What's Next for Delicious? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.delicious.com/blog/2010/12/whats-next-for-delicious.html <comment><USER2> Original Text (since blog was down):

What's Next for Delicious?

Many of you have read the news stories about Delicious that began appearing yesterday. We're genuinely sorry to have these stories appear with so little context for our loyal users. While we can't answer each of your questions individually, we wanted to address what we can at this stage and we promise to keep you posted as future plans get finalized.

Is Delicious being shut down? And should I be worried about my data?

\- No, we are not shutting down Delicious. While we have determined that there is not a strategic fit at Yahoo!, we believe there is a ideal home for Delicious outside of the company where it can be resourced to the level where it can be competitive.

What is Yahoo! going to do with Delicious?

\- We're actively thinking about the future of Delicious and we believe there is a home outside the company that would make more sense for the service and our users. We're in the process of exploring a variety of options and talking to companies right now. And we'll share our plans with you as soon as we can.

What if I want to get my bookmarks out of Delicious right away?

\- As noted above, there's no reason to panic. We are maintaining Delicious and encourage you to keep using it. That said, we have export options if you so choose. Additionally, many services provide the ability to import Delicious links and tags. We can only imagine how upsetting the news coverage over the past 24 hours has been to many of you. Speaking for our team, we were very disappointed by the way that this appeared in the press. We'll let you know more as things develop.

<comment><USER3> > Speaking for our team, we were very disappointed by the way that this > appeared in the press.

Speaking as a user, I am very disappointed not to see the team taking more responsibility for the way Yahoo! is handling this.

<comment><USER4> That's because "the team" was laid off on Tuesday.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This blog post claim to be destinate at the users of Delicious but it screams all over it "IF YOU HAVE MONEY AND WANT TO BUY US, PLEASE REACH US BY MAIL". Sad.

Hope, they sell it to Joshu or somebody who really cares

<comment><USER6> I wouldn't mind if they sold it to Google. Google wants to be more "social" and their own Google Bookmarks kind of sucks and has been neglected worse than Delicious.

<comment><USER7> If Google won't run their integrated service, why would they care for Delicious?

Or at least that's what I was thinking before the example of Google Videos and YouTube came to me.

<comment><USER8> Well, in theory, delicious would come with its own team of people who are interested in it, just like YouTube would have.

<comment><USER9> Ideally, del.icio.us would come with this team of people: <http://www.petefreitag.com/images/blog/delicious_office.jpg>

<comment><USER10> Haha, wow. Look at those chairs. So frugal!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Putting the entire team of people that knew how to operate it out on the street was perhaps not the best strategy for getting a good price.

<comment><USER12> Was it the original team that got acquired?

<comment><USER9> No, it was this team: <http://www.petefreitag.com/images/blog/delicious_office.jpg>

<comment><USER13> Off topic, but I love the $1,400 worth of monitors and $1.50 worth of chair at those workstations.

Not sure whether that would send me running if I interviewed there.

<comment><USER9> del.icio.us was a fairly early example of the lean startup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is this too little, too late? Why wasn't this blog post made yesterday? Now "Delicious is closing" has pretty much become "truth," even with this damage control. Many have already started trying out alternate services.

Kinda scary how fast this happens...

<comment><USER15> I blame techcrunch

<comment><USER16> That's not fair. HN played a big part too.

<comment><USER17> Webdev celebs like Zeldman and Gruber helped fan the flames, too, by quickly spreading the news over Twitter. I watched this unfold through my Twitter feed; first I heard of it was a retweet from Zeldman.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Google has a big opportunity here. Delicious is one of the best social search products out there. Any real google innovation in social would be boosted by the user data and brand. Not to mention the pr boost from saving them. Much as many on HN and elsewhere are suggesting the viability of alternatives, few of them seem to compare in terms of data and function right now. Not that this couldn't change quickly.

<comment><USER19> Totally agree that Google should snap it up. If any company needs it, it's Google and passing this opportunity by would be a mistake on their part. Not to mention that Delicious could be sold at a lower price since they've announced that they've been put out and are looking for a company to buy them.

<comment><USER20> No! We are seeing time and time again that big companies acquiring sites that are not directly relevant to their core businesses leave those acquisitions floundering. Google has the same problems of acquisitions that have just disappeared.

If delicious is to survive and flourish, then the organisation that should run delicious should be an organisation that solely concentrates on running delicious. Perhaps spinning it off as a separate business entity is the right way.

Delicious has stagnated for far too long as it is. So either spin it out into an independent business entity with fresh ideas and initiative, or replace it with a federated platform to allow others to innovate on top of it.

<comment><USER21> Hmm, Google's core competence is search. As many commenters pointed out yesterday (in the big "Yahoo shutting down Delicious" thread), Delicious is more than a place where people store their bookmarks; it can be used as a kind of alternative search engine as well. So I think it wouldn't be a bad fit. Also, Google has been trying to get "social" right, and this could be a part of the puzzle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> "While we have determined that there is not a strategic fit at Yahoo!, we believe there is a ideal home for Delicious outside of the company where it can be resourced to the level where it can be competitive."

I don't get how notepad, address book, calendar etc are part of yahoo's strategy and bookmarks aren't.

<comment><USER22> That quote strikes me as incredibly tone deaf. Not just the corporate speak of 'resourced' after laying off the team, but the utter lack of vision they have for the product. Delicious defined a category of webservices (public bookmarking) but to their eyes they aren't 'competitive'.

<comment><USER23> Yeah it's really terrible. The part about "we have determined that there is not a strategic fit at Yahoo" is laughable. I understand they can't just be honest and say "we don't know how to use it", but the way they phrased it conveys a sort of hubris that a company as poorly run as Yahoo should stay far far away from.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I want to make fun of the word "resourced", but can't decide how. Something about lame corporate speak.

Now I'm off to resource the dog...

<comment><USER25> Well I felt that way about 'evidenced', but that's pretty widely used now, so look forward to _resourcing_ your dog for years to come.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> "Sorry, Internal Server Error."

Sadly, that's probably what's next for Delicious.

<comment><USER27> Yes, I thought this was a (somewhat cruel) joke as well when I got the error…

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is what I saw when I went to this link:

Sorry, Internal Server Error.

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

I thought that was pretty clever by the OP. I assumed that he made up the url 'what's next for delicious' ensuring that it would go to an error page. But then I realized that it really was an error and the blog post had been taken down :(

</comment><comment><USER29> I find it very odd that Delicious was not a "strategic fit" at Yahoo!

If I remember right, Yahoo was a bunch of links pointing people to webpages. How is that different from bookmarks?

Citation regarding the history of Yahoo:

Before long they were spending more time on their home-brewed lists of favorite links than on their doctoral dissertations.

<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/misc/history.html>

</comment><comment><USER30> If Yahoo had just put 'Spinout/Sunset' atop that slide naming Del.icio.us, rather than just 'Sunset', a lot of the anguish could have been avoided.

</comment><comment><USER31> <http://blog.delicious.com/>

The blog has since only hosted two single web pages (<http://blog.delicious.com/index.htm> and [http://blog.delicious.com/blog/2010/12/whats-next-for- delici...](http://blog.delicious.com/blog/2010/12/whats-next-for- delicious.html))

I was already not very impressed that they were bought by yahoo years ago, as I thought that yahoo! is not the right place to host (I used <http://del.icio.us>, with the dots, since 2005). I was and am also a pro user of <http://flickr.com> and wonder if my huge collection there would be wiped clean in 2011.

Panic spreading.

Just a side note, I hate the "from yahoo!" part of the logo (on both sites). Well, they should have done that much earlier, and I hope that some companies with big muscles could save them. I really don't want to switch boat.

</comment><comment><USER32> Note that they've pulled down all the other delicious blog posts; the source for this page still has a "previous" link in the source to '[http://blog.delicious.com/blog/2010/12/tags-return-to-the- bo...](http://blog.delicious.com/blog/2010/12/tags-return-to-the- bookmarklet.html), but it's gone, as are the rss and atom feeds, etc.

<comment><USER33> The static page was put up to handle the massive load hitting the blog.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Yahoo has been lacking any major "must have" products in the past what, 10 years?

Here is a list of everything they offer: <http://everything.yahoo.com/>

Delicious was about the only thing that the 'tech' crowd uses. Think about the people you know who might use Yahoo! Mail or Answers. It is the decidedly less-tech people who use these products, mainly as a throwback to the Yahoo! of 2000. Of course, Yahoo!'s goal isn't to cater to tech people, but people who click on ads. I imagine their revenue is declining for even those main- stream products, but for them to cut out the more tech oriented services which actually have a chance in the future to really get 'big', is just delaying their demise a year or 2.

<comment><USER35> _Yahoo has been lacking any major "must have" products in the past what, 10 years?_

That's not quite true. They have a pretty good fantasy hockey pool.

<comment><USER36> Flickr?

<comment><USER35> That would be interesting! But no, <http://hockey.fantasysports.yahoo.com/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Why would they do a press release, _before_ selling it? I dont remember anyone ever putting a "For Sale" board, for a software property of Delicious' scale.

It is just they are covering up for the bad press, IMO.

</comment><comment><USER38> It's up on the dev blog:

[http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/12/whats- nex...](http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/12/whats-next-for- delicious-cross-post/)

</comment><comment><USER39> Just in case: <http://savedelicious.pommepause.com/> (collaborative crawling of Delicious using a Chrome extension)

</comment><comment><USER40> If I were in negotiations with Yahoo to buy one of their properties (and I were more nefarious), I'd have leaked a story like this to reduce the sales price.

</comment><comment><USER41> Anyone know a good alternative to Delicious?

<comment><USER9> <http://www.pinboard.in/></comment></comment>


World's first 3D office photocopier launches - <AUTHOR> http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/world-s-first-3d-office-photocopier-now-available-665768

<comment><USER2> So, $17,000 for

• a turntable,

• a lightbox,

• a mechanical track for a camera

• a DSLR

• software

3D photocopier is a huge stretch, since it doesn't appear to produce 3D models and doesn't "copy" anything. It's a scanner at best.</comment>


Amazon to offer standard free one-day shipping to Prime members - <AUTHOR> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-prime-one-day-shipping-invest-800-million-215915895.html <comment><USER2> Hmm, given that the current 2-day often turns out to be 3 or 4, I am not wildly optimistic about 1-day. But at least Amazon aren't just ratcheting up the Prime dues without actually offering more to customers.

<comment><USER3> > the current 2-day often turns out to be 3 or 4

I haven't had that happen to me at all. Weird.

<comment><USER4> Happens all the time. There are like 10 sub categories of Prime delivery....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So I can get counterfeit goods with fake reviews faster? Meh.</comment>


A Breakthrough in Graph Theory [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnu_Ws7Llo4 <comment><USER2> Humble brag: Stephen Hedetniemi was my first advisor at Clemson, and I took CS101 with him back in 1985. Both faculty and students were in awe of his intellect, kindness, and modesty. What a delight to stumble upon him this morning. Thanks for posting.

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's a nice write-up by Gil Kalai: [https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2019/05/10/sansation-in- the-m...](https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2019/05/10/sansation-in-the-morning- news-yaroslav-shitov-counterexamples-to-hedetniemis-conjecture/)

</comment><comment><USER4> There's an associated Quanta article that goes with the video, along with a previous HN submission for that:

[1] [https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematician-disproves- hedet...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematician-disproves-hedetniemis- graph-theory-conjecture-20190617/)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20203707](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20203707)

</comment><comment><USER5> I love the way in which this lady broke down the complexity of graph theory into something that anybody can understand. I mean, I understood it.

<comment><USER6> > this lady

Erica Klarriech, PhD

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd like to know the best known lower bound on graph sizes that disprove the conjecture. Could there be graphs of just a few dozen nodes that disprove it? Has anyone tried to find a counterexample by brute force search?

<comment><USER8> it's NP-hard to determine the chromatic number of a graph. So I'd wager you wouldn't get far with a brute force approach.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Congratulations to Numberphile on getting to pi million subscribers.

Back in the 1990s explanations like this would be pretty common on BBC 2's Horizon. Though not nearly as detailed, Horizon wasn't scared of tackling complex material in a way that only appealed to niche viewers. That era of television might be over but Numberphile has very much picked up the baton. The filming style of Numberphile, especially with the delivery-to-producer rather than to camera, the natural lighting, hand held filming, and the occasional interjections from behind the camera, always bring great waves of nostalgia for the days of hard BBC science reporting.

</comment><comment><USER10> Help me understand... if dude proved it was false with 4^10000 exponential graph, why hasn't a smaller tensor been tested? If he could derive a solution with a large set, shouldn't it be easy enough to test a half size set and classic sort out where the smallest solution is?

<comment><USER11> IANA graph theorist, but I don't think it works like that. Sounds like his graph G (with ~4^100 nodes, from which the 4^10000 node exponential graph and the counter-exemplary tensor product itself derive) is a bespoke construction. I don't think it's possible in practice to just drop nodes from it and test whether the condition holds for the new tensor product. There are 4^100 ways to remove r = 1 node from an n = 4^100 node graph. Increase r and the number of combinations you'd need to test shoots through the roof. Without some way to shave off (the vast majority of) candidates, the possible solution space seems way too big for brute force search.

Someone with real expertise, please tell me if I'm wrong.

<comment><USER6> That's right. That's a general proof technique: to assemble a structure from a bunch of parts or layers, each of which adds to or multiplies the size of the structure, and possibly the various factors may be known only by upper bounds.

So there is room to improve slightly by brute force or more careful accounting, or a lot by finding an alternate construction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So, a single over-exaggerated counterexample to a conjecture, which doesn't really explain anything about the nature of the class of possible counterexamples? Hardly a breakthrough. Clickbait.

<comment><USER11> No one could prove or disprove the conjecture for 50 years. It was considered a very hard problem by very smart people.

I don't know about you, but _I 've_ never solved any problems that have stumped people for decades.</comment></comment>


Why Are Projects Always Behind Schedule? - <AUTHOR> http://priceonomics.com/why-are-projects-always-behind-schedule/ <comment><USER2> There is actually a nugget of thought in the article beyond the explanations you always hear (and which make up all the comments in this thread as I'm writing this): Even if you base your project schedules on accurate estimates of the median time required for each step, you will still be behind schedule for most projects.

The reason is actually quite simple: when things go well, they can only go so well, but when they go bad, they can go _really_ bad.

Or, in a more quantitative way: while each step of the project will be equally likely to take longer or shorter than median, the steps that take longer can take _much_ longer, while the steps that go faster only have a limited potential for balancing out the delays.

<comment><USER3> According to this reasoning you should set targets based on expected time, not "median" time. You're saying the tail of "completion time" is long, and so the median is a poor estimator for expected time. But if you actually knew the distribution of times for task completion (which is implied if you know the 'median time'), you could simply use the expected value of this distribution and your projects would then tend to complete on time.

I don't think this is the correct explanation. I think it's far more likely that (1) people don't know the true distribution of task times, so estimates are just crap guesses based on hubris, what managers want to hear, etc., and (2) scope creep.

<comment><USER4> Exactly. All this article is really saying is "most of the time, adding together median expected times underestimates the sum of mean expected times". Well then, easy fix: add together the mean expected times off the bat.

<comment><USER5> There's more to it than your easy fix, the article alludes to it but does a poor job of covering it: if you know the distributions of the intermediate steps, but you only sum the means of the steps, then you are throwing away data that could help you calculate a better estimate.

<comment><USER4> Oh of course! More data (sanely applied) is almost always going to result in more accuracy. I just found it very strange that the core assumption of the article -- that the default setting is to add median times of subtasks -- was never questioned. Why was that the chosen method to begin with? Most time estimating tools (Pivotal Tracker, etc.) work with averages, not medians, for precisely this reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a great writeup on a simple bit of math that violates common sense expectations. Consider you need to go on a 100 mile trip and want to average 100 miles per hour. Conditions are bad and for the first 50 miles you only average 50 miles per hour. How fast do you need to go to average 100 mph for the whole trip? Clearly 150 mph, right? Except of course you are too late and would have to go infinitely fast as you need to complete the trip in one hour and have already taken an hour.

From the article: "But while there's a lower bound to how "under" the median a step can be – a step can't take negative time – there's virtually no upper limit to how much over the median time a project can take."

So when one step takes a little longer than expected most people fall into the 150 mph trap and get frustrated when they don't meet the false expectation.

<comment><USER7> Steve McConnell has this example in sin #5 of his 10 deadly sins of estimation...

[http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/central_texas/austin_cs/presentat...](http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/central_texas/austin_cs/presentations/2004.08.26.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Time estimations is an industrial way of thinking applied to a post-industrial world.

In the post industrial world time isn't the problem but rather project definition and scoping.

In the industrial world the problem was already solved (machine was built, market often established and output depended on a few factors that could be adjusted. Need more output add more of X)

In the post industrial world every project is about problem solving and scoping.

To put it into comparison.

If we apply post-industrial reality to an industrial world. It means that each time a product needed to be done, if not the factory, then the machines would have to be developed.

It will take many many years before time estimation will die, but it will happen.

<comment><USER9> That's a good point, but it has two issues you should consider.

First, the industrial world _also_ had significant issues with project definition and understanding. The problems were not already solved, and the process, inputs, outputs and the whole system was constantly changing. Every project was already about problem solving and scoping. So there's a bit of rose-colored glasses toward the past here.

Second, the idea that time estimation is no longer applicable is probably off. There are two separate problems: problem definition, and problem solving, and estimation is extremely useful in the latter. Problem definition is a different problem that still needs much focus, but it doesn't preclude the need for better understanding of time to coordinate other processes and dependencies. You might be saying that those dependencies aren't as important as we think, and I tend to agree, but that's a different argument.

Generally speaking, the idea that knowledge and skills from the industrial era are no longer applicable is untrue. There is a huge body of knowledge about how products are made and built that have 99% applicability to software and technology in the post-industrial world. This is because the problems are the same: management of people, leadership, understanding interactions within complex systems, understanding statistics (the importance of which this article proves profoundly), and improving the spread of knowledge. This is the way that Toyota began operating in the post-WWII era, the way W. Edwards Deming modeled companies, and the way that the current Lean movement guides you to improve almost any business. It's highly relevant.

The main point we should take away, is that time and estimates are not constraints on a system; but rather outputs that are predictable and follow statistical patterns. We can use those outputs to make better decisions, especially if we understand the whole process of production in a systemic way.

Estimation need not die. It's a tool for good in the hands of a systems thinker.

<comment><USER8> It is my experience that there is absolutely not predictability in learning from the past unless you are doing exactly the same. For something like an agency that are hired to come up with something else thats normally not an option.

<comment><USER9> The idea that each project we tackle is unique and a special snowflake is an illusion.

In reality, most of the factors that influence the outcomes are exactly the same. Same team, same knowledge, same approaches, same psychological biases, same methods, same politics, and so much more.

Those are the things that influence timelines most; not the project itself.

<comment><USER8> It's not that it's unique it's that the problems that arise in them are unique.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Simple: time is a resource, it is a cost. When one bids for a project, time is also taken into account when selecting a vendor. So, just as one tries to offer the best price and experience, the same goes for time. One knows that the project will most likely take longer but if that realistic timeframe is put into the proposal, there is risk in losing the contract. It is a safer bet to later ask for reasonable time extensions than not getting the project at all.

<comment><USER11> Yes, I call it the 'conspiracy of optimism'. The bidder wants to win the business and implement the project, the customer-user wants the capability provided by the project, so they conspire against the customer-payer.

Realistic proposals fail. An under-resourced under-priced and short-scheduled proposal is functionally approved by the customer-user, then signed-off as the cheapest/shortest option by the customer-payer.

The real negotiation is in the T&Cs for change management, scope creep, responsibilities for delays and the structure of payment according to milestones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The fact that planning estimates represent a probability distribution is well known and there is an established process (PERT)[1] for estimating the expected time of a set of estimates - essentially instead of asking for a single 'most likely' estimate you should as well explicitly walk through some of the risks around this and the ask for an 'optimistic' estimate (which is frequently very similar to the initial estimate) and a 'pessimistic' estimate (which is frequently much larger) - given:

      m = 'most likely' time
      o = 'optimistic' time
      p = 'pessimistic' time

You can then estimate the expected time 'e' by modelling a triangular distribution based on these and sum the estimates on the critical path.

      e = ∑(oi + 4mi + pi)/6

This is actually a very useful technique but sadly is done very infrequently (probably because it usually comes up with an number that people don't want to hear - but is usually much more realistic).

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

The program (or project) evaluation and review technique, commonly abbreviated PERT, is a statistical tool, used in project management, which was designed to analyze and represent the tasks involved in completing a given project. First developed by the United States Navy in the 1950s, it is commonly used in conjunction with the critical path method (CPM).

<comment><USER13> The typical PERT three point distribution is better than assuming the mean, but does have a few drawbacks when modeling joint probable outcomes. I honestly can't remember if it over our under represents the optimistic or pessimistic result.

The other quirk is that it breaks down when you map from effort or work to duration, the actual time something takes when you factor in availability, interruptions, communication costs, etc.

<comment><USER12> I think that the real value is in forcing people to think about optimistic vs worst case estimates - in my experience the initial estimate is almost always actually the optimistic number and when they start to think about risks people tend to become much more conservative.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There are unknown unknown in projects, people won't pay you for a full analysis and there is always the option that one library you rely on has a nasty bug you cannot foresee.

One doesn't have to go very far and look for psychological issues when a major source of indeterminism comes from directly the imperfect tooling itself we use.

Sometimes software is compared to construction, except you don't get to start with a perfectly detailed environment to build your software on. Until we have this major source of indeterminism in the tools themselves, pretending to fix issues on the estimation process alone is a fool errand.

I believe a as-400 project can be estimated fairly well now based on previous experiences. But how would you go estimating a project relying on, say, local browser storage? The only way is to go and build it and identify all the pitfalls yourself, and then the browser landscape changes and you get set back all over again.

Just following Safari rules on IOS to obtain a full screen mode sets us back a week on almost every releases. We started before they started messing with stuff, now we include a week of fixes in the schedule for every major IOS update, but we had no chance to predict this when the project started.

<comment><USER15> Building construction is actually a good analogy.

For stuff that's been built a thousand times, you can state with a fair amount of confidence how long a project should take and how much it should cost. You can obtain financing and insurance because the dataset is large enough.

For stuff that's unusual or bespoke -- the kind of thing that will appear in an architecture magazine or in a newspaper investigatory report -- then estimates are very likely to be wildly optimistic.

So it's the same, insofar as the further you stray into research, the less certainty there is. The bigger the bet, the fewer such things have been built, the bigger the risk will be that things go awry.

I have a book in my collection -- _Industrial Megaprojects_ \-- which makes fascinating reading for enumerating all the ways that chemical process plants, giant mines, gas pipelines, gigantic factories etc can blast through the budgets and schedules.

My personal favourite: a chemical plant built relying on an adjacent river for cooling. To save costs, only one water temperature sample was taken during planning ... in winter. Three billion dollars later, the owners found that the plant was inoperable for about half the year because the river water was too warm.

<comment><USER16> I worked building a bank once where a detail cost us a bunch of heartburn estimating and building. Having the architect stop by, look at it, and say "I had no idea if you guys could build that" was infuriating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is such.an elegant way of explaining the problem:

For every step in a project, there's about a 50% chance of completion under or on the median step completion time. And there's about a 50% chance of not. If a project is composed of 2 steps, the probability that both steps are at or under their median times is 50% * 50%, or 25%. For a 3 step project, it's 50% * 50% * 50%, or 12.5% and so on. If a project has 6 steps, the chances of some of those steps going over its median is greater than 98%.

<comment><USER18> But some of those steps will go under the median as well. The problem is the distribution is not normal -- if the range of possible outcomes below the median n is [0,n], the range of possible outcomes above the median is far wider than [n,2n]. Going by the chart the article offered, I suspect a sort of mixture distribution: the better understood tasks have normal distributions, and the poorly understood ones have bullshit estimate distributions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> When I was doing more project work I outright refused to give estimates, explaining that I could come up with a random figure that's so low they won't believe it or so high they won't like it, and in any case the figure would have nothing to do with when the project would be complete.

Instead I offered broad time ranges that would narrow down to more accurate ones as work progressed. The managers who had to report those upwards didn't always like that first but they grew to appreciate how the dynamic worked across the project timeline. In the beginning, they didn't know how long because nobody knew how long. Well, maybe definitely more than a month and definitely no longer than a year, and "it all depends". But every week we knew more and they knew more, and the time margins could be shrunk incrementally as soon as difficult tasks turned out to be not so difficult. So the more progress the better everyone knew how we were doing.

That is one gratifying slide to completion but I do admit it probably doesn't work for every team or company.

<comment><USER20> "instead I offered broad time ranges that would narrow down to more accurate ones as work progressed"

Well, that is an estimate according to managers who actually understand what they're doing ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> There's also feature creep, which is a pretty big problem in a lot of less organised companies and organisations. The original design may well be a six page website with mostly static content, but the final version could just as easily be a web app with a built in help/support/ticket/chat system, member accounts and live updating from a third party API. One two week estimate easily becomes a six months one.

Or it's delayed because of more and more edge cases being found and someone not wanting to be consistent about them. If the first, third, ninth, sixty second and hundredth items in a loop have to all act differently for seemingly random reasons, that adds a lot of time to the development.

It unfortunately doesn't matter how good your estimate is if the company/client tosses out the orignal spec at the first possible opportunity.

But for well managed projects, yeah, it's a good writeup.

</comment><comment><USER22> Here's the other piece: Estimations happen prior to negotiations. This is why you see so much "buffering." A much better approach is to figure out your budget / schedule first and then work on what scope can fit within that pre- alloted budget / time frame.

</comment><comment><USER23> Hey, thanks for the twitter:description that showed up when I shared this in slack. Not nice, especially given that nothing in the piece is about the intelligence of bosses. Someone needs to grow up.

<meta name="twitter:description" content="Possibly because your boss is an idiot.">

</comment><comment><USER24> Another common source is delay and procrastination up front.

First, a dev estimate is given of six months.

Plan is made to ship in six months.

Then, stakeholders bicker for four months on whether, how, and when to actually do it.

Then, dev gets started, being told that they already spent four months, so they should be done in two, according to the "initial estimate."

Was it "debugging the development process" that called this out? Or "code complete" perhaps?

</comment><comment><USER25> I shared this with my bosses on slack and the subtitle for the link on slack is 'Possibly because your boss is an idiot'. FML!

<comment><USER26> Well, at least now they know where they stand with you

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The article is really cool even though it is a little bit simplistic in my view (and experience). I've also made this comment on the article by the way. The first problem is that rarely steps are independent from each other. I haven't seen hard data on this (and if they have hard data, they should look at it) but my guess is that if one step fell behind schedule, there's an higher probability for the next step to fall behind schedule. That's because the reason a step is behind schedule is not purely random but depends on the internal element of the project (it is harder than usual, using new tech, a person is overloaded and always late...) and all this problem will not magically disappear in the next steps. The second issue is that project are not so simple as a sequence of task. They usually have tasks in parallel,with different dependencies and sync point. Accounting for time variations on each step quickly become a total mess.

</comment><comment><USER15> Where I work we don't estimate in time, we estimate in points. Points are intended to represent engineering's view of the relatively complexity and uncertainty of a given story.

Pivotal Tracker then looks at story delivery over the past 3 weeks and gives a simple average: velocity. You can then look forward to see approximately when future stories will be completed. You can also see a volatility measurement, which characterises how much velocity is fluctuating.

Our horizon is deliberately short, because we move very quickly.

Nevertheless, it has a simple advantage: it is based on the true and most recent data of the exact project you are estimating.

Other estimation techniques are useful in other situations, but simply being able to say "those are the _actual numbers_ for _this_ project _this month_ " is enormously powerful. There's no fudging. The numbers are right there in black and white.

It usually takes a little while for people new to this approach to accept that velocity is not a target; it's a measurement only. It's a unitless measurement that is only meaningful within a single project, operating at a floating exchange rate with calendar days.

One last thing that helps, as others have pointed out. Break down your estimation tasks into smaller units. Never accept the small headline that hides a big feature. Continuously look for seams to break big stories into small stories. When the pointing begins, summarise aloud with fellow engineers a rough idea of what will need to be done.

Psychologists call this the "unpacking effect", and I suspect that it's responsible for most of the estimation-increasing power discovered in more fully-dressed estimation techniques like PERT, parametric estimation tools or even good old fashioned checklists.

(I was working on an estimation tool for a while, so this subject is dear to my heart).

</comment><comment><USER28> My son keeps telling me about some study that found that optimists fall further behind than pessimists, but it wasn't what they expected. They expected (as a made up example) that if it required 30 days, pessimists would estimate 40 and perhaps come in on time and optimists would estimate 20 and not make it. Reality was more like it would require 40 days and pessimists would estimate 30 and optimists would estimate 20. They both got it wrong, optimists just got it more wrong.

Another issue: It is really common for people to "take some well deserved time off!" when they finish some piece of the project earlier than anticipated, thus flushing away time that could have helped out on parts that will take longer than expected.

Cuz: Humans.

</comment><comment><USER29> Evolution. In the distant past, some humans were able to accurately estimate schedules. Since they knew the true difficulty of any task, they didn't bother.

So only the cockeyed optimists reproduced. That's why we can't estimate schedules today.

</comment><comment><USER30> The time it will take to complete a project is fixed but unknowable. The only thing you can control is the scope and the cost for each unit of work. Therefore the only strategy is to do the least amount of work you can possibly do for the least possible cost. If someone requires you to fix your costs you have to charge them a lot more money. Best to tell them that whatever happens, nothing could have been done to improve it and make sure they're willing to compromise heavily to get it live.

</comment><comment><USER31> Hofstadter's law + Parkinson's Law + Murphy's Law = Delay

<comment><USER32> Hofstadter's Law is my favorite law of all time:

"It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law."

— Douglas Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid

<comment><USER33> This always bugged me cause it means every project estimate should be infinite in length.

<comment><USER34> Zeno's Paradox. The solution is that a series can converge.

<comment><USER35> But then you'd expect it to converge, and that would break the law.

Cost estimation is an NP problem. Perhaps it will become practical when we can use a quantum supercomputer to estimate the time needed to build a single page web app.

<comment><USER36> No, because you'll just ask it to build it in constant time. Software costs more to measure than to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> One reason is perhaps to do with what really happens when someone is trying to win a project. Given that winning involves beating others in the fray, all including the winner would end up making commitments which are higher than the capabilities and competencies available with them at that point in time. This initial gap creates risk right at the beginning and if it is not mitigated in time, would amplify to bigger proportions. This mismatch eventually results in projects running behind schedule which in turn becomes a self-feeding vicious cycle with short-cuts being taken to cover up. That then leads to a compounding effect on schedule slippage.

</comment><comment><USER38> Because prototyping requires you to build and then get feedback, because almost no company knows how to actually plan a project in isolation rather than have to go through multiple iterations. Then rework (where you're redoing things based on user feedback and changing requirements) causes forward progress to not be the sustained motion that management always expects. That's why.

</comment><comment><USER39> Projects end late whenever they are started late.

If a project is a month past its deadline, that means it should have begun a month sooner (in order to meet the deadline).

It's surprising how little attention is paid to this fact in the professional world. So many teams and managers focus on the end date, and ignore the start date. In truth, the start and end dates are _precisely_ equal in importance.

</comment><comment><USER13> If you want a tool that goes beyond assuming the mean, take a look at LiquidPlanner. It can model complex plans, and is based on ranged estimates that let you capture uncertainty in ways that most other told can't.

Full disclaimer, I wrote a large chunk of the scheduling engine, so if you're curious about it, just shout.

Heads up though, my son was just born, so it might take me a while to respond ;)

</comment><comment><USER40> The main problem with the typical estimate is that it is a scalar number. 2 hours or five days or three months. That's fine if you are looking for a target to aim for. But if you want to actually know when something will be done and how much it will cost, a probability distribution with a confidence interval is the only reasonable way to model that.

</comment><comment><USER41> Because nothing is perfect, not the project, not part of the project. Each time you make any tiny piece a little bit better, you spend a little bit more time, you slide behind.

When you accept this fact, sometimes projects get done on schedule

</comment><comment><USER42> First time I see a credible take on this subject ! Great writeup.

</comment><comment><USER43> Cheap, fast, good. You can only have two.

<comment><USER34> In practice, you can't even have two. That's because the cheap-fast-good rule assumes that you're already close to an optimum, whereas in practice, things are expensive, slow, and bad, for reasons that are unrelated to one another. As a result, a team will lower the requirements, or agree to spend more money, and discover that the project still takes just as long. I've seen this happen over and over.

<comment><USER44> In the words of DevOps_Borat: _Software project 1) On time 2) On budget 3) With quality. You can not able pick any._

\- [https://twitter.com/devops_borat/status/289782091250532352?l...](https://twitter.com/devops_borat/status/289782091250532352?lang=en)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Requirements != Expectations

</comment><comment><USER46> Asymmetry. No project can finish in negative time.

</comment><comment><USER47> Hofstadter's Law rears its head once again.

</comment><comment><USER48> Because humans suck in predicting the future.

<comment><USER49> This is actually a good answer. If we knew how long it would take to finish this project, we would also know how long it would take a given horse to finish a race, or when a stock would hit a certain price point on the market. We wouldn't need to be working on the project because we'd be inordinately wealthy.

All this talk of medians and means assumes that you've done the same thing many times before (otherwise you wouldn't have those statistics). In software, if you've done it before, then it's already done so the estimate is zero.

Projects always involve doing new things, new requirements, using new technology, techniques, or tools; targeting a new system, and/or using new processes and people. New requirements, constraints, market situations, priorities, and discoveries rise up during the project. Sometimes all of the above. Past performance is not a predictor of future results.

It's more realistic to flip it around. Prioritize the most-important requirements and set an initial deadline. Then you'll get something (the most important stuff, or at least some progress towards it) by the deadline and can decide whether to add the less important stuff afterward.

When doing that, quality and other intangibles need no longer be overlooked but become part of the prioritization. Do you want high quality, or more stuff by the deadline? Do you want the team functioning well for the long haul or is it worth burning them out to rush this, then having downtime afterward?

To get more control, shorten the deadlines to the minimal point where you're still getting deployable chunks of acceptable quality. That acknowledges the inherent uncertainty and gives better control and visibility than just making up a random number (or 3).

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Because people estimate based on ideal time.

</comment><comment><USER51> Because when you are in a business that follows a process you are in a business that can hide behind that process and no one has to accept responsibility.

<comment><USER52> ??

Are you saying businesses shouldn't have processes?</comment></comment>


"Just Like at Madrid, Comrades" - <AUTHOR> https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/just-madrid-comrades <comment><USER2> One should not infinitely demonize one side and picture the other as innocent/fighter of freedom when there was such a prolonged conflict and both sides committed selective mass murders against civilians (you can however argue that a side was even more evil than the other, but that's not the topic of today).

When a side is superior to the other the conflict is solved in a few weeks/months at most. The national side didn't do the war alone, and the war almost stagnated during long periods of time because at times there was no easy conclusion on the horizon and no side wanted to give up.

Everything else is propaganda and ideology I believe, prove me wrong otherwise.

<comment><USER3> In a turbulent time in the politics of country X, an important part of the army of that country rebels against the elected government, wins a terrible civil war, and proceed to establish a 40 years catholic-fascist dictatorship.

I tried to take away all the propaganda and ideology.

Everyone can judge now by itself if what happened in country X was evil.

<comment><USER2> You just omitted everything, for example that the republic had 8 different Coup d'etat and that it often needed to use the army to repress their own civilians, restrict rights in many regions and became ungovernable during most of its time. Neither the Republic was a free democratically elected nor the dictatorship was fascist during its whole time in the power. And still the fascist dictatorship was still terrible with no doubt, but missing the key facts misses the point of history which should be to honor the truth to avoid repeating those mistakes again.

You are still judging it in the frame of the modern world. Do not romanticize the past by judging only parts of the story projecting modern ideas on them.

Saludos Roberto.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> In case anyone else is like me in wondering why the name of Bir-Hakeim is so familiar - there is a Paris Metro stop named for the battle. South bank, just west of the Eiffel tower.

</comment><comment><USER5> Orwell's account in "Homage to Catalonia" is moving and chilling. You get a sense of his deep sympathy for the fragile, classless society emerging in the early days of the civil war, but as the narrative progresses, you see how doomed it all is: an abortive bid for freedom pinched between Franco and Stalin. If nothing else, read it for the way Orwell spins being shot in the neck into dry comedy gold.

I had the privilege of devouring it over a week in Barcelona. If you are ever there when the world opens up again, there is an absolutely vivid walking tour of the city that covers all the main points, which I can't recommend highly enough.

[http://iberianature.com/barcelona/history-of- barcelona/spani...](http://iberianature.com/barcelona/history-of- barcelona/spanish-civil-war-tour-in-barcelona/)

<comment><USER6> His description of trench warfare is powerful and horrifying. He had my heart racing when describing going over the top and chasing someone down a trench with a bayonet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Reading Churchill's Memoirs right now, and there is a line in it where Rommel is telling a captured British officer how in this battle the brits made it so easy for him by spreading out their forces so he could defeat them in detail piece by piece.

</comment><comment><USER8> Franco won the war.

</comment><comment><USER9> 403'd.

</comment><comment><USER10> No idea what this is doing on HN.

In addition to being off-topic, it's heavily biased, highlighting the (reprehensible) civilian casualties caused by the Nationalists, while remaining silent on the similar number of (also reprehensible) civilian deaths caused by the Republicans.

It also describes the Nationalists as Fascists (which is true), while describing the anarchist and communist backed Republicans as "left-leaning" (which is biased understatement).

<comment><USER11> > No idea what this is doing on HN.

Most likely because people found it interesting. Not everyone finds the same things interesting.

> which is biased understatement

Funny thing regarding biases in political leaning is that it's all based around context. The US, being very right-leaning, would describe one person as left-leaning while in many European countries that same person would be center or even slightly right. So it all depends. It's useful to outline where you're coming from before laying out your perspective, as it's also biased (just like mine).

<comment><USER12> > Funny thing regarding biases in political leaning is that it's all based > around context

Or it just highlights the complete uselessness of the right-left dichotomy.

<comment> aaron-lebo They use right-left in political science departments, so I'm not sure it's "useless". It just requires context. We don't look at US and EU politics on the same scale, or at the very least, EU politics are just further to the left on the universal scale.

But you know that...

<comment><USER12> > EU politics are just further to the left on the universal scale.

But I don't think this is actually true or a useful statement. Many aspects of American politics are more left-wing than their European counterparts; anarchism or libertarianism, for example, roughly defined as antipathy toward the state, is often considered left-wing and is far more prevalent in the US. Left-wing politics in contemporary Europe seems to almost always include a strong state role.

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

As I said, I don't think any sort of universal right-left dichotomy is useful. It also doesn't factor in non-traditional political thinkers, like say, Nietzsche, who could not be accurately described as right, left, or anywhere in between.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


I Was the Most Wanted Man in China - <AUTHOR> http://lithub.com/i-was-the-most-wanted-man-in-china/ <comment><USER2> Seems to be down.

Archive.is: [https://archive.is/sgTgG](https://archive.is/sgTgG)

Google cache: [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:t4otc2...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:t4otc2MhWe4J:lithub.com/i-was- the-most-wanted-man-in-china/)

<comment><USER3> Up for me. Chromium 47, in Seattle. wget pulls the article in ~300ms.

<comment><USER4> I get " ERROR 503: Service Unavailable: Back-end server is at capacity." as of Tue Feb 16 23:07:18 UTC 2016

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> FANG Lizhi passed away in 2012, I don't understand why they put "February 11, 2016 By Fang Lizhi" at the author field, very misleading.

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

<comment><USER6> Because the work was written by Fang Lizhi, and was just posted a few days ago. Books are still referred to by their publish date even if they're published posthumously. Why should web articles not be attributed the same way?

<comment> r-w But this isn't a published work; rather, it's an excerpt from a previously published work.

<comment><USER7> The book was published (in English, at least) just this month, according to most sources I could find.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Excellently written article. Rather amusing too. But I'm left feeling that I don't actually know how this resolved.

(edit: remove dumb question)

<comment><USER9> Yah, I had to read elsewhere to figure out what happened. It's basically an account of what his actions were that led to his exile. A lot of the After has been written about elsewhere, except the parts related to the central government's behind the scenes actions.

After that evening, the hubbub died down. In the coming months, he talked politics with some students, some of whom eventually became leaders of the Tienanmen Square protests. He was never a planner, never a protester, nada. However, when he saw that the Chinese Government started cracking down hard, he realized he was going to be scapegoated for his essays a few months prior, and went into the US embassy. He had been declared the most wanted person even though he had little to do with the actual protests.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Random question unrelated to article content: is it just me or does Lithub seem to be everywhere (on HN) as of very recently?

<comment><USER11> I noticed the same thing with gwern posts. I assume what happens is HNers see a random article on the front page, like it, and start browsing the sites archives for other interesting articles. Then they submit them to HN and the process repeats itself.

<comment><USER8> Gwern was for a while submitting one article to HN every week and most of them seemed to make the front page. Maybe that's what you're recalling? It was some time ago, though.

<comment><USER11> Even then, his articles from the distant past would show up on HN, which I attribute to the phenomena mentioned in my original post.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I am a Chinese. Obviously I don't think Dr Fang is an enemy.

<comment><USER13> Obviously he is not an enemy of the Chinese people, but the enemy of the Party.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Dr. Fang was revered by some for his achievements, but no doubt his departure to an "enemy" country at the time would absolutely make him a public enemy...

<comment><USER15> He is a great scientist. I think he is a bit naive in politics. Maybe going to US was what he wanted and was good for him. Nobody knows.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm getting a white screen of death ... perhaps they really want to be like Github, downtime and all ;)

Edit: 503 Service Unavailable: Back-end server is at capacity ... ouch!</comment>


Acid reflux drug linked to more than doubled risk of stomach cancer - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/oct/31/acid-reflux-drug-linked-to-more-than-doubled-risk-of-stomach-cancer-study?CMP=fb_gu <comment><USER2> >>Responding to the study, Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: "Many observational studies have found adverse effects associated with PPIs.

>>"The most plausible explanation for the totality of evidence on this is that those who are given PPIs, and especially those who continue on them long-term, tend to be sicker in a variety of ways than those for whom they are not prescribed."

Why is this not at the beginning of the article?

I suppose, the silver lining is that the headlines are no longer "X causes cancer", but "X linked to cancer".

</comment><comment><USER3> Nothing gives you a morning dose of fear like reading this about a drug you've been on for 6 years. Guess I'll start looking into alternatives and ways to screen for stomach cancer.

<comment><USER4> Paradoxically, I cured my reflux with betaine HCL (with pepsin) and digestive enzymes.

I found that when I eat meat and/or when I'm stressed, my body doesn't naturally produce enough "good" acid. This leads to a build up of reflux because the meat is essentially rotting in my stomach, which creates awful "bad acid" reflux.

Instead of the drug(s), with every meal, I recommend taking one capsule of betaine HCL (with pepsin) and one digestive enzyme capsule.

<comment><USER5> > my body doesn't naturally produce enough "good" acid

Exactly. The amount of people completely, and utterly, misinformed about acid reflux is astounding. You don't have too much acid, you don't have enough!

Ditching the dairy and drastically cutting back on animal flesh will cure most heartburn/acid reflux.

<comment><USER6> For me it was increasing meat and fat and cutting carbs. Doing that has all but eliminated my reflux until I change my diet for a moderate amount of time.

<comment><USER7> For me, it's cutting out (or at least, reducing) Pizza... my favorite part of the food pyramid

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> People don't realize PPIs are a short term solution. PPIs are terrible long term. That being said, I'd be long dead without them. They are truly a life saver until you find out the root cause. Many trips to the ER and years later, I found out avoiding gluten and taking probiotics cured mine.

<comment> le-mark Indeed, I was on PPIs for years. Before them, I used to wake up choking on bile, I was eating tums like candy. Then I changed my diet and starting taking baking soda in water of all things. When travelling I'll go back on PPIs for the trip, and notice a distinct feeling of unwellness. But I simply don't want to deal with questions of the form; 'what's this white powder in your luggage?' so I deal with it.

<comment><USER9> I've had to make my peace with just having to hit a store on the other side of the trip. Fortunately, baking soda is cheap enough that you don't have to mind throwing it away.

You could also conceivably make your own pills, which at least in my experience nobody will question: [https://www.amazon.com/Cap-M-Quik-Tamper- Capsule-Filling-Mac...](https://www.amazon.com/Cap-M-Quik-Tamper-Capsule- Filling- Machine/dp/B000UYA272/ref=sr_1_1_a_it?ie=UTF8&qid=1509550476&sr=8-1&keywords=cap- m-quick&dpID=41NMjuYYhvL&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch) (I don't make my own pills, but I've carried around a variety of pills that look like they were made that way.) But for baking soda that's probably a little elaborate, plus I don't know what happens if you take baking soda that way rather than in water.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hacker News continues to amaze. There's always a worrying high ratio of comments in health and diet threads from people making drastic and impulsive decisions without medical advice, usually off the back of incomplete conclusions or anecdote.

Newspaper coverage certainly needs to contain more scrutiny of the quality of scientific papers (and their review), but this paper explicitly concludes that there are other factors at work.

Don't stop taking your meds. If you have reflux issues and you're concerned about this, take the paper to your specialist and get their informed opinion.

<comment><USER11> Notably, this isn't the first study to raise an uncertain, correlation risk about PPIs. A specialist, or in many cases even a GP, should be aware of the topic and able to answer questions.

I'm also a bit disturbed to see people framing this as "comfort versus cancer" \- seeing as untreated acid reflux can be a cause of esophageal cancer, "I'll just quit without asking a doctor" is far from a sound course of action.

<comment><USER12> I wish there was more info out there on the risks for reflux -> Barret's -> cancer. I could barely find anything when I last looked, except that frequent reflux sufferers are advised to get an endoscopy once every few years. (So I guess Barret's develops pretty slowly?) Also, the fact that smoking is correlated with both reflux and cancer significantly confounds the issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Why almost no journalist ever links to the actual research papers, or, at least, properly name the authors and the paper title? Is it that hard to put a DOI in a small font somewhere? (Or am I just blind?)

<comment><USER14> Yeah, I had to try to find it myself as well. I believe this is the one:

[http://gut.bmj.com/content/early/2017/09/18/gutjnl-2017-3146...](http://gut.bmj.com/content/early/2017/09/18/gutjnl-2017-314605)

<comment><USER15> Thanks, I came to the HN comments to see if someone posted the link to the study.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Damn! And if you don't treat your acid reflux, it can cause "esophageal cancer".

<comment><USER17> Maybe growing numbers of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations are the natural result our current 'late stage' medicine.

An analogy that came to mind: an enormous, largely opaque codebase that works very well. Most of its behaviours given most inputs are well understood, most of the time, and endless optimizations have caused it to reach a pretty good level of stability.

But maybe, going forward, more and more small optimizations and bug fixes cause as many problems as they fix.

Clearly we need to re-factor ourselves. (:

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> It worries me when I read an article like this, then see people in the comments suggesting that they're stopping their PPI prescription. Which ironically might increase their chance of cancer, depending on the indication.

Even at the end of the article the authors conclude:

> "The most plausible explanation for the totality of evidence on this is that > those who are given PPIs, and especially those who continue on them long- > term, tend to be sicker in a variety of ways than those for whom they are > not prescribed."

That's because this is an _observational_ study. That means there is probably another confounding factor that is perpetuating the use of a PPI in some people, but not in others. Sometimes these confounding factors are controllable - as long as you know what they are - but usually they are not. For example, those who were taking omprezole may have peptic ulcer disease - which would put you at risk of gastric cancer, and for which the PPI is used to reduce the acidity of the stomach, and reduce the risk of ulcers and inflammation (which can be a precursor or risk factor for cancer). Similar story for gastro oesophageal reflux disease, where the risk is to the oesophagus.

If you want to answer the question 'Does taking a PPI increase my risk of gastric cancer?' you need another type of study. That is a randomised controlled trial, where you randomise people to either the PPI tablet, or a placebo, then measure what happens. This allows you to infer causality, and the randomisation prevents confounding factors.

Thankfully this has been done[1]. It's only one paper from a low-impact journal, but none-the-less a meta-analysis of several RCTs setting out to answer a specific question holds more weight than an observational study.

Also, I'm not a gastroenterologist, so if there is one out there who understands the field better, please chime in. Specifically, if you have a clear medical reason to be taking a PPI (i.e. reflux with oesophageal histology changes), are there RCTs comparing PPI use versus not? I've done a quick google and this [2] study seems relevant - they suggest that if you have mild disease you can just take the PPI when you have symptoms, but not for severe disease. However, they didn't assess cancer risk.

[1] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23906249](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23906249)

[2] [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007....](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03381.x/full)

</comment><comment> d--b Not to mention cognitive impairment: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4696341/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4696341/)

<comment><USER19> Jesus.... why isn't that being talked about more.

I got off acid reflux drugs because of the cancer risk by taking a probiotic, which took about a month to have the same effect.

Next week, we will find out the probiotics cause cancer and mental impairment.

<comment> d--b and aspirin is apparently good to prevent those. Yet, it'll tear a hole in your stomach... sigh...

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/10/30/aspirin-day- ke...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/10/30/aspirin-day-keeps-many- cancers-away-study-suggests/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> >Daily use of PPIs was associated with a risk of developing the illness that was more than four times higher (4.55) than those who used it weekly.

(IANAD) from what i read on the pill boxes, PPI are supposed to be used max 2 weeks in 4 month period. If you look at the micrograph photo at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton- pump_inhibitor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-pump_inhibitor) showing cell hyperplasia (possible precursor to cancer) resulting from PPI use you'd get the idea. (note: myself use PPI 2 weeks in 4 months (and they do have noticeable lasting effect for long after the 2 weeks course due to nature of their action), and the rest of the time H2 blockers. I limit the PPI exactly because scared by that hyperplasia photo (and now that i read the other comment about cognitive impairment i'm scared even more :). Again - all that is "self-prescribed"/"internet researched", IANAD.

</comment><comment><USER21> Just to cast the exact same finding in a different way, this appears to raise the incidence rate of stomach cancer from 0.8% to 1.6%.

<comment><USER22> So where do these numbers come from? Who was in the study and where was it done?

<comment><USER21> my numbers are overall cofirmed incidence rates. CDC has them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> As someone who as been taking these for 3+ years and is utterly scared of these news I would just like to add a few data points regarding my experience that might help others:

\- an endoscopy revealed level 1 oseophagitis

\- triggers for me include: coffee, tea or any other source of caffeine, fried and high fat foods, alcohol, acidic fruits, high protein foods.

\- an experiment with betaine HCL + pepsin was very painful. After that I learned that pepsin is as bad or worse to your oesophagus than stomach acid.

\- cider vinegar: same result as betaine HCL + pepsin.

\- digestive enzymes: no change.

\- pro-biotics, including kefir: no change.

\- cutting gluten, dairy and sugar: no change.

\- ranitidine: works but effectiveness drops rapidly.

\- on-going experiments: liquorice and low-fodmap diet, no conclusions yet.

<comment><USER24> went through almost all of your points actually. though my symptoms were "gastro-attacks" of frightening intensity where i'd end up in hospital. ended up having gallbladder removed after test showed it very-low functioning and had complete recovery. took PPI's still intermittently, but tapered off after a couple years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> 50 million prescriptions "per year" in the UK? There are only 65 million people in the UK. How do they count this? Is every PersonMonth counted as a prescription? What if you get your refills quarterly instead of monthly?

</comment><comment><USER26> PPIs are also linked to 50% higher death rate:

[https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/popular-heartburn-drugs- link...](https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/popular-heartburn-drugs-linked- higher-death-risk/)

</comment><comment><USER27> Ironic. A friend of mine was prescribed PPI to help prevent esophageal cancer.

<comment><USER28> Constant reflux does tend to cause esophageal cancer as well as other issues related to breathing and swallowing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I mostly suppress my reflux through a twice daily regimen of cider vinegar (diluted* ), more walking, eating more conscientiously, and forcing myself to sleep on my left side.

These are all very minor changes, and the biggest impact came from sleeping on my side.

My gastroenterologist was very against the daily PPI my primary put me on. There are a lot of potential negatives there.

* Straight up cider vinegar is very acidic and can irritate or damage the throat and mouth. I drink 1/2 tbsp in a glass of water.

<comment><USER29> I was on PPIs for reflux for about 6 years before realizing how damaging they could be. Getting off them was really difficult but your suggestions here, in addition to some ginger supplements, helped me to ween off them. Getting off them was a terrible experience, but I'm much better off because of it. I rarely experience reflux anymore.

<comment><USER30> For a couple of years, the only thing that worked for me was mega-huge doses of PPI's. After several pH studies, endoscopies, and other tests confirmed that I don't have abnormal reflux, food allergies, gluten sensitivity, or anything else, my doctor(s) and I found after years of trial-and-error that a combination of H2 blockers and a low-dose of antidepressants mostly controls my symptoms, which are probably caused by an overly-sensitive gastric nervous system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> In the article it says up to 8 fold increase in stomach cancer for 3+ years, that is insanely significant and for those taking it for 1+ years it's 4-fold.

I was prescribed this for long term use because mine is especially bad but I was too lazy to follow through and felt embarrassed asking for it again so I just eliminated some trigger foods and followed doctors advice on posture and letting food digests for an hour before lying down. It made a huge difference

</comment><comment><USER32> After having every member of my family get cancer except me I have extensively studied and found proven ways to prevent cancer based on long term studies. I also serve as a patient advocate helping people battle their cancers. In addition I have had gastrointestinal and digestive issues in the past and after lots of doctors, tests, treatments, etc. here are the things that I have found to have worked:

Cancer Prevention (All Types Including Gastric/Stomach Cancer): 1) Don't smoke 2) Eat a plant based (vegan) diet consisting of mostly fresh raw vegetables (raw foods contain natural digestive enzymes which help digest food better as well as being packed with cancer fighting nutrients) 3) Eliminate processed, fried, additive-laden foods 4) Avoid exposure to chemicals, toxins and other environmental contaminants that are known carcinogens. 5) Get plenty of sleep every night to strengthen the immune system. 6) Get a minimum of 150 minutes of cardiovascular exercise each week (more is even more effective) 7) Minimize daily stress to the greatest extent possible (stress wreaks havoc on the body and seriously damages immune function). 8) Drink plenty of water every day.

To Improve Digestive Health/Minimize Acid Reflux & Other GI Health Problems: 1) Eat more raw vegetables which have naturally occurring digestive enzymes (cooking destroys most of these). 2) Eat slowly and chew your food thoroughly. Digestion starts in the mouth with saliva. 3) Don't drink water or other fluids during and for at least 3-4 hours after meals which will dilute stomach acid & negatively impact digestion and break down of food. 4) Eat raw fermented foods with naturally occurring prebiotics & probiotics such as kombucha tea, raw apple cider vinegar (1 tablespoon on food at each meal 3X per day), etc. Studies have shown that pre/probiotic supplements are not effective, only natural foods work. 5) Try and eat smaller, more frequent meals. Large meals are harder to digest & make it hard for the stomach to fully clear food that is eaten which can increase acid reflux/GERD. 6) Avoid bad oils and fats and stick to good fats virgin coconut oil, olive oil, nuts, seeds, avocados, etc. [http://drcate.com/list-of-good-fats-and-oils-versus- bad/](http://drcate.com/list-of-good-fats-and-oils-versus-bad/) 7) Eat more high fiber foods.

These are some suggestions based on many years of research and what I have found to work the best. I'm happy to answer any questions.

</comment><comment><USER33> I have been using on Prilosec and Nexium since 2000. If I miss taking the medication I get severe stomach pains by late evening. In the last endoscopy the doctor noticed several polyps in my stomach. He said polyps are normal for someone who has been using Prilosec and Nexium for so long. Is stomach polyps a precursor to cancer?

</comment><comment><USER34> > "The most plausible explanation for the totality of evidence on this is that > those who are given PPIs, and especially those who continue on them long- > term, tend to be sicker in a variety of ways than those for whom they are > not prescribed."

<comment><USER35> After being on Prilosec for 2 years, I had an endoscopy and the pictures of the inside of my stomach were odd. Little bumps over the entire inside. I asked the doc and he said "we don't think those are a problem". Right. I got off it immediately.

<comment><USER11> He had a point, though: PPIs are known with very high certainty to cause benign polyps from the fundic glands. Even if they do cause cancer, it's not by that means.

Whether or not they're a good drug to be taking long-term, I think the doctor's response was sound.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> trey-jones The same PPIs were linked to dementia in a study a few years ago, and I began to transition off at that time. I eat a lot of Tums and generally just try to be more mindful of what I eat. I'm also considering surgery at some point.

<comment><USER36> I switched from protonix (a PPI) after 6 years of constant use to Pepcid (an H2 blocker). Rebound reflux is real and I had to wean myself off the PPI gradually. Now, I take 40mg of Pepcid daily and Tums as needed.

Usually I'm allright if I avoid trigger foods (anything high in saturated fat, excessive sugar, onions, etc.). For some reason I can handle drinking coffee but black tea triggers my reflux like nothing else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> > "In the UK, there are more than 50m prescriptions for PPIs every year..."

I can't believe this. There are only 65MM poeople in the UK, so 50 million would exceed the adult population.

<comment><USER38> Maybe repeat prescription for the same patient are counted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Check for gluten intolerance or just follow gluten free diet without any omez tablets for a month. You will never ever get Acid reflux.

I am free of Omez and Acid reflux for the past 6 months.

</comment><comment><USER40> I am absolutely not surprised that people who are more at risk of stomach cancer... get stomach cancer. Notice how the study found no causal link. Indeed, the last paragraph in the article confirms that it's probably because the people who are prescribed PPIs are already sick. (Side note: I'm one of those people who's probably on them for life unless I want to die horribly of esophageal cancer like my father did.)</comment>


Apple hands off transit directions to third-party apps in iOS 6 Maps - <AUTHOR> http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/13/apple_hands_off_transit_directions_to_third_party_apps_in_ios_6_maps.html

<comment><AUTHOR> This was from back in June, but it seemed timely. Garmin and Embark just announced that their new iOS app updates now integrate with the iOS 6 Maps app. You can register your iOS app as a routing app for Maps, and its content will be accessible from within the Maps app.

[http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/20/embark_garmin_add_...](http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/20/embark_garmin_add_public_transit_support_for_apples_ios_6_maps)</comment>


WikiLeaks Has Officially Lost the Moral High Ground - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-moral-high-ground/ <comment><USER2> This reads like a hit piece. They're lambasting Wikileaks for not understanding some obscure triple parenthesis nomenclature? They're anti- semitic because they're not plugged into the anti-semite culture enough to know their jargon?

That three parenthesis thing was news to me. It seems weird that people would brand themselves in such an obscure way. I guess Twitter handles can't have Unicode ?

<comment><USER3> This was a fairly big meme in media and political circles: [http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/3/11853244/google-chrome- exte...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/3/11853244/google-chrome-extension- jewish-people-pulled)

> _Yesterday, Mic reported that a Google Chrome extension called "Coincidence > Detector" was creating a database of Jewish people in order to notify users > when they were reading the work of, or reading about, a Jewish person > online. The extension placed three sets of parentheses (a symbol used by > neo-Nazis) around certain names to identify them as Jewish. Now, one day > later, Google has pulled the extension for violating its hate speech policy, > Engadget reports._

Has the triple-parentheses ever been used to signify something previously? Kind of hard to believe that the Wikileaks Twitter account used it coincidentally: [http://twitter.com/gallopingcats/status/757527227798003712/p...](http://twitter.com/gallopingcats/status/757527227798003712/photo/1)

<comment><USER2> Wait, so the idea is that the Wikileaks Twitter account operator installed a neo-nazi chrome extension, then forgot he had it installed and tweeted out in confusion as to why people were tagged, thus outing himself as some sort of Hitler youth with bad memory?

Calling that tweet anti-Semitic just doesn't make sense. It reads like someone trying way too hard to turn a molehill into a mountain. I'm guessing if we look through the history we'll discover that the people attacking him on Twitter had changed their usernames to include the parenthesis.

<comment><USER3> Uh. No, the Chrome extnsion had long been booted by the time this tweet came along. The meme is that Jewish folks and their allies would intentionally put "(((" and ")))" around their own names as a show of solidarity against this purported targeting. But the implicit meaning of those triple parentheses is, "this person is Jewish". Are you suggesting that the Wikileaks tweeter was just throwing that symbolism out there randomly?

<comment><USER2> That doesn't make much sense either. Certainly Jews wouldn't be itching to put a metaphorical Star of David on their usernames? Historically that was not a good thing. I can see why Neo-Nazis would jump on it, but it seems strange for members of the community to voluntarily brand themselves in such a way.

I just got why it is six parenthesis though, just like the 6 pointed star.

<comment><USER4> It's a way of fucking with neo-nazis in turn. The three parentheses were originally meant as a sort of euphemism or code: rather than be publicly anti- semitic, people would put the parentheses to highlight how often Jews were being heard from, the idea being that once you notice the amount of Jewish voices around, you'll think this can't just be a coincidence (hence the name "Coincidence Detector.") It wasn't meant to be something those not in the know would get.

Jews putting three parentheses around their own names is a way of saying "I see what you're doing. I'm onto you." And non-Jews doing it is just to mess with them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _And then, inexplicably, the WikiLeaks official Twitter account also dove straight for naked anti-Semitism._

The author, Emma Ellis, has no comprehension of the tweet in question. Understanding the background could have prevented this:

1\. Neo-Nazis begin to point out to their supporters that the people they are discussing are Jews (or "Jew aiders and abettors" [sic]) by placing three brackets around their name. The subjects are often unaware and their account usernames (obviously) do not display brackets.

2\. In reaction to this, numerous camps (social justice activists, evangelical Christians, civil society workers, journalists, etc.) both Jewish and non- Jewish alike begin to place three brackets around their display name to draw attention to the practice and to express solidarity with those who are being discussed in brackets, a practice sometimes revered in Western culture [1][2][3][4].

3\. A subset of these self-labelled, self-bracketed individuals criticize WikiLeaks.

4\. The WikiLeaks account notices that many of their critics are _self- bracketed individuals_ expressing solidarity and wonders what type of people do this, as one might question the individuals who change their profile pictures to have a flag overlay for the tragedy du jour, and if said people are doing so for their own interest.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen). [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deputy#Historical_models](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deputy#Historical_models) [3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus_(film)#.22I.27m_Spar...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus_\(film\)#.22I.27m_Spartacus.21.22) [4] [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IAmSpartacus](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IAmSpartacus)

<comment><USER6> Then why did the tweet start with the word "Tribalist"? Which alleged tribalism did they happen to be referring to there? The myriad tribalisms of social justice activists, evangelical Christians, civil society workers, journalists, etc. Or that of the Jews?

<comment><USER5> WikiLeaks writes: "Most of our critics have 3 (((brackets))) around their names... Tribalist symbol for establishment climbers?"

Tribalist here in the sense of those who are complicit with In-Group/Out-Group dynamics [1]. Knowing that Assange is some sort of anarchist helps [2]. Such language is common within a certain political perspective that includes anarchism; these 'horizontalist' 'global citizens' envision a utopia and as they work towards it, in addition to opposing establishment climbers especially, they often look down on and view 'identity politics' or 'lifestyle politics' (and the use of ideological labels and in-group signaling all together) as base and beneath them [3]. And yes, they often practice the same things they critique and theoretically oppose.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups) [2] [http://web.archive.org/web/20060712184552/http://iq.org/inde...](http://web.archive.org/web/20060712184552/http://iq.org/index.html) [3] [http://new-compass.net/articles/beyond-ideology](http://new- compass.net/articles/beyond-ideology)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I hope WikiLeaks moral high ground and/or credibilty are never huge factors. Their releases should probably always be treated with trust-but-verify disposition. Or maybe distrust-until-verified.

The way I look at it, WikiLeaks is basically a parallel construction. We have no idea how or where the info came from, but if it's a map to the bodies, we go there and see if it's accurate info.

<comment><USER8> > I hope WikiLeaks moral high ground and/or credibilty are never huge factors.

I think they are hugely important factors. Information is power and they have a huge amount of influence because of the trust people have placed in them.

Like it or not, wikileaks will influence all of our lives. To say that they are a mere conduit and have no obligation to vet or squelch the information they've been given is to also assume that they will never get their hands on information (factual, or otherwise) which may have a direct, negative impact to you personally.

Useful information is rarely neutral. There are nearly always winners and losers when it is disclosed.

<comment><USER9> Edward Snowden refused to trust them for a reason - he knew they would probably refuse to vet anything that could damage the US, and just dump everything they were given.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> No it hasn't. The DNC leaks will be remembered as historic. I talked with the protesters in philly, and the vast majority had pro-wikileaks signs or were pro-wikileaks.

</comment><comment><USER4> That particular tweet falls under the "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity" razor, which kind of undercuts the rest of the author's (fair, but quickly sketched) points.</comment>