Why You Should Not Use Duck Duck Go - <AUTHOR> http://18.104.22.168/photo_album/chron/desktop/opinion/2013_06_21-avoid_duck_duck_go/

<comment><AUTHOR> Disclaimer: I didn't write the article, just found it linked in the DDG forum ([https://duck.co/forum/comment/36997](https://duck.co/forum/comment/36997)) and thought it was interesting.

I do use DuckDuckGo and love it, but the article does make some good points. Mostly about the fact that DDG is based in the USA, and so secret court orders (even without DDG acknowledging it, as their host could be the target of an order as well).

Nothing new anyway, at least in my opinion - If you want "real" privacy, the only way to get it is to use a system like Tor, I2P and FreeNet.

<comment><USER2> > I do use DuckDuckGo and love it, but the article does make some good points.

To be fair, the article suffers from what the author's main gripe with DDG is – a lack of actual evidence to back up the narrative. I think the burden is on DDG to provide information proving their case, but this article isn't much more than "he said, she said".

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Are there any (English language) search engines that _aren 't_ based in the USA / other Five Eyes state / other state that co-operates with the USA on Internet surveillance?</comment>


The Rise Of The DIY Data Scientist - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcolabs.com/3014018/the-rise-of-the-diy-data-scientist

<comment><AUTHOR> Great quote:

What advice would you give companies who want to hire a data scientist? If you want to hire a juggler for your circus, you would have him juggle for you and see how many things he can juggle. If you are going to hire someone to create predictive models, look at how well predictive their models predict.</comment>


Always Hungry? Here's Why - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/opinion/sunday/always-hungry-heres-why.html <comment><USER2> There seems to be a pervasive unwillingness to understand the nature of positive feedback cycles, and instead we're just continually hearing "fat because of intake" and "intake because of fat" arguments that try to fall on an extreme interpretation of simplified causality.

This article belongs to the very few that actually do a job of describing a feedback cycle, but then it falls short and does the popular simplification thing.

Fat cells emit hormones that cause hunger, and they actually do require energy for upkeep. The body prioritizes not losing any of its substance, so most "healthy" adults will always at least eat the amount they need to not lose weight. On top of that come fatal breakages in the messaging system the body uses to control the flow of energy. Fat people are prone to insulin resistance, physical extension of their digestive system that leads to the urge for more throughput, and other mechanisms - all of which cause an almost insurmountable desire to eat a lot.

It's an addiction that subverts two of our most powerful mental priorities: the reward/pleasure system and the survival instinct. In most people there is not a lot that can be done to overcome what these two systems tell you. That's why diets fail: my body is lying to me. It's like getting two popup alert boxes every minute, one saying "you are DYING! eat something" and the other goes "you're unhappy, eat something, you deserve some happiness".

<comment><USER3> There's a wealth of information on ketogenic (low to no carb) diets: [http://www.reddit.com/r/keto](http://www.reddit.com/r/keto)

Everyone serious about this understands that carbs are the problem.

<comment><USER4> Care to also post links to scientific evidence next to the reddit? Sure it has information, but from a quick glance it's information without much science/proof to back it up, from people who are already convinced. I think way more is needed to convince the rather critical spirits on HN :)

<comment><USER5> Lyle McDonald's e-book on Ketogenic Diet is probably the best thing I've ever read. It's well referenced and pretty comprehensive.

[http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/the-ketogenic- diet](http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/the-ketogenic-diet)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> People who say "just eat less" aren't thinking like engineers. Engineers don't get to ignore the wrenches thrown into the works by reality. If seemingly simple advice fails for almost everyone, then the advice is flawed and someone thinking like an engineer has to figure out how to work around those flaws.

I don't know if low-carb diets are the full solution, but I think they're at least part of the solution. Avoiding carbs is a simple rule that let's you avoid eating too many calories with relatively less effort than trying to stick to a low-calorie balanced diet. Its easy to blow through 200-300 calories of bagle without even a thought, not so much for an equivalent amount of bacon (6-7 slices).

<comment><USER7> The advice is sound. You get fat from the stuff that goes in your piehole. Stop putting so much stuff in there. The flaw is not in the argument. The flaw is in the people.

THAT's thinking like an Engineer.

<comment><USER8> > The flaw is in the people.

Reminds me of a story (no idea about historical accuracy): When the chief propagandist of the UDSSR was invited to a scientific conference he talked about all the positive effects of socialism, how it will solve all problems and so on. When his talk was finished the scientists unsurprisingly questioned him about his talk, because of all the prominent problems with socialism. His answer was simple:

"The system is perfect. The people are the problem."

If your system is 'perfect', but the people are the problem, maybe your system is shit. No one would use an engine that could go near the speed of light but killed all passengers in the process.

<comment><USER9> I read the grandparent as being a parody of how the stereotypical engineer thinks. Poe's law in action?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Saying that fat contains twice the calories as carbs ignores the plain fact that carbs contain a hell of a lot of calories.

This is the problem with modern eating. We don't realise how many calories there are in a slice of bread or a bowl of pasta.

Low carb works because people can't seem to understand that flour is 95% the energy density of sugar, and it's easier for them to trick themselves into calorie restriction by pretending that carbs are metabolised in a weird fat making way than it is for them to understand that wheat contains a lot of calories.

Also - people don't realise that after you've done all the calculations - eating an extra pound of fat will make you weigh roughly an extra pound.

Here's my diet advice: If the thing you're eating is used in nature as an energy store, then it's probably packed with calories.

The article sets off alarm bells with me, because it places so much emphasis on slowing metabolisms at the beginning. As far as I'm aware, your metabolism doesn't slow down until you're close to starvation (all reserves used), and the reduction in energy output caused by the slowing metabolism is minor. Speed of metabolism seems to be something only people on the dodgy end of the weight loss spectrum believe in.

<comment><USER11> > As far as I'm aware, your metabolism doesn't slow down until you're close to > starvation (all reserves used)

A bad night's sleep or a lack of sunlight will slow your metabolism down. It's quite variable. Under eating for just a couple days will tank it. Going low protein (under, say, 80 grams) is also sure to lower metabolism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Caloric restriction does work, but from my experience, it's hard, and requires conscious effort all day every day.

That's why, until a year ago, it never worked for me. I would imagine that's why it doesn't work for most people as well.

Well, conscious effort, and a thoroughly ingrained habit to eat everything on my plate because "starving children in Africa".

</comment><comment><USER13> Just a random "obvious" comment but..

I've lost some weight recently by cutting my intake. My inspiration was my sister who used to be 5'2" and 260lbs but is now ~130lbs. She got her stomach stapled and for some number of months was on a 500 calorie a day diet. (I don't recommend that)

Anyway, seeing that and reading things here on HN about how calorie restriction has an order of magnitude more effect than exercise (which I do) I decided to try to eat ~1500 calories a day for a while.

 __It 's surprisingly HARD because of how little food that is. __

They way people eat in the USA, it 's crazy how large the portions are. I'm in Japan where the portions are smaller but, calories are labeled on most things and even with small portions it's amazing to me just how little I can eat and stay under 2000 a day let alone 1500 a day.

A "small" Japanese convenience store style sandwich is 300 calories. Those are probably only 60% the size of the smallest sandwich I'd see in the USA. Pretty much any small Japanese pastry, donut, thing made with bread is 300-500 calories. Again those are at least 30% smaller than their USA counterparts.

Soda, Fruit juice, coffee with sugar, etc, all around 140 calories for 12oz.

Potato-chips or fries or a sugary snack? Forget about it!

The point is, it wasn't until I actually tried seriously looking at my calorie intake that I realized how many calories I was consuming. A small lunch, a medium dinner and a snack and I'm over 2000 calories easily. There's no way I could fit any kind of "normal" breakfast in that routine and still fit in 1500-2000 calories.

Anyway, I guess like I said that's kind of obvious but for whatever reason it wasn't to me until I actually started paying attention. As for being hungry all the time, yea, because of 48+ years of eating way too much my idea of what a meal should be or how much I should eat to feel like I've done more than just had a snack is seriously out of whack.

<comment><USER14> >Potato-chips or fries or a sugary snack? Forget about it!

Well, it's supposed to be a diet after all :)

I think that one should remove snacks/sweets/junk foods from their life before even considering what kind of a diet one should do. After all, those are probably 50%+ of the intake (at least, they are of mine... I'm trying to stop _) and there are very few foods with so many calories /carbs.

Sodas are particularly nasty, because one drink them all the day without realizing how much (my suggestion: switch to water, I've done it years ago and I couldn't be happier. Now I can't bring myself to drink a soda while eating, way too sweet).

_ (Unrelated) you know, I don't even like those this much. I just have a craving for them. When I finish eating those, I usually even drink a cup or two of water because I don't like the taste left in my mouth.

<comment><USER15> > _Sodas are particularly nasty, because one drink them all the day without > realizing how much (my suggestion: switch to water, I 've done it years ago > and I couldn't be happier. Now I can't bring myself to drink a soda while > eating, way too sweet)._

Ha, I don't understand people who say this. I've also cut sodas out of my life in exchange for water, and my weight has thanked me (a little), but I still find them _delicious_ whenever I have them for a treat.

<comment><USER14> "while eating", I do like them from time to time as a treat. I find that they just ruin the taste of food, making everything a sweet mix.

Really, there are pretty much two things that I can manage to drink while eating, water and beer. And the second one usually only with pizza.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> All those theories ignore the epigentics part ob obesity.

One of the main factors are what did your mother eat, when she was before puberty, and what did you eat before puberty.

Children of immigrants are often fat, because their mothers came from a culture where food was scare but natural, and they now grow up in in a culture where food is cheap and contains lots of sugar. The epigentics now cause that they will store the sugar into fat, whenever available. Grand children of immigrants are often thin again. Because their parents already grown up in a culture where food was cheap.

So there are only a few things one could do:

1st - try to keep your children thin. Let them make sport, let them drive bicycle to school, and do not drive them by car. Avoid sugar, especially fructose.

2nd - its to late, once you left puberty. Only a hormone change could change weight. Women get a 2nd chance to get thin when pregnant or during menopause. But they normally get fatter.

3rd - So just try to live with your weight. Start a sport where weight is good, e.g. sailing. Every sailor is always searching for fat crew, as self loading ballast on the rail. Even if sailing does not feel like sport, you burn lots of calories by moving your body to balance the waves. You learn to move your fat fast, and to balance yourself, even with high weight. A few years sailing might only cause 10lbs of weight loss, but the health benefit is much bigger then just the weight loss. And the self esteem gains a lot, regardless if you win a race, or only sail recreational.

<comment><USER17> Do not confuse epigenetics with culture.

There are a ton of calorie restriction experiments involving all species (except humans, since that is not realistically possible). These studies show that calorie restriction clearly results in weight loss.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Obesity rates in Europe (2008): [http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50326000/gif/_50326564...](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50326000/gif/_50326564_obesity_rates_464.gif)

Why Italians, that eat pasta (carbohydrates) almost every day are so thin? Goddammit.

<comment><USER19> I do not know if this has anything to do with anything, but I do know that warmer weather affects how much I eat.

Whether summering in Italy or in hot weather in the US, I don't experience hunger the same way as when I am in cold weather. My guess is my body does not need as much energy to generate heat, and I tend to drink much more water (sweating) than have a desire for food.

Of course, this is my personal experience and genetics and does not explain obesity rates in hotter parts of the US (unless rather than water people are drinking Coke).

<comment><USER20> Well, Sweden is up there too so...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The stomach is not a good judge of whether you should be eating more or less food. For whatever reason, some individuals may be prone to overeating or undereating. If your natural eating tendencies have caused you to be over- or underweight, common sense says that you should stop listening to those natural urges.

The key to successful dieting is to transform eating from a biologically- mediated process into a cognitively-mediated process based on counting calories. Given this cognitive feedback, your stomach will actually adapt to a new calorie intake level, lessening hunger. Hunger can also be managed by eating more satiating foods and drinking water.

Caloric deficits (or surpluses) work like clockwork. The metabolic slowdown discussed in the article has marginal effects if any -- perhaps a couple hundred calories worth per day at most. A simple thought experiment shows us that the idea of a "set point" body weight is ludicrous: at starvation, of course, the body cannot possibly maintain weight.

The reasons why many people fail at dieting is that people underestimate the amount of effort/pain required:

[http://www.cracked.com/article_18544_how-the-karate-kid- ruin...](http://www.cracked.com/article_18544_how-the-karate-kid-ruined- modern-world.html)

<comment><USER22> "The metabolic slowdown discussed in the article has marginal effects if any -- perhaps a couple hundred calories worth per day."

I'm sorry, but that is not a marginal effect. That is the difference between weight gain and weight loss. Also, if you read the article you would have noticed that a calorie deficit is not the only thing that necessitates weight loss, in fact, it might not help at all. There are good calories and bad calories, and how your body handles each depends on the source of the calorie.

<comment><USER10> 200 calories a day equates to one pound loss every 16 days, but to reach that level of metabolic slowdown, you need to be thin, and you need to cut your caloric intake down by about 1000 calories a day.

So yeah - it's a marginal effect.

<comment><USER21> I was also being quite generous in that 200 estimate. While many people do anecdotally report that their maintenance level seems to be lower when cutting, I suspect that it's largely due to changes in physical activity as individuals are more easily exhausted on caloric deficits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I have a theory that being overweight is mostly caused by lack of walking. Everyone seems to get heavier as they get older, and most people seem to be slim when they're students. Regardless of how 'healthy' their lifestyle is (ie. if they eat junk food, or go jogging).

So basically my theory is that when you're a student, you're probably walking a long way to get to university each day, and then when you're there you spend a lot of time walking about campus. When you leave university and get a job, you get into a car and drive to work, and then sit at your desk most of the day. And then retreat to the family home for the evening, rather than walking about town to meet your friends. Most people are aware of their sedentariness, and put effort into diets and exercise regimes (which they never dreamt of when they were younger), but without the daily walking it's an uphill struggle. So gradually over the years they put on the pounds, until virtually all of them have lost that slim figure.

<comment><USER24> I think your theory is an oversimplification, but I agree totally that walking is an under-appreciated component of health.

Anecdote: several years ago, my brother and his wife were in their thirties and starting to get a bit soft around the middle like everyone does when they exit their twenties.

Like most Americans, they lived in a pedestrian-unfriendly city and drove everywhere. They moved to Vancouver and sold their car. Suddenly, they were walking everywhere. I went to visit them and they both looked markedly better: slimmer and healthier.

They eventually moved back to the States and they went right back to the shape they were in before.

I think walking is one of the easiest and most pleasurable things we can change to improve our health. Aside from the time cost, there's little downside to it.

<comment><USER23> Plus since walking is so pleasant, and is usually not 'deliberate' exercise (you're just trying to get somewhere), nobody feels the need to 'reward' themselves with extra food at the end of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> > Specifically, it's the first law of thermodynamics

> exert willpower and eat less

> this advice doesn't work

As we know round these parts, "Ideas are useless without execution"

</comment><comment><USER26> I was moderately _shocked and confused_ at the pasta/cake illustration midway in the article.

<comment><USER27> WRT "confused", google for the term "glycemic index" or "glycemic load per serving"

Its an artistic illustration of Betty Crocker vanilla cake and vanilla frosting having a GI of 42 and a total glps around 24 (for 111 grams) vs kraft mac n cheese having a GI of 64 and total glps around 32 (for 180 grams). (Yes I actually looked this up not just make up example)

Some of this is political BS in that the serving size for the mac n cheese is about 60% larger than the serving size for the cake. None the less it is a medical experimental fact that your blood sugar level will spike about 50% harder after the pasta than after the cake. Probably all the oil in the cake, and grease (if purchased) or butter (if homemade) in the frosting, and egg in the cake (intended as an emulsifier rather than a protein source).

But yeah, like it or not, WRT blood sugar levels, at the end of dinner, you're WAY better off eating a serving of cake than going back for seconds of pasta. Crazy but true.

Now notice that the total glycemic load is what annoys / kills your pancreas, so cake is slightly worse (per gram of serving). However wild crazy fluctuations in blood sugar both drive your brain crazy and screw up the rest of your body, so pasta is worse for that. Your pancreas is not in charge of the quantity of food you eat, so the net effect is eating "more cake and less pasta" will in the long run loose weight or at least result in less weight gain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Stephan Guyenet has written extensively on the issues with the insulin hypothesis: [http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/01/insulin-and- ob...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/01/insulin-and-obesity- another-nail-in.html)

He has also written about how low carb diets work by reducing the variety and the reward factor of the diet ([http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-h...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate- hypothesis-of-obesity.html))

some other counterarguments are: 1\. Protein digestion also raises insulin, so why doesn't a high protein diet result in weight gain? 2\. There are plenty of cultures around the world whose diet is primarily starch based (eg. Kitavans). Why isn't obesity prevalent in these cultures ([http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/kitavans- wisdo...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/kitavans-wisdom-from- pacific-islands.html)). 3\. More recently, someone lost weight while eating only potatoes for 60 days ([http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/12/the- potato-die...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-potato- diet.html)). It'd be interesting to see the effects of just eating nuts (high fat, low carb) for 60 days.

tldr: it's not insulin that causes us to eat more than we need, it's the high reward factor and low satiety of the diet. A simple diet comprised of foods with low reward factor and high satiety makes it very easy to stay within the caloric budget.

<comment><USER11> A lot of people have had success losing weight by going with a very simple diet that is nutrient replete. The low carb thing really is BS. Sugary fruit is fine nutrition.

It's really not hard to get complete nutrition from well chosen foods like fruit and dairy. Here's 20 bananas and four pints of 1% milk, totally nutrient replete: [http://imgur.com/a/X6F6j](http://imgur.com/a/X6F6j) You could eat this every day for weeks and have no problems. If you're fat you'd almost certainly lose weight and maintain muscle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Lustig has his critics[1]. In fact, seems the mainstream _almost_ thinks of him as a quack (almost). Myself, I can't discern who's right and wrong. I can see that a lot of people are overstating their level of certainty.

[1] [http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth- ab...](http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about- fructose-alarmism/)

<comment><USER30> This article was by Ludwig, not Lustig.

<comment><USER29> You're right. Oops. The claims sounded similar and the names were similar, and my brain jumped to a conclusion. Apparently, the OA has nothing (directly) to do with Lustig. I'd delete my comment if I could, but I don't see an option for that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I first read about insulin's role in weight loss in Ferriss' book "Four Hour body", and the results from his approach have been pretty impressive (tracked 3,500 people and 84% of them lost weight)

[http://fourhourworkweek.com/2013/01/22/is-the-4-hour- body-a-...](http://fourhourworkweek.com/2013/01/22/is-the-4-hour-body-a-scam- tracking-3500-people-to-find-out/)

</comment><comment><USER32> One of the problems is that, when you are hungry, you are least likely to succeed at deciding to not overeat. Will power is a function of energy. It's why it's so easy for me to decide on things before bed, when I feel the most awake, and find it nearly impossible to pull through on them when I first wake, when I feel the most tired.

</comment><comment><USER33> Calories and energy sources (carbs, proteins, fats) are a small part of the riddle. Besides calories our bodies need lots of micronutrients, amino-acids, enzymes,... - the quality of the food is paramount.

Our modern food is high in calories and low in nutrients, that's mostly due to the 'advances' in modern agriculture and the whole chain of food production and distribution.

Then there is the aspect of the mind. Look into the mind of any overweight or obese person and you'll find a bucket of psychological disorders, most of them caused by poor nutrition and most of them being the reason for the person 'fixing' them with more food or alcohol or drugs.

Few people ever learn to listen to their bodies and when their bodies scream 'I need nutrients', the mind hears 'I am hungry' and goes and procures more empty calories. That's the cycle which leads to weight gain and obesity and all the related health problems.

</comment><comment><USER34> This article goes to a lot of effort to make calorie-counting diets seem futile due to human nature, and there's certainly some truth to it. But I still think "pure" calorie counting (and by that I mean not changing much of what you eat, just how much you eat) can work for the average person.

It's just that, to "just eat less", you actually have to log everything you eat so that you can't lie to yourself and blow your calorie budget without knowing it. This is true IMO even if you're doing low-carb or any other kind of diet. Accountability and making it impossible to lie to yourself is key.

Personal anecdote follows:

I lost 50 lbs (220 -> 170 lbs at 6'2") by logging every single (non-zero- calorie) thing that passes my lips, and I've kept it off for over a year. I have no idea if the amount of willpower I have is typical, but I definitely couldn't have done it if I didn't log what I eat. My theory is that if you don't actually account for all the food you eat, you're more likely to slip out of good habits because you gradually lie to yourself more and more until you're consistently blowing your calorie budget without realizing it.

But I really have to log _everything_ , no matter what, even when I overeat. I can never say to myself "I'm on vacation, I can skip a day" or "well I'm already way over my calorie budget, may as well stop logging." Even if I end up 1500 calories over budget, all the food I ate is right there in my log.

There's a couple of reasons why I think this works for me:

* If I log everything, then it's impossible to blow through 200-300 calories on a bagel without realizing it, because the act of logging it puts it in the front of my mind.

* So long as I log everything, I can allow myself to blow my budget now and again. But since it's logged, I know exactly how many calories I need to make up in the coming days. On a week-to-week and month-to-month basis I can make it all even out.

* Even though it's human nature to want to eat back all the calories you lost (and you _will_ slip), there's nothing in human nature that's preventing you from logging it all. I may binge and overeat because my body's telling me to, but perhaps the next day when I realize I'm already 1500 calories over for the week because of yesterday, I'm better equipped to compensate for it and have a salad for lunch instead.

* Once you find the right number of calories, you can avoid under eating as well. For me I decided early I wanted to lose only 1 lb/week. So in the early months of my diet there was plenty of times where I was something like 600 calories under my daily budget, and I didn't feel like eating, but I _forced_ myself to eat anyway. This throttled my weight loss, but I think it was a major factor in keeping it off... my brain never really went into the severe feast/famine recovery that made me yo-yo right back to my old weight.

The main downside of this plan though, is I have no exit strategy... I have my "maintenance level" of calories set on my logging app, and I really do plan to just log what I eat for the rest of my life. (I've been doing it for two years straight now.) It's completely automatic for me (I use the "Lose It!" app on my iPhone) so I don't even see it as a burden any more, but I know that as soon as I stop I'll slip back into my old habits and gain all my weight back.

<comment><USER35> Out of curiosity: How many calories per day are you aiming for and how did you come up with that number?

I'm currently going for 1800 calories and after losing a decent amount of weight initially, I feel I'm making fairly little progress (to be expected). It seems to me that I actually lose more weight when I go a bit over the limit, which leads me to believe I might be eating so little that my metabolism slows down.

<comment><USER34> When I was losing weight I was trying for around 2100 calories per day, and that brought me to around 1 lb/week of weight loss.

From what I've read, the rule of thumb is 3500 calories = 1 lb of fat, so in a week, you want to run a 500 calorie deficit each day. That, and most of the online calorie estimators seemed to cluster around 2600 calories/day for "maintenance" for me, assuming a mostly sedentary lifestyle. So I came up with 2100 and that mostly worked.

It's important to "dial it in" though, by weighing yourself at the same time every day and keeping track of how much you've lost in a given week. At first I was doing 1800 calories per day and I was losing too much, so I bumped up my number up to 2100 and leveled off a bit.

Nowadays I'm doing 2600 per day and I'm coasting pretty well, maybe losing a tiny bit, but making up for it by blowing my budget on occasion. 2600 is very easy to hit though... I can still do fast food for lunch and have no problem making my budget so long as I don't overdo it too much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> _> >In studies by Dr. Rudolph L. Leibel of Columbia and colleagues, when lean and obese research subjects were underfed in order to make them lose 10 to 20 percent of their weight, their hunger increased and metabolism plummeted. Conversely, overfeeding sped up metabolism._

This is kind of useless without knowing if they underfed by decreasing amount of food for each feeding time or reducing the numbers of feeding times. The whole idea of eating many small meals during the day instead of a few big ones. Also, depending on the amount of exercising these people are doing these results could go either way.

</comment><comment><USER37> >> _Several prominent clinical trials reported no difference in weight loss when comparing diets purportedly differing in protein, carbohydrate and fat. However, these trials had major limitations; at the end, subjects reported that they had not met the targets for complying with the prescribed diets._

I would really like to know the percentage of subjects who did not comply with the diets. So far the evidence from many clinical trials shows that there is no effect of diet content on weight loss, as much as I like the article's point.

</comment><comment><USER38> Is this something new for the American population? Hasn't this been known for years or decades already? That's why there are low-carb diets. Put that in combination with calorie intake and exercise and your fat will gradually disappear. It's not exactly rocket science.

<comment><USER39> Calorie reduction and exercise will reduce your body fat even if you eat mostly carbs. The trouble is that it's hard to _stick to_ a low-calorie diet if you're mostly eating carbs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I wish I was fat so I could achieve my weight goals by sitting around working, watching TV, and not eating. Trust me, trying to gain weight is way more difficult and expensive and time consuming.

</comment><comment><USER41> I cringe when I hear things like "And when you cut their diets, their metabolism slows down, and when you add to them, it speeds up"

That's exactly what it's supposed to do.

</comment><comment><USER42> Ref: [http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1871695](http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1871695)

</comment><comment><USER43> If carbs are bad, sugar is horrible. Just in case you haven't seen these:

Sugar: The Bitter Truth: [http://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM](http://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM)

Fat Chance: Fructose 2.0: [http://youtu.be/ceFyF9px20Y](http://youtu.be/ceFyF9px20Y)

</comment><comment><USER44> Everyone wants to be told that it isn't their fault that bad things have happened. Its a pernicious, harmful urge most often on display in courtrooms and discussions on weight and diet. Unfortunately reality is what it is: if you eat without consideration and control in this modern world of low-cost calories, then you will get fat. Accepting and acknowledging that you are 100% accountable as to what and how much you eat is a necessary first step to avoiding that end state.

<comment><USER45> > Everyone wants to be told that it isn't their fault that bad things have > happened.

Actually, the general cultural attitudes are to castigate overweight individuals for some sort of moral failing. In reality, it is substantially harder for different people with different genes to maintain a lower weight. Disregarding that is purely callous and is equivalent to denying the existence of phenomena like addiction.

People are 100% accountable, but that doesn't mean we should ignore that it's harder for certain people to make the "right" choice. It also doesn't mean we shouldn't give them support and assistance to make the right choice.

<comment><USER46> I think it's both.

I see both happening. I see major attitudes of helplessness or victim mentality. Or just ambivalence. Go to any mall. We all know this story.

But also, it then becomes a thing where those who do have their head in the right place to pursue health in a practical and beneficiary (edit: beneficial) manner, these folks often do turn around and moralize. It's too bad.

The real truth is, we need to forget about those types of things, for a little while at least, and concentrate purely on the facts. The consequences. What is actually occurring. Because in the end, it doesn't matter what peoples' intentions are, or motives, or desires, or anything else. What matters are consequences.

That said, of course it's incumbent upon anyone promoting health to offer a helping hand, only, and never anything else. Never any judgment. Because not one of us is "above it."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Would it be going too far to say the type of person who would most benefit from the nutritional advice of this column is also unlikely to be the type of person who reads the New York Times.

And to the person who says that what people put into their mouths is, "generally out of their control" \- imagine a legal setting and some crime committed, the only way to claim diminished responsibility is to be a minor or plead various forms of insanity. Are we saying that most overweight/obese people are borderline insane when we're invoking the, "it's not their fault" argument?

<comment><USER45> > Would it be going too far to say the type of person who would most benefit > from the nutritional advice of this column is also unlikely to be the type > of person who reads the New York Times.

Um, yes. I don't at all understand your point. That's the most ridiculous point I've heard in a long time.

Are you somehow insinuating that overweight people are not well-read or intelligent? The many, many overweight NYT readers I know (including myself) would beg to differ.

> And to the person who says that what people put into their mouths is, > "generally out of their control"

Your attitude is a terrible example of the moralistic viewpoint which this article disparages. Being overweight is in no way equivalent to a crime.

Choice is not a binary. Of course people have some control over what they eat, but it's well established by science that different people at different times have different drives to eat. Or are you completely dismissing addiction as a phenomenon?

<comment><USER47> > That's the most ridiculous point I've heard in a long time.

How is it ridiculous? It's not a personal slur on you. Do you deny that people from lower socio-economic backgrounds generally suffer more from overweight issues and obesity? Wouldn't you say that people from this type of background are less likely to consume their mass media in the form of the New York Times?

> Being overweight is in no way equivalent to a crime.

That's not what I said. Read again what I wrote. Another example. I smoke cigarettes. Should I not take responsibility for this? If I can't stop smoking is it "out of my control"? I'm not making a binary choice out of anything, I'm just contesting the following comment elsewhere here (I should have made a separate comment): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7762934](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7762934)

> The food and quality of food that is available to many people is a factor, > which is could be said is generally out of their control. I don't think it's > helpful to blame the individual as we are all part of systems.

There is nowhere in the developed world where you can't buy decent fresh food. At some point along the way some of the responsibility must lie with the person who is choosing to buy one type of food over another because perhaps its pre-made, pre-packaged, hits their pleasure centres, whatever. I guess it relates back to my first point in that I imagine that people like this may not be as informed about nutrition as you or I. And if they are informed then what?

<comment><USER45> > How is it ridiculous?

Because you're taking a correlation and eliminating the lower data point. Yes, people with better educations tend to eat better, but not by much. In fact, for adult males there is no correlation between education and obesity prevalence. [1]

I, and the many other overweight NYT readers, certainly exist. We could also benefit from this article. Should we not get access to it because of your faulty moralistic viewpoint?

> Should I not take responsibility for this? If I can't stop smoking is it > "out of my control"?

Of course it is partially in your control, but you totally missed the nuance. It would probably be much harder for you (as a smoker) to choose to not smoke a cigarette today than for me (as a non-smoker). That doesn't make me better than you, it's just an acknowledgement of addiction as a phenomenon. Acknowledging it helps us to build better for strategies for helping people to make good choices.

Also, two individuals who have the exact same diet and exercise can weigh very differently depending on their genetic makeup and background. How is that their fault?

> The food and quality of food that is available to many people is a factor, > which is could be said is generally out of their control. I don't think it's > helpful to blame the individual as we are all part of systems.

What the fuck? I didn't even say that. Way to put words in my mouth.

1: [http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0516_higher_educatio...](http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0516_higher_education.html)

<comment><USER47> I know you didn't say that. Which is _why_ I said, "I'm just contesting the following comment elsewhere here (I should have made a separate comment)" and then I posted the link to the comment which said it. I'm not arguing with you, I'm arguing with that comment so you need to go read it if you want to debate that. I probably shouldn't have rolled two viewpoints into the one post as it seems to have totally confused the issue.

The opening paragraph of the piece you linked to says, "People with higher levels of education and higher income have lower rates of many chronic diseases compared to those with less education and lower income levels, according to Health, United States, 2011 – the government's annual comprehensive report on Americans' health." which seems to back up my viewpoint,

Which is all that I've been saying. I'm sorry if it offends you but I'm going to stick by what I've said - (in general terms) the type of person who might most benefit from this article in the New York Times is less likely to be the type of person to read the New York Times. Note that I am _not_ saing that overweight people do not read the New York Times, if you got that from what I said I'm sorry I didn't word it better but I'm not taking it back.

<comment><USER45> Mixing replies and quotes from two different comments completely muddles the waters and confuses the issue of authorship. Please don't do that.

If you looked a little closer at the report I linked to, you would find that "obesity prevalence among adult males did not vary consistently with level of education." Which is in fact exactly what I stated.

Sure, NYT non-readers might on average be fitter than NYT readers. But that's hardly a reason for it not being beneficial to or interesting to NYT readers. By that logic, we should never post intro coding tutorials to HN because on average they'd be more helpful to the general public than HN readers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTuJ6r1F2hA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTuJ6r1F2hA)

I've been helping my family and friends with this recipe, and it's changing lives. Literally. My father, who I taught how to eat vegetarian, has stopped needing insulin! (After heading steadily down the standard American road...sad...)

If you add this smoothie to your daily life, and change _nothing_ else, you will feel better. A lot better. You can still eat bacon and eggs for breakfast (I don't recommend that, but you can), and you can still eat a pulled pork sandwich for dinner (also, don't recommend), but if you have this smoothie around the middle of the day, you will feel better and experience benefits. More or less immediately from day one.

You are quite literally what you eat. How could it possibly be otherwise?

EDIT: easily worth any down votes I may receive here. Computer enthusiasts and professionals, for the most part, in my observation, have a huge blind spot for their health. Huge. So down vote away, my friends. As long as you are also involved in your health!

<comment><USER38> I don't think you are getting downvotes because developers don't care about their health. It's because you are saying that ONE smoothie is changing lives... which is a ridicolous statement. And it honestly sounds like an attempt for self promotion.

<comment><USER46> Also, serious question: why is sharing something in a higher bandwidth format than just typing "promotion?" Do you not promote your own thoughts and agenda any time you enter a comment? When I have no product, nothing for sale, no ads on the video, nothing like that, how does one conclude that sharing something, which is just me, commenting, really, in a higher bandwidth format, how do you conclude "promotion?" As I say, serious question.

<comment><USER48> Well you have no proof whatsoever of your claims. No question that it's a healthy thing to consume, but saying it will change lives from day one without changing anything else is just a very bold statement to make without backing it up with anything. Kudos for the recipe though.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why We Updated Our Site Search Algorithm - <AUTHOR> http://blog.swiftype.com/site-search-algorithm-update-phrase

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here - any feedback or questions welcome</comment>


IPad Dwarfs Rivals On The Web, Surpasses Linux - <AUTHOR> http://www.conceivablytech.com/7725/business/ipad-dwarfs-rivals-on-the-web-surpasses-linux

<comment><USER2> Isn't the title comparing apples to oranges?

<comment><USER3> It's not a comparison so much as it is a frame of reference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This makes me sad.

<comment><USER5> Since launch the iPad has been far and away the best tablet experience available for $499. That doesn't mean commodity Android devices won't eat its marketshare inside of five years.

All we're seeing here is confirmation that there's a market for affordable web consumption devices that are more comfortable than a netbook.

<comment><USER6> I actually don't think there is much of a market for tablets right now. I think there is a market for iPads. People don't say, "I want a tablet and the iPad is the best one". They say "I want an iPad".

Perhaps as people's computers get old they will seek to replace them with only a tablet. When/if that happens alternatives to the iPad will be a bigger market (that doesn't mean the iPad can't still be dominant).

I don't think this will have any effect on the proliferation of tablets. It's obvious that they will be around and companies will continue to go after market share.</comment></comment></comment>


Bufferbloat: Dark Buffers in the Internet (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2071893

<comment><USER2> Summary of what you can do for yourself:

1\. In Linux, use the fq_codel queueing discipline for your interface which sits on your fast-to-slow network boundary:

        tc qdisc add dev $IFACE root fq_codel

2\. On your Netgear WNDR3700v2 or WNDR3800 home router, install and run CeroWrt: [http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Installatio...](http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Installation_Guide)

<comment><USER3> If you're more into this than I am:

What will 1) achieve here? Isn't the biggest problem ~elsewhere~ (i.e. my ISP sucks, and all the gazillion devices on the route might buffer far too much data)? Put differently: Can I make a difference, even if it's "just" for me? (I .. cannot, I guess - I'm stuck with a crappy cable modem/DECT base/wifi router combination from my ISP. But I'm interested in general)

Regarding 2): Is that recommended? Last time I checked most of CeroWrt was sent upstream, so is there a big difference between a reasonably current version of OpenWrt?

<comment><USER4> All of the CoDEL algorithms are in the latest OpenWRT branch, I wouldn't advise running CeroWRT.

<comment><USER2> Would you advise _against_ CeroWrt? Why? Is there something wrong with it? FYI, CoDEL is _not_ only reason one would want CeroWrt; see ([http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt](http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt)) and ([http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/How_is_Cero...](http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/How_is_CeroWrt_different_from_OpenWrt)).

<comment><USER4> It hasn't been updated in a while, most changes are now in upstream (unsure about DNSSEC)...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Previous discussion [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3461482](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3461482)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I posted this as much as a note into the stability of the Internet as a commentary on scalable application architecture. I'd love to hear commentary from people who have implemented buffers internally as part of an architecture and whether they implemented smart feedback channels like RTT or faced difficulties like those mentioned here.

</comment><comment><USER6> Bufferbloat is definitely a thing. Most home routers are terrible sources of bufferbloat by default (HTTP browsing crawls to a halt the second torrenting starts ramping up). Thankfully, most home routers have some amount of QoS which can help a _ton_.</comment>


Uber CEO, with Tears in His Eyes, Apologises for Company Culture - <AUTHOR> http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/uber-ceo-apologizes-for-company-culture-after-harassment-claims-1662213?pfrom=home-topstories <comment><USER2> But it is not his fault, it is all of our faults, yours and mine the whole of society, for letting ourselves get away with getting what our own little spoiled egos demanded... cheap fast instant gratification</comment>


Idea: Blog + SocialNetworking = Blog2.0 - <AUTHOR> http://www.entrepreneur2be.com/2007/08/26/idea-blog-socialnetworking-blog20/ I think that we can rewire the blogsphere in a much more meaningful way and extract so much more value. Plenty of opportunities of startups, for current companies, for writers and readers. <comment><USER2> The problem with making your blog the hub of your social network is that there is no concept of private groups or private friends for a blog. Everything is public.

The post gives an example of uploading photos, and then automatically notifying friends via RSS that new photos are up. Sounds like Facebook, except on Facebook, only my friends could see the photos, not the whole world.

I don't think you solve this problem until there is an Internet-wide system for managing your identity. (Obviously, OpenID and OpenAuth are steps in this direction.)

Plus, I also think that it is psychologically more difficult to start a blog than it is to create a profile page on a social network. With a blog, you have to overcome the "Blank Canvas Fear" ("What am I supposed to say?") and the "Public Speaking Fear" ("I'm speaking to the whole world, not just my friends.") Filling out a Facebook profile and writing on your friend's Wall is a much easier way to start.

<comment><USER3> You bring up an important point. However, I disagree that this particular problem requires Internet-wide identity management. If unlisted numbers are good enough for friends-only phones, then unlisted URLs are good enough for friends-only web resources.

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure I understand how you would use unlisted URLs. Could you explain that more?

<comment><USER3> You give your friends-only blog a link like

<http://example.com/unlisted/9vaekw03/>

Pass this link to your friends. They subscribe to its RSS feed, etc. They don't have to register with example.com. The tradeoff is that they can easily pass the link along, just as they could pass along an unlisted phone number.

<comment><USER2> I see. That solution doesn't seem private enough to me.

I may not want people to pass the link along without my say so, people could discover the URL by accident...

<comment><USER3> Whether or not password protection is more secure depends on how good your friends and family are at choosing and guarding passwords.

If you're concerned about the one-in-a-trillion chance that a typo could lead to someone discovering your URL by accident, you could just make the random string longer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> makes sense. you eliminate the wrapper called facebook or myspace, where you have to log-in to be your real/wanted self and see your real/wanted friends, and you just enter this world directly through your browser... blogging tools and platforms need to become more integrateable and people need to actually start doing it more. the foundations are in place - the blogroll meets the friends list, etc...

</comment><comment><USER5> The link is down, so I can't read the details, but...

LiveJournal?

</comment><comment><USER6> buzzword_a + buzzword_b = distinct_lack_of_imagination_from_a_hack

By the way, it was called "Usenet", and it devolved under the weight of the commons.

</comment><comment><USER7> sort of close: readr.com.</comment>


Unimpressed by online classes, college students file lawsuits for refunds - <AUTHOR> https://apnews.com/f18a0a48925a19586e4d810f6e88eff3 <comment><USER3> I remember wondering aloud at MIT/Harvard putting their courses online for free for anyone to listen to, and saying, well what is the value add then of paying to physically go to college?

I guess we're going to find out whether the networking, friends, social aspect is worth it. There's also something about the competitive aspect of seeing other people in person do better than you or have better ideas than you. Which is hard virtually.

That being said, the college experience has gone through events like wars, plague, disruption, etc, and has come back before. (Although not at a time when there was such a ready alternative technology at hand.) I'm not yet so worried as some say (wholesale change to the higher education model), unless this goes on for 2-3 years.

<comment><USER4> I know this might not be received well by the HN crowd, but I feel like the classes and networking are secondary, the main value of a reputable college is having a reputable college you can put on your résumé.

<comment><USER5> Bryan Kaplan argues that the majority of the value of a reputable college is signaling.

> Suppose your law firm wants a summer associate. A law student with a > doctorate in philosophy from Stanford applies. What do you infer? The > applicant is probably brilliant, diligent, and willing to tolerate serious > boredom. If you're looking for that kind of worker—and what employer > isn't?—you'll make an offer, knowing full well that nothing the philosopher > learned at Stanford will be relevant to this job.

If the value of education was the information taught in the classes or the network, you should see a somewhat linear increase of value as you progress. For instance, after completing your second year out of four, you should receive ~50% of the college premium.

> Most of the salary payoff for college comes from crossing the graduation > finish line. Suppose you drop out after a year. You'll receive a salary bump > compared with someone who's attended no college, but it won't be anywhere > near 25 percent of the salary premium you'd get for a four-year degree. > Similarly, the premium for sophomore year is nowhere near 50 percent of the > return on a bachelor's degree, and the premium for junior year is nowhere > near 75 percent of that return. Indeed, in the average study, senior year of > college brings more than twice the pay increase of freshman, sophomore, and > junior years combined. Unless colleges delay job training until the very > end, signaling is practically the only explanation

[0] [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/whats-c...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/whats- college-good-for/546590/)

<comment><USER3> This is very true! I believe (don't have a good reference) that companies in the past had more incentive and means to cultivate or train people on the job, and thus, a formal signal of education wasn't as important. (and until 1950s(?), wasn't as available to many)

I seem to observe that now many companies generally want to pick the already- developed crop of people who fit the bill to a T, have had education or previous employment do the job of training / filtering who to consider, and not engage in the training part of it much any more.

Maybe it's due to the increasing cost of hiring people that you must only take a chance on a sure bet, and that there is less and less appetite (financial return-wise) to spend money on training people who are just as likely to pick up and leave for another company.

<comment><USER6> > Maybe it's due to the increasing cost of hiring people

... perhaps put another way, the 'professionalization' of HR?

<comment><USER3> I also meant, when employing someone for any kind of position of responsibility costs $100k minimum, you don't make big bets on unproven people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Not too surprising that the experience wasn't good. Having taught in-person and online before, I can guarantee that these students ended up with a sub- optimal experience at best. Teaching online is drastically different than in- person and is not something you can easily pick-up in short notice. Made worse is that they were in the middle of a syllabus designed for in-person instruction. How material is delivered, what type of assignments to give, how to even grade those assignments, etc. - all of that needs to be tailored to an online environment in order to have a good experience. You can't just "adapt" it like driving on the opposite side of the road. And this is also ignoring tooling needed to make the online experience productive.

I believe the colleges when they say that their professors are doing their best. That they are delivering the same high level material. However, that is willfully ignoring the fact that content is a very small part of the college education experience. The delivery, environment, and people are what gives college its value. Lose that and the cost, especially for these high ranking colleges, is not worth it.

<comment><USER8> I've not taught online, but I have a close colleague who was doing it for years pre-pandemic, and another colleague who did a bit of it and my impressions are the same.

My sense is that major universities doing online stuff have video production crews (from Communications etc) and everything is heavily edited and redone. It's more like a television show than anything else. Much more preplanning, and interactions with the students are much more structured.

It's _not_ like some zoom meeting off-the-cuff with your professor who had to switch gears on the spot along with you, while you're uprooted like a minor refugee and living who knows where that you didn't plan to.

Students will be back in the fall. The risks of returning do not approach the risks of not returning for most undergrad-age students. This is especially true that universities will be prepared this fall, and were not in late winter/early spring.

My sense is that a lot of the schadenfreude and resentment here on HN and elsewhere is due to a general sense that something is really very wrong with higher education at the moment, at least in the US, and wanting to see it radically reformed. I agree, but I think the problems are not really related to the value of in-person degree education vs what you can get online. The real issues have to do with the cost of the education in general, how degrees are viewed in vocational settings, and costs and spending within higher educational institutions. Until those things change, it will take a lot more than SARS-CoV-2 to change things.

<comment><USER9> Its not so much that anything is wrong with college, it is that the cost isn't commiserate with the expected payout (for most). Yet we, as a society, push people who are barely adults into a lifetime of debt slavery like sheep to the slaughter.

<comment><USER10> This is definitely changing now. It was like this when I went to college 15 years ago but the tides are changing.

<comment><USER9> I hope that is true. I graduated from undergraduate 10 years ago. My alma mater used to be very good bang for your buck, arguably the best traditional engineering and nursing school in the state, less than 5000 a year, accept almost everyone and fail the ones who won't make it early so they can do other things. But pressure from the state government shifted funding to retention rates so that model of education was dying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If I go into a restaurant and order pork, but get served beef, I have a right as a customer to complain. It doesn't matter whether beef is in some way better than pork, or whether other customers are perfectly happy with beef, or whether I eat beef myself at other times. I order pork, I expect pork.

If the restaurant can't serve me pork, for example because they've run out, then the right answer is still not to just assume I'll be ok with beef instead.

I don't see how "this other thing is of equal value" (which is debatable in itself) is a defense to a claim that I'm not getting the product or service that I signed up for?

<comment><USER12> This analogy can still go either way. You ate half the meal. Then there they had to kick you out to finish at home with a doggy bag. You're losing out on some ambience, but the thing you showed up to achieve will be achieved.

Note that there are already refunds for at least some of the in-person stuff such as dorms and gym access. So were already in a position of compromise and partial refund. It's just an argument of what that number should be.

<comment><USER13> The first half of the meal, the portion they ate, _was_ what they paid for. The meal was suddenly changed halfway through, but there was no option to stop paying. And in this case, the first half of the meal doesn't mean anything without the second half.

<comment><USER14> Like if you went to a 'make-your-own-pizza' place and were forced to leave the building by a fire marshal after having placed your pizza, with custom toppings, in the oven.

<comment><USER15> Also, the pizza cost $25,000.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> As much as I wish it were better, most online courses offered by universities do not come close to the in-person experience. Their real goal/outcome is to increase access.

Professors are trained (most at least) to teach in-person and have assignments and curriculums that match. They can't redo that appropriately to be equally effective within a week or two. Few could do it well given over a year doing online only.

Tools are being built and the experience will improve thanks to this global reset.

Education is a space that hasn't really been disrupted ever. Definitely isn't happening within a few weeks.

<comment><USER17> Education has been disrupted.

The disruption taught us that education is more than what we think of when we imagine the word studying.

Khan Academy exists, and has existed for a while.

The MOOC rush is over. We know the organic retention rates are abysmal.

Online education was/is the holy grail of 2000 era layman ideas of education.

Free, world class, available at your finger tips, at any time, educational content.

Yet We know that with this world class information and self selected motivated students (!!) only a tiny fraction of the class will finish.

In contrast, most people who get in, finish college.

In person education beats online education hollow.

Matter of fact even the work from home enthusiasm will wane and return to office work.

There are too many things people do by being in proximity to each other which may have nothing to do with the "mission", but make the mission possible.

<comment><USER18> > In contrast, most people who get in, finish college. > In person education > beats online education hollow.

This isn't really true.

"According to the National Center for Education Statistics, just 41% of first- time full-time college students earn a bachelor's degree in four years, and only 59% earn a bachelor's in six years."

[https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/just-41percent-of-college- st...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/just-41percent-of-college-students- graduate-in-four-years.html)

<comment><USER17> As you yourself point out, 59% finish in 6 years.

In contrast, these are MOOC completion rates:

>Among all MOOC participants, 3.13 percent completed their courses in 2017-18, down from about 4 percent the two previous years and nearly 6 percent in 2014-15.

www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2019/01/16/study-offers-data- show-moocs-didnt-achieve-their-goals

They add:

>Certainly 55,000 people got access to education they might not otherwise have had. But "rather than creating new pathways at the margins of global higher education," the authors write, "MOOCs are primarily a complementary asset for learners within existing systems."

They do allude to a construct called "Verfied Students" which I have no idea about, which have higher but significantly varying completion rates.

> And among the "verified" students, 46 percent completed in 2017-18, compared > to 56 percent in 2016-17 and about 50 percent the two previous years.

I have never encountered how that cohort was constructed, however if we are to start breaking down sub groups of students from general numbers, your data shows that non-profit and public institutions have near 60% graduation rates at 6 years.

In general a random student will more will likely graduate from a college, than a random person starting a MOOC.

<comment><USER19> It's not really a meaningful comparison though - MOOCs have a lower (zero) barrier to entry, and a lower (zero) price of dropping. College is expensive, requires admission, and confers actual credit/degrees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Online classes can work, but it makes sense that students are frustrated by courses put together quickly due to unforeseen circumstances.

I've been a student of Georgia Tech's online Master's program for a few semesters now. They've had years to iterate based on previous students' feedback. I am learning an incredible amount for a decent price. But it is a Master's program and involves a lot of self-motivated research. Also, it costs roughly $850 per semester (if you take only one course). I'm not sure I'd have done it if it had cost thousands.

<comment><USER21> Gt's master in CS prices are, I think, the biggest reason for a large refund for this online half semester.

Where in state tuition is $13k a year, out of state is $33 and a masters program is $10k total (or $1700 a year based on the same calculations)

<comment><USER22> GT's MSCS is a totally different instruction model. It's all MOOCS, not focused online learning with regular sized classes. Most of the classes have 600 students in them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> My college extended the ability to drop the class for a full refund to nearly the end of the semester. No lawsuit needed. For schools refusing to do this, I absolutely think people should be suing though.

I am all for online education, but it's hit and miss how comparable it is. The course I'm taking at the moment is nearly exactly the same without it's in- class component: I wasn't even attending the in-person classes before the pandemic! But plenty of other classes I took were largely for the hands-on experience which couldn't be replicated over the web.

</comment><comment><USER24> I am doing a course on epidemiology this semester and I find it is once of the best courses I have ever taken, offline or online. It is offered, usually, in both online and in-person formats. It is very well designed and has rich content and opportunity for online interaction. I get the impression the in- person version is just as good as the online one. So why is this one so good when so many suck? Two possibilities: 1\. The course has had an online format for several years and is thus experienced with online delivery.

2\. It is a _well designed course_ , regardless of delivery format. Which means only a reasonable amount of deliberation and care is needed to make it good for online delivery.

My conclusion is that I don't think the format is the issue. I think the issue is that most courses are poorly designed in the first place. Insufficient effort and resources are applied and the result is crap.

This comes with the caveats that many topics are best learnt in practical settings (chemistry, some biology, arts etc) so they translate poorly to online only.

</comment><comment><USER25> I guess this is a consequence of building an educational system that is for profit and where student pay a (substantiel) part of their tuition. European universities have also closed, yet I still have to hear about any complaints.

In fact, it seems like the Corona crisis will boost university applications in Europe - If you can't have your gab year and find work you might as well just study. In the US it seems like we will see the opposite effect - Less people will apply and commence studies.

<comment><USER26> In the UK you have almost as many complaints regarding the second-half of the school year evaporating with additional news about the universities themselves starting to panic because international students were their primary source of funding and that looks to be drying up.

<comment><USER25> You got me on an imprecision. UK is definitely also an Anglo cultural country in this regard. I reckon they also pay most of their own tuition?

<comment><USER26> Citizens pay a lot less than international students, and universities have come to rely upon the money from those international students. The threat of not having international students for a year or two is causing some panic and it is expected that some of the more marginal universities will close.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I don't know what the implications would be on finances / resource allocation for the school, but IMO everyone's education should be "paused" right now, including K-12. If you were going to graduate in six months, and the Coronavirus ends up closing campus for six months, you'll now graduate in 12 months, after you've had your due time on campus. And that additional six months of schooling comes at no additional cost.

If I had a reservation at a restaurant before the Coranvirus, and the restaurant is now closed, I'm not forced to buy a take-out order instead—I just don't pay. That really sucks for all the people who work at the restaurant, but I don't think forcing customers to pay for a service they didn't receive is the right solution.

<comment><USER28> All students and pupils are forming a chain where each promotion is expected to move up one year, replaced by the next promotion. There ain't a pause capability in the educational system, things MUST move forward every year at a define schedule. If anything, that's a good example of what a "deadline" is.

It can ignore a few months of disturbance, as demonstrated by long strikes or major events. It can't skip one cycle.

<comment><USER27> We can't skip a cycle, but we can move the students up even though they haven't actually completed their education?

Make no mistake, the situation sucks for everyone. But it seems to me that actually educating people should take priority over meeting an arbitrary deadline.

<comment><USER28> Apparently schools can let children move on no matter what. When unable to hold end of year exams (end of middle school and high school), they will use the current grades so far and do away without any exam.

For universities, it's gonna be a lot more tricky. They shouldn't get away with charging up to 50k a year for nothing. They can't deliver labs and practical trainings. There is no continuity between an undergraduate and an postgraduate, probably somewhere else.

<comment><USER27> > Apparently schools can let children move on no matter what.

Colleges could also snap their fingers and mail everyone diplomas in exchange for nothing, if they felt so inclined.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that schools aren't just meaningless certificate factories and that the students who attend them actually learn stuff. Just because the students are being moved up doesn't mean they're adequately prepared for next year.

<comment><USER28> I agree, there is training that can't be skipped. I think it's mostly a problem for higher education, not for schools.

If a child didn't fully learn to write, or a high schooler didn't complete calculus, they can catch up the next year. (schools will probably have to adjust their curriculum slightly to catch up). Schools don't teach anything major that can't be redone or skipped.

Universities don't have this luxury. If a future dentist didn't train on a procedure this year, too bad because that was the only time it's covered. Gonna have to discover it in the field if it comes up?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Turn education into a business and students will treat education like a business. You can't expect goodwill in a crisis when you squeeze people like a US college.

</comment><comment><USER30> I wouldn't take this as an indicator in general that online classes are good or bad (I'm personally not a fan). I think everyone can agree that the quality of classes is going to go down when you have to stop in-person classes mid- semester with no time to prepare for an online transition. Teaching online is a different style that doesn't necessarily work for every instructor or for every subject for that matter.

At the same time, university is extraordinarily expensive. If you are paying 50K/year and not getting what you paid for, you are going to feel like you are owed something. Add on the fact that many students' parents have lost all or parts of their incomes, or fear that they will going forward, and it would be surprising if we didn't see these lawsuits.

Ultimately, it's going to depend what is in the contracts that were signed. If there's a _force majure_ clause favoring the universities, then the students may not have a case. If not, then yeah, they aren't getting what they paid for and should be entitled to refunds.

</comment><comment><USER31> I think the fascinating thing about these lawsuits is that they'll revolve around two questions:

 _First, what did the schools promise? And, did they deliver on it?_

I doubt it's spelled out in a contract but based on most schools' marketing, the "promise" includes instruction, state of the art classrooms & labs, access to professors, peers, extra curricular activities, dorms, a beautiful campus, and a number of other things. Obviously they've delivered some form of instruction and potentially a way to connect with peers.. but was it the quality or even the product promised/implied?

<comment><USER32> The easiest court cases to win in practice involve schools promising students that their degree will land them a good job that will pay enough for them to pay back the student fees without problems.

These promises typically happen when people are doubting about signing the contract, and universities are more like "don't worry about the loan, you'll get such a nice job afterwards that you'll be rich and this will feel like pocketchange".

The student that finish university and aren't able to land a good enough job due to their education can sue and do often win.

That's much simpler to handle in court than the questions you are considering, but it requires actually finishing the degree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> People focus a lot on whether online can replicate the in-person experience of networking, building relationships, etc. The other part of it is that student tuition pay for the use of facilities as well, not just classrooms, but also the recreation center and other campus amenities. So in other words, not all the money went into the "intangibles", but rather the very real tangibles.

Another comparison would be to prepay for a sit down experience at a high end restaurant, only to be told the restaurant shut down and you're actually going to actually have to get the food delivered. Presumably you'd want a partial refund not just because you didn't get the "magical vibe", but also because you literally did not sit in the physical space for 2+ hours.

</comment><comment><USER34> What's the point of paying for college, if you're stuck behind a webcam?

Yes, you can learn some things, but you can also learn it by just watching YouTube.

The whole point of being physically present in college, is to commingle with your peers. Because surely, you're not going to make friends over Zoom. That's just pretty damn lame.

Of course, you hope to sharpen a few skills, and learn a few more things in the 4 years, but just being present is part of the experience. But you're definitely not going to make a life long friend over Zoom, as opposed to having beers or just chilling at a house party, after your midterms are done.

Colleges should offer online education for $1. It's useful, but not quite the same.

<comment><USER35> >What's the point of paying for college, if you're stuck behind a webcam?

>Yes, you can learn some things, but you can also learn it by just watching YouTube.

This relies on heavy assumptions.

I recently had a few programming classes with lecturer who has 15 years of experience in industry and a lot of in academia

Not only his lectures are at very good level - best practices, industry standards but also very fresh technology and additionally you have an opportunity to ask questions.

It's not that easy to find this kind of materials on Youtube or even paid services.

Youtube often covers topics briefly, so you have to try to find blogs of an actual experts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I feel lucky to live in a part of the world where good education is free. In France, you even get some money and an apartment from the state if you need it to study.

</comment><comment><USER37> > "Some estimate that they could lose up to $1 billion this year as they brace > for downturns in student enrollment..."

3.7 million kids graduating this year, 70% of them planning on going to college, and probably 100% of their parents wondering if they should encourage their kid to defer for a year until things get back to normal.

The drop in enrollment could be lessened a bit by lowering tuition for pandemic-related online classes, if required again (more than likely). Especially since many of those who take the year off may never return. If the colleges were smart they'd think about this before digging their heals in.

<comment><USER38> >3.7 million kids graduating this year, 70% of them planning on going to college, and probably 100% of their parents wondering if they should encourage their kid to defer for a year until things get back to normal.

I can only imagine. It's by no means a given that all universities will even be open for the fall term--and it's hard for me to imagine it makes sense to start college under those circumstances. Of course, it's also not a given what the options for other activities will be if you just go ahead and defer for a year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I understand the frustration by the students, but I think there are a lot of parts of society and the economy where we are going to have to assume good- faith efforts to "make do" over the next year, and not get lost in the legalese. I mean, are we also demanding refunds for:

\- Public schools? I pay a lot of property tax to public schools. They aren't running, but teachers are still getting paid. If we demand refunds from colleges, why can't we demand back-property-taxes?

\- Parks and recreation? I paid taxes for state and local parks which are shut down, and I'm not allowed to use.

\- The court system? We paid taxes for a functioning police and justice system, which where I am (Seattle) has basically shut down except for flat-out murder.

\- Zoos, museums aquariums, and other civic institutions I can't access

I don't think it's fair or practical to try to make a tally of all the services which can't be fully rendered. Institutions are stuck with enormous bills for infrastructure they've built and staff they are (trying) to keep paying. This isn't the time to let lawyers start siphoning money off of institutions attempting in good faith to do what they were paid for.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is what you get in a litigious society where the "free market" sets tuition prices. Of course students are pissed off at not getting the college experience anymore, given how expensive some of those schools are.

What will be even more fun is watching the house of cards fall apart once the lockdowns extend into the new year and international students stay home. Now _there 's_ a cash drain no university can cope with.

<comment><USER41> > This is what you get in a litigious society where the "free market" sets > tuition prices.

The high prices were an unintended(?) effect of guaranteed student loans. So, a warped kind of free.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I've taught some online classes for a few years and at least in my field, I don't think they are very great. I don't feel like a teacher but a grader. I post mini-lectures and other videos to try to get some connection with students but I don't feel that it is as effective.

In a sense I was lucky when this quarantine in place happened because my college does 8 week classes and we were on a break when things started. Therefore, all the classes I'm teaching right now have been virtual/online from the start and I didn't have to switch gears in the middle of a semester. Even in these classes where we do live zoom meetings I don't really feel like I know my students. It is better and more like a real class than online but the added tech issues make it less than ideal.

</comment><comment><USER43> > Colleges, though, reject the idea that refunds are in order. Students are > learning from the same professors who teach on campus, officials have said, > and they're still earning credits toward their degrees. Schools insist that, > after being forced to close by their states, they're still offering students > a quality education.

In summary, colleges are only in the business of pimping professor time and selling credits to a piece of paper. Apparently access to those expensive campus buildings and all the friends you made along the way wasn't part of the deal. Therefore, no refunds are necessary.

</comment><comment><USER44> Colleges need to change their model and build a "facebook for rich students". Memberships cost $1000 / month, pokes $100, by invitation only.

I 've heard that online classes do not work. Conferences do, however, in fact i think they are preferable. And they get a ton more visibility and attendance too

If there's something about university it's that the culture of curiosity, studying and learning is contagious , and also there's the competitive element which pushes students to perform better. I don't know how you would recreate that in the virtual world. Perhaps with a lot of gamification

<comment><USER45> I think that's already recreated in the virtual world by the communities formed by autodidacts (including to some extent HN although that's not exactly the same.)

IMO: anything artificial is going to so filled with administrators avoiding liability because of the complexity of human interaction that it will be useless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> >> saying colleges are unfairly withholding refunds even while they rest on endowments that often surpass $1 billion.

Not really applicable. Endowment funds ussually have guidelines attached. They are not for general use and are certainly not used for paying refunds. Much of the point of an endownment fund, as opposed to just handing over cash, is that the fund is protected from lawsuits by students demanding their money back, or anyone else making claims against the university. Endowed money is not the university's property.

</comment><comment><USER47> I read through quite a few replies and it seems like it's all people whose disciplines didn't need special equipment.

I did physics. Good luck using a scanning electron microscope, or getting access to an optics lab at home.

A lot of disciplines require specialised and expensive hardware, software or equipment. Industrial design, medicine, electrical engineering, chemical engineering. That's the value add.

</comment><comment><USER48> This is the expected outcome after I read this:

[https://anygoodthing.com/2020/03/12/please-do-a-bad-job- of-p...](https://anygoodthing.com/2020/03/12/please-do-a-bad-job-of-putting- your-courses-online/)

</comment><comment><USER49> My gf took 3 online courses this semester (planned). Not a single professor had lectures to attend. They all just had a checklist of busy work and readings and an email address to contact them if they had questions about an assignment.

</comment><comment><USER50> I had an absolutely awful experience with the fast.ai "in person" course. I sat through two lessons before realizing we were going to be seeing the rough cut of the free version (e.g. them doing their intros 3x) and that there were any office hours. In order to get a question answered 5 people had to like it.

Even worse, it was a certification but since it was so low touch the teachers were not grading anything. I do not know what they were certifying, I guess that you paid for the course. I withdrew and they gave me a pro-rated refund that basically charged 300 dollars per class. Absolutely awful education experience.

</comment><comment><USER51> If these law firms really believe that they are acting like robin hood, taking from the greedy universities and giving back to the students who really need it, they'd be doing these suits pro bono so the students get every dollar they are entitled to.

For some reason, I have a feeling that these firms will take a hefty fee and students will STILL end up with the bill eventually...

</comment><comment><USER52> If we are still isolating to any extent in the fall, things are going to get real tough. Might not be any incoming freshmen class.

</comment><comment><USER53> > Ken McConnellogue, a spokesman for the University of Colorado, said it's > disappointing that people have been so quick to file lawsuits only weeks > into the pandemic.

The country - and courts - might be surprised to learn that we've apparently only been dealing with this since mid April.

</comment><comment><USER54> IANAL but wouldn't most college tuition agreements have a _force majeure_ clause that would render such lawsuits pointless?

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

</comment><comment><USER55> Now comes the once & for all battle between levelling the allure of MOOCs vs in-person

</comment><comment><USER56> If certain classes can't be done online (require certain equipment or physical projects to be built), why not delaying everything until they re-open?

It feels both university and students want to have the cake and eat it.

</comment><comment><USER57> The intellectually honest thing would be for colleges to give a prorated refund and make their case that the students (parents) donate it. Plus that would make it tax deductible.

<comment><USER58> Tuition is already deductible, if you don't take it as a direct tax credit.

<comment><USER57> I don't think so. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

<comment><USER58> [https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/student- loans/educatio...](https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/student- loans/education-tax-credits/)

<comment><USER57> Yeah. That's a long way from _tuition is already deductible_. Some tuition is deductible (or can be credited) if your income is below a limit. Up to $2,500.

It's disingenuous to use that as a reply to a post about the tax deductibility of a contribution to a charity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I honestly feel badly for colleges and universities that went to incredible effort to accommodate students only to have it shoved back in their faces with litigation. You know who likes remote education even less than students do? Faculty. Advisors. Administrators. Lab techs. Basically everyone. Students are getting their full value and more, while wearing their pajamas.

<comment><USER60> I agree that no one likes remote classes, but there is no sense in which those students are "getting their full value."

<comment><USER59> Is it reasonable to say "full value under the circumstances"?

I'm trying to understand the limits of entitlement in a pandemic scenario.

I live near a large (50,000 undergrad students) state university. They have means to survive, but are losing money at an amazing rate right now. If students come at the university with lawsuits and demand refunds en masse, it will be bad for everyone -- including the students.

This situation is different, unique -- and should be treated differently than "I didn't get exactly what I paid for," especially considering what went into a best-possible-alternative workaround.

<comment><USER53> So is it entitlement for students to be subsidizing the operating costs of a multi billion dollar university (in many cases a private organization) with their student loans?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> And so they should.

My experience at uni usually involved going to the lecture, not quite grasping the rushed material, then heading to the computer lab after to stream a YouTube video on the same topic to actually understand it.

Why was I going to the lectures then? Who knows, on the offhand chance I might ask a question.

Now I'm on the other side of the looking glass, I see three types of uni students - those who group collaborate and therefore are confident enough to ask questions in class (because they no longer fear their peers), those who are silent throughout because they do fear their peers, and those who are silent throughout because they've already read the lecture notes.

The only ones who gain are the students who make use of this collaborative environment to ask free questions.

TLDR - You pay for the environment. The lecture notes, the knowledge - <USER2> exist on YouTube

<comment><USER62> Horseshit.

The instructor has a serious impact on how the material is presented. I had transform mathematics from David Huffman of Huffman coding fame at the same time I had a similar physics math course.

Both got to the same end, but I only passed both because of the approach and the notes I had from Huffman.

Everyone learns differently and that situation where a professor can convey things on a way that clicks isn't going to happen with a random YouTube video.

<comment><USER61> You bring up David Huffman, but how many Huffman's and Feynman's are there out there?

Many postdocs who teach are just beginning their academic careers and are juggling running their analyses and creating their profiles that will bring them fame, against their less rewarding teaching duties.

My academic has peaked, so I put more of myself into teaching and training and often find it rewarding when I interact freely with a few keen individuals, but the majority of students out there aren't keen. They're there because they are forced to learn to my schedule and not theirs

<comment><USER63> There are enough of them, to be honest I passed my degree by the skin of my teeth because I'd spent a year out in industry and found some of it a bit too academic.

I do still however fondly remember my CS101 course with Richard Bornat (who I thought was an excellent lecturer) and wish I'd taken more interest in the lambda calculus elements of the curriculum (we had Peter Landin as head of department) but at the point in time I was heading more down a C / embedded systems / ASIC path.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> 1-6 I hope they find the textbooks unimpressive as well.

</comment><comment><USER64> Why they aren't just asking some additional classes after the lockout ? Why immediately ask for a refund after a clearly exceptional event for a curriculum that last probably many years ?

<comment><USER65> The deal has been altered. They paid for in-person instruction and interaction with a professor and classmates, as well as numerous amenities and facilities, all of which contribute to the college experience. All of which comes at a hefty premium. Instead, they got online instruction, which is less valuable (even when it comes to tuition prices), and typically involves little to no instruction or interaction with a live professor. A partial refund does not seem incredibly unreasonable, except that universities may not be able to afford it.

<comment><USER66> Without the benefits you named, I'd argue that you get almost no value out of university. You end up paying a lot of money to teach yourself things. At that point, I'd rather rely on the excellent (free) resources available on the internet. Khan Academy did more for me than my university ever did.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> I hope this overpriced higher education bubble would burst for good.

</comment><comment><USER68> Terrible HN comments in this thread...

<comment><USER69> Yours is the worst of the bunch. If you have a gripe with some comment, reply to it and explain why it's wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> Why shouldn't students be willing to eat the costs in order to help save the vulnerable population of COVID-19? Why is it the schools fault for this happening?

</comment><comment><USER71> As someone who finished a Baccalaureate online, I'd say these students simply aren't prepared for the mind shift to having to learn independently. Most of my professors seemed to loathe having to teach an online class and merely threw together a mountain of almost random assignments and research papers as if to say, "if you can survive this, you can have a degree". Most of my courses didn't even offer video lectures and were taught by low-paid adjuncts that never responded to email. You were left alone to figure it out. It's a whole other ball game when you don't have the deep support system of being on campus. I hope this brings improvements to online education in general.

<comment><USER72> As part of my engineering degree, it wasn't all books and lectures. We had to learn the machine-shop, operate the lathe construct a robot, mix chemicals in organic chemistry lab, experiment with lasers in different mediums, wire hard drives... etc...

A lot of that is hands on work. No Zoom session is going to make up for that.</comment></comment>


Brownian Motion in Financial Markets - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/cantors-paradise/brownian-motion-in-financial-markets-ea5f02204b14 <comment><USER2> Good old Bachelier

</comment><comment><USER3> Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER4> Paywall..

<comment><USER5> ingognito mode/private browsing window works</comment></comment>


Show HN: GPU accelerated marine & lakes vector maps - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/app/id994992062

<comment><USER2> Is this US only?

<comment><AUTHOR> What region are you looking for? At the moment, only US waters (both inland and coastal) coverage is available. The following region will be added in upcoming weeks.

[http://gpsnauticalcharts.com/main/folio-catalog-nautical- cha...](http://gpsnauticalcharts.com/main/folio-catalog-nautical-charts-app)</comment></comment>