Why Haskell Is Important - <AUTHOR> https://www.tweag.io/posts/2019-09-06-why-haskell-is-important.html <comment><USER2> > Haskell's core principles, like purity and isolation of side-effects, [are] > understood and appreciated by more today than ever before

If I were to summarize what I think are the most important ideas in the modern functional programming world, I would start with purity and isolation of side- effects (and the mechanisms that have arisen to manage side-effects). However, it seems like most discussion about functional programming centers on type systems and most of what gets imported to other languages is just fancy ways to do iteration. Purity and side-effect isolation, it seems, is seen as a weird curiosity that must be broken in order to write Real Software (TM). It feels like I've slowly watched functional programming get lost in translation the same way object oriented programming was.

I'm sure the past decade or two of hype around FP has done some good to real code bases by exposing new ideas to developers who might never have seen them before, but I worry that in another ten years, I'll open up someone's code and find a nested callback hell where state mutations are impossible to track.

<comment><USER3> The nice thing of functional languages is the establishment of invariants. A large part of that lies in purity / isolated side-effects. However, much of it comes from the type system.

When ported to 'imperative' languages, those factors from the type system help establish invariant given that people don't use all the footguns. Whilst it is sad there are still footguns that can ruin your invariants, getting better types helps you move away from the footguns. Moreover, it is much harder to export purity to different languages than it is to export good type systems.

And really, the good thing that is being taken over is 'make it easier to reason about correctness through invariants'.

<comment><USER4> Functional languages don't establish invariants, invariants is an abstract math concept and math way of thinking. Side-effects, on the other hand, have an important place in programming and CS.

<comment><USER5> If you can't make hordes of side-effects sit up and beg, in a large, complicated program, you can't call yourself a computer scientist or developer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think many of these comments are asking too much of a single short article. Or they want the article to be addressing the questions that they have rather than the question it was written to address. The author is stating very high level reasons about why Haskell is a fairly unique language, as a (relatively) practical, popular, and pragmatic vehicle of programming language progress (mind your ps).

For those that want concrete reasons for why it would be useful for a beginner, my personal honest opinion is that it may not necessarily be. Haskell does seem to require a decent amount of investment before it becomes practical. You may derive benefit from seeing the functional style in an enforced context. I know it informed and changed my python style a quite bit. You may find that these patterns were all around you the entire time and you didn't notice it, like learning new vocabulary words.

Anecdotally, my interest in Haskell seems to have been very good for my career so far and I have not had difficulty finding jobs that coincide with my interest in typed functional programming generally. Perhaps I have been very lucky.

</comment><comment><USER7> Unbalanced post because it doesn't address evidence against Haskell. For example:

\- Performance is lower than most systems programming languages.

\- Performance is also more difficult to reason about.

\- If Haskell is aimed at building large and complex systems, then where is the evidence, e.g. an operating system? (A compiler is just a pipeline so doesn't count; it is of a different kind of complexity)

\- The GHC compiler internals are badly documented (despite some great books about its global architecture). Why do people who pursue clean software engineering methods not follow good software engineering practices?

<comment><USER8> I'm a bit conflicted about your point here, because they seem cherry-picked to highlight disparate aspects of Haskell that don't make it less interesting or important.

Haskell is more often than not sued as a general purpose language, not as a systems language. Its performance is actually outstanding, usually equal to Java and often close to C. This means that Haskell can be safely used in any domain were java would be fast enough.

I find also somewhat arrogant to claim that there are no complex systems built in it. Just take a look at the webpage publishing this article. They mention several projects of great complexity. Here's an example: [https://www.tweag.io/posts/2017-03-13-linear- types.html](https://www.tweag.io/posts/2017-03-13-linear-types.html)

They are using Haskell as a prototyping language that lets the refactor and radically change the direction of their solutions at a low development cost. Haskell clearly is helping solve complexity here.

Also, where did the claim that GHC is badly documented come from, and how is it relevant to Haskell being important?

Just looking at randomly selected file in the repo, it looks actually quite well documented: [https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/blob/master/compiler/simp...](https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/blob/master/compiler/simplCore/FloatOut.hs)

<comment><USER7> > they seem cherry-picked to highlight disparate aspects of Haskell

I only said that the article was unbalanced and provided some counter examples. I didn't say that Haskell does not have many good uses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It seems like the condensed version is "The idea of Haskell is more important than the language itself", which doesn't really sound like a convincing argument to answer why the language is important.

<comment><USER10> There was a hackernews post yesterday where the top voted comment asserted that computer science and maths is (in practice) only useful for data structures and algorithms; everything else needed either physics or social science. This is why Haskell is important. Haskell will help teach people the mathematics behind program construction: how to write composable code, how to reason about effects, how to write consistent, general, less ad-hoc APIs.

<comment><USER11> But it doesn't seem to.

Products built in haskell don't seem to have dramatically lower maintenance costs. They don't tend to have features that other products don't have. Nobody buys math.

In all of the recruiter spam I get, the only time that recruiters lead with "what language we use" rather than "what we are building" is when the company is using haskell. This seems backwards and gives a poor impression.

There might be 100 POPL papers that I can use with haskell extensions but ultimately the act of coding is nowhere near the top of the list of important things when building systems to solve problems.

<comment><USER10> > Products built in haskell don't seem to have dramatically lower maintenance > costs. They don't tend to have features that other products don't have.

That is your anecdote, mine is the opposite. Using Haskell at my place of work we have lower maintenance costs than other competitors that use Python. We also have features they don't have, such as checked purity (a guarantee that a financial calculation is reproducible) and transparent batching/caching/provenance (made possible by Haskell's expressiveness). None of this would be possible in Python or Java.

Language/notation, is IMHO critical for the ability to think using the right abstractions. To take your argument to the extreme, we should all be still using machine code, because tools don't matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> In our startup due to earlier experience working with pandoc, we tried to give Haskell a try.

It was very difficult for team to pick up and then they took longer to accomplish very little. It did drain out confidence and make us think, we are not so clever.

So later moved to Python, and suddenly things changed. In the meantime on personal level at present learning lisp. Once finish will try to work on Haskell again.

I think Haskell along with lisp will be good on learning functional programming for my team. It will help them solve logical problems using functional paradigm as well. So in future they can pick up procedural or functional paradigm to solve logical problems better suited to problem at hand.

<comment><USER10> There is unfortunately a large learning curve for production Haskell. It's a very different language to most imperative object-oriented ones, that are all broadly very similar. However, the concepts that folks will learn (Monads, Monoids, Functors, Profunctors etc etc) are taken from math and will likely be around for another 100 years. This is not disposable knowledge, and for me at least, it made a refreshing change from learning ad-hoc concepts from each successive OO fad framework I had to deal with.

<comment><USER13> I have been learning Haskell from these two books over the last 4 months: "Practical Haskell by Alejandro Serrano" and "Practical Web Development with Haskell" by Ecky Putrady. With other languages I usually just skim through a book figuring out how the basic data structures, flow control and operations then start writing a toy CLI app or server but with haskell I felt completely lost when trying to follow examples in library documentation, even after several weeks of reading books. So I found it's really worth carefully going through the programming book and doing the exercises, at least beyond the monad transformers section, before diving into real code. I'm over the hump and am writing & understanding working code now, but still a long way from the level of mastery I have with imperative programming.

<comment><USER14> I think the problem with Haskell are not the concepts per se, but rather the terrible ergonomics (too many cryptic operators, point-free syntax, language extensions) and TERRIBLE learning material.

Monads, for instance, are hard to invent but are easier to use than most libraries. Most people won't come up with Monads and will only consume them. But books and Monad tutorials focus instead on explaining what they are and how they were invented. This is unnecessary.

Another problem is that the coolest things (monads, lenses, syntax extensions) are bolt-on, rather than built-in. So we compromise syntax (and sometimes consistency) in the name of extensibility. Such fundamental things should be in the StdLib. This is the same problem Javascript suffers from.

I strongly believe that a new language with the same semantics but a more approachable syntax and better learning materials (like Python) would be way more successful. Maybe that's OCaml but I'm not too experienced in it.

<comment><USER15> Syntax-wise Ocaml is waaaay weirder than Haskell. In fact, Haskell is a pretty typical representative of the whole ML language family, with StandardML being the cleanest of them all.

<comment><USER16> Actually, OCaml is much closer to the original ML that SML.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "Why Haskell is important" according to a Haskell consulting company. So taking this article with a big grain of salt.

Haskell might be a great language but barely anyone (besides CS academics) uses it.

We use java and python in production because (among many other things) they're very popular.

Popular languages have large archives of open source packages and easy to find communities that save enormous amounts of headaches and time. The opposite is true of Haskell, at least for now.

<comment><USER18> All valid points. It could in the future be done in a better way is not really interesting when you are working with your boss breathing down your neck.

Still my fellow academics will try to push in the direction they see fit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The most important thing about Haskell is this: serving as a test bed for programming language theory and ideas.

Some of these ideas eventually find their way to other programming languages. Other ideas remain just ideas and academic experiments.

<comment><USER20> I don't know about that, Haskell has been a stable language for a while now...

<comment><USER21> Google "haskell motto"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't doubt that Haskell is a great language, but in my experience, if you have to publicly anounce to people at length why a thing is x, it isn't x.

<comment><USER10> Not true at all. We live in a world were marketing determines the standards used. The current trend is actually to give programmers less guidance on writing correct, composable code ("Dynamic" scripting languages).

<comment><USER23> I think that was true 6 or 7 years ago, but we're heading completely to the other side. Typescript over javascript, rust over c, swift over objective-c, dart adding improved support for static typing, go thinking about generics, etc. I think everybody now go toward compilers or PL enforcing more ( and as soon as possible) rather than give the programmers more dynamic features.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm mainly a C/C++ programmer, I use also python, I'm learning Go and I'm reading about Rust. But I think my programming skill are a little "stereotyped", so I'm looking for something different, you know, to open my mind. So I read the article, here on HN, about all the "exotic" languages, Lisp for example and others. I was reading this article about Haskell and I think it's too abstract to stimulate a novice to go further. Some details about the advantages cited and related examples should be present to give motivation to the newcomers. On the contrary, the part about the evolution gave the impression of an immature language. My two cents.

<comment><USER25> Question is, why would you want to consider the more "exotic" languages? What would the motivation be, for you, in trying out new languages?

The hint that these might not be for you, yet, is right there in your question. You consider yourself a C/C++ programmer. I think most of the folks who grok these Lisp and Haskell languages just consider themselves programmers plain and simple, or engineers, or curious little heads, or artists, or something similar.

<comment><USER24> I would consider other programming languages different from c/c++ because I don't want my capability to solve problems bonded to specific tools, this is the motivation I learnt other languages.

Evolution maybe, the animal becoming too specialized, in case of environmental changes, will face the extinction.

I'm looking for tools better able to solve specific problems. You can stick screws with an hammer, maybe it's faster but a screwdriver tool exists to better solve the problem and its evolution the electric screwdriver is the state-of-the art and probably the best choice. Now, having to deal with a limited resource, _time_ , I have to choice what to learn seriously and this article doesn't help me to do a choice. Those choices also could influence my professional capabilities in the futures, because, you know, I do the programmer to live.

> just consider themselves programmers plain and simple

Plain and simple programmer is bullshit, IMHO. What do you write in your CV, "professional programmer plain and simple" :-) ? Oh, please, save your rhetoric.

<comment><USER25> You don't go lisping to make your CV look pretty. That doesn't help at all. On the contrary, it might be even damaging, as some discussions here on HN have shown in the past.

If you're "looking for tools better able to solve specific problems", your best bet right now might be Python. It ain't pretty, but the momentum behind it is tremendous. Tons of libraries, books, how-to's and developers out there willing to help. From a practical point of view, you couldn't ask for more.

<comment><USER24> > You don't go lisping to make your CV look pretty.

Look, I didn't write that. This is _your_ affirmation. As I wrote, and I repeat, I think that being specialized to procedural/object languages, for some kind of problems that could be a limit. So I'm looking for different paradigms to change the way I approach problems. Now I have a limited time, how I should spend it ? Now, because I'm a professional programmer I would like something I can use and improve my CV. So what?

> your best bet right now might be Python

Again, its paradigm is a stereotype of other language I know.

What's your problem ? Are you the author of the article ? Look, I think that the point of that article is "study Haskell, trust me", so it isn't an help for newcomers. I only express my opinion. The title is "Why Haskell is important" and I think it fails to explain the more important point that is "why". So, why ? Moreover, why Haskell and not F# or Erlang, for example ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think that when mentioning the effect of Haskell on other languages, things beyond rust deserve to be pointed out.

Modern C++ has sum-types and 'optional' types.

Python has lazy evaluation (generators).

Java-script really likes higher order functions (reduce, map, etc).

<comment><USER26> > Python has lazy evaluation (generators). > Java-script really likes higher > order functions (reduce, map, etc).

It is a hard sell to claim that either of these were invented or even popularized by Haskell. Just because something has functional roots, doesn't mean Haskell is related to the success of the feature - there are plenty of older languages (LISP!) that have the same features and that likely has way bigger influencing effect.

<comment><USER8> In fairness, the list comprehension syntax in python was taken directly from Haskell: [https://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonVsHaskell](https://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonVsHaskell)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'd love to see a Haskell in Lisp's clothing. (The Haskell that exists has so little syntax that source code often looks like a mass of unstructured text.)

<comment><USER27> There was Liskell, but it seems it's dead.

[https://wiki.haskell.org/Haskell_Lisp](https://wiki.haskell.org/Haskell_Lisp)

<comment><USER28> [https://github.com/lexi-lambda/hackett](https://github.com/lexi- lambda/hackett)

Under active development, still WIP

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Those very same arguments could be rather used to say why Racket is important.</comment>


Show HN: Add what Twitter's missing - good thread editor, edit tweets and more - <AUTHOR> https://getchirrapp.com/ <comment><USER2> I may be alone in this, but I genuinely think editing is bad a feature in the context of the way twitter works. Considering the problems it already has a platform, the last thing it needs is for people to be able to edit tweets after they have reached critical velocity.

<comment><USER3> They should have an Edit feature and ALSO display edit history. So, you will see the most recent version of the tweet but can also see the edit history. Nothing will be hidden this way.

<comment><USER4> Nothing will be hidden except the edit history in the screenshot...

<comment><USER5> Anyone can edit a screenshot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey, the Chirr App author here!

I released the initial version of the app in 2017 as a free and open-source tool ([https://github.com/kossnocorp/chirrapp](https://github.com/kossnocorp/chirrapp)) even before Twitter threads become a thing.

Later that year, Twitter gave me a lot of trouble when they added 280-chars support but didn't update API and the twitter-text library. I was about to close it, but thanks to Firebase, the running cost was $0, so I fixed the issues and kept it alive.

With time, the app accumulated authority and users. Since 2017 when I first launched the app, it has been used by 9.5K people to publish 22K threads and 330K tweets! Happy users started coming to me with thanks and features requests more and more so I decided to rewrite the app and added tons of new features, like:

\- Drag-n-drop images

\- Editing published threads (yes, the edit button!)

\- Drafts

\- Scheduling

\- And much more!

In case if anyone curious, the app is built with TypeScript, Preact, on top Firebase platform.

<comment><USER6> How does editing work given Twitter doesn't support editing tweets?

Looking at the demo ([https://twitter.com/chirrapp/status/1282608419321643009](https://twitter.com/chirrapp/status/1282608419321643009)) I think it removes the tweet you edited AND any later tweet in the same thread, and republishes those - the first with updated text, and the rest with the same content as before. Is that right?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, you got it right!

I'm also working on adding a delayed publishing like in GMail, so you can edit typos even before the thread got published.

<comment><USER7> Have you considered adding a very short link into each tweet (or into the first/second tweet), whose contents (as a Twitter card) could be later updated to provide corrections?

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't. It sounds like a fun idea but not sure if the content consumers would understand it, and also Twitter caches the card content (not sure for how long though), so it might just not work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why not just write a blog and post a link to it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Threads is an excellent and unique medium that is easy to consume and share, take a look at these examples:

\- [https://twitter.com/dannypostmaa/status/1282952961857970176](https://twitter.com/dannypostmaa/status/1282952961857970176)

\- [https://twitter.com/robhope/status/1265278107088347136](https://twitter.com/robhope/status/1265278107088347136)

Of course, you can make a blog post from such threads (and probably should, if the thread got traction), but it would look and read differently.

<comment><USER9> Can you explain why? Your reply is "it's better because it's better".

<comment><USER10> From my personal experience, people are more likely to read and share threads for a number of reasons:

* They don't have to go off platform.

* the base tweet can be much more eye catching that a link, even with social cards set up

* People may be desensitised to links that lead off-platform, because that's how Ads generally appear on Twitter

Then there are other advantages, like the fact that it tends to encourage you to write in a concise and direct way, with each tweet in the thread being like a bullet point. I often see people retweeting and engaging with a specific tweet from the thread; it's harder (relative term) to do that with a section from a blog post.

<comment><USER11> Depending on what you are doing(!) users stuck on a platform OR users who don't do links might or might not be the desired audience.

<comment><USER10> Maybe, but the question is: who are they going to share it to?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Threads is my type of content in Twitter and I got a lot of RTs after writing few good threads.

Completely agree that Twitter's UI for writing threads is pain.

</comment><comment><USER13> Cool idea. I'm happy with Pleroma though tbh.... I have a feeling fediverse will win in the long run.

</comment><comment><USER14> Seems useful, but my feedback is it's almost unusable slow. So much lag on input.

I'm using FireFox on Mac

</comment><comment><USER15> I have used this app many times. Love it to post larger content to Twitter which had way more value then just a link to a blog post for example. I think it provides a lot of value to Twitter. Thanks for building it!

</comment><comment><USER16> I saw this the other day, almost bought a yearly subscription. I'll buy it soon though, just whenever I start using Twitter more.

</comment><comment><USER17> What Twitter is missing: Security

</comment><comment><USER18> Neat use of 'backdrop-filter'

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! ฅ^•ﻌ•^ฅ</comment></comment>


Test flight held for small jet modeled after Miyazaki anime - <AUTHOR> http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20160805/p2a/00m/0na/013000c <comment><USER2> I thought it was going to be named after "Porco Rosso" ([http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=85...](http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=855)), to be honest. Talking about "Porco Rosso", I got to briefly visit Trieste for the first time ever this summer, Miyazaki and his fellow animators really did a very good job of portraying everything about the city, from the beautiful light to the Austro-Hungarian buildings from downtown. I had only seen the movie once, about 10 years ago, but I had a strong deja-vu feeling as I was visiting the Trieste waterfront, from where the first ever commercial Italian airplane took off in the early '20s.

<comment><USER3> Did you know the hotel, in the water, is based on a real world location? I once came across a real life photo of it, with a note about it being used as a reference for the film, but never came across it again - do you have any ideas where it was ?

<comment><USER4> Some googling suggests it could be [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isola_Bella_(Lago_Maggiore)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isola_Bella_\(Lago_Maggiore\))

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/jdbfhr/5521339431/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/jdbfhr/5521339431/)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for taking a good look, I guess it could be the location, but I honestly remember a smaller island, on a lake, with a hotel on it in the photograph. Maybe it was from a different angle? After all how many lakes in Italy have hotels in them?

Thanks again for trying.

<comment><USER4> My runner up is the islet of San Giovanni on the same lake: [http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/122043835.jpg](http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/122043835.jpg) (which is also mentioned in [http://www.davinotti.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=v...](http://www.davinotti.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=329)). In reality it was probably an amalgamate of several reference locations.

<comment><USER3> This is it! Thank you =]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> And it does look like the anime version: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zhLBe319KE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zhLBe319KE)

About 35 seconds in.

<comment><USER6> A lot like, except it can't VTOL but it certainly takes off and lands on very little runway. And except you can't stand up on it, but standing up on an aircraft that's already pitch-unstable sounds like a recipe for a faceplant.

<comment><USER3> It is a shame VTOL is not incorporated, I can't help thinking it would be pretty easy to add what with available cheap multirotor stabilisation tech... the more I think about it, the more possible it is, and safer.

<comment><USER7> i always loved the attention to detail on display in the vertical take off in the film

a little foot pedal can be raised and with a swift impression the aircraft gets a downward burst that sends it about 2 or 3 meters straight up and then the engine propels it forward: [https://youtu.be/tdAtYXzcZWE?t=27](https://youtu.be/tdAtYXzcZWE?t=27)

there is another launch where they just fall out of a larger already moving flying machine.. unable to find a clip online but it's about at an hour and 28 minutes into the film

another awesome launch is when back home in the valley of the wind the glider is hooked up to a slingshot that throws the glider without using any fuel up into the air where the pilot then activates the engine.. unable to find a clip online but it's about at 22 minutes into the film

and another where the pilot runs the glider off a cliff and then flips up on top before launching to speed.. unable to find a clip online but it's about at 15 minutes into the film

as for landing, i'd hardly say vertical, mostly just a short runway

i love this style of landing shown early on, where the pilot flips under the glider and glides low enough to run off the glider: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRZ5JalHjhs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRZ5JalHjhs)

this is a remarkably creative, brilliant and beautiful film

a rare post apocalyptic vision, both socially and environmentally, that retains beauty and hope

i highly recommend it to everyone

<comment><USER6> The bit where they get the detail wrong is: the VTOL generates a puff of air about the diameter of the wings, once. What it would actually need to generate is a huge blast on the order of a helicopter lifting off, continuously at least for the first few seconds. A single blast would leave it plummeting and it would need to pull some harsh gees to get up past stalling speed before it made a splat on the ground. Looking at the animation, maybe it was doing exactly that - but how did her arms not snap off?

Possible methodology:

\- Explosive single VTOL blast.

\- Plummeting with the jet throttled to max.

\- Wing-in-ground effect lowers effective stall speed so acceleration can proceed skimming inches over the ground.

\- Up to speed and lifting away from the ground to full flight.

It sounds crudely plausible, but terrifying and not something to do without mad skills.

<comment><USER7> miyazaki often subverts physics for aethetics

if you are responding to my mention of attention to detail

i was merely referring to the little foot pedal that pops up for the vert take off

unnecessary for the universe it inhabits and extra work for the animators, but a fun detail for viewers

<comment><USER3> ah no but don't you both see? A key component of the craft is that it is a glider, in most if not all scenes there is the clear presence of extremely strong wind, which would keep it held in the air - and not just for a few seconds! Look at the landing clip for example, where she hangs off it and the clear indication of strong wind. All that was required was the sudden VTOL blast to get the wing into the air current so it could generate lift.

I hope we can all settle on this explanation and agree they are visionaries. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Looks like this has been an ongoing project for a while.

[http://en.rocketnews24.com/2013/08/06/real-life-nausiccas- mo...](http://en.rocketnews24.com/2013/08/06/real-life-nausiccas-mowe-glider- makes-first-powered-flight/)

<comment><USER9> It has been going since before YouTube was created. I remember downloading the .MOV files from their web site back in 2003. PetWORKs is the company/creative group behind the project.

[http://www.petworks.co.jp/~hachiya/opensky/](http://www.petworks.co.jp/~hachiya/opensky/)

<comment><USER10> Yes, the Moewe/Open Sky project has been going on since 1995. There was an RC model, a large glider, and then this full-sized one with a jet engine. This one first flew around 2013, but now they have more control, can get more altitude, and can fly around the pattern.

Sadly, it needs too much runway to land at summer comiket.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> That design, while interesting and reminiscent of all the flying wing experiments and developments over the years, scares the ever loving hell out of me. I say this as a person working on a personal wing device also without a large vertical stabilizer control surface. Brave soul, and I fully applaud giving it a try!

<comment><USER12> I watched the video mentally screaming at the lack of protection, not even a full helmet. I'll join the applause!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I love when writers, novelists, artists dream up something then a group of crazy engineers come along and build it.

<comment><USER14> I'm still waiting for my hoverboard.

<comment><USER15> An anti-gravity generator is needed. A lot of people would like to see that :-)

<comment><USER16> A Higgs manipulator.. We'll get there, we made the first steps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Video: [https://youtu.be/yHifJXf3oIo](https://youtu.be/yHifJXf3oIo)

<comment><USER18> And the 3rd person version:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17elclJuXxQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17elclJuXxQ)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The bike helmet is the icing on the cake for me.

<comment><USER20> safety is a top priority, you never know when you might get in a low speed collision while flying a jet

<comment><USER16> To be fair, that thing could probably do a 40 km/h faceplant during take-off or landing.

<comment><USER21> In which case you might want a full face helmet and some armor. The bike helmet is either pointless in the case of a catastrophic failure or not enough in the case of a survivable accident.

<comment><USER22> It does hold the gopro pretty well, though!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Can I be the first to note that being strapped to a large jet engine like that has got to be terrifying?

<comment><USER24> I think its only terrifying until you reach glide altitude, and then turn it off .. and then .. I think the whole thing is probably fun as hell.

<comment><USER25> Unfortunately the design of this aircraft means its glide ratio is probably not that good.

<comment><USER26> It can't possibly have an airfoil. That's got to be a purely symmetrical airfoil shape, otherwise it'd be flipping him over forward violently. I didn't believe this design at first sight, and when I saw it actually flying I was amazed at how dangerous it was. It's basically an air surfboard. Astonishing. The weight distribution is nuts, I can't see how he'd possibly regain control if it flipped backward or forward even once. It'd just tumble out of the sky with you on it.

<comment><USER27> You would use an airfoil suitable for flying wings. They tend to curve up at the back. One of my gliding instructors used to fly this flying wing with reasonably good performance (35:1 glide ratio):

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

Note the comment about the narrow centre of gravity range. The instructor said that wearing his heavy boots would change the flying characteristics enough that he could notice.

So such things exist and are at least somewhat practical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Would have liked to see it landing. And the caption said the guy is 50. Wow! He looks like 30.

<comment><USER4> You can see the landing here: [http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201608010046.html](http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201608010046.html)

Looks rather gentle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Should have used a parachute.

You can by emergency parachutes intended for paragliding, at 300 USD it is worth it.

<comment><USER16> No use at that height. The minimum I've seen in base-jumping is around 30 meters with instant chute deployment and perfect reaction time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Pretty amazing. I'm worried about the positive feedback in the controls though... shift weight back to pitch up, which is going to cause more weight to shift back. Definitely a stall hazard, and a tough one to get out of.

</comment><comment><USER31> _" if i move up the front, the nose goes down because the weight is on the nose. if i slide down the nose goes up because the weight is on the tail. to make a turn, if i tilt my body this way the force is on the side"_

yaikes, this thing seems to be all manual based on weight disposition! Makes it quite a bit more challenging in my opinion.

<comment><USER6> If you look, the wing flaps move much more than would be possible with mere shifting bodyweight. So clearly it's sensor based, not purely manual.

<comment><USER32> Looks like there are ropes attached to his harness that control the flaps as he leans to either side.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Can you stabilize this sort of craft with gyros or something? Or is it pretty much a flying death trap?

<comment><USER34> Gyros would probably weigh too much. I wouldn't call it a death trap, but it's probably a fair-weather light-use aircraft.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Aw. You have to lie down on your stomach to pilot it?

</comment><comment><USER36> Video link?

</comment><comment><USER37> Japan gotta be the only place to find somebody crazy enough to pilot that thing.

<comment><USER38> I don't even have my pilot's license, but if that thing was in front of me, I'd ask to ride. Bear in mind that in the early days of flight, we had people who were willing to play tennis on the wings while a plane was flying below them. Not being flown, flying. They were the pilot and copilot.</comment></comment>


Following WWII, a plan to use a Nazi rocket to put a Briton in space - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150824-how-a-nazi-rocket-could-have-put-a-briton-in-space <comment><USER2> I was reading "Hitler's Last Day: Minute by Minute" and they mention Von Braun and his biographical movie "I Aim at the Stars" \- he claimed that his wartime work was really motivated by a desire to work on space travel.

Some wit thought the movie should perhaps have been called "I Aim at the Stars (But Sometimes I Hit London)".

<comment><USER3> >he claimed that his wartime work was really motivated by a desire to work on space travel.

Reminds me of Gerald Bull.

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

He just wanted to build his space gun. He had no qualms about building artillery for Saddam Hussein if it meant his efforts would get funded.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXgtNqCe9Ko](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXgtNqCe9Ko)

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Fun thing, some danish guys are trying to do exactly that. They are running a private space program in some sheds in the Copenhagen harbor, using mainly off-the-shelf parts and donations to keep going. As they once stated, they dont want to reinvent the wheel, so they usd freely available plans for rockets - which, incidentially only were the plans for the A4 rocket and engine. With this, they want to put a human in space, making Denmark the fourth country to achieve it worldwide.

Oh, and they also own a submarine.

[http://copenhagensuborbitals.com](http://copenhagensuborbitals.com)

</comment><comment><USER5> When you see how much USA and commonwealth have Me 163 komet, Me262, volksjager there is no wonder how USA got its spatial program. It must have been true that for some years there should have been NYIFO being tested in the skys near USAF bases: Not Yet Identified Flying Objects.

Look where the remaining planes are located: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_163_Komet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_163_Komet)

You can add, it was nice of them exfiltrating the poor scientists that could have been unfairly implicated in war crimes.

It is obvious all industrial powers that could try to get the nazi's technology did: Russia, UK included...

Whatever the way you call it: a nazi rocket indeed helped made a man/dog/monkey the first man/dog/monkey in space.

</comment><comment><USER6> Totally predictable ending.

The potential for this country to get advanced technology well ahead of it's time getting rejected by bureaucrats because of other priorities (or really it serves none of their short term goals).

The same thing happened with our fibre network in the early 90's.

<comment><USER7> There was a UK rocket that launched a few satellites to orbit. UK is the only country in the world to have have given up space access that it had.

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

<comment><USER8> > launched a few satellites to orbit

*a single satellite. The first two launches were suborbital tests; the third launch carried Orba, but failed to reach orbit. Only the fourth and final launch, with Prospero as the payload, successfully reached orbit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _Ministry of Space_ [1] is a what-if short comics series by Warren Ellis, tellsing the very story of Britain being the first to launch into space thanks to V-2 tech. As expected of Ellis, it's full of references to the british culture and customs; even the rocket tech design has semblance to actual british air and space hardware.

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

</comment><comment><USER10> The article says "Instead, the spaceman (and only a man was considered) would have been launched on a parabolic trajectory some 300,000 metres above the Earth."

I think that's a mistake. The V2 had a range of about 300 km ("For the V-2 rocket, just reaching space but with a range of about 330 km, the maximum speed was 1.6 km/s" \- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub- orbital_spaceflight#Speed....](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub- orbital_spaceflight#Speed.2C_range.2C_altitude) ).

The BBC article goes on to quote "Megaroc was essentially the Mercury- Redstone." From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury- Redstone_Launch_Vehicl...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury- Redstone_Launch_Vehicle) we see that Mercury-Redstone didn't quite make it to 200 km altitude.

According to [http://www.planet4589.org/space/jsr/back/news.526](http://www.planet4589.org/space/jsr/back/news.526) , there have been no suborbital flights above 192 km.

EDIT: Nope, I'm wrong. Megaroc was supposed to get to 304 km (one million feet). [http://www.bis-space.com/what-we-do/projects/megaroc](http://www.bis- space.com/what-we-do/projects/megaroc) . Indeed, it appears that the name is short for "Mega[foot]roc[et]."

</comment><comment><USER11> The BBC has done several TV documentaries over the years about this. Interesting stuff. Equally interesting was the race to break the sound barrier where a bizarre scenario unfolded of the British inventing it but the Americans flying it first (after the Brits shared the design).

<comment><USER12> So, just like the WW2 radar?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The Nazi rockets blew up too many times. They would have killed at least 10 men trying to leave the atmosphere, and then killed one leaving the atmosphere.

<comment><USER14> The basic design of the A4 engine in the V-2 was a sound concept. The reliability of wartime production was held back by the deteriorating conditions and post-war testting was held back by the aging of the captured components. The US and UK used nothing but captured parts, preferring to iterate on the original design rather than build new components for an old rocket.

The US took their testing data and combined it with the fruits of Operation Paperclip's R&D to create the Redstone program. The Rocketdyne A7 engine was a direct successor of the A4 and was reliable enough to put the first US astronauts in orbit during the Mercury-Redstone program.

In short, an A4/V-2 would have been reliable enough to serve as the foundation of a British space program as long as it was built to spec without the material substitutions carried out due to wartime shortages.

<comment><USER10> (Minor correction: Mercury-Redstone put US astronauts in space but was suborbital.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Could you please change the title to be less clickbaity?

A Nazi rocket... as opposed to communism rockets and god-fearing, democracy rockets?

Please.

<comment><USER11> Then the BBC article is just as clickbaity so you'll be needing this: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact_us/making_a_complaint....](http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact_us/making_a_complaint.html)

<comment><USER16> The submission rephrases the BBC's title, so there's not even the excuse that it's just quoting it.

(And in any case it's not just hyperbolic, it's a lie. A rocket based on a modification of a German design, but designed and built in Britain, cannot be reasonably considered a "German rocket," let alone a "Nazi rocket.")

<comment><USER2> The article appears to make it pretty clear that the engineering breakthroughs were all part of the V2:

"Engineers overseeing the tests realized that von Braun had solved fundamental problems in rocketry: he had designed a sizeable engine, an advanced pump to get fuel in fast enough and a sophisticated guidance system."</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How I made a micro startup in less than 10 hours - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@julienvallini/how-i-shipped-a-micro-startup-in-less-than-10-hours-fbbe34819f21 <comment><USER2> Or just maybe, blogging is the startup itself these days..

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice job! Excuse my ignorance, But what's the difference between a micro startup and just a hobby project?

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess the difference is that a micro startup's goal is to find a market to become startup whereas a hobby project is not meant to evolve

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Micro garbage.</comment>


Unsecured database leaks over 350,000 massage booking records - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/27/urban-massage-data-exposed-customers-creepy-clients/ <comment><AUTHOR> "Among the records included thousands of complaints from workers about their clients. The records included specific complaints — from account blocks for fraudulent behavior, abuse of the referral system and persistent cancelers. But, many records also included allegations of sexual misconduct by clients — such as asking for "massage in genital area" and requesting "sexual services from therapist." Others were marked as "dangerous," while others were blocked due to "police enquiries." Each complaint included a customer's personally identifiable information — including their name, address and postcode and phone number."

Just had an email from these guys - never made a booking but slightly disconcerting to know all my personal data was out there for anyone to slurp.</comment>


Ask HN: From WebDev to JsDev - <AUTHOR>

Hi everyone, I'm a Web Developer, focused mainly on frontend part. Currently I encounter with more and more job offers, which are focused on plain javascript app development and salary higher than I could ever expect as webdeveloper.
My question is - how complicated can be a switch from a job where most tasks are based on DOM manipulation, ajax requests and jQuery animations to plain javascript app development? Can You suggest some example apps which I should try to develop before making decision to switch? What additional tools should I master?
Is here any webdev/jsdev who have gone through similiar specialization switch? <comment><USER2> There's definitely a huge difference between supplementing your HTML with some JavaScript and writing a JavaScript application.

JavaScript as a server side language is a new playing field, with different trade-offs, obstacles and design. I built an API service last year using Koajs (alternative to express), Gulp (alternative to grunt) and a bunch of other things.

Recently I've been looking into isomorphic JavaScript single page applications and have been learning a bunch of new things, such as webpack, yahoo isomorphic flux stack (fluxible, routr etc.) and application structuring.

You'll be surprised by how little you really know about JavaScript as a programming language till you start with server side and SPA development. I'd suggest you start off with building a traditional web application in Node.js (with gulp) before attempting SPA development. Also take a look at React and Babel.

<comment><AUTHOR> thank You for the answer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> As WebDeveloper you start with the HTML and build your end product. As JsDeveloper you start with an JSApp and integrate the HTML Templates (or only the structure).

It's a complete different work model - try to start with a react or angular app based on commonJS.

<comment><AUTHOR> thank You for the tip - btw. I have also some experience with Meteor.js so I think it can be handy.</comment></comment>


Thoughts on Lance Armstrong [video] - <AUTHOR> http://danariely.com/2013/01/18/thoughts-on-lance-armstrong/ <comment><USER2> I like Dan Ariely, and most of what he says in this video is true. However he doesn't address the whole Lance Armstrong story, and there is one correction to be made.

He says that it's possible that Lance Armstrong took EPO as a cancer patient, and that made it easier for him to keep taking it as a performance enhancing drug.

Lance tried a similar tactic in his interview last night -- he explained that his cancer changed him. It made him more of a bully, and more of a fighter, and he kind of justified taking testosterone since he had testicular cancer. However, Oprah had to point out that he was taking performance-enhancing drugs BEFORE he had cancer. So the cancer is a scapegoat.

Second -- people don't really fault Lance Armstrong for doping. I'm sure it's true that everybody was doping. And Ariely correctly points out that that makes it much easier for someone to justify to themselves.

What distinguished Armstrong is going over the top to destroy people who were telling the truth. He was vicious about attacking and suing people who told the truth, and trying to ruin their reputations, while he knew he was in the wrong. Oprah confronted him on this and he was like "oops ... sorry"

I watched the whole Oprah interview last night. I don't have a big interest in competitive cycling, nor have I really followed the Lance Armstrong story very much. But I did come away with the impression that he is emotionally "different" or verging on psychopathic. I don't want to venture too much into pop psychology, but he does seem to follow the stereotype of a "psychopath CEO". The only thing he cares about is results (and it worked spectacularly for a time), and he has literally no emotions about the tactics that got him there. I'm not trying to cast moral judgement, but just saying what is pretty apparent.

But in retrospect this is obvious... anyone who could so viciously and baldly and publicly lie for decades, when so many people knew otherwise (all the cyclists he rode with), has some weird psychology going on. It's not normal.

<comment><USER3> > Second -- people don't really fault Lance Armstrong for doping.

Of course they do. Why wouldn't they? He's a cheat. The fact that many other people were cheating too is irrelevant to how he's judged for that. That just makes professional cycling as a whole look terrible too.

Even if he had been a saint in every other way, he's still a disgraceful cheat.

<comment><USER2> Well, Ariely in this video is making the point that, as far as human nature is concerned, it does matter that everyone else cheated. It makes it socially acceptable.

If I were an honest competitive cyclist at the Tour de France level I would care that he doped. But if you believe the common wisdom, there were almost no such people :)

Anyway, Barry Bonds doped and so did a million other athletes. My point was that Lance Armstrong took it to an entirely different level by trying to destroy others to cover up what he did, and what he KNEW that others knew he did. It is really beyond brazen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If anyone saw the Oprah interview, I think it's clear by now that Lance Armstrong is a sociopath. Even his admittance was a very calculated move intended to curb additional financial loss (even though it was supposed to be a tell-all interview, he chose not to talk about a handful of things; and a good half of things were straight lies: UCI gifts he made were not 'bribes', he did not use drugs after 2005, etc.). His appearance on Oprah was a calculated move to avoid jailtime and position himself for the coming onslaught of legal trouble.

</comment><comment><USER5> Irrelevant points. He tries to deflect the issue from Lance and he shouldn't. I don't care if Lance cheated. I don't care if any athlete cheats as long as they get their deserved penalties from their respective sports authorities. The issue here is the hypocrite image that Lance and his PR team drew to the rest of the world. Everyone through of him as superman. He sold his image as a believer and fighter while he was none of that. Again, I don't care about cheaters but I despise hypocrite preachers.

<comment><USER6> We've heard of Lance Armstrong because his performances were entertaining. To pretend now as if our interest was his moral purity is disingenuous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Bearing in mind that Lance Armstrong is as much a cyclist as Red Bull is an energy drink it might be of interest to watch an advertising and marketing centred discussion of whether the strategy of losing the doping war but winning the PR battle is a good one.

> Is there a point where running away is the right PR move? How much immunity > does a cancer charity buy you? Why are his sponsors standing by their > cycling-man?

<http://www.abc.net.au/tv/gruenplanet/pages/s3583424.htm>

Episode on Vimeo:

<http://vimeo.com/48928785> (Lance Armstrong discussion starts @ 3 minutes in)

</comment><comment><USER8> I always find these video logs to be a very inefficient way to communicate. Having watched through the whole thing, the main argument that Ariely is making here is that there is a much larger problem than just the "Lance Armstrong problem." People do these PEDs because they have a sense that "everyone else is doing it."

Now, it's not clear if everyone else was doing it in this case, or whether the crooks were convinced (falsely) that everyone else was doing it. Ariely doesn't draw this distinction, but it is critical. If you want to clean up the sport, it's not sufficient to make sure that everyone is clean. It has to be so sparkling clean that no one should even suspect that others could be cheating. Unless all the participants are convinced that everyone else is clean, they will have the motivation to cheat themselves, which in turn makes others cheat, and so forth.

And the vlog didn't get into Armstrong's psychology. I would have liked to hear how the cognitive dissonance between his private reality and public (fake) persona change his personality. I would suspect that, even if one does not begin the game as a sociopath, living for decades with a lie would turn one into a sociopath.

<comment><USER9> > _Now, it's not clear if everyone else was doing it in this case, or whether > the crooks were convinced (falsely) that everyone else was doing it._

It's professional cycling... pretty much everybody that made it to the top was doing it.

Yeah there are probably exceptions, but the pervasiveness of doping in cycling is surreal. If you're actually in the top echelon and stand a chance of winning, there's a very good chance that some of your chief competitors are doping. Obviously this puts even good people in a real quandary...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> He was very controlled until he talked about his Son (fake or real tears?). His answers seemed text book and learnt. He is arrogant and seems incapable of grasping just how 'low' he's behaved . I feel sorry for his children who will forever be tainted with 'your dad's a cheat'. He should face criminal prosecution. This interview doesn't cut it. He's definately a Sociopath. I think it teaches us that if you weave a web of lies you can actually start believing them to be true. Crazycatmum warsash

</comment><comment><USER11> Though, I'm believing it now that the confession closes a chapter, A few things still linger in my heart about this whole thing.

A. They still can't prove, how he did it, how he was not caught for so many years, and barely proved that he did it, which in itself is not concrete.

B. It appears he is being forced to make all these statements, to do what? So he can be allowed to come back to sports again, his life's passion. If I'm a sportsmen, of that degree, I might would be vulnerable to blackmail if they took my one passion away.

C. After I read his Wiki page, it appears, to be case of sour grapes for some of his competitors, who pursued these charges against him over and over again. I mean, ok, we know now they were right, but what before that? They were no forensic experts, all the accusations were based on doubt and jealousy back then.

D. There is something terribly wrong with how this case has been pursued legally, a lot of things don't sum up. Like until 2009, UCI had him clear in a row with a doping official, at least officially, meaning, if any doubts, they were not being actively pursued by UCI. The biggest bolts in this story were by 2 of his former subordinates, who were both "Fired" before turning hostile. And it was actually Times Newspaper, that followed it up with a reprint of a 2004 book in 2012 (8 years later), the same time when another newspaper 'interestingly' sued a sportsman, i.e Armstrong.

<comment><USER12> A. We know pretty well how he did it - all he needed to do was stay within the limits and there is considerable evidence that the UCI and testing labs were suggesting to him how to do that. When the UCI picked a max hematocrit number of 50%, it was an invitation to the athletes to dope up to that limit. When he came back to competition in 2009 & 2010, the USADA report clearly states that his blood passport profile shows almost certain non-legal manipulation.

B. He isn't being forced to do anything. He had the opportunity to challenge USADA's report in arbitration; he declined and again denied he had ever doped. Going on TV to speak with a talk-show host after you have retired is not a coerced move, especially to say that you have been lying for 15 years. Yes, he may want to return to some kind of competition (triathlons) and needs his life sentenced to be reduced to the minimum 8 years to do this. But oh look, he says the last time he ever doped was 2005 (not when he raced in 2009 or 2010, how about that?), which would mean he could return to sport in 2013.

C. George Hincapie never tested positive either, had an even longer career than Armstrong and was a long-time friend of Armstrong. He admitted to doping for years and testified against Lance. There's a rather simple truth here and it isn't driven by doubt and jealousy.

D. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say. But I imagine it is similar to arguments made before about scored rivals and journalists seeking vengeance. I've followed pro cycling for many years now; the truth is much more boring. The sport was rife with drugs, Armstrong would do anything to win and I don't think to this day he thinks he did anything truly wrong.

I watched the movie "Shattered Glass" two nights ago. It had this great scene:

Caitlin Avey: What the hell did you do to Steve? He called me from his car, hysterical. I asked him what was wrong, he said, "ask Chuck?" Chuck Lane: I fired him, okay? Not suspended, fired. Because this wasn't an isolated incident Caitlin. He cooked a dozen of them, maybe more. And we're going to have to go through them, you and I. We're going to have to go through all of them, now. Caitlin Avey: No, the only one was Hack Heaven. He told me that himself. Chuck Lane: If he were a stranger to you, if he was a guy you were doing a piece about, pretend that guy told you he'd only did it once. Would you take his word for it? Of course not! You'd dig and you'd bury him! And you'd feel offended if anyone told you not to.

<comment><USER11> I will check the movie out, well, I only said what I said, on a "what if" basis.

A. Indeed they have a idea of how he did it, but not exactly how, 7 years without getting caught is not something, you can only pull off with the little bit of sophistication you described.

B. He is being forced partially, from what I read, he has been given a lifetime ban from all competitive sports, unless he confesses it under oath and names accomplice.

C. Indeed its valid, what you said about Goerge Hincapie, but it is as same as saying, "You are a criminal if your neighbor is a criminal"

D. What I meant is that, that it was not UCI that were actively pursuing the case of Armstrong at least until 2009, but, it was reopened in 2012, after Times published a extract of a book written in 2004, which contained statements of Lance's ex-masseuse, who made these allegation without concrete proof herself, and was fired EARLIER for reasons unknown. The second big statement was by another Ex-employee, his personal trainer.

Check the Lance's wikipedia page: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is there a transcript?

</comment><comment><USER14> Lance says he wasn't caught because the drugs were already out of his system during the races. So was the doping just for training? I'm not clear on that part.

</comment><comment><USER15> Ugly couch, but I love Ariely and it's an interesting little talk.

<comment><USER16> I like this guy a whole lot, too. Let's give this guy a mic!</comment></comment>


How to get my Kickstarter in front of the right people? - <AUTHOR>

There are a host of manly-gear-related sites (uncrate, gear patrol, and the like) which would seem to be the obvious venues for this sort of thing, but they haven't responded to our emails.  Does anyone have any suggestions? <comment><AUTHOR> I see that part of the posting didn't go through. Reposted as <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4281053>

</comment><comment><USER2> Without more details about what "the thing" is, it is quite hard to say. Care to put a link?</comment>


New species of fungus identified via Twitter - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2020-05-bizarre-species-twitter.html <comment><USER2> > the new species has now been given its official name, 'troglomyces twitteri'

Academia always seems so mature and serious from outside, nice to know there can be some lighthearted humor there too :)

As an aside, do you guys know any other Latin animal names that may have an 'untraditional' origin?

<comment><USER3> It's fairly normal for names of things few people are interested in such as insects and fungi.

[https://www.gadgette.com/2016/02/29/these-are-the- silliest-s...](https://www.gadgette.com/2016/02/29/these-are-the-silliest- scientific-names-for-real-living-things/) mentions, for example, _Pieza pi_ and _Spongiforma squarepantsii_.

Google easily gives you more examples, for example [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-worlds- str...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-worlds-strangest- scientific-names-14139154/), which explains the rules are not very strict: _"The name must not be offensive, must be spelled in only the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet and may be derived from any language. In fact, a name need not be derived from anything at all; the rules state that an arbitrary combination of letters is also perfectly acceptable."_

<comment><USER4> No length limits, huh? Now, just gotta find a novel bug...

edit: heh, you could code some nematode's dna sequence into its name.

<comment><USER5> Go through the wikipedia list of illegal numbers, encode them into latin letters...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > The photo shared on Twitter of the millipede Cambala by Derek Hennen. The > two red circles indicate the presence of the fungus.

I don't see the two red circles in the picture.

<comment><USER7> There are two red circles, but there is nothing identifiable to the untrained eye contained within them.

<comment><USER8> Right. Can someone explain? One of the circles has a white dot in the middle that looks like it could be just dust. The other a faint dark dot in the middle again that looks like maybe just dust or dirt. Nothing really in them that doesn't just look exactly like what's around them.

<comment><USER9> Hence the phrase "her well-trained eyes" in the article: to her, your last sentence would be false, because she's spent years (maybe decades) working in this field.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > The newly discovered parasitic fungus has now been given its official Latin > name, Troglomyces twitteri.

It only took me until 35 to realize these official, scientific-sounding names are part useful, part researchers trolling us.

<comment><USER11> they should have let Twitter name it too in a Twitter poll

<comment><USER12> Fungy McFungusface.

<comment><USER13> But that's not where this fungus attaches - something I'm sure the internet would've picked up on when deciding a name:

> The fungi are in a class of their own because they live on the outside of > host organisms, and even on specific parts of bodies—in this case, on the > reproductive organs of millipedes.

<comment><USER14> Boaty McBoatface

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have a few photographs, (may be most people have too,) of a few plants/fungi and animals/insects I couldn't identify, even after consulting resources like Wikipedia. What is the best way to get a species identification from a photograph.

<comment><USER16> Not sure what they're called, but there are subreddits for identifying bugs and plants and stuff

<comment> mkr-hn Google (or quack) /r/whatisthis and the thing you want to identify. There's a bunch of subreddits like this.

Here's a big list: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Whatisthis/wiki/links](https://www.reddit.com/r/Whatisthis/wiki/links)

<comment><USER17> This is one of my favorite subreddits. I don't think I've ever even posted in it. It's like real life Sherlock Holmes sometimes. Quite often people will post a piece of a car involved in a hit and run, and it will be solved in minutes. Or someone will post the oddest looking item, and not only will it get solved, but you'll learn a bit of background that you never knew.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _they just found a new type of parasitic fungus via Twitter._

Sometimes, snark is thrust upon us.

</comment><comment><USER19> That's a xenomorph

<comment><USER20> For a moment there I thought I was alone, but I see you beat me to it xD Hmm or perhaps it's a little Maker...

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I love this story on many levels, but in particular what it says about the "trained eye".

</comment><comment><USER22> "I hope that it will motivate professional and amateur researchers to share more data via social media." \-- and soon we'll see trolls photoshopping images as "new discovery".

</comment><comment><USER23> Next time some scientist shares a picture of an xx discovery to their colleagues via Email, will the title of this article be "xx dicovered via Email"?

</comment><comment><USER24> for the impatient:

yes, it's what it sounds like.

it's a fungus that lives on the reproductive organs of American centipedes.

They noticed it in a tweet, and quickly confirmed it in their museum collections.

<comment><USER25> You missed the most important part. They named a parasitic genital fungus after Twitter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Maybe I'm being too dismissive, but this strikes me as an equivalent of existing-invention-but-using-a-computer software patents. I just don't see how it's particularly newsworthy or interesting that an image shared on Twitter was involved in the discovery.

It allowed for a headline that made me click, though.

<comment><USER27> The word news is literally the plural of new, as in new things. This is an new species discovered using a new method involving a relatively new communications medium. And in particular, it involves one of the strengths of this new medium: letting people share things with others that might be interested.

A key difference between social media and older media is who gets to say yes to publication. For this photo to reach this researcher in a previous age, there would have been several people who had the ability to say no. And limited space would mean they'd have a strong incentive to say no. But now it just takes one person to say, "Here's a thing I think is interesting." Every reader also has their own editorial power; they can share and retweet.

So for me, this is interesting because it's showing how the "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" adage applies to literal bugs. That the chaotic nature of Twitter is not just providing me with things I find interesting, but leading to actual scientific advance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> With hindsight one could say it was only a matter of time.

</comment><comment><USER29> since the article mentioned this, since when can people in the scientific field simply share their research data without facing any consequences?

edit: sorry my bad, I realized my question was not making sense, I actually mean they can publish research data if the authority does not approve of it?

<comment><USER30> What sort of consequences do you mean?

<comment><USER29> sorry my bad, I realized my question was not making sense, I actually mean they can publish research data if the authority does not approve of it?

<comment><USER30> I don't think there is an authority in Denmark that could stop them, or would even want to. By default in most countries releasing any data is protected under free speech, unless the data belongs to someone else or is protected in some other way, such as if it has military value or is personal data covered by privacy rules.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Pardon me for nitpicking but how fungus on fish is bizzare?

<comment><USER32> Well, this particular fish is a millipede, which you've got to admit is atypical.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> The title here needs to include "..." in the original article.

For a moment, I thought this would be a satirical article, characterizing some group as "new species".

<comment><USER34> Ok, we've added fungi to the title above.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Twitter can be useful. But that takes work. My block list is probably 10 times longer than my follow list.

</comment><comment><USER36> I may be wrong but I suspect that there are many undescribed types of fungi out there and describing a new species isn't that unusual and there is nothing of interest in the fact that the photo in question was on twitter.

<comment> mkr-hn They named it _troglomyces twitteri_ because, as far as they know, this is the first time one has been discovered through Twitter.</comment></comment>


Using human brain tissue in lab, researchers show herpes link to Alzheimer's - <AUTHOR> https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/06/researchers-show-herpes-link-to-alzheimers/ <comment><USER2> Here's the original publication. The paper is actually more focused on the 3d engineered brain model and is titled "A 3d human brain-like tissue model of herpes-induced Alzheimer's disease":

[https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/19/eaay8828](https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/19/eaay8828)

The publication actually seems to highlight the demonstration of the 3d brain Alzheimers model as more of what the accomplishment of the paper is (as compared to a demonstration of a herpes/Alzheimers link). Studying Alzheimer's is really difficult because the mouse models etc that we have today are particularly poor for this disease case, which means we can barely rely on any preclinical work done in these models in determing whether or not a drug is going to work in clinical trials. Better models to study Alzheimer's will be very important in fighting the disease. For more publications on the 3d model, here is what the paper cited in its methods section for how they made the brain-like structures:

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221367111...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213671116301412)

[https://www.nature.com/articles/nprot.2015.091](https://www.nature.com/articles/nprot.2015.091)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for linking that, the first thing I wondered when they said "herpes" was "which one"?

Looks like the answer to that is herpes simplex virus type I (HSV-1)

<comment><USER4> Also relevant:

> _"Active [herpes] infection may not be a requirement for Alzheimer's > disease," Kaplan and his colleagues wrote. A history of herpes infection > might be "sufficient to initiate Alzheimer's."_

> _But not in everyone. An estimated two-thirds of people 50 and younger are > infected with HSV-1. Although nothing close to that number will develop > Alzheimer's from a virus or anything else, scientists aren't sure what > combination of genetics, lifestyle, and other factors determines who will._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> HSV always seemed particularly poorly understood in the society to me, e.g. with many people getting it as children due to careless parents/extended family, and the benign branding of "cold sore" as if it is related to a cold. Given that the vaccine for 1 or 2 has proved to be extremely challenging, always wondered if the public simply being more well-informed on this topic could help reduce the incidence in the population.

Asymptomatic shedding of HSV has to be considered, too. _" Transmission commonly occurs from contact with an infected partner who does not have visible lesions and who may not know that he or she is infected. In persons with asymptomatic HSV-2 infections, genital HSV shedding occurs on 10.2% of days, compared to 20.1% of days among those with symptomatic infections."_ ([https://www.cdc.gov/std/herpes/stdfact-herpes- detailed.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/std/herpes/stdfact-herpes-detailed.htm))

<comment><USER6> > careless parents/extended family

> benign branding of "cold sore"

This is a dangerous, hurtful opinion and you need to be downvoted. No one is to be shamed for this virus.

A third of teenagers will acquire HSV-1 during childhood from simply putting things into their mouths. There is no way to prevent this sort of transmission. [1]

Most of the world's population has the virus. [2] Given these odds, you probably have the virus yourself and may or may not be asymptomatic.

The focus should be on finding a cure, not changing social norms or shaming people. The stigma is obstructing our focus. It's also impeding research, which as it may turn out, is a cause for Alzheimer's and related neurodegenerative disorders.

So much suffering from something that isn't anyone's fault, yet everyone blames "bad parenting" and "sexual promiscuity" for. It's shameful and we need to do better.

[1] [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db304.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db304.htm)

[2] [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/herpes- simp...](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/herpes-simplex- virus)

<comment><USER7> The statement "There is no way to prevent this sort of transmission" while linking CDC data that shows changes in the trend of transmission over time are at odds to me.

There are most definitely ways to reduce spread.

>The focus should be on finding a cure, not changing social norms or shaming people.

There is no cure yet, thus changing habits and social norms is our only chance at reducing this problem outside experts who are working on the problem directly.

I don't know whether or not labeling parents as villains has anything to do with what needs to be done to label and reduce spread; but I dare say that the attitude of "Nothing to be done, let's give up due to the fact that the virus is prevalent." is in fact the dangerous opinion for society at large.

>... and you need to be downvoted.

The call to arms for down-voting a comment you disagree is a tactic that I personally feel is cheap and a disgusting misuse of the karma/discourse system that is in place.

<comment><USER8> syntactically speaking reduce spread is statistical while prevent transmission is individual. There is no preventing transmission with 100% surety no matter how careful and good of a parent you are, so saying bad parenting might be a bit much.

I totally agree that too many people are downvoting just because they don't like what someone has to say even though what was said falls within general parameters of acceptable social discourse, or even worse when the downvoted has the temerity to disagree with the downvoter.

So I guess I'll go upvote to fix the karmic scales.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Big if true! This would mean that just as the Gardasil 9 vaccine prevents HPV, which leads to almost all forms of cervical cancer [1] (as well as others), a vaccine for HSV-1 might prevent someone from developing Alzheimer's later in life.

There are HSV-2 vaccines in clinical trials [2], but I'm unaware of any HSV-1 vaccines as far along. Please chime in if you are aware!

[1] [https://www.nccc-online.org/hpvcervical-cancer/cervical- canc...](https://www.nccc-online.org/hpvcervical-cancer/cervical-cancer- overview/)

[2] [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04222985](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04222985)

<comment><USER10> This paper only shows that brain-like lab grown tissue develops Amyloid-beta plaques (known to occur in patients with AD) to combat mircobial i.e. viral attack.

There are a low of assumptions here: (1) Organoid tissue represents human- brain. Human (and mammalian) brain is a much more complex entity to be even remotely similar to this. (2) We do not know how amyloid-beta plaques are related to Alzheimer's Disease (AD) i.e. whether they are the cause of AD or a symptom that occurs when one has AD. All we know is the existence of these plauqes can occur before the symptoms of AD are seen (even upto 30 years before you are diagnoised with AD). Whether removal of plaques makes you AD free is a mystery. (3) HSV/Herpes virus might not be the only cause of formation of amyloid plauqes. There are tons of other microbial infections that have been shown to cause increase of plaques.

But more research into the microbial theory of AD is definitely something that would shed more light on the interplay between microbes and the brain.

<comment><USER9> All true, correlation does not equal causation, but it's still fun to speculate when it looks like there might be a relatively inexpensive path (ie a vaccine we're going to develop anyway) to success.

<comment><USER11> I tend to feel like "fun speculation" around new science research feeds loads of incorrect information being spread. Which makes it not fun to me at all.

<comment><USER9> If you're getting your health information solely from Hacker News, without any additional research or critical thinking, you should probably not do that. I'm not a domain expert (Virologist or otherwise in medicine), nor do I pretend to be, and I qualified my statement at the top of the thread ("might"). Everything else in my comment was factual.

<comment><USER11> I just don't think wild speculation about science is fun. What is fun to me about science is fact based exploration. Hypothesis is great and conjecture has its place, but wild conjecture is not fun to me. You can feel otherwise and that's okay!

<comment><USER9> I don't believe my original comment was wild conjecture (although it did lack a citation how I arrived at the hypothesis), but in keeping with your ideals as it relates to putting forth a thesis in a public forum:

> We believe that HSV1 is a major contributory factor for Alzheimer's disease > and that it enters the brains of elderly people as their immune system > declines with age. It then establishes a latent (dormant) infection, from > which it is reactivated by events such as stress, a reduced immune system > and brain inflammation induced by infection by other microbes.

> Excitingly, successful prevention of Alzheimer's disease by use of specific > anti-herpes agents has now been demonstrated in a large-scale population > study in Taiwan. Hopefully, information in other countries, if available, > will yield similar results.

[https://theconversation.com/alzheimers-disease-mounting- evid...](https://theconversation.com/alzheimers-disease-mounting-evidence- that-herpes-virus-is-a-cause-104943) (Alzheimer's disease: mounting evidence that herpes virus is a cause)

The author of the post is Ruth Itzhaki, Professor Emeritus of Molecular Neurobiology, University of Manchester

This (in my opinion) would lead a reasonable person to believe that an HSV-1 vaccine would prevent the onset of Alzheimer's (through the prevention of an HSV-1 infection), in a similar fashion to how the HPV vaccine prevents (among other cancers) cervical cancer. I hope you have found some value in this subthread.

<comment><USER11> Ah, you're probably right. I'm sorry, I believe I misunderstood. Well it would be great to figure out a vaccine for HSV-1 and HSV-2.

<comment><USER9> No apologies necessary, I frequently forget that I can't assume context is known and should be providing more citations upfront.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Didn't they discover that periodontitis causes Alzheimer: [https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau3333](https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau3333)

Perhaps any infection that reaches the brain can cause Alzheimer and amyloid- beta plaques are there to fight the infection

<comment><USER13> Came here to say this. Didn't that connection sweep through here a while back?

I just checked. Turns out the herpes connection has been made before too:

(1) Alzheimer's risk 10 times lower with herpes medication (2 years ago) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17540094](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17540094)

(2) Some studies show an association between the herpes virus and Alzheimer's (2 years ago) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18265115](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18265115)

(3) Researchers Find Herpes Viruses in Brains Marked by Alzheimer's Disease (2 years ago) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17366591](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17366591)

(4) Link Between Alzheimer's and Herpes (2 years ago) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17521994](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17521994)

<comment><USER14> From my skimming of the OP, which references some of this research, I think these prior findings demonstrated strong correlation, but this is the first study that demonstrates some causal relationship.

<comment><USER13> Sweet, thanks – haven't had time to even skim yet!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So let me get this straight, the elevator pitch for this is:

"We're going to make a micro-brain out of dick skin and spider webs so we can give it herpes and see if it gets Alzheimers."

Just wanted to make sure.

<comment><USER16> Seems accurate! Since you read the article, the real question to me is what is the brain protecting against?

If amyloid plaques are a defense mechanism that happens to permanently block neuron function, then what happens if that the plaques don't form and the herpes infection spreads?

There doesn't have to be an answer, evolution doesn't cause improvements, people reproduce before this happens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wonder if people above 60 should then start taking acyclovir if the have the virus in their system, as a potential preventative? They should do a study on this.

<comment><USER18> Quick google does that's been investigated

<comment><USER19> It looks like there are some ongoing studies:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32034019](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32034019)

[https://www.nia.nih.gov/alzheimers/clinical- trials/valacyclo...](https://www.nia.nih.gov/alzheimers/clinical- trials/valacyclovir-mild-alzheimers-disease)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> So according to WHO, 67% of people older than 50 have Herpes 1: [https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact- sheets/detail/herpes-s...](https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact- sheets/detail/herpes-simplex-virus)

How do you account for the disparity between the massive infection rate and the relatively low Alzheimer's rate?

<comment><USER2> They might not be old enough for it to matter yet, and we might see numbers approaching that 67% as people live longer.

[https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/what-causes-alzheimers- diseas...](https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/what-causes-alzheimers-disease#risk)

"Older age does not cause Alzheimer's, but it is the most important known risk factor for the disease. The number of people with Alzheimer's disease doubles about every 5 years beyond age 65. _About one-third of all people age 85 and older may have Alzheimer 's disease_." (emphasis mine)

Perhaps if we beat cancer and cardiovascular diseases etc and see human lifespans reaching 100+ years old, we'll see close to 67% of people at that age get Alzheimer's.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> So what does this mean if you get a cold sore every year or two? You're more likely to get Alzheimer's?

<comment><USER22> Basically yes, but the good news is there's still plenty of time to find a cure before it hits you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I am very curious to see where this research goes. At the risk of sounding like an absolute nut-case, I've been experiencing significant cognitive decline since getting divorced and becoming sexually active. Granted, I went through a traumatic experience(divorce), developed sleep apnea(treated for ~2 years), and am in my mid-40s, so my concerns are probably unfounded. That said, I've had my apnea under control for some time, I've gotten fit, and tried every combination of supplements I can think of. My hormones and blood work all look fine. Maybe I'll try some valacyclovir and see what happens.

<comment><USER24> Make sure you get 8 hours of sleep each night. Eat healthy. Exercise daily. Keep anxiety in check.

<comment><USER23> Yep. I had insomnia for a while but that seems to be in check now. I started intermittent fasting a few weeks ago. No big changes yet, but I'll see how it goes. I also started 750mg of NMN. I've been going back to my old supplement regimen since it seemed to work better for me(moderate dose of vitamins, ashwagandha, CDP choline, high-DHA fish oil, NAC). I tried eliminating a lot of them for several months but it just seemed to accelerate the decline.

<comment><USER25> How have you been measuring your cognitive decline?

I have much shifted priorities from when I was in my 20s and was never that smart to begin with, so I'm note sure how I would even start to measure it.

<comment><USER23> I wish I had an objective test. All I can go by is the difficulty I experience solving problems and my progress at work. There are certain classes of problems, boolean logic for instance, which used to be second nature to me but now leave me feeling blank and without even a hint of what the answer is. It even shows up in everyday life. I encounter more and more situations where I can't take the available information and generate a solid decision... I end up 'YOLO'ing it a lot and just taking a guess. I'm trying to come up with coping strategies, like writing things down and using visual tricks, but it doesn't work most of the time. It's frustrating and scary. I don't even know if I could transition from a tech role into management because I am so unfocused and unable to think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I do not like headlines that say 'scientists show link between x and y'. It sounds too causal. Rather, journalists should try to write 'scientists observed x correlates with y'

<comment><USER27> They didn't observe a correlation, though. They observed Herpes causing Alzheimers lesions in vitro.

<comment><USER28> It should be very easy to test for correlation though since both conditions are usually medically documented. If the correlation is not that high then this story probably doesn't mean all that much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is my primary concern with SARSCoV2. Seeing how HPV can manifest in cancer, how HSV-1 can lead to Alzheimer's, or how VZV (chickenpox) can flare up later in life as Shingles.

Edit: thanks for the helpful information below!

<comment><USER2> So far, the coronaviruses don't seem to establish latency in the same way that HPV does. And the chickenpox virus, VZV, is actually also a herpesvirus, along with the Epstein Barr virus and CMV (you might know them as mono), and all those viruses share the characteristics of having latent forms that persist and can re-emerge. While we need to keep our eyes open with SARS-COV-2, especially on cases of potential re-emergence of the virus, it doesn't currently have the type of biology that would make latent infections/these sorts of outcomes a major concern.

<comment><USER30> Little I've gleaned, HPV is a DNA virus. Those can easily become latent. Where coronaviruses are RNA viruses which don't appear too. A couple of conronavirurs cause mild colds they don't appear to stick around. So you would assume SARS-COV2 to behave the same way.

Also the flu is a segmented RNA virus. The RNA is composed of segments. Which allows it to mutate by shuffling those segments with other strains. Including zoonotic strains. Coronaviruses have a single RNA strand and so don't shuffle.

<comment><USER2> It's not necessarily an rna vs dna thing. HIV is an rna virus and notoriously goes latent.

<comment><USER31> You are right in that HIV is an RNA virus and achieves latency, but it doesn't attain latency in its RNA form, but from the RNA being converted to DNA and then incorporated into the host cell's chromosomal DNA (in DNA form). It then sticks around for the duration of the cell's life and any of its descendants. That's why HIV is called a retrovirus, because it creates DNA from RNA during its life cycle.

RNA is chemically less stable than DNA so the latter is more suited for viruses with long genomes as well as viruses which want to go latent. Not an expert. Would be curious if there are viruses that are latent while being in RNA form.

Anyways, Coronaviruses are no retroviruses and their entire lifecycle is in RNA form, so there is no danger of them becoming latent from what I could gather.

<comment><USER2> Hep C in its chronic form isn't exactly "latent" in the way that a lentivirus or a herpesvirus can be, but it's the closest thing I can think of in terms of an RNA virus that replicates with RNA dependent RNA polymerase that has something resembling a "latent" form. It still replicates and has turnover due to the low stability of RNA as you mentioned, but it stays asymptomatic for decades in this infection course. I"m sure a virologist might be able to chime in with a better example, maybe a nonhuman one? There's so much variation in biology it'd almost be surprising if some RNA virus somewhere hadn't figured out some weird way to stabilize an RNA episome somehow

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_C#Chronic_infection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_C#Chronic_infection) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_C_virus#Replication](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_C_virus#Replication)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> At this point, is there anything _not_ linked to Alzheimer's? Herpes does make sense as a plausible factor, but I feel like I read "X linked to Alzheimer's" every few months.

</comment><comment><USER33> I worked with a guy researching the functional basis of Alzheimer's synthesizing many radiological technologies.

It is likely a multi-factor pathological degenerative condition with many, many potential precipitating (no pun intended) causes, both nature and nurture.

"The cure" is more than likely a holistic combination of many early lifestyle modifications including, but not limited to: diet, sleep, exercise, gene therapy, immunotherapy, medications, and supplements.

<comment><USER34> That has been said about every illness that has subsequently been shown to have a single cause.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Long-form article in NYTimes in July of last year.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/magazine/dead-pig- brains-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/magazine/dead-pig-brains- reanimation.html)

</comment><comment><USER36> Thank you for sharing this! We are working on the genomics of AD</comment>


Ask HN: What kind of chair do you have? - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking to upgrade from my old crappy leather chair which offers no support and causes me to become quite uncomfortable just minutes after sitting down. I'm at the computer 10-12 hours a day so I need to invest in a good chair.
I've heard steelcase chairs and the HM Embody chairs are good, although quite expensive.
So HN, what chair do you have or recommend? <comment><USER2> I owned a lot of different chair: the aeron, the vitra headline [http://www.vitra.com/en- us/office/products/headline/overview...](http://www.vitra.com/en- us/office/products/headline/overview/) and quite a few grahl duo backs <http://www.backinaction.co.uk/grahl-duo-back-chairs> but the very best office chair I've owned and use daily is the "loeffler ergo hocker" <http://www.ergowebshop.eu/Loeffler-Ergo-EF-9150> it's an amazing stool (I actually bought three of them, office, home and an older version I gave my brother) it's the only stool I've used you can actually sit on all day long (I'm a coder) without noticing it, the design makes sure that you keep moving without it becoming annoying. And it's cheap! (relatively ;))

</comment><comment><USER3> I have implemented a standing workstation. I've heard that sitting for long hours is detrimental to one's health. Some of the people at my wife's workplace have been standing for some time now and no one who changed to a standing work station has changed back. Many have lost weight, too. Here is a link to an interesting article about building a standing work station: [http://gigaom.com/collaboration/how-i-made-a-standing- workst...](http://gigaom.com/collaboration/how-i-made-a-standing-workstation- for-1999/) and the health risks of sitting: <http://www.geekosystem.com/sitting-health-dangers/>

</comment><comment><USER4> The Steelcase Leap has been great, you should check one out in person. It has many different little adjustable elements to fit your torso. I chose it over the Aeron because of its adjustability.

Make sure to get up and move, stretch, walk every hour or two, it will help save your back.

</comment><comment><USER5> Humanscale Freedom - Had it for 9 years. Totally thrilled with it.

[http://humanscale.com/products/product_detail.cfm?group=Free...](http://humanscale.com/products/product_detail.cfm?group=FreedomTaskChairWithHeadrest)

</comment><comment><USER6> I purchased a HM Embody a while ago and don't regret it. I grew tired of constantly replacing the $200 chairs from the office stores.

Find some where local that will let you sit in the chairs... figure out what is best for you.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm doing well with the IKEA Markus, which is also reasonably priced. <http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/70178863>

<comment><USER8> I have the same one, although in a respectable black :-P. Bought second hand from the returns counter. Been using it for more than a year now and I like it. I'm also experimenting with standing while working now, so the chair will see less use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have a Herman Miller Aeron with PostureFit. I used to sit on one of my wooden kitchen table chairs all the time and always had lower back pain. A good chair is expensive but well worth the cost.

<comment><USER10> Do you feel it warrants the full price tag? I've been looking into them however just unsure if I really want to spend almost $1k on a chair.

<comment><USER11> I bought the Herman Millar Mirra - the version down from the Aeron - about 4 years ago.

Was it worth the cost? Yeah, yeah it was.

Ignoring the ergonomic benefits, it's just a damn good chair. It's very comfortable. The tilt options are particularly good. I've been known to drag it into the living room to watch TV on if I'm having a bad posture day.

And the lifetime guarantee is really nice, and appears to Really Mean Lifetime. The seat started going about three months ago - I phoned HM up, and a new seat turned up in a truck about a week later.

I can imagine not buying another chair for 10-15 years or more, and at that sort of timescale, it's a bargain.

(See also: the Captain Vimes "Boots" theory.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'll throw in my endorsement for the Steelcase Leap. I've had mine for three years and I'm very happy with it. Well worth the price.</comment>


Remote Native: Big 3 lessons learned - <AUTHOR> https://archimydes.dev/fourthact/blog/remote-native-big-3-lessons-learned <comment><AUTHOR> One of the better blogs I came across on the lessons of going Remote. Especially for firms or product teams in the software development space.</comment>