [http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-30/russian-mafia- behin...](http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-30/russian-mafia-behind- international-push-on-asbestos-cfmeu-says/8224022)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Trump is a danger to America.

What is incredible is how transparent his motivations are. As a real-estate mogul, he no doubt stands to gain quite a lot from an official policy of looking the other way with regards to asbestos.</comment>


Quemuse – The Future of Q&A - <AUTHOR> The internet is an amazing thing. A network that allows instantaneous global sharing of information. Revolutionary digital information access technologies, like Google and Wikipedia, have led the way into the so-called Information Age of Humanity.
Alex Shakhmalian, the eighteen-year-old founder of web startup Quemuse, wants to further that vision.
He wanted to make a platform where people from all around the world could ask and discuss anything on their minds with ease.
He said he was dissatisfied with offerings from major Q&A sites, like Quora and StackOverflow.
"On most platforms, you need to use a full name, and it's common for users to have a properly-filled-out profile, brimming with all that pointless information that no-one really cares about," Shakhmalian says.
"I wanted to create a platform where anyone can join and immediately ask questions with ease, through a sleek and user-friendly interface. A straightforward, quick way of sharing knowledge where and when it matters most."
He believes it has the potential to become the standard of modern Q&A.
Quemuse boasts an impressive array of features, from advanced direct-messaging to an interesting kudos system. A Quemuse on-site chatroom is also underway, which the company hopes will further serve to engage users.
Quemuse is a social Q&A platform that curates the latest and hottest questions of all topics asked by users like you. Discuss the topics and interests you love, such as gaming, tech, sports, science, news, and endless more. You can ask questions instantly at any time or create fun polls to get a variety of awesome answers. Additionally, find yourself discovering intriguing and thought-provoking questions with excellent and thoughtful answers on topics you follow.
Quemuse has been featured on the front-page of ProductHunt on the initial day of launch. Currently, Quemuse stands strong on the featured showcase with over 150 upvotes on the second day of launch. <comment><USER2> Is your preferred pronunciation 'q-muse' or 'kweh-muse'? (If the former, you might want to try to get a domain more like 'q-muse'.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey gojomo,

It's pronounced it 'kweh-muse'.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> [https://quemuse.com](https://quemuse.com)</comment>


How Y'all, Youse and You Guys Talk: The Dialect Quiz - <AUTHOR> https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/12/20/sunday-review/dialect-quiz-map.mobile.html <comment><USER2> Map isn't loading for me at the moment.</comment>


Goldman Sachs to pay less than touted $5.1B for role in subprime mortgage crisis - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/12/business/dealbook/goldman-sachs-to-pay-5-1-billion-in-mortgage-settlement.html <comment><USER2> This will translate to a very well deserved bonus for all parties involved. Except, you know, the tax payers and citizens who aren't.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Edited title to reflect update at source.</comment>


Error Propagation in Scientific Computing - <AUTHOR> http://functionspace.org/articles/21/Introduction-to-Scientific-Computing--Error-Propagation

<comment><USER2> Is there any generic way to preserve loss of numerical accuracy for any given function?</comment>


Ask YC: Why aren't job posts open for comments? - <AUTHOR>

Seems like a good forum for public questions. <comment><USER2> I think it is up to the posters. Just happens to be that everyone chooses to have it off.

Makes more sense logistically - it's more convenient to have all questions/mails about the job coming in to an email address.

<comment><AUTHOR> But why not parallelize repeated questions? Clearly those interested wouldn't just comment "I'm in". They would email.

<comment><USER2> Probably because repeated questions isn't a problem yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Heh, I was just wondering the same thing.

</comment><comment><USER4> What do they mean by London/SF? Which is it? Would I have to move to London?

<comment><USER5> The plan is to be in San Francisco, but we need someone who is flexible and willing to be in London if necessary for the good of the company. (e.g. our UK founders get delayed with visas, etc.) Its much more productive to be working in the same location.

<comment><USER6> Is it easy for someone from the USA to get a work visa to work in London?

<comment><USER7> Easier than the other way around, put it that way. We're building an international team with a global mindset, so that flexibility is essential.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Usefulness of Reinforcement Learning in Finance (2018) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.iaqf.org/dev/files/IAQF-2018%20-%20slides.pdf <comment><USER2> Needless to say, I won't be one of the suckers investing in the new hedge fund that you hope to create soon.

Wall Street has a long history of arrogant academics who believe that they have discovered the "holy grail" of investment strategies while getting off in their ivory tower on some fancy-pants mathematical formula that looks oh-so alluringly complex on the surface, but in reality makes all kinds of simplifying assumptions that renders it almost completely useless when applied to real markets.

This road to false riches is now well-traveled, littered with the smoldering remains of companies like LTCM and Bernie Madoff Investments, to name just a few.

And of course the infamous fraudster, Andrew Lo, has also blown up a few boatloads of naive investors' capital ... but in his case he was shrewd enough to snag a university professorship beforehand, behind which he could then hide his naked bleeding ass after Natixis had to bail out his Alpha "Herpes" Simplex hedge fund that he was running (on the sly) across the street from the MIT Sloan School of Management.

My suggestion to this former physics graduate student is quite simple: quit playing the role of the high-falutin' Harvard-trained "wizard of Wall Street" bullshitter, Mr. Gordon Ritter, and try doing something useful (for once) in your life.

The cancer research machine learning community is waiting for your resume.

(Hmm, on second thought, I just remembered something: "sociopaths need not apply." Oh well.)

<comment><USER2> Speaking of investment charlatans at the MIT Sloan School of Management, almost forgot about this scoundrel: [https://www.justice.gov/usao- ma/pr/former-associate-dean-mit...](https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/former- associate-dean-mit-sloan-school-and-harvard-mba-son-sentenced-prison-hedge- fund)

Only three years in a country club prison!

And remember what the MIT administration did to Aaron Swartz just for trying to make articles in medical journals more readily available to the taxpayers who funded the research.

I'm now thinking that maybe you should start that hedge fund at MIT ... I think a narcissistic sociopath might find himself in good company there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Should be titled "The Usefulness of Reinforcement Learning in Academic Finance", as I don't see the usefulness to real finance. Too many assumptions, short-cuts etc.

That is the problem with quant finance. It has turned into an overly academic industry, churning out publications for the sake of publications. IMHQO.

</comment><comment><USER4> Wow 2007 called and wants its Ornstein-Uhlenbeck back.</comment>


Xilinx rolls out easier-to-use free FPGA programming tools - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/01/xilinx_vitis_fpga_launch/ <comment><USER2> I remember reading Bunny Huang's book "hacking the xbox" and feeling so empowered to build projects with FGPAs. So I took two semesters of Verilog in University. However I have never been able to translate that knowledge into anything remotely useful.

</comment><comment><USER3> TBH proprietary tooling this is just not the way to go. The FPGA space needs solution which works across FPGAs of different vendors.

Besides there are way better alternatives to VHDL and Verilog that I feel High level synthesis is kind of dead.

<comment><USER4> Which better alternatives to VHDL and Verilog do you mean?

<comment><USER3> Clash mainly. I have also heard amazing things about bluespec but I have never used it myself.

<comment><USER5> I just took a look at clash. HDL describes state in a very real way. Trying to represent stateful hardware using a functional language is just too complicated. I hate these toy examples of "look how easy an FIR filter is." An FIR filter isn't hard to write in Verilog to begin with. The real headache of Verilog is generate statements and multidimensional array indexing. And both of those problems are readily solved by System Verilog, System C, or any of the myriad of Verilog generators.

<comment><USER3> Your comment about clash and functional languages not handling state correctly are shortsighted. I have implemented real systems using Clash. The usability is simply leaps and bounds ahead of stuff like System Verilog and System C. The real headache of Verilog and the like is that it has little ability to abstract making you think that the real problem is stuff like multidimensional array indexing.

I'm not sure what you expect on a front page of a technology they have to show really simple toy examples and can't really dive in deeper. It's a front page... You can find myriad of more involved stuff if you would have googled for 5 seconds. For instance this [https://clash-lang.org/blog/0001-matrix- multiplication/](https://clash-lang.org/blog/0001-matrix-multiplication/).

<comment><USER5> Just to be clear, I'm not trying to put down Clash. I disagree with your statement about it being an alternative to Verilog or VHDL. It's like saying Java is dead because Scala exists.

<comment><USER3> Java and Scala are at about the same level of what you can do with both. Clash isn't really at the same level as VHDL or Verilog. You are right that it still compiles down to VHDL or Verilog but that doesn't mean anything. Haskell also compiles down to machine code. Does that mean you might as well write machine code? Of course not.

What's your point that there are other languages that compile down to Verilog? I have tried some of them and most of them try to shoehorn a software language into digital design which doesn't fit.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Facebook's Blu-Ray Powered Cold Storage Data Center - <AUTHOR> http://datacenterfrontier.com/inside-facebooks-blu-ray-cold-storage-data-center/ <comment><USER2> I used to have a job as one of those robotic arms.

The datacenter were I worked had lots of shelves full of tapes, and the computer would beep and display a tape number and a drive number. You'd have to jump up, find the tape and put it in the drive.

During the day you were running about constantly trying to keep the thing happy. On the night shift you could sit a watch movies and only get up once or twice an hour.

<comment><USER3> One of the real robots dropped a tape within a swiss data center on December 24th 2010 and subsequent error states stopped all debit card transaction as a result...

<comment><USER4> on the day everybody was scrambling to get their christmas shopping done.

i still remember the chaos (I also had to get some presents...)

edit: it was actually in 2000: [http://www.boerse- express.com/mobile#/mobile/pages/96409](http://www.boerse- express.com/mobile#/mobile/pages/96409) (german)

<comment><USER3> Thanks, too late to edit the post for this typo.

The ATMS were dead too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder how Facebook is able to implement the EU privacy directives with this technology as their long term storage solution. If a customer requests deletion of their data you're supposed to comply with that, even on back-ups.

<comment><USER6> In all seriousness, it is more than likely a flag:

      User.IsDeleted = true

Or

      User.Status = Status.Deleted (or Status.Deactivated)

Facebook allow users to deactivate their accounts, which can then be reactivated. Facebook users can also delete their accounts. Facebook say that this is permanent:

      When you delete an account, it is permanently deleted from Facebook.
      You should only delete your account if you are certain you never want
      to reactivate it.

Permanently deleted still doesn't mean deleted. It just means that you can't recover it. Facebook have never publicly stated what their deletion process is.

Is it logical or physical?

Since Facebook keep anonymous profiles, I wouldn't be surprised if deleted accounts just get migrated to anonymous profiles which they can still profit from. That's what I'd do if I was Facebook.

<comment><USER7> "Permanently deleted" means exactly what it says. Deactivated means that the account is inactive but the data is still there. When you delete your account the data is gone within 14 days, no options for recovery; it happens in bulk and with a bit of a grace period for 'buyers remorse' so it is somewhere in the tail end of that 14 day period. And yes, Facebook has publicly stated their deletion process on multiple occasions and has explanations of how it works in online help docs and FAQs that you just choose to ignore.

<comment><USER6> FB isn't exactly good at trust when it comes to its users. The whole business is about extracting value from its user base as an asset. Companies normally don't like throwing away assets if they can help it.

Until I see evidence to the contrary, I will assume that FB doesn't delete user data completely. That is just my preference based on the evidence of FB's previous actions. Others can believe what they will. I don't trust the online help docs or FAQs as far as I can throw them. FB has made a business out of abusing user privacy.

      Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
      Zuck: Just ask
      Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
      [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
      Zuck: People just submitted it.
      Zuck: I don't know why.
      Zuck: They "trust me"
      Zuck: Dumb fucks

Finally, as programmers, we all know how hard it is to remove elements such as a user from a graph. A user is key element of FB. It is challenging to remove a user, since they have a multitude of cross-related information, linked to other users and other user content. Either you delete the user logically and then hide their linked content, or you delete the user physically, but first delete all of the linked content, or you replace the user with a 'deleted user profile' and hide their linked content. Any other ways?

FB obviously hadn't done this back in 2010 [1] and maybe they have been trying hard to fix this issue, but I'd welcome an official post from FB tech team that states how they went about implementing this feature. Maybe a bit of transparency would go a long way in helping the more paranoid of us to think twice about FB.

[1] [http://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-does-not-erase-user- de...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-does-not-erase-user-deleted- content/)

<comment><USER8>
      > Finally, as programmers, we all know how hard it is to
      > remove elements such as a user from a graph.

Yet blocked users do disappear from the graph.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am glad companies like Facebook is using Blue-Ray. Hopefully this will trigger progress in increasing density of optical discs and/or decreasing cost of high capacity discs and writers for consumer market.

Eager to archive my yearly ever increasing personal media (thanks to having a kid) onto a high capacity disc and just store it in the safety deposit box.

<comment><USER10> I don't know what the life of blu-rays are but burned optical cds and dvds have an estimated lifespan of only 10 years. Make sure you continue to keep up your backups! How I do it is I update my backups every few years but I also keep everything on functional and "hot" hard drives at all times (so I can see it's all still there).

There's also [http://www.mdisc.com/what-is-mdisc/](http://www.mdisc.com/what- is-mdisc/) but I've never used/seen it.

<comment><USER11> The main downside is that MDiscs have a max capacity is 25GB on the Blu-ray.

I have some myself, but I can't attest to the life span, since I've only had my BDR for about a year now. How does a normal person prove the lifespan claims of an MDiscs other than waiting?

I still find myself burning most backups to 50GB disks, and making redundant copies of only my most important stuff to the 25GB MDiscs.

Where I live, a 3 pack of 25GB MDiscs runs around $20 vs $70 for a spindle of 25 RiData 50GB discs. That's ~6.66/25GB MDisc vs ~2.80/50GB BDR. Not a huge premium for piece of mind, I guess.

<comment><USER9> I see that they have 100GB BDXL MDisc available now. Have to invest into BDXL writer but that's just one time investment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Just to help add some clarity, this isn't Blu-Ray in the common consumer sense. I've seen some comments on here about the stability of the dyes and capacity. This technology, as mentioned at the end of the article, is Optical Archive storage [1]. The media are in the form of cartridges with 12 discs in each cartridge, and Sony claims that the media is "50 year rated". Sony currently manufactures cartridges with up to 1.5TB of storage[2]. They also make a 7U, 10-cartridge library [3]. So, in a standard rack, you could fit a maximum of 90TB of Optical Archive storage. That's admittedly not a lot given the storage density of hard drives, so I'm guessing that Facebook's decision to invest in this is partly driven by energy savings or other considerations.

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

[2] [http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-recmedia/cat- oda/](http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-recmedia/cat-oda/)

[3] [http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-datastorage/cat- opticaldisc...](http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-datastorage/cat- opticaldiscarchive/)

</comment><comment><USER13> A few months ago, Frank Frankovsky left Facebook to start a startup based on this tech! He was previously "VP of Hardware Design & Supply Chain Optimization" and has also been super involved in the Open Compute Project.

I'm pretty excited to see what they produce, and hope they can ship before someone like Amazon tries to acquire them. This level of cold storage is going to be critical as the world generates exponentially more data every year. He also mentioned this is an open source venture, which is doubly awesome. :)

[https://www.facebook.com/frankovsky/posts/10203257723264639?...](https://www.facebook.com/frankovsky/posts/10203257723264639?stream_ref=10)

<comment><USER14> FTA: Last month that startup, Optical Archive, was acquired by Sony. [http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2015/05/27/sony-...](http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2015/05/27/sony- acquires-facebook-born-startup-repurposes-blu-rays-cold-storage/)

<comment><USER13> ...sigh :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So how does this work with the way Facebook delivers content? I understand the advantages of disc storage for a service like Amazon Glacier as the customer expectations are set for significant time and bandwidth constraints but Facebook is supposed to deliver personal data as fast as it can be served up. They've created a "customer" expectation of instant access that can't be provided by an offline disc.

It makes for a good solution as a 2nd or 3rd level backup but you'd need some form of RAID to prevent users from experience a lengthy delay every single time a disk fails. That's a lot of money to invest in a novel solution that creates a lengthy interruption in service should it ever be needed. Maybe the power savings are worth it when weighed against the rarity of such use and expected level of revenue lost to user frustration but that's an equation made fragile by so many variables.

I could also see it used in conjunction with some amazing use-prediction algorithm to store data that will most likely never be requested. If Facebook truly keeps everything then they have millions of photos, videos, hidden posts, and other digital detritus tied up in dead, inactive, or orphaned repositories. I know half the groups I joined back in high school are now impossible to find but the data they contained is still important for the purpose of linking people and interests together. I also have several friends who have passed away, making their account a kind of digital mausoleum. Their private data will never be accessed again but it must remain in FB's datacenter until someone is given access to the account to delete it. The number of Facebook accounts tied to the deceased is only increasing so these racks of Blu Rays might be considered the first digital cemetery. I don't know how many resources are allocated to this kind of data but this is where cold storage makes the most sense.

</comment><comment><USER16> I really like how open Facebook is about their infrastructure, hardware designs, etc.

I would have thought that they would be trying something with higher capacity, but off the shelf == lower costs.

Interesting that FB needs to handle 900 million photo uploads a day. With higher resolution cameras on smartphones, their storage requirements will keep increasing. My Note 4 takes 4K video and very high resolution photos - FB, Google, etc. can store lower res versions only, but the pressure will be there for higher resolution support, especially with 4K TVs, and other high resolution devices.

</comment><comment><USER17> I wonder how projects like Archive.org could benefit from something like this. I know it has it's up and downs, but if you have enough backups it shouldn't be too bad. I'm sure there's tons of untouched content that could easily be archived (an archive inside the archive), but other sites might as well, such as wikipedia. Of course they would need a bit of funding for this somewhat new endeavour. Maybe facebook can 'donate' the implementation to such sites.

</comment><comment><USER18> Can I have one of those Blu-Ray storage units searching all my discs would be way more convenient if i didn't have to do it manually :)

</comment><comment><USER19> Isn't the life span of a burned disc quite bad?

<comment><USER20> Isn't the life span of a magnetic disc quite bad?

<comment><USER11> I've gone through over a half dozen Seagate 2.5 drives (spindle and hybrid) and one 3.5 external in the past five years, and I'm lucky if they last 2 years. This includes drives that are mostly offline.

I've switched to WD, but I haven't had them long enough to say that they're only better. The WD Green in my Time Capsule has lasted a few years though.

All these drive failures led me to buy a BD-R burner, which has worked out fairly well, although I would say it's better to buy burning software than using the free software (on Windows at least) if you want to avoid making a >= $3 coaster.

I find the 50GB capacity to be fairly easy to work with, since I'm much less likely to have to span files/folders across discs than the 25GB ones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wonder how long it takes to put data from that storage online. What happens e.g. if I want to see my 5 old images fullscreen?

<comment><USER22> I think they still keep a copy online. But they only have to keep one copy as the cold storage is used as a backup instead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> All our chat history is there

<comment><USER24> And our cat images! :)</comment></comment>