Study finds learning music won't make children smart - <AUTHOR> https://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/music/put-down-the-banjo-timmy-study-finds-learning-music-won-t-make-children-smart-1.1055974 <comment><USER2> I dislike the sensationalization in the article ("Put down the banjo, Timmy"). The headline makes it sound like learning music is about as useless as sitting on your couch, as far as intelligence goes. But it goes on to say that the study talks about looking at a wide range of studies and stating that quality studies compare music learning with control groups that do other types of activities, like sports.

You don't really need a PhD in psychology to figure out that any activity that involves putting effort over long periods of time will yield _some_ sort of result. Whether that actually translates directly to hyper-specific measurements (e.g. school math grades) as opposed to only "soft" long-term changes in behavior (e.g. developing an interest in the relationship between music and math, leading to e.g. an interest in software engineering over medicine, or an increased interest in arts, or whatever) seems to me like asking the wrong question.

Both music and intelligence are incredibly multidimensional. Trying to narrowly define a supposed correlation between two very narrow aspects of both might be a disservice to the idea of the development of a well rounded individual. I feel that many people take these sorts of soundbite titles to heart as if they were little life hacks to "get ahead", rather than thinking about life as a holistic experience.

<comment><USER3> > _The headline makes it sound like learning music is about as useless as > sitting on your couch, as far as intelligence goes._

Isn't that kind of what the study says though? It specifically concludes:

> _Moreover, recent correlational studies have confirmed that music engagement > is not associated with domain-general cognitive skills or academic > performance._

What I understand from this study is that whether you learn music or sit on your couch will have no difference on your cognitive abilities and only make you better at music if you do the former.

The study also mentions that you can't transfer skills to different domains. I think this further reinforces their conclusion.

> _While human cognition has been shown to be malleable to training, transfer > of skills appears to be limited to the training domain and, at best, other > similar domains. [...] Near transfer – i.e., the transfer of skills within > the same domain – is sometimes observed, far transfer – i.e., the transfer > of skills across two distant domains – is rare or possibly inexistent._

While music can have positive effects, those would be mostly limited your general well-being, will not make you smarter and can be achieved through other activities as well.

> _Music may be beneficial for non-cognitive constructs in children such as > prosocial behavior and self-esteem. These possible advantages are not likely > to be specific to music, though. In fact, any enticing and empowering > activity may improve children's well-being._

<comment><USER2> > Isn't that kind of what the study says though?

Perhaps so for specific cognitive measurements, but you quoted yourself a semi-contradictory blurb:

> Music may be beneficial for non-cognitive constructs in children such as > prosocial behavior and self-esteem.

(at least, I'm not aware of any claims of sedentarism being correlated with anything positive)

One could argue that some aspects of intelligence do fall in the "nature" realm (as opposed to being nurturable), but for _practical purposes_, one ought to consider the application of said intelligence to real life scenarios, and I think improvements in prosocial behavior and self-esteem can certainly be important factors there.

<comment><USER4> > Music may be beneficial for non-cognitive constructs in children such as > prosocial behavior and self-esteem.

Learning music, incuding an instrument to play on, teaches a ton of skills (focus, effortful practice techniques, managing failure and your limits, adapting what you have learned to different but similar music, work with other musicians on duets and more, etc) that you can learn through other mechanisms (athletics, LEGO/FIRST robotics, regular schoolwork). If anything, the ability to encounter a new piece of music (say jazz), connect it to styles or pieces you already understand, then to improvise off the style and make it your own is a process many developers do week to week with reading and adapting old code. You can't master one then immediately excel at the other but the base skills related to patience and effort connect.

Anecdotally, I learned a few instruments growing up and although I resented part of the process I think it benefited me a ton. I felt like I had a drop off in focus and effort applied to tasks after I stopped paying after high school. I met and kept a ton of awesome friends through music and playing in school bands. I have a lot of memories and success stories that come from learning an instrument and how music works. That was compelling when learning about physics and sound or how in tune notes are created based on a mathematical equation. It was super helpful to connect with others who learned an instrument growing up, like a few of my friends I see (not anymore) or talk to weekly. So I can be a data point for the prosocial argument as well as self esteem. I think the process helped me get to where I am today, even if I don't play anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The question becomes 'as opposed to what?'

The article says that studies which controlled against dance or sports showed no additional effect. Which looks really good for music IMO- because exercise has incredible benefits.

Maybe as compared to sports, music doesn't show additional benefit- how about as compared to watching YouTube videos? Playing flappy bird?

I find it hard to believe that we can really 'prove' anything with respect to child development. The studies have a phenomenally low lack of control on one end, which produces a LOT of noise. On the other end- we have no effective ways of measuring child development. Standardized tests or IQ produce metrics that are somewhat useful to measure how productive a child may be, but is that really what you want to optimize for as a parent?

What we really want to do for our kids is optimize for lifelong happiness. And we aren't even remotely close to measuring that.

<comment><USER6> > The question becomes 'as opposed to what?'

A better question is: why do you learn or teach music?

Learning music provides plenty of benefits for the development of children, but nobody teaches music with the specific goal of rendering people smarter.

<comment><USER7> Many people force their children to learn an instrument with the expectation that it will make them more intelligent, and lead to better life outcomes.

<comment><USER8> Not trying to be argue for the sake of arguing, but is there some data to back this claim up? Anecdotally I'm aware of many parents who think music makes their kid well rounded, but I'm not aware of parents that specifically believe learning music makes their kid more intelligent in non-musical areas.

<comment><USER9> > I'm not aware of parents that specifically believe learning music makes > their kid more intelligent in non-musical areas.

It is all anecdotal evidence, but I am aware of some parents who "forced" their baby (and then little kid) to listen to classical music (specifically Mozart), because the kid would become a genius. Apparently, after some googling, it is called the "Mozart effect". Here are press articles about it:

[1] [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or- fiction-b...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction- babies-ex/)

[2] [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130107-can-mozart- boost...](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130107-can-mozart-boost- brainpower)

Could it be a motivation for teaching music to little kids? That is what is suggested in the conclusions of the articles linked above, and which I quote below. Some parents might be receptive to these conclusions.

From the Scientific American article [1]:

> Rather than passively listening to music, Rauscher advocates putting an > instrument into the hands of a youngster to raise intelligence. She cites a > 1997 University of California, Los Angeles, study that found, among 25,000 > students, those who had spent time involved in a musical pursuit tested > higher on SATs and reading proficiency exams than those with no instruction > in music.

From the BBC article [2]:

> There is a way in which music can make a difference to your IQ, though. > Unfortunately it requires a bit more effort than putting on a CD. Learning > to play a musical instrument can have a beneficial effect on your brain. > Jessica Grahn, a cognitive scientist at Western University in London, > Ontario says that a year of piano lessons, combined with regular practice > can increase IQ by as much as three points.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Terrible reporting when it doesn't include a link to the publication:

[https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-020-01060-2](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-020-01060-2)

</comment><comment><USER11> This only concerns tiger moms. I learnt a bit of music when 10-12 and I am forever grateful for that, because music is a bridge between your senses and a lot of physics phenomena. It is a way to create bridges between feelings/senses and knowledge. For example, you can hear how a DSP filter or a modulator changes the original signal; you find the reasons why an engine with a certain number of cylinders sounds better; and so on.

Having some IQ is one thing, using it is another.

<comment><USER12> I learned to play the guitar, so I guess that is why I can recognize when my gear makes that horrible grinding sound.

If I hadn't learned the chords to "All along the Watchtower", I'd probably be stranded on the side of the road right now.

<comment><USER13> And If you got stranded you don't worry because you know that there must be some kind of way out of here.

<comment><USER14> Said the joker to the thief.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm not sure an IQ test is the best metric when looking at the benefits of playing an instrument.

Music teaches patience, dedication and rewards self-motivation and self- teaching, among other things.

<comment><USER16> Another benefit besides those you listed is teamwork. Playing together in a band, there is no way to "game the system". Everyone needs to learn their part to make the overall piece enjoyable. It proved to me at an early age that people can come together to create something greater than themselves.

From the original study: "-evidence indicates that engagement in music has no impact on people's non-music cognitive skills".

My intuition says the evidence must not be comprehensive enough then.

<comment><USER17> Team work isn't really a cognitive skill. I agree it can help with team work but you don't necessarily need to play in a band to learn an instrument. Also, from the actual study, "music may be beneficial for non-cognitive constructs in children such as prosocial behavior".

<comment><USER16> Good point. Glad to see they mentioned the prosocial bit. Didn't catch that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Personal anecdote. I worked in a top lab in my country's university. My lab mates went off to work in top universities, as is the tradition. The lab employed two top students in the country by some specific metric. People working there had not a common background, upbringing or optimized method of work I could identify.

The only thing in common was that they all been taught to play instruments at a young age. We could have made an orchestra with the people working there.

The way I saw it at the time wasn't that they were smarter, but that they had the understanding that practicing was important and that looking or sounding ridiculous at their first steps on anything was a usual process.

It wasn't that they had developed intelligence, grit or perseverance, it was just another day for them of engaging something new, a paper or work item, and getting down to it.

Lack of self doubt and emotionless engagement in unfamiliar topics is probably more important than a few points higher in an IQ scale.

<comment><USER19> I think this is correct.

I've known many people who seem so much quicker to learn new things than me, but they can't seem to _do_ anything serious because they immediately get fed up with how "bad" everything is.

Write a poem? The title sucks. Write a song? It sounds like something else. Write some code? This is ridiculously complicated and will take years.

May as well not try at all. :P

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> IMO, someone who perseveres through the horribly difficult early stages of learning an instrument to the point where they can play something passably well is learning delayed gratification. The ability to delay gratification is directly correlated with success in life: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experimen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment)

<comment><USER21> That correlation disappears once you control for wealth. People go for instant gratification once they've learned that they can't trust that the thing they're delaying gratification for will ever come. People like to make fun of people who pick 100 dollars today over 200 dollars a month from now, but for the "other half", 200 dollars a month from now might as well be an eternity from now. And because wealth tends to be heritable and have other knock-on effects, what the study is really testing for is how trustworthy a child thinks adults are with offers, which is affected by whether that child is raised in the kind of environment where nothing can be guaranteed since an entire paycheck may have been entirely used up.

<comment><USER22> "Why Rich Kids Are So Good at the Marshmallow Test" : [https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmall...](https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmallow- test/561779/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Doesn't surprise me but the study also seems to be just trying to measure academic achievement.

I mean sure, I'm incredibly skeptical of "baby Mozart" approaches to music. Certainly starting young and practicing early goes a long way towards being successful in anything. Discipline in any field builds discipline towards others.

We can go on and on about the mathematical nature of music but I would argue it's easier for people to do it by not thinking about those things and being in touch with how it feels.

I'm kind of bothered that anything to do with IQ these days is pursued by researchers or is given a fair shake by our dear readers at Hacker News.

Stop trying to max your kids stats. It's incredibly dehumanizing. I get that we all want children to have the best opportunities, but maybe it'd be a more equitable situation if we stopped reducing ourselves to a numbers game.

Maybe they'll be smarter when they learn to do things they feel passionate about and not conditioned to perform like a trained monkey. We already have enough performative identity for careerism in high school kids. Maybe intelligence and success comes from knowing yourself, and not from being told to do things because you get points?

Sorry parents! An essential part of culture and discipline of art and pleasure might not be inherently advantageous to your child's ability to fill out tests so while you're at it make sure they never do anything for themselves beyond the sole purpose of getting in somewhere just so they can realize they don't know who they are!

Edit: Also the use of "put down the banjo". Let's talk about that. This is a study done in Japan and the UK. Are they even playing the banjo? Nothing wrong with the banjo, banjo's great. But specifically going with the banjo as their title and image lends itself to a specific tone for some readers. Not exactly what some people would consider "intellectual" music for vague reasons in class and race perhaps. I'm detecting a bias here against the "utility" of folk music. I wish they'd link the actual paper. Did the researchers give a bunch of banjos as part of a controlled study? I'm so sure a lot of well-to-do parents in Tokyo and London are feeling burned by having to keep up with the competitive nature among children in banjo culture.

<comment><USER24> Exactly.

My kid is playing Tchaikovski on the piano at this very moment. (Well, a for- beginners version of one of his themes, but still.) She's happy playing it, I'm happy hearing it. If nobody gets any smarter, who cares? We both just got happier. _Ars gratia artis._

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Studying music will make you better at music. Studying IQ tests will make you better at IQ tests.

I think we put too much emphasis on general intelligence when it's not well defined and easily gamed. It's also a talking point for racists.

<comment><USER26> How are IQ tests "easily gamed"?

I suspect that is only true for really smart people :)

<comment><USER2> Easiest way to "game" it is to take it multiple times or practice/cram for it.

<comment><USER27> At least around here it seems people are allowed to take the Mensa test multiple times.

I never took the official one but I understand a lot of effort goes into constructing test sets that doesn't benefit from cramming but (except for getting used to the format, which you can do online) only on raw "processing power".

I'm not a scientists or a psychiatrist so take my word for just that: my understanding.

Also I note that from what I hear on HN it seems to be that in USA IQ tests contain both spelling and history questions which - in my ears sounds like something very different from a raw IQ test.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> A link to the referenced journal article "Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis" published in Memory and Cognition [0].

[0] [https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-020-01060-2](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-020-01060-2)

</comment><comment><USER28> I have a subjective and still esoteric(be warned) theory about attention span. As someone who have learned to play an instrument at my early teens, i've learned that to be actually good at something, you need to learn to deal with the primary discomfort feeling. You are learning to fighting your natural 'cavemen nature', the more primitive parts of your brain that are more inclined to satisfying immediate pleasures. As i've said, is a subjetive observation, but in my experience at least, people that tend to have lower quality results in what they do, apparently have lower 'attention spans'. Their effort to concentrate into something is faster, and if you see a puppy dog, or a cat, or even a human baby, you can see they are distracted easily, jumping from one subject to another very fast.

Now if we think about humans that we regard the most, like Newton, Beethoven, Einstein, Curie, Rodin, etc..

The research or the product of their labor require a very big attention span, as in, they need to meditate over long periods of time on the same subject.

Now, getting back to the point, i've learned that things like learning a musical instrument, programming, learning some math, or reading classics, helped me into acquiring long attention spans, resulting in a improvement on the quality of my thoughts, ideas and products of the thinking process.

Maybe just learning music alone wont prove anything, but i bet that if you mix the right kind of activities, you can have at least, a starting point to sophisticated human beings.

</comment><comment><USER29> My parents (who have both never played an instrument in their lives) signed me up for piano lessons when I was a child. I'd regularly be sent home with homework that I didn't know how to complete, no one taught me how to practice, and I'd frequently show up to lessons without any idea of what I was doing. I'm sure my parents paid a hefty fee, but I got zero value out of the experience.

As an adult, I revisited the piano, and learned more by myself over several weeks than I ever did going to lessons as a child. The experience taught me how to practice better, and it gave me a stronger intuition for how the brain learns.

The mistake my parents made was thinking that all the learning happens at the music lesson. That simply attending classes was enough to make me a better musician and a smarter child. I wonder how many other parents out there are making that same mistake right now.

<comment><USER30> When I first started lessons (as an adult) I too thought learning only happened at the lesson, I thought it was enough to pay and turn up, in fact I was so bad/lazy I was going to get dropped as a student.

But with constant daily practice now I'm not bad.

Regardless of 'studies' like this, learning music is incredibly beneficial in so many different ways and every child should have the opportunity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> From the conclusion of the published article:

> music may be beneficial for non-cognitive constructs in children such as > prosocial behavior and self-esteem ... [though] any enticing and empowering > activity may improve children's well-being

</comment><comment><USER31> I would say those who study music (classical) at young age come from quite wealthy families, which mean easier access to resources, e.g., books, good schools, dedicated teachers, etc which could eventually lead to better iq test results.

<comment><USER32> Piano helped me incredibly as an emotional outlet, I wasn't good and can't really play anything without music, but it gave me a tool for cathartic expression.

That might have helped with school studies and such?

<comment><USER33> I played piano also, but only because my parents prodded me to (not forced, but essentially told me I ought to do and hired a teacher so I'd have to show progress at weekly intervals).

I didn't like it at all. To this day I still have an adversity to touching a physical instrument because of the memories I had of being 12, trying to challenge myself to playing a piece I liked and completely failing to reach a competent level, because I actually didn't care enough about piano as opposed to spending my time on transient time-wasters like television shows about video games, and I _knew_ that I didn't care enough to get good, but I was encouraged to challenge myself anyways, and _then_ I felt inferior because of seeing all the people the same age or younger around me that handled pieces many times more difficult with ease.

I hated being told that I did great by everyone after a recital where I ended up pausing in silence for an entire minute, because I knew they were only trying to keep my mood from deteriorating afterwards and because I personally knew from the heart that I did not do anything resembling "great."

Then I joined wind ensemble in high school.

As a result I can't listen to classical music without anxiety bubbling up any longer because of the ingrained memories of being pushed to be better than other people and being compelled to get into regional division X and not realizing that as someone without a purposeful devotion to music all of that was _hopeless_ to accomplish from the start, such that the disappointment in my lack of abilities that followed was inevitable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Sounds like the same argument someone linked to chess - that playing chess doesn't make one smarter. Funny thing is, do you know what has a direct influence on neuron growth? Lifting weights, running, exercise. Not saying we have it all wrong, but I would question every sensational article that's out there.

<comment><USER35> > Lifting weights, running, exercise.

Your comment needs to be upvoted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> The benefit of playing music is that some people find it fun. What's wrong with that?

<comment><USER37> This. Learning music definitely makes children smarter _at playing music_ , which is beneficial to anyone that might enjoy hearing their music or performing with them, and definitely the bit that ought to matter to the kids themselves if they're taking music lessons.

If you're learning/teaching music to get better at things you care about more than music, you've got the wrong idea...

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> People have such weird attitudes to IQ. Either denial of it's significance or hope to improve it by applying the right life experiences. It all seems based around the fear of the possibility that some of us really are born inferior and doomed to a worse life than others.

But we are. By far the easiest way to improve a child's IQ is to select parents with high IQ. But nobody wants to deselect themselves so wanting a high IQ child goes against the instinct of wanting to reproduce for most people and they're stuck in a cognitive dissonance.

We can reduce it through neglect and trauma but there's no known lasting way to enhance it beyond the natural limit each person is born with.

How about just accept that we're not all born equal? Nobody worries that a dog is less intelligent than a person but we still have pet dogs and happily accept their limitations.

</comment><comment><USER39> I feel reminded of "gym science" when it comes to a lot of parental development strategies for children. Everyone does it so there must be something to it. If controlled studies can't replicate any effects it does not appear to bother parents much.

Why is it so hard to accept that domain transfer does not exist. If kids learn chess for a few years, they won't be better at mathematics. After five years of practicing Violin kids don't find learning a foreign language easier. Adding insult to injury, learning Latin (like many Europeans still do) contrary to common sense does not improve scholastic results of students when learning other languages.

<comment><USER40> > Why is it so hard to accept that domain transfer does not exist.

I think, because, that's simply not true. The question is really "to what extent does domain transfer exist, and how can we exploit it?"

> If kids learn chess for a few years, they won't be better at mathematics. > After five years of practicing Violin kids don't find learning a foreign > language easier.

If kids spend several years on intentional practice of chess or violin, they're also practicing discipline. Compared to kids who spend these years unfocused, I'm guessing this group will have an easier time learning math or French simply because they have better learning habits.

<comment><USER41> Ok, I agree, but is a kid who spent several years on intentional chess practice better academically then a kid who spent several years on intentional math practice?

<comment><USER40> I think that depends on a lot of factors, and I wouldn't want to judge one way or the other.

Perhaps a kid who spends several years in chess clubs and really enjoys it is better off academically+socially than a kid forced by their parents to compete in math tournaments against their will, simply because the latter will have better emotional maturity and a support system to help them succeed later in life.

Speaking to my own experiences, I can say my parents encouraged me to hyper- optimize for grades and academics, but that I missed out on a lot of other, irreplaceable experiences growing up. My parents taught me to look down on people who choose sports, theater, etc. over academics, but as an adult I see just how formative those activities can be when it comes to soft skills like teamwork and leadership.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> "Smart" is one of those nebulous things, until people give it a too-narrow definition like IQ. It's important to acknowledge that there are many kinds of intelligence, not all of which are pure logic or knowledge-gathering.

<comment><USER43> I like this definition of intelligence

"Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change."

<comment><USER44> I think it's a poor definition. I don't like change. I don't like going to new places, I like my routine. Change makes me uncomfortable and I'm slow to accept it. I like my usual meals and sleeping in my own bed. Does that make me unintelligent? Or does "change" need to be better defined?

<comment><USER45> i would imagine they mean a change in information not a change in routine. updating your mental model of the world based on new incoming information.

<comment><USER44> That's why I'd like the definition to be refined. There's also displays of intelligence that have nothing to do with change - being able to do complex math in your head would indicate you're intelligent, but has nothing to do with change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> You can't change IQ (You probably can, but it's not simple)

But you can change the second biggest life impacting testable factor in people, conscientiousness.

Seems like learning music is a good way to learn conscientiousness.

This article is really bad advice.

But it does raise the question do people in the United Arab Emirates think most Americans play the banjo or are they self aware about the ironic-ness, or does the 44C weather temperate that day mean it's just to hot for them to think much about the article they wrote.

</comment><comment><USER47> The study doesn't conclude that learning music is useless. They focused only on generalized cognitive measures.

Dedicated learning of any activity over time, music or otherwise, likely has long-term benefits in terms of learning how to focus, how to achieve goals, how to manage time, and other structural improvements.

The authors even cite other studies showing that learning music can improve well-being, improve self-esteem, encourage prosocial behavior, and even lead to more narrow cognitive improvements in math fields that might not necessarily appear on generalized IQ tests.

> First, music may be beneficial for non-cognitive constructs in children such > as prosocial behavior and self-esteem (e.g., Aleman et al., 2017). These > possible advantages are not likely to be specific to music, though. In fact, > any enticing and empowering activity may improve children's well-being. > Second, elements of music instruction (e.g., arithmetical music notation) > could be used to facilitate learning in other disciplines such as arithmetic > (Azaryahu, Courey, Elkoshi, & Adi-Japha, 2019; Courey, Balogh, Siker, & > Paik, 2012; Ribeiro & Santos, 2017).

</comment><comment><USER48> Sounds a bit counter-intuitive to me. I always thought the brains of musicians are much more analytical as playing music requires a lot of understanding and (usually) good memory. Classical and jazz musicians typically remember a lot of music in their heads, which require tremendous effort and a rigid process.

Anyway, even if learning music doesn't raise IQ, there are so many benefits. Other than having an enjoyable hobby, I always thought the process of learning classical music properly is very similar to programming (or other aspects in life). You start from small segments, practice until you're good enough to move on, repeat, and slowly put larger pieces together. You then listen to your playing, find out what's unsatisfying, then repeat the process until you've mastered the piece. After learning a piece, you also need to maintain it from time to time if you still want to play it well. This kind of learning process cannot be shown in an IQ test, but is beneficial to a child's development if adopted early.

</comment><comment><USER49> Where did the idea come from that studying music was meant to make kids smart? I don't see the presumed connection. Not everything we learn is meant to increase our cognitive abilities. Schools teach music to product more well- rounded individuals, not to make them smarter. Schools are something more than IQ factories.

</comment><comment><USER50> Not everything needs an objective quantifiable measure of academic performance to make it a good thing people should know.

Even if Music may not have an affect on academic performance or cognitive skills, it's still a fun skill. Most primary school programs introduce kids to basic music reading, singing, and simple instruments. Some kids like it and enroll in more music programs. Some kids say it's not for them and do other things. But it's nice to give kids that introduction and those options.

If you like music, it can provides decades of enjoyment to learn how to play. It doesn't make you better than people who just listen to and appreciate music, but it can enhance your happiness to be able to pick and and fiddle around with your fiddle or harmonic or guitar every once in a while.

What happened to learning just for the sake of learning and enjoyment?

</comment><comment><USER51> If you take out "music", it becomes, "Study finds learning won't make children smart".

</comment><comment><USER52> I see learning to play an instrument as a self improvement exercise. It's a process. There's a lag between our hands and our ears. It's easy for the ears to know a "good" song. It's hard for the hands to play a good song. To play a song well is to bridge the skill gap of the hands. When you can play a song well, you "complete" a task. The process improves our skills and our cognition. We can recognize "good" from "not so good". Overtime, it can improve our baloney detector. It improves self awareness. You know when you suck. And you know if you work diligently, you'd be able to improve. I think it's a valuable skill. It's more important than high SAT or IQ scores.

</comment><comment><USER53> This sounds more like correlation.

The kids who gets music lessons probably come from richer families.

The cost is rather high. Instruments, uniforms, maybe private tutor, space and time to practice. Irregular schedule because of music practice.

Kids from richer families are well taught and end up being more competent in general.

</comment><comment><USER54> I played music for several years when in school, starting in Junior High. Didn't read the article, but the title inspired me to make a comment.

I think the skills you learn in music performance are extremely valuable. Sure, there are plenty of people who "learn music" but don't apply themselves like with any discipline.

This is only anecdata, but if I had to guess I'd say there is a correlation between my ability to toggle into and out of a "flow" state when working as a programmer and my past life when I spent a great deal of time learning music.

Sure everyone's experience will vary, but I found that "flow" is a phenomenon I regularly experienced when performing music once I reached a certain skill level.

</comment><comment><USER55> Some of the best programmers I know were music majors turned programmer. There's something about the creativity or learning of another abstract "language" that music brings that seems to tie well into programming.

</comment><comment><USER35> Are there similar studies regarding chess?

I found this, it seems chess doesn't make you smarter: [https://theconversation.com/does-playing-chess-make-you- smar...](https://theconversation.com/does-playing-chess-make-you-smarter-a- look-at-the-evidence-76062)

Relevant quote:

"The fact that skills learned by training do not transfer across different domains seems to be a universal in human cognition. In other words, you get better, at best, at what you train in – which may just sound just like good old fashioned common sense."

</comment><comment><USER56> I think learning music is very effective for self-improvement for other reasons, it's a very effective exercise in reconciling feelings with reality. Do you love a particular section of the music in your head and it's really hard? You just have to keep wrestling with reality to learn it. Are you trying to express a certain feeling with music? You have to get skilled enough at the music/instrument to be able to express it. I don't know if that means it actually helps teach emotional self-regulation in general, but I wouldn't be surprised.

</comment><comment><USER57> Learning music might not may a child smarter, but it may teach the child "metaskills" like character which cannot be learned directly. Here's an (snipped) quote from something I read a while ago: [1]

 _" When a student learns piano, all Americans can see is that the student is now equipped with the skill to play the piano. Under this view, unless the student can put that skill into use in the future somehow, the time spent on acquiring that skill is wasted. This is a deeply mistaken attitude, and the ever-smart tiger cub Sophia Rubenfeld-Chua has the perfect answer showing the flaw of that attitude:

''I'm never going to be a professional pianist, but the piano has given me confidence that totally shapes my life. I feel that if I work hard enough, I can do anything. I know I can focus on a given task for hours at a time. And on horrible days when I'm lost and a mess, I can say to myself, "I'm good at something that I really, really love." I want my kids to have that confidence – confidence rooted in something concrete, not just "aww everyone's a winner!!!" confidence, because in your heart you never believe that.''

The point of learning the piano is NOT about acquiring the skill of playing the piano so that the student can earn a living as a pianist. It is about building the character of the person. Here is the thing about character -- you can't build it by explicitly setting out to build it. Character is not a skill like tying your shoelaces. If it must be put in terms of "skill", character is a "meta-skill" \-- a foundational human skill that is necessary to perfect any number of mechanical skills. And the only way to develop this meta-skill is to develop at least one highly sophisticated mechanical skill, such that the student may acquire the meta-skill in the course of building the mechanical skill.

... it is about acquiring genuine confidence and iron discipline. With such confidence and discipline, she can move on and do anything she wants in her life because there is no task in life in which confidence and discipline hinder success."_

[1] [http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2011/05/confucianism-and- kore...](http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2011/05/confucianism-and-korea-part-v- what-can.html)

</comment><comment><USER58> Music is one of the most enjoyable ways to create. I don't really care what my kids do specifically; I just want them to learn how to experiment and create and have fun and never stop playing.

<comment><USER59> Of all the hobbies I picked up. Music was never one I learned to be creative in. I learned to memorize existing songs.

<comment><USER58> I'm aware that this is the case for most people's music 'education'. Sometimes I think the same for school-taught programmers. Actually I have a hard time coming up with any kind of education that has enabled more than stifled creation.

Long ago I had just one music lesson and then bailed forever; it was terribly rote, but much later as an adult I did something that changed how I saw it. My brother got a keyboard for Christmas, and nobody knew how to play, so I just started practicing the finger placements for the 'Axis of Awesome' chords, and about 4 hours later I was competently entertaining his kids with songs I was making up as I was going along. That was an incredible feeling of weightlessness and thoughtlessness, like some spirit I've never known was playing through me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> A potential issue with music study is that only a certain fraction of kids who are given music lessons actually thrive at it. Many people remember being forced to take lessons and hating it. Others failed on multiple attempts until it finally "took."

So for this reason, I'm not sure that music training is a single "thing" that can be analyzed without looking into how each person experienced it.

Another possible study is to measure successful musical training by whether someone is actually a musician or not.

</comment><comment><USER61> I would argue that studying music (especially music theory) at a young age has helped me tremendously as a programmer in my old age.

I am writing an algo trading bot right now and I make a habit of reading the entire codebase fairly regularly to make sure I understand exactly what is going on at all times while the bot is running.

Which seems similar to reading and understanding a sheet (or a book) of music before you play it.

There must be some correlation there although I have no hard evidence.

</comment><comment><USER62> It could simply be that growing up in an environment where being taught music is possible (with tutors and teachers and instruments all paid for) is correlated with doing better in school. If you're growing up with parents who struggle to pay the bills, who can't afford the time or money to teach their kids music, odds are those kids are struggling in other parts of their life too.

<comment><USER63> Michael Jackson grew up dirt fucking poor. You don't need to be rich to play music.

<comment><USER37> You don't need to be rich or even middle class to play music, but you're _much more likely_ to get a flute and lessons on how to play it if you've got parents who aren't dirt fucking poor and/or totally uninterested in your education. Thus there's obvious an association between music lessons and family background that needs controlling for.

As for MJ, he might not have been born rich, but nobody would say his musical accomplishments weren't linked to decisions his parents made for him.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Learning music doesn't make you smart. But for smart kids, learning music sure as hell makes you more interesting and useful in life.

</comment><comment><USER65> Probably goes for anything children are forced to learn.

But this doesn't mean you shouldn't send young children here and there to TRY stuff... just stop early if they don't like it.

Iirc my parents sent me to do music, football, computers and martial arts. Two of them i HATED, two of them i stuck with for my lifetime.

</comment><comment><USER66> But it does correlate with lower risks of dementia later in life.

[https://www.alzdiscovery.org/cognitive-vitality/blog/does- mu...](https://www.alzdiscovery.org/cognitive-vitality/blog/does-music- benefit-the-brain#ref-1)

<comment><USER67> Studied in 27 pairs of twins based on self-reported leisure activities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> I love that the article shows a kid with a banjo. Something about the banjo really appeals to me-- I started learning to play it a few years back.

It's truly fun. And you get to follow Steve Martin, who is both funny and knowledgeable. It's a good hobby.

</comment><comment><USER69> Learning music wont make your child smart, but it will come in handy when your child grows up to be viceroy of a small overseas colony and must function as a member of aristocratic society.

<comment><USER70> For a less extreme position, consider "Study finds learning to say 'please' and 'thank you' won't make children smart."

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> This has been known for so long that the "Mozart effect" is routinely used as an example of bad science in undergrad psychological research methods courses.

</comment><comment><USER72> The idea that you shouldn't play music because psychologists say it won't make you smarter by some quantitative metric is so on-brand for this site.

</comment><comment><USER73> Wait, because there are people who make their children "do" music "to make them smart", and not for music itself (and all it encompasses)?

</comment><comment><USER74> Not sure the smart the post talks about here is IQ, if it is, I believe there is no such thing can make children's IQ higher.

</comment><comment><USER75> I like this and agree with it, however they should have a follow-up study to measure music's affect on language skills.

</comment><comment><USER76> Maybe it doesn't make children smart, but it certainly makes them look smart.

</comment><comment><USER77> Note that since we are talking about averages, it could be true both that music training on average doesn't have a visible effect, but that some specific ways of doing music training are helpful and others are harmful. There are a wide variety of ways to teach music and a broad study won't figure out which ones are better or worse.

Or it could be the musical training is effective for a certain people but detrimental for others, and the average would be near zero.

However, there's a limit to how much research you can do. Chasing after effects on subsets of the population has problems too. [https://xkcd.com/882/](https://xkcd.com/882/)

</comment><comment><USER78> Wow first chess and now this?!?!?

</comment><comment><USER79> How about discipline?

</comment><comment><USER80> Yes, and instead all the children should go smoke cigarettes instead and drink alcohol.

</comment><comment><USER81> I don't care what a study says in my case: chess makes you smarter. It makes you better able to concentrate, visualize, and plan. Not sure if it helps you discover anagrams or find number patterns on an iq test but who cares

<comment><USER35> > chess makes you smarter

Why do you believe that? Did you do an assessment before and after practicing chess?

Edit: I also linked to an article about studies in my other comment.</comment></comment>


How to escape an asterisk character on Hacker News? - <AUTHOR> When writing a comment on HN, if you wrap a word in asterisks, they disappear and the word is italicized. That's how Markdown-based text works, but usually the user can place a backslash before the first asterisk to escape it (e.g. try on GitHub) in order to prevent this and instead display the asterisks literally. This does not seem to be possible on HN. Is there an alternative? <comment><USER2> You can use 3 asterisks - __* to italicize a single asterisk:

      *** as such

Or you could always use a pre-formatted block:

      * just prefix with two spaces</comment>


Include Go binary only package - <AUTHOR> https://go-review.googlesource.com/#/c/22433/ <comment><USER2> Well, that's certainly a feature that serves to expand the usage of the Go language, but I'm not so certain I like the spirit of it. Until now, sharing Go functionality meant sharing the source. And I like the idea that you pretty much have to open up your full source if you want people to use your work.

Maybe it's just fanciful and impractical, but I'd sort of hoped this would be the kind of decision that Go could take a stand against, in favor of incentivizing openness.

<comment><USER3> It's not compiler's job to shape community or enforce ethical values (unless it's GCC, haha). If people don't want to share binaries, they are free to share sources.

<comment><USER4> From a utilitarian perspective this will cause more harm than good to golang. Enabling users to ship binary blobs instead of open source openly audible code will decrease the over all quality of golang libs. Its the job of those who write the compiler to move the project in a direction which is best for golang, and this direction arguably is not good for golang.

<comment><USER3> _will decrease the over all quality of golang libs_

Really? How exactly this will decrease the quality of open source libraries?

<comment><USER5> I think OPs point is that commercial vendors will now stop providing the source code, which deprecates the overall quality (I don't like working with code I don't have the source code to. Once you find a bug, this all blows up on you).

It think it is a big win that proprietary software needs to ship source code with them in order to sell the library. Just because there is source code doesn't mean, it is open source or free software. It can still have the same licenses (not share the source/bin, etc) but source code that is visible (even proprietary) is better then a binary.

After all, not all libraries are OS and those that aren't would suffer from that change (although marketing guys would probably argue differently).

<comment><USER3> Exactly, which is why it's great for community! This means that open source packages will be more valuable than commercial binary blobs due to the ability to audit source code.

<comment><USER5> Theoretically, yes, but commercial libraries will always be there – no matter what language they're written in. So we can either make the best out of our situation and have commercial libraries with source code access or have it like every other language out there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Am I the only one who hates comments that are parsed as compiler directives? It feels like a hack. Hopefully Go 2 includes a proper attribute syntax.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is odd. Mind you, lots of things about Go made me think "this is odd" the first time I saw it.

I like the fact that we can now sell libraries more easily if we want to. There was a reasonable indie industry for years selling stuff out of the back of Dr Dobbs back in the 1990s, and being able to support that community is good. If you don't want that community to exist, fine, write better code and release it open-source and kill the market. I would be happy to try and sell a library and see sales dry up because I was unable to out-compete the wider market.

I suspect there might be the rise of people selling packages that are in essence tweaks of open source packages, but that's a problem the industry has irrespective of language. It is after all the business model of several firms.

I also think this might help with the quest on compile times. We're really keen on getting compile times down, and being able to build a package over _there_ and as I'm working over here, it can pull in the binary is actually really quite nice. I think it'll be a while before that becomes a default thing for Go to do, but you can now see it as a possibility.

What is a little odd though is to make this work, you still need "a" source file, even if it's not "the" source file. From the bottom of [https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/2775-b...](https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/2775-binary- only-packages.md)

      The package source code itself must be present in some form,
      or else we can't tell if the package was deleted entirely
      (see background above). The implication is that it will
      simply not be the actual source code for the package. A
      special comment is a natural way to signal this situation,
      especially since the go command is already reading the source
      code for package name, import information, and build tag
      comments. Having a "fake" version of the source code also
      provides a way to supply documentation compatible with "go
      doc" and "godoc" even though the complete source code is
      missing.

That, you have to admit, is different.

Also, perhaps making it less useful for commercial purposes was the last paragraph:

      The compiled form of the package does contain information
      about the source code, for example source file names, type
      definitions for data structures used in the public API, and
      inlined function bodies. It is assumed that the distributors
      of binary-only packages understand that they include this
      information.

<comment><USER8> "I also think this might help with the quest on compile times."

It should have next to no effect. Opening source files for hashing them is still dirt cheap even compared to go compilation, since you are almost certainly pulling them out of OS cache in a pure-memory operation. Make sure you're using either "go install" or "go build -i" if you aren't already, and you'll get the benefit of precompiled binaries where possible. The result should be that on average, most of the time is spent linking.

"Also, perhaps making it less useful for commercial purposes was the last paragraph:"

No, that's normal. You always have to expose the public API, because otherwise you can't use it. This has nothing to do with Go, this is a general rule. There's no (useful) such thing as a library with a hidden public interface. (I suppose in some languages you could provide one and require users to reflect their way in, but this would be a coding challenge sort of thing, not something you'd buy.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Maybe compile time can be faster at the same time?

</comment><comment><USER10> Yet you still have to statically link all your Go code in one single big binary... the Go team doesn't have their priority straight. People who want to sell closed source, commercial software in Go can already do that by selling exécutables.

<comment><USER11> I see this as a big advantage of Go.

<comment><USER10> > I see this as a big advantage of Go.

What, the advantage that Go doesn't give the choice to compile and link dynamically? Oh yeah, the advantage to treat the developer like an idiot who doesn't know what he is doing.</comment></comment></comment>


Netflix Is Abandoning Star Ratings in Favor of Facebook-Like Thumbs - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/3069062/netflix-is-abandoning-star-ratings-in-favor-of-facebook-like-thumbs <comment><USER2> I'm not surprised. Like most 5 star rating systems, it feels like half the people work on the 1 or 5 star only rating and the others actually give an accurate rating.

They should have really switched to a 3 option system since most of the ratings end as such.

Didn't Like (1-2 stars) Good/Average (3-4 stars) Loved (5 stars+)

</comment><comment><USER3> Well, YouTube abandoned its 5 star rating system citing that almost everyone votes either 1 or 5 stars [1]. It might be that that Netflix is seeing a similar usage of their voting system, so it would make sense to instead implement a like/dislike vote.

It sucks for those of us who used the finer nuances of the old system. I for sure know that it'll give me quite some headaches when I have to rate a well thought out but flawed film.

[1] [https://youtube.googleblog.com/2009/09/five-stars- dominate-r...](https://youtube.googleblog.com/2009/09/five-stars-dominate- ratings.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> (thumbsdown)</comment>


Amazon.com: Learn You a Haskell for Great Good - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/Learn-You-Haskell-Great-Good/dp/1593272839/ <comment><USER2> Interesting. The website says chapters on monads, monad transformers, and zippers are "coming soon." I wonder if they'll only be in the printed version.

<comment><AUTHOR> A comment on Reddit says that the book will be finished up by publication time and that the content will be the same as for the Web version.

Hooray!</comment></comment>


Faster and better browsing – Welcome Opera 41 - <AUTHOR> https://www.opera.com/blogs/desktop/2016/10/86-percent-faster-opera-41-for-computers/ <comment><USER2> Wow, Opera has a built-in video pop-out feature. That's very nice. I wrote a script to do that in X11 a while ago: [https://github.com/myfreeweb/dotfiles/blob/32c9cfd8d5e0a3a2c...](https://github.com/myfreeweb/dotfiles/blob/32c9cfd8d5e0a3a2c42c929f10cee9edea0e42fb/x11/floatyoutube) after I saw a Mac app that does this.

<comment><USER3> I've always wanted a fill-tab feature for video. The video fills the view port of the tab and removes all the other content but remains just a regular tab. Does it do that by any chance?

<comment><USER4> Hi! I've created a really simple Chrome extension that does this for YouTube, check out it out:

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fulltube/nmabgnejf...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fulltube/nmabgnejfbfgjdifjflceagbglmllefe)

source code: [https://github.com/ijanos/fulltube](https://github.com/ijanos/fulltube)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Good to know, but nothing to make a fuss about: Looking at the video, it seems that they are now simply loading the currently open tab before the others (starting by the ones adjacent to it) instead of loading all tabs at once. Other browsers have had this for a while

<comment><USER6> > Other browsers have had this for a while

Hilariously, Opera itself used to have this! I think it was one of the first browsers that had this :)

(at least that's what I remember from back in the day, maybe my memory is deceiving me)

<comment><USER7> Well, the new Opera already had an option to load tabs on demand when you switch to it after starting up. I guess now they're adding an option to load them in the background. In terms of performance the load tab on demand works reasonably well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The only thing i want from opera now is open source, I enjoyed opera for years now, and it is my favorite one by far,

But i am a little concerned about it is not opensource, witch make forefox a better choice for privacity...

<comment><USER3> TIL. I always assumed it was open source and was about to try it. Oh well.

<comment><USER9> Nope, you even had to pay to use it in the past.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wish Chrome would adopt Vivaldi's and Opera's feature to not close the window if you're closing the last tab. This works nicely in Firefox, Opera and Vivaldi, and I always accidentally close Chrome. I've seen Chrome extensions for this, but they don't do this properly and take up considerable memory for something that should be a core feature.

<comment><USER11> Well, I actually enjoy that feature, especially using mouse middle click to close tabs & browser. Why do you want browser to stay open when you are actually closing it?

<comment><USER12> Because I'm not closing it. I'm closing the tab. Opening chrome takes a few seconds to open which is annoying when I want to quickly google something without loosing focus.

<comment><USER11> Ok, I understand.

But you can press ALT+D, type your google text, hit enter.

No need to close tab, no need to open home page, no need to move mouse.

<comment><USER13> The point is that I want to close my current tab - I'm done with it. I just don't want to close the whole browser - I want it hanging around with no tabs in it so that I don't have to take the time to launch it again. Like closing all files in an IDE or Photoshop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Now if only they'd deliver on the marketing talk about actually getting Opera v12 features into Chromera, or at least do the human thing of opening up the source of v12.

Till then, quite a few people will stick with v12 as main browser.

Also, beware: The browser part of the Opera company was sold to chinese malware producer Qihoo 360, after they failed to buy the entire company.

<comment><USER15> The problem with sticking to 12 is that it's not really an option any more. You lose out on newer web technologies, and at least on Windows you run into security issues, since enabling newer TLS versions makes Opera prone to crash.

<comment><USER14> Incorrect. With these customizations you can make it very easy to open any page/link from inside Opera in any other browser:

[https://gist.github.com/wchristian/9a479b6969ba653681f50b415...](https://gist.github.com/wchristian/9a479b6969ba653681f50b415dcc89e4)

It is in practice entirely viable to keep using Opera as the main browser and punt troublemakers to other browsers as necessary.

<comment><USER15> That it's easy to work around doesn't mean it's incorrect.

That aside, the SSL/TLS issues alone make it unusable. Changing the settings to make it use the newest TLS version it has support for makes it crash, and even if it did there are no updates at all any more. That means no security fixes, no support for new cipher suites, etc.

<comment><USER14> You said: "not an option anymore"

This is incorrect in various ways, if only because there exists at least one example of someone using it successfully as the main browser, while also being employed as a web dev: Me.

<comment><USER16> You're right; just not an option to most reasonable people.

<comment><USER14> Ah yes, ad hominem, the tool of choice for reasonable people.

<comment><USER16> I don't think you know what that means, and throwing the term around doesn't make you sound smart. I'm attacking your argument in that it is a ridiculous workaround for a problem that doesn't really exist.

<comment><USER14> Nah man, i know exactly what it means and what your game is. You're pretty sad. :)

<comment><USER16> Yeah... I guess my "game" is that I wouldn't use an outdated browser and rely on a plugin to avoid security bugs and sites that use modern features. What are you even talking about?

<comment><USER14> Primarily that you've sufficient lack of clue as to what you're even talking about that assuming I'm insane may in fact be healthiest for your machinery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I use Chrome , Firefox , Opera all for different reason. The one that I find most appealing even though I am a big chrome fan is Opera.Opera's inbuilt ad- blocker is pretty decent and combine that with the great usable bookmarking engine I find it very usable on 2 - 24 inch screens.

Firefox used to be great but rendering webpages just feels faster on Chrome/Opera. Opera has great potential to become a great browser as long as it focuses on adblocking and security by default.

<comment><USER18> And Opera is the only one who got tab switching with Ctrl+Tab right. That's the single most important feature which made me use Opera as my default browser.

(For dev tools, just press Ctrl+Shift+I instead of F12).

<comment><USER19> Interesting. One of my biggest issues with Opera is its seemingly random tab switching order. If I open ten tabs and want to go through them one by one, I first have to go through all my old tabs. There used to be an option to change this, but they removed it long ago :/

<comment><USER20> I like Vivaldi[1] for its keeping most of the options, such as the one you've mentioned.

[1] [https://vivaldi.com](https://vivaldi.com)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> A few months ago i stumbled upon the new Opera, in search of battery saving on my Macbook Pro. My battery lasts longer than when using Chrome, because of the built in power saving. The VPN addition is nice to, for testing purposes or just surfing safely. The only problem i have with Opera for now is that i'm not able to use Chrome plugins.. Not everything is available on Opera.

<comment><USER22> On a Mac, I just use Safari. It is very power efficient, fast, pages scroll smoothly, it's basically the best browser for the platform.

I switch to Chrome for web development because of the better developer tools, but my battery life suffers badly when I do that.

<comment><USER23> On a desktop Mac with a lot of RAM, would you pick Safari over Chrome for general browsing?

I've been using Chrome for a while but I'm thinking of switching back to Safari.

I no longer have a big need for extensions that are not available for Safari (I miss uBlock, but I think I can make do with a Safari Content Blocker list and dnsmasq) I don't have a Macbook but I might start using it soon, so it'd nice to use the same browser in both devices.

<comment><USER22> Yes, definitely. Safari is more responsive, scrolls better and is overall faster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I had my Ubuntu 14.04 freezing a lot when Chrome is launched. I switched to Opera and no more freezes.

Beside, living in a sub-African nation, Opera VPN helps me access some restricted shows.

I use Firefox for downloading stuffs over the net : the DownthemAll extension is what makes me use Firefox. Nothing else.

</comment><comment><USER25> I really wish I could use Opera, but without Tab Overflow, having more then 15 tabs means the tabs are so small, and you cant read the title of the Tab. This is espeically important when i have multiple Tabs open on the same site, and therefore same site icon showing.

Mouse Traveling to Tab List and select is just annoying. When you know the Tab you want is somewhere in here right next to it.

I really want to use Opera, it is so much faster, but for power ( many Tabs ) users It seems the only choice right now, ( and for the past years ) is only Firefox.

<comment><USER26> Vivaldi with vertical tabs work well for this too, coupled with the keyboard shortcut to bring up a fuzzy tab selector. It's pretty awesome. Plus you get tab cycling in recently used order - the only sane option.

</comment></comment><comment> V-2 ...and mouse gestures still aren't customizable again (they already had this long, long ago).

<comment><USER10> They are customizable in Vivaldi ([https://vivaldi.net/en- US/teamblog/162-mouse-gestures-to-the...](https://vivaldi.net/en- US/teamblog/162-mouse-gestures-to-the-rescue)), another browser, which is made by ex-Opera folks, include the CEO and former core devs. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but Vivaldi is also Blink-based and has been restoring other Opera 12 features than Opera Opera has.

<comment> V-2 Customizable, yet not very usable - if the gesture you want to set already exists, Vivaldi doesn't let you overwrite it (unassigning the other one). Hell, it doesn't even tell you which one has taken it : ) Gotta find it on your own. Did they test it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I haven't used Opera for a long, long time.

How does it stack up currently against Chrome?

Anyone here using it as their main browser?

<comment><USER28> Well, in case you managed to ignore the news in 2013 (a lot of people did), it uses Chrome's Blink-engine now, instead of the Presto-engine which they previously developed. So, it's very much identical to Chrome for the most part.

<comment><USER29> In fact, you can use Chrome plugins for Opera. It's basically Chrome with a slightly different feature set.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Just installed it! Visibly faster for me, they seem to have done good work in this release.

</comment><comment><USER31> Not bothering to read - is it still a reskin of Chrome and thus not Opera? Or are they moving back to an updated Presto engine? Because if not, SeaMonkey remains my primary browser; since Opera 12 is "unsafe".

<comment><USER32> How is Opera "unsafe" exactly? Are there any serious bugs or vulnerabilities?

<comment><USER31> I've been told that Opera 12 is unsafe now. I don't remember the details.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm happy with [http://www.seamonkey-project.org/](http://www.seamonkey- project.org/)

</comment><comment><USER34> I can't find the VPN option in Settings, even when I search... but the help page says it should be available under Privacy and Security..

<comment><USER24> Edit>Preferences> Private&Security > VPN.

Don't you have those ?

<comment><USER34> I'm on Mac, and no. All I have is a link to the VPN provider's website where I can purchase their VPN. There is no option to turn it on in the browser, even with 'Show Advanced Settings' selected.

<comment><USER34> The VPN is blocked in China. To get around this you have to set your computer's location to the US (or a country where the VPN is permitted), then reboot Opera. The computer's location can be changed in the System Preferences menu of a Mac.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I really miss the tab stacking feature, but also the integrated email and rss readers. :'(

</comment><comment><USER36> Is Opera still running webkit, or did they switch to something else in the past few years?

<comment><USER37> As far as I know, they are using Blink (Google's WebKit fork), rather than WebKit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Cold start Opera 40 - 63 seconds

Cold start Opera 41 - 8 seconds

Both values are so much slower than anything recent by Firefox or Chrome..? Who waits over a minute for their browser to start?

<comment><USER39> If you swap the video, they're counting the time to cold startup to fully load the page from your last session. And sure, I have dozens of tabs in Chrome, and while Chrome itself starts fast, fully load a webpage can take a long time.

</comment></comment><comment> a-no-n I hate to sound mean, but Opera feels somewhere between the Moller Skycar and a Dyson Hairdryer.

To be fair:

Chrome is fast and adopts tech fairly quickly but kills your battery and your privacy.

Firefox is private and supports new things, but wastes your time.

Safari is battery-efficient, but waste your time and tech lags.

(IE is shit.)

\---

Conclusion: Pick your poison for the appropriate task and time.

<comment><USER40> What about Edge?

<comment><USER41> Do anyone use Safari on Windows these days?

<comment><USER42> It's no longer a thing. [1]

[1] [https://9to5mac.com/2012/07/25/apple-appears-to-currently- be...](https://9to5mac.com/2012/07/25/apple-appears-to-currently-be-passing- on-safari-6-0-features-for-windows-pcs/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I think [0] is a more useful link

[0] [https://www.opera.com/blogs/desktop/2016/10/86-percent- faste...](https://www.opera.com/blogs/desktop/2016/10/86-percent-faster- opera-41-for-computers/)

<comment><USER15> Looks like someone failed to change the link (it's now broken), and made the title refer to the wrong blog post.

The original title referred to this one: [https://www.opera.com/blogs/desktop/2016/10/86-percent- faste...](https://www.opera.com/blogs/desktop/2016/10/86-percent-faster- opera-41-for-computers/) not this one [https://www.opera.com/blogs/desktop/2016/10/opera- developer-...](https://www.opera.com/blogs/desktop/2016/10/opera- developer-42-0-2392-0-update/).

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> They finally got rid of the 1px space above tabs. They also logged me in on Reddit instantly upon new install, which is, at least, kinda odd as I never gave 'em permission to harvest my Firefox data.

So uninstalling.

<comment><USER3> Is it possible it remembered your login from the last time you tried Opera?

<comment><USER45> Just let him uninstall it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> 62 seconds to start my browser if I had too many tabs opened before previously? Why is that even saved between launches by default then? It takes less than that amount of time to switch to chrome

<comment><USER47> Browsers losing my tabs on shutdown is unusable for me, that's one of the reasons I stopped trying to use Edge.

<comment><USER48> Yes same here. I normally leave my workstation running overnight so I can come back to it in the morning but given Windows 10 and its propensity to restart at 3am, losing all the open tabs is not an option. (And no, I can't reschedule this as I am under a group policy at work so it is out of my hands).

So saving tab state is ideal. I too stopped attempting to use Edge. It weirdly presents its own custom menu for right-clicks, which means there is one for Edge, one for the Start menu, and then the normal native one. Seems Microsoft likes making work for itself with 3 different menu implementations to maintain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> 86% faster when starting up with 42 tabs open. I'd guarantee 99% of those people with 42 tabs open after startup immediately Close 41 of them.

<comment><USER47> Other way round. When I'm starting up with dozens of tabs, many of them will be left open but never touched. Sometimes tabs can be months old.

I'll occasionally do "cache spill to pinboard", but otherwise they remain open until I get round to them again or I have a "tab bankruptcy" imposed by software failure.</comment></comment>


Explaining Schizophrenia [comic] - <AUTHOR> http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/133179.html

<comment><USER2> I got to live with a schizophrenic person who subleased after a roommate left. I gained a better understanding for people who suffer this horrible disorder. It validated my theory that many homeless people are schizophrenic--yea, go figure, homeless people who aren't lazy. It's very difficult--stupidly so--to get these people help. They have to threaten your life (or theirs) to get them any kind of help, which undeniably is not good enough yet, so they wind up abandoned by their families, in prison with a horrible mix of drugs, etc.

My case was no different, I had to kick him out because he wasn't paying rent and was causing distress to my other roommates. I would have done the same with a sane person, but I must admit I felt bad because the guy was kind, he just couldn't keep a job, so he couldn't pay me. He still owes me like $600, but I've never contacted him about it. I figure he has a hard enough time as is.

</comment><comment><USER3> Does anyone here have friends or relatives who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia. I'd be interested in hearing your experiences with it. Someone I know was diagnosed, but later the diagnosis was changed by another doctor to manic depressive with bipolar (we were told that it was too early to say affirmatively what the prob was). Every 9 months or so (for the past 3 years), he has episodes where he or someone else has to check him into the hospital because he's delusional (usually paranoid, having delusions of grandeur, sometimes threatening).

<comment><USER2> Read my other post, but I'll elaborate here. People with schizophrenia definitely "hear voices." I've read a bit about this and forget the exact scientific theory for why this happens, but my high-level understanding is that the "self" part of their brain is disconnected from their consciousness so--i'm sure this has happened to everyone when they're very sleepy--when they hear "recordings" of voices, they aren't aware of the fact that their mind is producing them.

The person I roomed with heard angels and demons. He was very religious, so it's logical to see how he arrived at such conclusions. They usuallly slip into such "episodes" when under stress. I remember one day, he came in very angry, jumped into the shower, punching the wall yelling at "Satan." It was surreal, but I kept my cool because I had read a lot about this. The most insane part was trying to talk to him about the voices. In his mind they were real. And when I implied they weren't, he would become stressed because I didn't understand him/believe him. At this point you relize, reality is so insanely relative to your experiences and how your mind processes stimuli. Any "bad" wiring in the brain and you're either too religious, or too rational, or too "insane" to hear voices that aren't there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Sufferers are no more dangerous than anyone else. Don't believe me? Then look in the paper and you'll see most crimes are committed by the sane."

This is a fallacious argument. Non-schizophrenics outnumber schizophrenics by a huge margin. Schizophrenics could, hypothetically, be ten times as dangerous and most crimes would still be committed by sane people.

This study is somewhat outdated (1990), but: "The crime rate among male schizophrenics was almost the same as that in the general male population, whereas among females it was twice that of the general female population. The rate of violent offences was, however, four times higher among the schizophrenics." <http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/157/3/345>

In other words, making friends with a schizophrenic should make you about as afraid of violent crime as making friends with four non-schizophrenics would make you, assuming your friends are representative of the general population.

<comment><USER5> Agreed. This comic was incredibly misleading. I've known more than one person with the disorder and they've all had violent episodes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Most crimes are committed by the sane" does not imply "Suffers from Schizophrenia are no more dangerous than anyone else".

</comment><comment><USER7> This is a good video of a patient that presents a traditional schizophrenic disorganized thought process: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGnl8dqEoPQ>

</comment><comment><USER8> "Even with these side-effects, people who suffer schizophrenia are still far better off than if they'd been left untreated."

Except for that this directly contradicts the research, which shows that A) In the U.S. patients are doing far worse than they did in the 50s before drug therapy was introduced and B) patients in developing countries where they use less or no drugs at all do dramatically better than patients in the US.

<comment><USER9> Link to research? I'd like to see how it was done, being that in so many developing countries mental illness carries a huge stigma. Patients may do better according to their family members, for whom the inconvenience of hiding the patient is less bad than the shame of others' finding out.

<comment><USER8> Check out the book Anatomy of an Epidemic that just came out. The first 110 pages cites at least a couple dozen studies on this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> For a good, unromanticized, fictional account of schizophrenia watch "Revolution #9"

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253586/>

</comment><comment><USER11> "The illness effects memory" Another comic comes to mind: <http://xkcd.com/326/>

</comment><comment><USER12> Some chick in some ramachandran youtube video, if I remember, said a giant black widow told her to cut her shirt with scissors or it'd bite her. And there was a conspiracy against people people who's name started with 'j'. The movie naked lunch is kinda schizophrenic.

<comment><USER12> Well I rate your rating -1</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Would you like to pay(~5$/Month) for intelligence on Google Analytics? - <AUTHOR> More intelligent report, Graphical over view and insights that helps your website performance and engagement activities. <comment><USER2> If you are really adding some actual value then $5 is a price point that would make me dismiss your product offhand because the price is too low. Is there a gap in perception of value or is there just little value in what you are providing?

<comment><USER3> Yea I agree with this point. $5 is almost never a good price point for a product that is supposed to increase the value of a business (GA).

If you are really only worth $5 of value, then you are probably not worth the business' time to implement. Try to make your product worth >$50/month.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would evaluate a Trial. "More intelligent report" is vague.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your response. I will share with you. development is undergo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> No. I might like to pay for intelligence on GA if I knew anything about what was being offered. If you want more accurate answers, you're going to need to share more details.

</comment><comment><USER6> I would pay >$100/mo for something that has intelligence. If you could create an AI to replace a junior marketing analyst, it's worth it. But you have to first talk with businesses and really understand what kind of intelligence they need.

</comment><comment><USER7> No, GA provides a variety of reporting options and formats - from simple to complex - out of the box, it has an active expert community, and its best practices are very well-documented.

</comment><comment><USER8> No

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your response. I would like to know the reason. Are there specific things that preventing you to invest when it's ROI is good. It will help me to make things that can be more usable.

<comment><USER9> I don't believe the ROI will be good; that is what you need to demonstrate to me

Most tools that pitch themselves like you are not a good fit for me</comment></comment></comment>


Dubai on Empty  - <AUTHOR> http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/04/dubai-201104?currentPage=all <comment><USER3> Despite the fact it's one of the nicer countries to live in the region and reasonably well-governed, certain groups of people love to bash Dubai.

Never mind that there's mass atrocities, neglect, decay, rampant corruption and idiocy and day to day violence in a lot of the countries of the world.

Laos is run by bandits? Who gives a shit, and where's Laos anyways? No, let's talk about how Dubai is missing the mystical "culture" element. Class, yeah man, dude, you can't buy class.

If you want to point out the problems in Dubai, go for it. There's problems there, sure. But it's definitely one of the least problematic places in the Middle East, it's got a lot going for it, and they'll be fine.

It's funny, because the people who don't like Dubai are the same who champion for third world revolutions, but then don't want to point out how bad things get a few decades later. I'm in Vietnam right now. If the South Vietnam/United States/South Korea coalition had beaten the North Vietnam/Soviet Union/Red China/North Korea coalition, it would be a much nicer, safer place to live.

Instead, it's a backward wasteland ruled by bandits that's barely - <USER2> \- starting to get its shit together.

Do people want to cover that?

No, let's talk about how Dubai is missing culture. Yeah, screw Dubai.

Edit: Downvoting isn't good. Take a moment away from the hatefest here and think critically on these three points - First, Dubai is indisputably one of the best-governed countries in the Middle East. Second, there's a lot of places a lot worse than Dubai that could use the negative attention first. Third, people that love to trumpet the failure of Dubai also refuse to draw basic cause-and-effect relationships, like the fact that Vietnam is more like North Korea than South Korea since the Southern side lost to the North in that war - and it's ruined the country. Those are important points.

<comment><USER4> Well, guess what, there's a lot of shit in this world. Go tell people to stop talking bad about Husni Mubarak, because after all, he's much better than Gaddafi and Saddam.

The fact is, people think Dubai is awesome. It's good journalism to uncover the truth about this supposed awesomeness.

Your only problem is that there are other places that are worse. As if suddenly everybody stopped noticing all the other bad places just because there's an article about Dubai.

The fact is, rich gulf states treat foreigner workers like slaves.

An interesting thing to note is how their youth are practically bullies. The same kind of bullies that PG talked about in his "nerds" essay[0], and his analysis of why people become bullies applies quite well to Dubai's situation. They are spoiled kids, they have no responsibilities, their lives are pretty pointless.

(EDIT: Lest somebody thinks I'm being racist: I'm an Arab myself.)

[0] <http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html>

<comment><USER5> I'm not even sure I'd call it rich. As I understand it, they've borrowed billions from other gulf states to build their boondoggles. They even named their recently completed Burj Khalifa to honor the emir of Abu Dhabi, which bailed them out with billions when the financial house of cards collapsed.

<comment><USER4> I said rich in reference to the gulf states in general (including Qatar, Bahrain, etc). They're rich because they have oil.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Cripes. After the fourth "small penis" joke and the phrase "head-towel in hand" I had to stop reading. And I will make a point not to read Vanity Fair in the future.

I am interested in the future of Dubai, but this is not how I want to read about it.

<comment><USER7> I kept waiting to get something deeper out of the article, but I didn't. A rehashing of descriptions we have seen a lot of in the last year or so: lazy, bored Emiratis; rootless expats; South Asian serfs; vulgarity. No real insights.

<comment><USER8> I've worked in Dubai. I found the article pretty accurate. So much, that I was surprised to read on it the same analogies I've been doing myself to describe the country to my friends (an adult Disneyland, a soul-less country, a spoiled generation of young locals).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This article is a little older but offers an incredible perspective of the separation in class/race, the state of poverty vs tourism in Dubai.

"The dark side of Dubai"

[http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann- har...](http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/the- dark-side-of-dubai-1664368.html)

<comment><USER10> Previously discussed on HN here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=550719>

and here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=968439>

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you take just about any other industrialized city, you'll find that the majority of people have moved there to settle down, build a life, invest in their future; and as a result of that they work hard, they blend in to the fabric of the multi-cultural society, they build strong personal relationships, they develop a sense of belonging, they care about the city, and the country, and they contribute to its growth and its cultural richness; because it is home to them, and their lives and those of their children are closely tied to it.

Dubai, on the other hand, is just considered a station by the majority of people living in it; they go there and they've already decided that it's going to be only for a few years, and then they'll be moving on to somewhere else, or back to their home countries. That means that they're not as involved, they don't develop a strong sense of belonging, they don't really invest much into personal relationships, they never really care enough.

And that makes a world of difference, and everyone visiting Dubai feels it. Not everyone knows how to put it in words, but some of the things I've heard most are that it feels 'fake', that it's too materialistic, that it lacks identity …etc

</comment><comment><USER12> I've been to Dubai. It's boring, very boring. The shops & malls are too expensive. The non-Arab "residents" are mostly people stealing from their homeland and splurging in Dubai. It's really sad.

Don't get me started on the South Asian workers, it's a modern day slave trade.

</comment><comment><USER13> Kindof reminds me of the movie _Forbidden Planet_. When the leverage (money) gets too high, all the unformed ideas that are normally too vague become feasible. Like "Let's make the world's tallest building." Usually that's too vague, but if you throw a few tens of billions of dollars at it, it might happen. But it will happen in a vague, ugly way.

</comment><comment><USER14> This reads like something straight out of Neuromancer, veracious or no.

</comment><comment><USER15> There are a couple of factors the author is wrong about. 1-dubai was designed and built to become just a trade/commerce hub of the region in the first place. The economic, immigration and even tax policies are designed to facilitate economic growth, not formation of a culture or anything else. That's what it was made for that's what you see there. Dubai was designed to not have any culture, that's why it was not built on the top of an old arab city with deep cultural roots but instead it was built on the beach of empty desert.

2-those who planned dubai knew that they will have to bring lots of foreign workers to fill the positions that will be created by enormous economy because local people won't work either of not satisfying salaries, lack of expertise or simply laziness. You can't create a culture of you bring thousands of people from different parts of the world to work and create environment that they don't want to have families in there and actually try push them out of the country when you are done.

So let's not act surprised here, it has become what it was meant to be.

</comment><comment> daniel-cussen When I look at Dubai I think of Potosí, the silver mountain in Bolivia. It was an equally hallucinated commodity adventure, where the streets would sometimes be paved in silver. Four million dead natives later, after all the kinds of luxuries of the world were imported continually, it's a shithole. All that's left is, ironically, 60% of the silver and the architecture.

</comment><comment><USER16> Bored and entitled youth in these countries are going to screw up quite a few things over the coming years. I remember walking around Kuwait and the only thing some of these bums had as entertainment was spitting on passers by from the first floor. That, and cars. Permanent squealing of tyres, and races on the road at night. Sick.

</comment><comment><USER17> Ugh, this is why print media and its web-based spin-offs are dying. What stilted, conceited rubbish.

</comment><comment><USER18> Dubai's not going to die. This article has some points, but they're very poorly put across. Much better articles have been written on Dubai.

Dubai is the business and financial center of the Middle East, apart from all the other stuff. The point is that they build up the services sector and infrastructure before they run out of oil.

Let's take this bit of the article:

"It's a holiday resort with the worst climate in the world. It boils. It's humid. And the constant wind is full of sand."

That's great and all, but what can they do about the climate? -- it's not like they chose it. Don't like the climate? Don't go to Dubai.

The rest of the article is similarly vapid.

<comment><USER19> The point is: why promote Dubai as a tourist beach resort if nobody ever goes outside?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This article seemed to end a little abruptly, I thought it was an error. I'm off to dubai in 2 months (stop over only), just to see the mirage before it completely dies.

</comment><comment><USER21> I spent 3 hours on a plane on Thursday sitting next to a guy who grew up in Dubai and was arriving (from Dubai) in the States to study. I asked him about the real-estate crisis and how the emirate is doing. He said not much has changed, Dubai has plenty of money and foreign media are blowing the story out of proportion.

</comment><comment><USER22> "Shortchanged by being given everything. Cursed with money." I actually loved this quote, I never would have thought of it that way.

Really, if you're fueled by ambition like I am and I suspect 99% of the people who read HN are, what would be worse than having nothing to win?

</comment><comment><USER23> "After the horses have run, Elton John will perform".

As he did for Rush Limbaughs wedding, who is clearly a homophobe.

Take away for me is that Elton John will perform anywhere for money.

</comment><comment><USER24> Is Vanity Fair really the best place to air this kind of grievance against wealth and decadence?

<comment><USER25> Vanity Fair still does real journalism, where a reporter goes and finds information to write an article about.

Have you read their article on Iceland's financial crisis? [http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/04/iceland2...](http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/04/iceland200904) I can't write them off as worthless hollywood fluff after reading that.

<comment><USER26> >Vanity Fair still does real journalism

I do not disagree, but I think grandparent's point is that a magazine filled with profiles of billionaires and ads for luxury goods is maybe not the most credible publisher of criticism of materialism and the evils of the idle rich.

<comment><USER27> Maybe not the most credible, but perhaps the most appropriate - after all, Vanity Fair's audience is also the type Dubai wants to attract.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It's no surprise, slave labor only goes so far.

</comment><comment><USER29> Sounded like he was describing Vegas

</comment><comment><USER30> Dubai, is not money!

What most "good journalists" point out, is the period of the bubble. This period was powered by the wealthy wall street. Confused? Well, it is confusing. The bubble period was 2001-07, in which Dubai thrived -- build 4 man made islands, the tallest tower, the biggest mall, the costliest race track, etc -- to the point we know it today- a well built city. But what most don't see, is that period before the bubble and that after the bubble. We know the fact that Dubai served the rich in ways we can't imagine, but it was also Dubai's leaders vision, to catch the bubble and make use of it. Without the bubble, Dubai would be just another city. But this vision also include an overlook state: to stay close to it's core culture.

If you go out in Dubai, the cultural difference is noticeable. You won't see any racism, indifference, etc though. People living together. What was created from this, a modern time marvel. You won't understand these lines, until you have lived in Dubai. It is what a modern city should be like. And now, with all the bubble gone, sure the real estate won't be like before, bu the bubble left behind a glorious beauty. And it now cultivates other industries, apart from just real estate and (ofcourse) its core oil. Dubai is now, the best city in the Middle East/ North Africa/ Sub Continent/ Most of Asia.

So yes, Dubai is great, in its own way.</comment>


Facebook bans your account if someone posted racist content on your photos - <AUTHOR> Please help me!
TL;DR: My little brother, a popular streamer in our country(Morocco) is a victim of some users that are banning his Facebook profile and cyber bullying him on twitch where he streams(https://www.twitch.tv/lilpunishow). Not just him but other popular local streamers as well and I cannot do anything about it!
Lately people are victims to what appears to be a bug that's being used intentionally , I'll explain: Basically, the malicious user can go to any post on your Facebook page, mainly your cover photo since it's public and comment on it with a photo that contains racist material(hate against certain people, religions...) once he does this he immediately report your account saying that you posted a content that severely violates Facebook's Community Standards followed by a permanent deactivation of your Facebook account even though you had nothing to do with it as you can see in the picture below: https://i.imgur.com/4wF1f1n.png
We both tried to reach out to Facebook support but with no success...
Whenever he creates another account(you have to use a different name and a different email) he gets banned again and it got him really frustrated since he needs to stay in touch with his fans and friends
This is once of the pictures that were the reason for the banning. bare in mind that it's racist I do not mean to offend anyone when posting here, but, to show it so I can get help Link to picture: https://i.imgur.com/YIMBPAb.png
Please I'm asking your help so that this can reach the people at Facebook, who can do something about and prevent such thing from ever happening again. Thank you! <comment><USER2> Facebook doesn't care, and nobody can help you.

Make a new account. Or better, live without Facebook.

<comment><AUTHOR> If you make another account, it goes down as soon as you create it. I'll ask him to stop using Facebook but it's gonna be hard to tell all his fans to switch to another social media service.</comment></comment>


Bitcoin Cash web wallet - <AUTHOR> http://simcoin.info/tsbw/bcc/ <comment><USER2> It's nice and simple, but why no https? right now anybody on the same network could modify the code in transit to make it send the private keys somewhere.

And i would make the online page a demo, with a mandatory "download and run this offline", maybe with an advice to check signatures.

Online web wallet like this are too dangerous to use for non trivial amounts of cryptocurrency. Especially with the influx of newbies for the recent spike in btc price.</comment>