Can sleep deprivation cure depression? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/opinion/sunday/can-sleep-deprivation-cure-depression.html <comment><USER2> > Most people's natural cycle is somewhat longer than the 24-hour solar day, > which means that, left to our own devices, we would get quickly get out of > sync with the external world.

I've always had very bad issues sleeping and waking "on time." In school this led to me regularly missing class and eventually dropping school entirely, and with regular work schedules I hardly ever got good sleep.

A little while ago, I made a commitment to myself to sleep when I was tired and to get up when I was rested. I eased into a schedule where every day I got up and went to bed about an hour later every day.

This has been my schedule for the past 9 months or so. I sleep 8 to 10 hours per night. Every night I go to bed about an hour later than the night before. My schedule rotates about 6-8 hours per week, and about 12-14 hours every two weeks, meaning I do a complete rotation about once a month.

During this time I've been vastly more productive and happy, I've had many fewer emotional swings toward anger or sadness, and I'm much more calm and less anxious in general.

My sleep schedule is easy to adhere to and self-corrects if I ever need to be up early/late or at a certain time. I even have an easier time making scheduled meeting times because I'm rested enough to be able to get up early when I need to.

Interestingly, I'm consistently well-rested and alert with my schedule despite having zero dependence on the natural sunlight cycle. I think this is because sunlight has a much smaller effect on me in the morning than computer light does in the evening.

<comment><USER3> With your sleep schedule constantly shifting, how do you manage day-to-day activities? You must have a job with very flexible hours for that to work. But even things like going to the store and seeing a doctor must be slightly more difficult if you might be asleep from morning to afternoon.

With 9 months of data, how consistently do you shift your schedule by 1 hour each day? I'd imagine there are fluctuations, but I guess if it's reliable you could schedule things on certain days.

<comment><USER2> I keep my own work hours and schedule my work around deadlines. If I have a deliverable Friday afternoon and I'm going to sleep in the morning, I have to get it done Thursday night. The beauty of this for me is that I know what my productive hours will be and I can work during them, rather than shoving work into a specific time frame regardless of my circumstances.

Things like going to the store I can do any time of day, pretty much. With things like doctor visits or work meetings that happen in the daytime, I'll stay up late or get up early as necessary. I can usually get back "on schedule" very easily just by going to sleep when I feel tired and getting up when I'm rested. I'll usually go to bed and get up close to when I usually do because of where my circadian rhythm is, and even if my schedule moves a few hours one way or another, that doesn't have a detrimental effect because I'm so used to the lifestyle.

It's pretty consistent. I used to track it on a sleep app but I've gotten out of the habit (it's not been necessary). I don't think there's been a month recently where I haven't completed a full rotation. Back when I was tracking data, I have graphs of my sleep schedule making a diagonal pattern across the month. It's very reliable.

<comment><USER4> How does it work socially?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't know about sleep and depression. My Mom was bipolar and the topic never came up, other than her being up to all hours when she was manic.

But I recently read an interesting article about vitamin D and that lead me to supplement magnesium and vitamins D, A and K. I only do it once every three days to be conservative.

      http://www.precisionnutrition.com/stop-vitamin-d

And I've found I'm much more decisive and likely to take action. In fact, last December I became a morning person using early morning light and exercise. Instead of getting to the office after 10, I now get in by 8 most days. I keep to it on weekends too and go to a coffee shop.

I also recently changed my evening routine during the week, cutting out TV and stopped eating chips after dinner.

For the morning and the evening changes, I devised a routine of things I do that make doing the hard parts easier. In the morning, I turn the light on, use the restroom, drink some water, set a timer for ten minutes, relax until it goes off, exercise, shower, dress and get out the door. I try to stick to this every day.

<comment><USER6> I also did some reading about vitamins last year and ended up taking vitamin d for a while, then magnesium for a while. My method wasn't any more scientific than that, but the vitamin D had no noticeable effect, while the effect of magnesium was dramatic. I was suffering from mood swings, poor concentration and low energy serious enough that I was considering seeing a psychologist about depression. Magnesium seems to eliminate the problem completely.

I just wish there was a better way to figure out your deficiency than just popping some pills and wait to see what happens. A weekly blood test for vitamin levels combined with mood and health journaling would probably give me the kind of data I'm looking for, but that only seems to be available in science fiction so far.

<comment><USER7> Sorry man but I have to butt in here.

The culture of hacker news-type thinking can be very toxic and lead to such thoughts as "I just wish there was a better way to figure out your deficiency than just popping some pills and wait to see what happens. A weekly blood test for vitamin levels combined with mood and health journaling would probably give me the kind of data I'm looking for, but that only seems to be available in science fiction so far."

Notice how you are trying to find a solution based around technology. Why does the solution have to involve technology? I think hanging around on forums like this, or with engineers to often can blind us to solutions which don't require engineering.

If all we have is hammer then nails nails everywhere!!

We're all guilty of it. Let's just be aware of it when it happens and move on.

Ready for the solution? It's very simple but tough to follow through with : Radically Change your diet.

Eat plants mostly, eat within a time window (don't allow yourself to oversnack, etc.), don't eat shit, not even a little bit, cut it out 100%. Be extreme, this is the experimentation phase. Later you can be less extreme, but let's see how much a radical change to the diet will affect the body.

This isn't a guarantee to fix vitamin deficiencies, but I will gladly bet that it will sure help a hell of a lot.

Finally, I would like to add that another trap that we all fall into is trying to optimize a system by changing one thing at a time. Firstly, this doesn't actually work. Secondly, this is extremely slooooowww.

If we want to experience change fast we have to be radical about changing our habits. If I am experimenting with anything in my life it's a good idea to try all sorts of different stuff. Diversify my experiments. Explore. If you are having vitamin deficiency issues and are not setting yourself up to be in the position to explore and experiment with diet, then you will have to wait for luck to come along before your issue can find itself a solution.

Again, hopefully I don't sound like an ass, I am just trying to help, given that I make the same mistake a lot in my own life, and have screwed myself over too much to not try and speak up a bit on the subject.

Feel free to be angry with me :) :(

<comment><USER8> Please source or argue your claims.

> Why does the solution have to involve technology?

Because technology has the potential to be more powerful than other solutions.

Your suggestion, and the direction of your post in general, sounds like moralism. Moralistic suggestions have more to do with virtue and privilege signaling than actual results. I am generally extremely suspicious of any advice that comes from a moralistic angle because it's noisy and mostly driven by logic in the nature of "bad things don't happen to people who live correctly".

Unsurprisingly, the suggestion misses the fact that eating plants is not going to address something like a Vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D deficiencies, as far as we currently know, are caused by lack of sunlight and the use of sunscreen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Tübingen who was hospitalized for depression and claimed that she normally > kept her symptoms in check by taking all-night bike rides. He subsequently > demonstrated in a group of depressed patients that a night of complete sleep > deprivation produced an immediate, significant improvement in mood in about > 60 percent of the group.

I thought this bit was neat. I'd heard that sleep deprivation can bring on a feeling of euphoria, and anecdotally, it has worked for me

<comment><USER10> Your anecdotal experience is far from uncommon. For the article to even imply this as any sort of cure for depression, though, _massively_ misinterprets the small amount of research on this.

edit: And as a sibling comment mentioned, we do know that cognition suffers immensely when sleep-deprived.

<comment><USER11> I was thinking maybe the poorer cognition actually _helps_ relieve the depression. Because a lot of depressives overthink (some past event, etc).

<comment><USER10> While you are certainly less able to overthink in that state, the euphoria is a discrete phenomenon. The euphoria and poorer high-level cognition seem not to be caused by each other (obviously discounting any cyclical feedback effects once they're both in play), but instead caused by the same process.

<comment><USER12> >discrete

'Distinct' you mean?

If only there was a way to get the euphoria without the reduction in function, huh?

<comment><USER10> I mean discrete.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm hoping that society will adjust to recognize this because it feels like in certain circles, saying that you need to sleep seems to be seen a weakness.

<comment><USER14> I think that's part of a near-universal fallacy that conflates good health with strength of character. In the situation you described, having the ability to shrug off lack of sleep is a source of pride, as if it was entirely about willpower; in fact it is more likely related to health.

<comment><USER15> There is even a genetic component to it, at least for a small portion of people.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genetic- mutation-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genetic-mutation- sleep-less/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I wonder what damage our twice yearly clock changes do. An hour doesn't seem like much but, giving an entire population a little bit of jet lag simultaneously has to be bad for us, right?

<comment><USER17> There are definitely measurable population-level effects, like increased traffic accidents [1] and heart attacks [2]. And given that its purported benefits are completely unsubstantiated, it's amazing that DST still exists.

[1] [https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20140100](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20140100)

[2] [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc0807104](http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc0807104)

<comment><USER18> I wish we would all go on DST and be done with it forever. The extra hour of usable daylight after work is a net win for societies mental health. We have farming machines that do the heavy lifting and are mostly automated now anyway. Unlike when it was enacted, there simply are much fewer farmers.

<comment><USER19> Think of the children!!!

EDIT: I should clarify that this is nearly always the argument brought up against year round DST, so that children during winter go to school with sunlight in the morning.

<comment><USER20> Spain has this issue. It is in the wrong timezone, which the government changed in the 1940s. Consequently it stays light until 6:30pm in winter. In mountainous regions such as Picos de Europa, towns in the valleys do have kids catching schoolbuses in near darkness at 8:30am. As a traveller I found the experience surreal. Although, we put the clocks forward an hour leading up to the 2000 Olympics so construction workers could work longer.

<comment><USER21> The 2000 Olympics where held in Sydney :)

<comment><USER22> Yeah, the last Olympics in Spain were in 1992 in Barcelona.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Thinking of the recent reproducibility crisis in psychology, I'm wondering how you can prove this without the placebo effect. How does someone try not sleeping without knowing if they are not sleeping? Or do you compare with people doing something else that is known to be useless? like a sugar pill. Thinking about how different colors of placebo in antidepressants have more or less intense effects, I wonder if the fact that using a placebo so different from the actual thing makes it pointless.

<comment><USER10> Obviously the proper starting point isn't comparing to placebo; it's gathering enough data to develop baseline expected rates of change before altering the variable you're testing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I wonder how much coffee plays into this. I've yet to meet someone who sleeps consistently more than 8 hours per night who feels the _need_ to drink coffee.

edit: 8 quality hours of sleep, e.g. you wake up and you're not tired.

<comment><USER25> It depends on how much more than 8 hours we're talking about. Consistently oversleeping, especially 10+ hours a night, can be indicative of some potentially serious problems that either already exist or may in the future. Rather than making someone feel well-rested, it often has the opposite effect: confusion, lack of energy, sluggishness, etc. due to a poorer quality of sleep in general.

I'd imagine that self-medicating with lots of caffeine is a pretty natural response for most people in that situation even though it doesn't actually solve the problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> My experience is that sleep deprivation leads me into a manic episode, but any benefits are outweighed by the inevitable crash. My depression is generally treated effectively by a rigid sleep schedule and lots of sunlight.

</comment><comment><USER27> My father, brother and I all only need about 5 or 6 hours of sleep. We all just wake up, no matter when we go to bed or how light or dark the room is at night or in the morning. I strongly suspect we have that gene that lets you sleep less, but NYT is indicating that they think I'm depressed based on the embedded interactive.

I don't feel depressed.

Short of a genomic test, how can one differentiate?

<comment><USER28> Why is there a comment like this on every single HN post lately? Yes, you fall outside of the fat part of the bell curve. Congrats. What's your point? A single outlier does not disprove the post.

edited to add: _fat part of the bell curve_ , since being _outside_ of the bell curve entirely is not what I meant.

<comment><USER27> 1\. This isn't a _lately_ thing, this type of thing has been happening for the over eight years I've been here.

2\. Around 1% of people have the gene I'm referring to. Telling them they are all depressed without bothering to mention the possibility of the gene is something I'd expect better of the NYT. Just sharing the comment provides alternate theories to other HN readers that don't feel depressed.

3\. I'm not sure if you read to the end of my comment, but the point is right there in black and white: "Short of a genomic test, how can one differentiate?" It isn't just a question for me, it's a question that I'm sure many people going to the article might have, and it broadens the topic more generally.

<comment><USER29> Hear hear.

On the other hand you have people who have messed up sleep due to genetics, and this causes depression. And people who could sleep all the time and on schedule and still not feel rested.

The article hurts them all, and you too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> My anxiety and depression kicked in in 2006, after several triggers coincided. Some that I remember now are: dissapointment in my "friends", my inability to digest some college courses that had been way above my level of comprehension, falling in love with person A, while person B had fallen in love with me, alcohol overdose habit, stopping going to Sunday sermons after being dissapointed with local priest, pressure from my enviornment and myself to be best at everything I do, and so on. After that day X, I spent a whole week in bed, and started to behave strange.

So that left my parents no other option, but to eventually take me to psychiatrist.

When she put me on antidepressants, I started to act even worse. I wrote and drew on blackboards at college breaks, once asked a profssor in the middle of his lecture " what is time?", I wrote in my sister's chat while she was afk and talked nonsence to she's friends, I started to have all sorts of crazy ideas and I wrote on all walls and furniture in my room.

I can't really know exacly what happened, but my brain started a roller coaster ride between being uterlly depressed to extreme overthinking and I had a thought that I somehow controlled the reality by changing the mood I was in. At the same time all inhibitors were gone. A part of the feeling I had I can relate to a movie "A beautiful mind". That part of it that scares the uninformed viewer. So after regulating my treatment, my state become good enough for my parents to send me to the psychologist. Too bad she passed a few years latter. RIP. I mean she was top class. I had about 7-8 90-minutes sessions until my state became a-well-functioning-member-of-society again. My family's support was unprecendented. After a few more months I satrted team gaming heavily. After a year more my psychiatrist removed my therapy alltogether. After 1 more year I returned to church (other one) to youth choir and never had this thing again. The main thing that kept me alive and sane through my darkest hours was thought that I was once happy, and if God existed, he would not let me perish. This was just a hell one has to go through to get to heaven. Sorry for being a little off topic, I just wanted to share what had helped me. Oh, one thing, if you are diagnosed with anxiety and depression, hang in there and talk to somebody. It's not permanent. It passes. I wish you the best. ih

</comment><comment><USER31> Sleep deprivation would be a bad idea for me because sleep helps the immune system, and my immune system needs all the help it can get (because of my chronic infectious disease).

I have found however that _listening to music_ during sleep will prevent my sleeping a lot from having a depressant effect on my mood. I recommend avoiding music contain exciting or bracing passages; you don't want your sympathetic nervous system to become active during sleep.

If I learn something that I want to retain, then I don't listen to music that night, because the same process (REM sleep?) that tends to depress the mood also helps with the consolidation of new learnings and new skills.

</comment><comment><USER32> Que: people who deprive themselves of sleep and then fall into depression because that's what happens when you don't get enough sleep over a long enough period

<comment><USER33>
        > Que

It's 'cue'. [http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cue](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cue)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> As an interesting anecdatum, I've noticed that when I binge-sleep, i.e. for more than 8.5 hours, I feel depressed.

<comment><USER35> Yeah that happens to me too. It's almost like a sleep hangover. Very weird.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Jet lag was a major contributing factor to a bipolar episode I had in Brazil late last year (1), but I will admit to being skeptical of the advice to avoid sleep.

As much as I love to travel, at this point I have to cognizant of how it affects my mental health

[https://crisisofthemind.com/fallout-from-an-international- bi...](https://crisisofthemind.com/fallout-from-an-international-bipolar- episode-f9e1d9358308)

</comment><comment><USER37> This is very interesting. I hope to see treatments that not only uses melatonin and environmental light, but one that also modifies artificial light (indoor/computer/phone/TV/etc...) to optimize wellness. Kind of a F.lux of Things.

<comment><USER38> One option is wearing blue-blocking sunglasses in the evening. It's cheap, and I know a couple of people who do it and believe it has helped with sleep.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Seems like curing pain in your foot by hitting your thumb with a hammer.

</comment><comment><USER40> Sleep deprivation amplifies my emotions. The highs become higher, and the lows are lower. Like an op-amp.

Prayer and music helps to cope with the lows. Like a diode.

Sleeping less to wake up early and pray before work has had a huge emotional benefit. It's like an half-wave rectifier.

</comment><comment><USER41> The New York to Italy example in the article is a bit confusing to me. Seems that there's about 6 hours difference between Milan and New York, and the flight itself is 8~9 hours. Leaving New York at 6PM, arrives Milan at 3AM EST, 9AM Milan time. "Instead of shifting you earlier to Italian time, it makes you feel it's even later — that the night is over and it's already morning." Does the body choose to this because shifting to "already morning" is smaller difference(6 hours) than "still not night time" (18 hours)?

</comment><comment><USER30> About jet lag and so forth, why not try forget about DST and time zones and use UTC? There are already people working night shifts and feeding babies :), everywhere, so we can assume, the number on our watch doesn't correlate to a certain mood-I-must-be-in-at-this-hour. After all, if we ever leave for another planet, having single clock for single planet sure shall make communication easier than having time zones. Somebody always has eye bags.

</comment><comment><USER42> Inpatient wake therapy has been used to treat hospitalized patients to jumpstart the antidepressant. Relapse happens soon after the treatment ends.

</comment><comment><USER43> I'm not an expert in either of these areas (VR or depression), but after reading this I began to wonder if virtual reality could somehow provide a solution or at least mitigate the effects of a jet lagged traveler and/or a person suffering from depression by 'normalizing' their circadian rhythm.

</comment><comment><USER44> The section in the article on jet lag mitigation was extremely confusing -- the author wrote of evening light and morning light but was unclear which time zone he was referring to.

Can someone explain a bit more clearly? If someone is traveling from SF to Europe or SF to Asia, when should melatonin and light be used optimally?

<comment><USER45> Not sure what is optimal, but I find melatonin 30min before the normal bedtime in a new country helps a lot (3mg day one, 1-2mg days two and three; 3 days total).

<comment><USER38> Interesting point here, if you search old HN discussions you can find a reference, but 200-250ug is the effective dose for melatonin, and larger amounts have a slightly decreased effect. I know it's never sold this way, but it's something you might want to experiment with (quartering 1mg pills or taking a few drops of a 10mg/ml liquid works well here).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> If you suffer from depression, you should _thoroughly_ research LSD and then make your _fully informed_ personal decision.

On the negative side, this substance may become one of the reasons the pharmaceutical industry _will_ lose recurrent revenues from disappearing dependency on expensive anti-depressants.

<comment><USER38> The research on Ketamine as a one-shot cure is very promising too. Microdosing of LSD or psilocybin also has some interesting anecdsta behind it. There is definitely a lot of research to be done on these and other psychotropics like Ayahuasca/DMT, and MDMA. Organizations like MAPS are starting to get this work done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Depression is a symptom of sleep apnea, which is essentially sleep deprivation. In fact, the disease was only uncovered because psychiatrists at Stanford were noticing that all their depression patients were complaining about their sleep.

</comment><comment><USER48> I always get euphoric during sleep deprivation as well, however even if it is a "cure" it is not sustainable.

I believe this effect during sleep deprivation is due to dopaminergic supersensitivity.

</comment><comment><USER49> Too much sleep can also cause depression. I would know I sometimes sleep during the day and when i wake up i get upset that i did accomplish the things i wanted to do during the day.

</comment><comment><USER50> For my experience sleep deprivation increase aggressivity and nervousness.

</comment><comment><USER51> I think it does help, but it can also be really detrimental as well.

</comment><comment><USER52> No.

</comment><comment><USER53> I'm sure it works great for some people and very poorly for others. I am disappointed by this headline though. While the story is interesting, 'can X CURE depression?!'is basically clickbaity bullshit, and if the NYT is serious about the value of journalism it should abandon clickbaiting as a strategy, for two reasons. One, it's _because_ of shullshit headlines like this that people in general distrust the media in general. Two, people who suffer from depression are really suffering, and exploiting that (and the suffering of their caregivers) for an eye-grabbing headline that's basically bullshit is an unethical exploitation of their medical condition for profit.

<comment><USER54> I don't know why this makes you so mad, but the title definitely helped me be interested in the article and I ended up learning a few things about myself through the article.

<comment><USER29> The article's title (not the HN title) says: "the sleep schedule is making you sick".

That is blatantly untrue. For a large part of the population it is not, and even the content of the article acknowledges that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> My experience is sleep deprivation increases depression

<comment><USER56> For me as well. Sometimes I go through periods where I stay up too late, and I almost always end up feeling depressed after a few days of it.

<comment><USER57> I think it's a matter of degree.

If you usually sleep 7 hours a night, and you're only getting 4, then you will feel tired grumpy and sad. But if you stay up all night, you may start to feel euphoric and energetic. Of course, you'll need a good long sleep the next day or so.

<comment><USER58> According to the article, this is the case for slightly over 50% of people. Hardly good enough odds to suggest that someone who doesn't experience this is just 'doing it wrong'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> My GF has major depression, and slept 3-4 hours/night for months before she started taking sleeping pills.

Didn't seem to help with her depression in the slightest.

</comment><comment><USER33> To chime in among the other comments, most of which don't address the article either:

I was a night owl + stimulant fiend until I started working out in the morning. Decided to pull the trigger on a daily 9am Crossfit habit.

Now I'm too tired to stay awake past 11pm or so.

</comment><comment><USER60> weed cures my depression. so why deprive myself of something I enjoy doing?

</comment><comment><USER61> I thought this was interesting until I saw the author was a psychiatrist, and psychiatry has zero scientific validity. And his article is just referencing a bunch of tiny sample size studies of dubious merit.

<comment><USER62> Psychiatrists hold a medical doctorate, so unless you are claiming that medical science has no scientific validity I believe you are thinking of Psychology, which is an entirely different field.

<comment><USER63> I studied chemistry in college. That doesn't mean computer programming is a chemical discipline.

Psychiatrists go to medical school so they can prescribe medicine without killing a patient, not because medical school has a scientifically rigorous psychiatry curriculum. Remember that homosexuality was a psychiatric disease until recently.

<comment><USER62> So, this may simply be because this differs between countries - I live in the US. Here, you do not study psychiatry in med school, it's something you study after you complete regular medical school. The rough path looks like:

\- 4 years of undergrad, ideally with one major in Biology

\- MCAT

\- 4 years of general medical school

\- 4 years of specialized psychiatry residency, usually at university hospital

Meaning, here in the US it's a medical discipline, but this may not be the case where you live.

You're absolutely right that there is a horrific history to the field of psychiatry - homosexuality indeed wasn't unlisted until a little over 40 years ago. However, this is rapidly changing with the advent of tools like PCR and Western Blotting, which allows psychiatry to research mental disease on the level of individual gene expression and proteins.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I know the answer without even reading the article. NO.

<comment><USER65> Hail Betteridge</comment></comment>


Great CEOs are born, not made - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/07/what_makes_a_great_ceo.html

<comment><USER2> It's as if anyone can say anything and get published in HBR these days.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, OW Delta has published a bit on CEO succession and success criteria, and it's _still_ a widely contested topic. I think the author is just trying to make a point, tying personality with the CEO success, rather than explicit background... whether true or not.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How would you approach a disruptive new technology? - <AUTHOR>

Hypothetical Scenario:
Your stealth startup has developed a radical technology that makes a wide range of other technologies obsolete almost overnight.
A large number of companies could be out of business within 5 years.
Do you:
A) release it as open-source for maximum impact
B) sell it at a high profit margin for slow adoption rate
C) shop the technology around (goog,aapl,msft) before public release
I would've made this a vote but don't know how. <comment><USER2> Sounds like you're torn between selflessness and selfishness. But it's not that simple.

 _Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats. - Howard Aiken_

I know you're not worried about theft, but the second part of the quote is still applicable.

\--

Adoption requires much more than minimal price. For a start, price is only part of the cost of adoption. Other costs are changes in user behaviour, changes in infrastructure etc. Before you get to that point, users have to know about the new approach and the wonderful claims you have for it; they'll need some kind of assurance that the claims are true; it needs to be in a form where they can easily try it out to assess it (easy-to-adopt). It also needs to be usable.

All of this is a lot of hard work, which is a different kind of fun and excitement from a technology that will change the world. Commercialization is long and difficult - consider how long the mouse/desktop took. It's also a (surprisingly) huge, huge leap from "it works!" to "usable by mortals".

All the above is entirely about your first option _"A) release it as open- source for maximum impact"_ , because open-sourcing it does not guarantee in any way that it will have maximum impact - or indeed any impact whatsoever. Of course, you can dedicate your life to promoting it as open source, and make enough money to live on by consulting around it; but IHMO that's not the way to change the world.

It's partly because you won't have the resources for the enormous amount of work involved; it's partly that you won't be rewarded for that work. But it's mostly that your interests are not aligned with changing the world: you'll likely end up with a tool that clever developers can use; and not one that can be deployed easily and quickly by anyone. It will rely on service (provided by said developers, or yourself) rather than as a product.

\--

To answer your question: the reality of tech adoption is tech improvement. So your job - what you work on day to day - will primarily be about adaption, not adoption. Finding out what people need in the technology, and adapting to that. Providing extra tools that people need to compliment it. Fixing bugs. Making improvements. Discovering fundamental technical problems you hadn't imagined and solving/working around them (adapting to reality.)

What many people seem to do is to try to sell it (C) - if the tech really can stand alone, and there's a clear felt specific existing need for it, then this is viable. Historically, this usually doesn't work (eg. Pagerank wasn't, Xerography wasn't) But can work, eg Birdseye (frozen food - though I think he had an initial business going at that point.)

Many high technology ideas are often sold as (B), but they often involve huge amounts of consultation with the initial customers, while the bugs are sorted out, and especially as you learn what the problem really is. Accounting for this work, the profit margin is negligible (or negative.) As the bugs get worked out, you can start to sell it cheaper.

But if it really is trivial to instantly adopt, without any adaption needed by the user, or by the technology, or by the market, and your claims are self- evident and will be instantly spread... then any of the three options are viable, and it would just be up to you.

\--

Summary: the answer (IMHO) depends on how much ongoing work is involved in making the product useful and usable by real people: maximizing adaption, not adoption.

<comment><USER2> followup: there's a great expression "throw it over the fence", for how IBM researchers used to commercialize their research. _Here's some tech, whatever, seeya_. (the fabled PARC labs seemed and microsoft research seems to be similar). An example of what happened is relational databases: invented at IBM, but commercialized by Oracle. You might say that Oracle is the baddie in this, but commercializing it here only made them money because they turned the tech into something people wanted. So, as far as benefiting the world goes, what they did was crucial. [according to Larry Ellison, the thing they did was make the nice theoretical idea fast enough, which nobody believed was possible - but what founders say is invariably - necessarily - part-PR, so I always take it with a grain of salt. I like a good story though.]

This interview (transcript) gives an idea of the process of adaption (for Enterprise software) <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1671852>

BTW if all this seems overwhelming, you only have to do one step at a time, then you have some feedback to give you 1. information, 2. confidence and 3. energy for the next step. Activity in itself - even if it fails - gets your blood moving, and that's helpful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Interestingly, Heinlein addressed this issue in his 1940 short story "Let There Be Light": [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_There_Be_Light_%28short_sto...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_There_Be_Light_%28short_story%29)

However, 10ren's comment is much more likely to be apropos to your situation. Also check out the works of Clayton Christensen if you aren't already intimately familiar with them (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_M._Christensen>).

</comment><comment><USER4> Could you either dual license it (eg, GPL and proprietary licenses) or GPL it and run a business around it? (Not saying this is what I'd do, just stating that there may be a fourth alternative).

</comment><comment><USER5> none of the above.

read the books on disruption by clayton christensen...

Typically, you market the product to non-consumers as your first market. Just follow the formula. Pricing etc is dependent on structure of the product, e.g. how 'network'-y is it etc.

hope this helps...

</comment><comment><USER6> If it really makes a wide range of other things obsolete, shopping it around may be a very bad idea. Are these folks (google, microsoft, etc) the ones who will likely be obsolete almost overnight? If so, shopping it around may not get you any buyers and, instead, may make you a target of attempts to stop you by some means or other. (As I understand it, Microsoft has a long history of buying up new stuff that seems interesting and then never launching a product. They also supposedly set their sights on destroying Netscape when they wouldn't sell. Netscape did, in fact, go out of business.)</comment>


I Gave My Child Autism - <AUTHOR> http://www.backfromnature.org/2015/03/i-gave-my-child-autism.html <comment><USER3> There seems to be a movement to accept any and all behaviors of children on the spectrum, and from the comments on this otherwise excellent article ("I resemble that remark!") there are people that see any interventions or attempts to treat these children as abusive.

My six year daughter is asperger (or would be if that were still distinct) and frankly her behavior is not just disruptive but absolutely horrible - <USER2> tantrums, bites and hurts anyone around her when she can't properly communicate her current "need" \- and that need may be something completely unreasonable like ordering that the Santa at the mall be immediately removed from her vacinity.

Not all behaviors of autistic children - or adults - is ok and to be be cherished as a "difference". There are some behaviors that are fine - obsessions about dinosaurs, say, but there are many more that must be addressed before the child enters society. Smearing yourself with poo is NOT one of those differences that should be embraced.

Sorry, ranty after an afternoon having the shit kicked out of me because I wouldn't forward the Harry Potter audiobook to the correct precise instant she wants.

<comment><USER4> > There seems to be a movement to accept any and all behaviors of children on > the spectrum,

I would be interested to see comments made by people who use the diagnosis to excuse poor behaviour. (Edit: I reworded this to be less confrontational and less angry. Sorry for original wording.)

I am aware of people struggling to get more acceptance of neuro diversity. That's because they're fed-up of being mocked (if lucky) or murdered (less lucky) by police

[http://www.inquisitr.com/1726930/alabama-police-officers- rec...](http://www.inquisitr.com/1726930/alabama-police-officers-recorded- mocking-special-needs-children-at-a-local-learning-center/)

[http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/5-times-police- kille...](http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/5-times-police-killed- people-mental-disabilities)

[http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/29/37770.htm](http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/29/37770.htm)

> DAYTON, Ohio (CN) - Dayton police "mistook" a mentally handicapped > teenager's speech impediment for "disrespect," so they Tasered, pepper- > sprayed and beat him and called for backup from "upward of 20 police > officers" after the boy rode his bicycle home to ask his mother for help, > the boy's mom says.

It's not really surprising that neuro-atypical people are getting militant when they're faced with widespread discrimination that causes shorter, less good, lives.

<comment><USER3> My wife would probably be better able to respond to specific websites and discussion as she's been far more involved in the online communities surrounding our daughters disorder. I've asked for some links from her, but there were several comments in the linked article that seem to suggest accepting neuro-diversity warts and all.

Believe me that I'm tickled by my daughters extreme interests - but we DO want to cure her of her disruptive and dangerous behaviors.

We have called the sheriffs office during one of our daughters most extreme tantrums - they couldn't have been nicer or more understanding and helped us out considerably during their visit. I suspect our county sheriff (Santa Cruz, ca) has had extra training in that regard.

On the other hand, we have also had to deal with child protective services, called because of bruises noticed by the school. We got the third degree, but since we've also had to do a lot of video recording of her tantrums, it was pretty easy to establish that - aside from our having to restrain her, her bruises were self inflicted.

On her good days, she's a joy and a wonder. On her bad days, she's a beast from the nether pits of hell. But we will stick by her.

<comment><USER5> > On her good days, she's a joy and a wonder. On her bad days, she's a beast > from the nether pits of hell. But we will stick by her.

I don't understand this. Shouldn't the behavior be constant?

Have you been able to coax good days out of her by changing the environment, food, your behavior, etc? Can you predict the bad days? Is there a pattern?

<comment><USER6> > I don't understand this. Shouldn't the behavior be constant?

Spoken like a programmer. _Adults_ aren't even consistent. Ever seen a woman going completely apeshit at a male for some reason (sometime justified, sometimes not)?

Biological organisms have significant variations. Sometimes you get an angel; sometimes you get a devil; sometimes both.

In the past, resources were sufficiently scarce that children (and adults) who weren't capable of fitting into society were killed or allowed to die.

<comment><USER7> > Ever seen a woman going completely apeshit at a male for some reason > (sometime justified, sometimes not)?

Why would you use that example?

<comment><USER6> I needed an example of an adult giving an emotionally based, uncontrolled outburst.

I have easily seen a dozen or more incidents of women doing this in public. I have only ever once seen a man do this.

I suspect the imbalance is because men prone to this behavior resort to violence privately. Strangers will step in to help a woman but not a man.

<comment><USER7> I've never seen a woman do this so I suspect this is just your stereotype- based expectations biasing your interpretations. Peoples' memory of events are notoriously unreliable and extremely susceptible to the power of suggestion, like the suggestion that women are more prone to emotional outbursts, which is an age-old trope. [http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your- language/2012/mar...](http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your- language/2012/mar/08/mind-your-language-feminisation-madness)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What does "autism" even mean today? I've heard it used to describe everything from awkward introverts with technical interests, to kids who are nearly mute with speech disabilities. Do anti-vaxers think they're saving their kids from becoming software engineers?

<comment><USER9> I share your frustration. Autism, Asperger's Syndrome, "on the spectrum" \- these words and phrases all seem to mean precisely whatever the person saying them wishes them to mean, from a pseudo-sympathetic acknowledgement of someone's problems to a cutting dismissal of behaviour they find unpalatable or challenging; and all delivered, of course, without any clinical frame of reference.

I miss the days when people could just be shy or awkward or irritable or even narcissistic without it eliciting an armchair diagnosis.

<comment><USER10> I think you're missing the point of what "the spectrum" is. Let's take another example, dyslexia. Some people suffer considerably worse than others; and some people's dyslexia is so mild that it might never be formally diagnosed. The same is true for autism. It's not a simple black-and-white case like someone having a broken leg. There's a gradual curve of disability that ranges from the _" has to work a little harder to get along in every day life"_ to the extreme cases were 24/7 care is required.

As to why it might appear that different people refer to different things when using these terms: that might just be because their reference points are from different points along the scale. Or in some cases, they might just be ignorant but vocal bloggers; but sadly this happens in all aspects of science (eg the anti-vaccination campaigners spouting shit doesn't mean that doctors don't know what they're talking about when they promote the use of vaccinations).

<comment><USER5> You're missing his point. At what point does a personality trait become a disorder?

<comment><USER11> When that trait interferes with your daily life. It's pretty common for people to be afraid of heights but if that fear interferes with getting a job, having relationships, enjoying everyday activities, then that's a disorder.

The problem is lay people think of "autism" the way that creationists say evolution is a "theory". An awkward introvert with technical interests isn't going to be professionally diagnosed as autistic unless they have some pretty serious and defined symptoms. But that doesn't stop misinformed lay-person usage in everyday conversation.

<comment><USER12> My issue with that attempt to define a disorder is that it can medicalize mismatches with artificial environments. (That is, almost all environments humans live in.) It in effect defines all deviations from "normal" as defects.

Imagine you're living in a culture of subsistence agriculture. And imagine further that you are thin, quiet, nearsighted, physically delicate, and are inclined to spend all your time reading. You are basically unsuited for the available jobs, nobody wants you in a relationship, and what everyday activities are available are ones you don't enjoy. So the village headman decides that you have a disorder and need treatment, by which he means regular beatings. Of course, you might make a fine librarian, but that's not an option.

The same thing was done with gay people for ages. Or women; note how female hysteria was a medical diagnosis that eventually vanished: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria)

As another example, quite a lot of American children end up medicated because they are inconvenient for overworked teachers in classrooms that follow industrial models of education. A friend of mine was once a substitute teacher in a class where every single student had been diagnosed with ADHD and was on medication. The daily life that their trait was interfering with is entirely artificial. At some point I think one has to wonder whether the problem is the trait or the constructed environment that the trait isn't a good match for.

<comment><USER13> I work in a Sudbury school where we have two kids diagnosed with autism. When they first arrived, they had some problems. But in the free environment of our school, they have become as amazing as all the other children in the school. I don't even think of them as being autistic.

We all have deficiencies. What we all need are environments that let us figure out how to cope with them.

Of course, it is all matters of degree and people need to be able to take responsibility for their actions and needs. Not all can and that requires something different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This article is weird.

1\. The bizarre * in "retardation", as though it's a slur like "nigger".

2\. It overplays "now we know it's all autism". The whole point of "autism spectrum" concept is that it's a name for a basket of symptoms that are NOT understood by current science. We don't have reliable biological tests yet (but there are some great correlates), we don't know the mechanism, we don't now how to reverse it. All we know are some ways to help people meet their life goals by learning ways to work around the skills they lack.

The article has the feel of someone with an extreme-seeking personality: he swung from an extreme homeopathic anti-scientist to an extreme "sciencist", assigning magical powers to "science", not understanding what science actually says.

<comment><USER15> retard has been on the last of no no words for a while now. Lots of co-workers really dont like it. cant tell if i'm on the wrongside of history but i really need a word for when my friends do something stupid.

<comment><USER16> "Retard" as a derogatory term and/or as a slur is indeed offensive, and people are using it less and less. It's best to avoid it. If you're still using it, you are on the wrong side of history. Find another word instead.

But "mental retardation" is a clinical term that is perfectly acceptable, and to bleep it for fear of saying it or spelling it out, is quite ridiculous. This is the first time I've ever seen it done, in fact. It's as silly as bleeping out "Niger river" because it is similar to a slur and shares some amount of etymology.

<comment><USER17> In fact the reason why "retard" is offensive, is because it is taking a term for a mental condition ("retardation") and turning it into a slur. It's similar to how calling something "gay" in a derogatory manner is offensive.

With "retard", the derogatory use became so much more prevalent than the clinical that even the latter was overshadowed and began to take on a negative connotation (at least, for many people).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article makes a point about mis-diagnosis. It's an important point. Look at dyslexia. There are a bunch of different reading disabilities, but school children are mostly tested for dyslexia. If they have dyslexia they get a bunch of help. If they have some other reading disability, well, it's hit or miss whether they get the help or not. So some people with mild dyslexia are geting copious help, while other people with moderate reading disabilities are not getting any help.

This is why accessibility is important. The people who meed the help and who need the assisstive tech might not be able to get it. So, please, do remember accessibility.

</comment><comment><USER11> My son has sensory processing disorder and, it turns out, so does my wife. She was never diagnosed as a child and even though it affects her every day, we never understood it until now. My son also has a host of behaviors that come directly from me. I was also never diagnosed with anything as a child.

</comment><comment><USER18> > In fact, the majority of scientists believe that there is no "autism > epidemic" at all—that people with autism are no more common than they were > 20, or 50, or 1,000 years ago.

This seems very possible. Although a fiction, there is a good example in the Aubrey/Maturin novels by Patrick O'Brian _(Spoiler Alert!)_ :

Dr. Maturin's daughter is born while he is away at sea, and it is strongly suggested that she is on what we call today the Autism Spectrum. Naturally, as a legendary doctor ahead of his time, he recognizes that she is not mentally retarded (or an "idiot" in the language of the period). He prevents his less enlightened contemporaries from essentially trying to beat the condition out of his daughter, and takes measures to provide an environment where she can thrive.

</comment><comment><USER19> As an guy with Autism, this is an absolutely great read.

<comment><USER20> Aspergers here. Great read. My dad had it really bad. It's amazing in retrospect how much everyone adapted their lives around my dad to compensate for his abhorrent behaviors. Not one person said: "Maybe he's got some kind of psychological disorder". That was the hardest part growing up in my household. The not-talking about it.

<comment><USER21> What were his abhorrent behaviors?

<comment><USER22> I'm guessing here that he was nasty and rude as a few students I've worked with were. The real kicker though is that they don't realize what they are doing or saying at all. With adults maybe it's a bit less pronounced but when kids act like that to each other you will hear about it whether verbally or through tears.

<comment><USER23> nasty and rude = autistic now?

god help us all.

<comment><USER24> That's not what they said at all; they said they some autistic students that were nasty and rude without being aware of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What is with the misspelling of retard? Is it so someone can't search for it, or because of the connotations behind the word? Why even use the word at all then? Why not just use one of the other many socially acceptable terms? Personally I find spelling the word this way is a bit offensive. It's as if you are saying you want to use it, but you know it is wrong, so you will just slightly use it.

</comment><comment><USER26> Beautiful story and so rare of a parent to be willing to own their child's condition this way. That's one lucky kid.

</comment><comment><USER27> Ok, Saturday night rant time:

The most curious things about autism is that

A. There isn't much data on prevalence outside the U.S.

B. The rise is hand waved off as better diagnosis by autism skeptics.

C. Looking at causes of autism has been stigmatized because of the anti-vax controversy.

We'll still be sitting here 20 years from now because nobody really wants to get to the bottom of this. Maybe the people who don't use that brand of whatever essential consumer good that causes autism will be the only people who will make it past the next generation and it will effectively breed autism out of the population that way. A whole bunch of people subsistence farming in Africa most likely.

This almost reminds me of Bruce Sterling's story "Sacred Cow" from "A Good Old Fashioned Future" where everybody in Britain and the west dies of mad cow disease and the Indians who don't eat cow take over the world.

<comment><USER28> I think the situation is very similar in Europe.

One interesting thing is that here in Sweden we have a rather large group of refugees from Somalia that have refused vaccinations because they have been rather heavily afflicted by autism. (Several times higher) Interestingly it appears that it does not help - so vaccines can be pretty much rules out, at least as a single cause, just by looking at this a-b test.

There is quite a lot of research on this:

One research study on this group suggested that it might be related to the low level of vitamin-D in the group, caused by the low level of sunshine in Sweden, combined with that the women is covered for religious reasons. Elisabeth Fernell have published a few articles on this.

<comment><USER27> So is anyone doing a vitamin D supplement trial for expectant mothers? I wonder how long they'll just leave that speculation out there before anyone tries an experiment. I'll push the snooze button on this one. Society doesn't seem to need a better answer on this than "More diagnosis" or "Because they're muslims".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Wonderful story!

</comment><comment><USER30> Great, now I think I may have it too.

</comment><comment><USER31> I don't understand why autism being genetic disproves whatever the anti- vaccination camp says. Do they actually say that the only cause of autism is MMR vaccine? I wasn't aware of that.

<comment><USER32> I was under the impression (and I could be wrong) that the anti-vaccine individuals are keen to blame anything on vaccines, not just MMR.

On a side note, until we have cold-hard evidence that there is a direct link between vaccines and disease X, I am going to clump these individuals in the same group as "naturopaths", "homeopaths", "gem/magnet/chakra healing advocates", whatever. I know I exaggerate a little at this point with the names, but I really have no respect for willful unscientific beliefs. Even more so when they decide to inflict these beliefs on their innocent children.

Like these people:

[http://wonkette.com/580153/paleo-chefs-baby-food-book- pulled...](http://wonkette.com/580153/paleo-chefs-baby-food-book-pulled- because-it-could-kill-babies-unfair)

[http://www.bubbayumyum.com/](http://www.bubbayumyum.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> [http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/cdc-responds-admits- omittin...](http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/cdc-responds-admits-omitting- vaccine-data-linking-vaccines-to-higher-rates-of-autism/)

<comment><USER34> I just had a quick look around that site and I wouldn't be referencing it as an argument against anything except good research practices.

They seem to love providing all sorts of links to the publications that back up their arguments, but none to the data they are claiming to refute. This leads to the illusion that they know what they're talking about, but they don't link to what they're actually refuting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I stopped reading after this "Now dedicated advocates for vaccines and evidence-based parenting"

Suure. If you pro-vaccines then you're "evidence based" mature parent. If you against, you're a monster.

For every story like this you will find counter story of children getting all sort of diseases BECAUSE of vaccines.

Internet if full of good read, here is an example: [http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456.full](http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456.full)

<comment><USER36> What was the point of posting that study? I'm genuinely curious what your interpretation of it was.

<comment><USER37> The conclusion of that paper confirms in a very convincing format that vaccines do not cause autism. It explicitly shames the OP with "Further studies on the cause or causes of autism should focus on more-promising leads."

I, too, am genuinely curious.</comment></comment></comment>


Shale pioneer Chesapeake Energy files for bankruptcy - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chesapeake-enrgy-bankruptcy/shale-pioneer-chesapeake-energy-files-for-bankruptcy-idUSKBN23Z0SS <comment><USER2> Accounting for reverse splits, etc, their stock was worth about $12,000.00 in 2008 when oil was really expensive. Trading at $11 as of last Friday. Was at $175 in January of this year.

Tomorrow hits you hard. Fat tails are a thing.

<comment><USER3> Don't you know? Bankruptcy is very bullish news these days on the wall street casino. Stocks only go up.

<comment><USER4> While I can appreciate the r/wsb lingo as much as the next degenerate, let's try to keep it off of HN please

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It honestly feels pretty amicable. The lenders are working with the company ("The company has entered into a restructuring support agreement, which has the full backing of lenders to its main revolving credit facility"), and the company is reorganizing, clearing some debt, but staying operational.

Which is pretty great for the US all-told. The US doesn't have to pump a barrel of shale oil to keep Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, and other petty despot oil states on the defensive, to stay independent of their whims. As long as the US has the ABILITY to spin up pumping once oil hits $50, who cares whether we are actually doing it?

So overall, seems like fine news to me. Some banks are taking a haircut (better them than more taxpayer/bailout money). The infrastructure and organization sticks around. America stays independent of petty oil tyranny. Good news for America all around.

This is what bankruptcy, done right, is for!

<comment><USER6> Not great for the climate, unfortunately. If fossil fuel companies can just go bankrupt and clear all their debt while continuing to operate without skipping a beat, it's nigh impossible for something like renewable energy to compete.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's interesting how companies can file for bankruptcy and can come out of it with not much damage done to the company. At a personal level you are essentially screwed for 7 years and even after that I think some companies don't employ you.

Can anyone point to any resources that provide a good introduction to the bankruptcy process in the US?

<comment><USER8> Companies that file for bankruptcy don't have much damage done to operations and the organizational structure because its ability to keep operating is usually the highest value outcome. That is- the company's continued operations bring in more money than selling off the assets. Most corporate bankruptcy is about not making enough money to pay their outstanding debts, not having money losing operations. Typically the owners lose all their investment and the debtors lose some of their investment. The debtors, in order of priority, are given ownership of the company by the court.

The ability for ownership to exist separately from the "operating" company, for the owners to only be liable up to losing their investment, not more, and for the management and employees not to directly lose money is sorta the "why" for corporations to exist.

<comment><USER9> > _is sorta the "why" for corporations to exist_

It's why _bankruptcy_ , specifically, restructuring exists.

Lots of countries don't have restructuring codes. When their corporations go bankrupt, the assets automatically go to the creditors and/or are liquidated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Saudi Arabia can get cheap oil, but the US hit peak cheap oil along time ago. Shale needs oil prices above $60/barrel.

Energy input is an interesting way of looking at oil. In 1930 we used 1 barrel of oil to obtain 100 more. With shale you are getting closer to spending 1 barrel of oil to get 3. [https://youtu.be/WeBtdwPpTQM?t=450](https://youtu.be/WeBtdwPpTQM?t=450)

<comment><USER11> That's not quite true. The cost of producing shale oil has continued to fall. It started out high, but the industry breakeven price is now $48, and some producers can be profitable as low as $31.

<comment><USER12> Here's published numbers where Exxon only needs $26.90 to make a profit on New Mexico shale[1]. US producers are much more globally competitive than the general media narrative (I'm mostly a tech person in Texas but I socialize with energy folks a good bit).

[1] [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/16/reuters-america-analysis- few...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/16/reuters-america-analysis-few-u-s- shale-firms-can-withstand-prolonged-oil-price-war.html)

<comment><USER13> I wrote this elsewhere, but I'm sure such prices require a certain amount of demand to keep the scale of production high enough.

But if demand falls that saudi oil can handle all the demand, and the Saudis know that wind/solar/EV is going to kill off oil so they better make money while they can (which is why they sold off Aramco), then they will sell what they can to keep it under what is profitable for the US alternative sources.

<comment><USER14> > why they sold off Aramco

they barely sold off a 1.5% stake, and sold it to their own citizens, who are "forced" to buy it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I remember when I first joined Robinhood, the free share of stock I got was in $CHK. I believe they pulled out of trading a year or so ago?

<comment><USER16> What do you mean by that? The stock is still trading at the moment.

<comment><USER17> When stocks "disappear" like that, it's usually due to a split. CHK recently had a 1 for 200 split, so unless you had more than 200 shares of CHK then your broker (Robinhood for gp) would sell them for you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Well... I'm glad I bail out of the energy sector stocks. Barrels are too low for shale and fracking.

Texas is going to be hard hit this recession.

<comment><USER19> I think US tax payers will bail out coal, gas and oil companies anyway.

<comment><USER20> Sad.... I know a lot of jobs are at stack but why can't we just let these industries die?

<comment><USER5> In the 20-year timeframe that would be great (a decarbonized economy), but short-term, it's really important that the US doesn't depend on Saudi Arabia as a sole oil producer, and that means maintaining some level of oil pumping infrastructure

SA, Russia, and Venezuela are not the international players you want to have leverage over US foreign policy. If we let a weird unexpected market rout (like covid) wipe the shale producers out entirely, we really screw ourselves into letting SA call the shots on the world stage. Cuz you know SA and Russia are NOT going to let their pumping capacity collapse.

(To be clear I'm not arguing for a bailout to prevent banks or investors from taking haircuts on the investments — those haircuts have to happen. But "letting all the jobs go" means letting the companies dissolve, vs reorganize, and that's not a good idea, IMO).

<comment><USER21> Why not put heavy tariffs against those sources of oil? Voter resentment?

Always neat seeing how much cheaper gas costs in the US compared to Canada, meanwhile the rhetoric would cause you to think otherwise

<comment><USER16> It would crush the economy. Everything still runs on oil except the fraction of Teslas out there. Not to mention everything made of plastic and other oil derivatives.

<comment><USER19> No.

Most stuff runs on electricity.

60% or more is generated by oil + gas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> People talk all the time about ascendant technologies and industries riding economies of scale, such is happening with wind / solar / batteries / EVs.

But people don't talk about the fact that the opposite can occur with industries.

Petroleum has ridden huge economies of scale to the point their refining facilities are massive, their transport ships are massive... and there is bloat.

But more importantly, most of the cheap extraction oil is gone. The current economies of scale were keeping shale/tar sands extraction with terrible EROEI profitable. But a contraction in demand makes those unable to be used. A compression in demand will make refineries less profitable, and tankers less profitable.

And this is a cycle of destruction, just like economies of scale boosting rising technologies is an enhancing feedback cycle.

Oil and Gas is going to be rocky fall down a steep mountain.

</comment><comment><USER22> Wonder who's going to grab their assets. Maybe Exxon? Still a lot of oil in the fracking areas.

<comment><USER23> The majors rarely buy when they should, they only buy when they shouldn't (price based acquisition fever). Happens over and over again, with the latest being Occidental and Anadarko. The industry is almost universally stupid when it comes to acquisitions.

Notice Exxon and Chevron didn't launch any big acquisitions during the extreme implosion in the industry with the pandemic. They always go into hunker down mode at the wrong time. Why haven't they stepped in to take out Occidental + Anadarko (the Anadarko deal was valued at a comical $55 billion)? They want to wait until the combination's current $16b market cap rebounds back to $35b (and then pay $42b for the deal), so they can be sure of what they're doing. And since Occidental paid so much for Anadarko by itself, they'll pat themselves on the back that they're paying a good price.

Exxon bought XTO Energy (natural gas heavy) in Dec 2009 in an all-stock deal initially valued at $41b (plus an assumed ~$11b in debt). They bought them shortly after the natural gas price bubble crashed (I'm sure they thought it was a good deal) and right before shale production would permanently bury natural gas prices. Another classic poorly timed acquisition disaster in the industry. Analysts at the time of course overwhelmingly praised the deal as smart (calling XTO's price cheap).

If anyone scoops up Chesapeake coming out chapter 11, most likely it will be private equity types specializing in energy markets. Then Exxon will buy it from them at a huge price increase in seven or eight years, right before an oil crash.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It'll dead cat bounce a few times, the smart money buys it on an up day and sells before noon.

<comment><USER25> Is that even legal? I thought you had to hold stocks for 3 days for transactions to settle?

<comment><USER26> You only have to wait three days for it to settle if you want to use those funds to buy a different stock.

<comment><USER25> Thanks for explaining. Does this mean that each time a "day trader" makes a sale of $N, the minimum cash they hold over the next 3 days must be at least $N? Or does the exchange not make the cash available for 3 days?

Also, can the same stock be re-bought within 3 days?

I've seen a lot if different takes on these issues, and an unsure what to believe.

<comment><USER27> When you sign up for a brokerage account, you select whether you want a "cash" or "margin" account. In a margin account, the brokerage essentially loans you the money until the sale clears.

Day traders use margin accounts.

You can indeed buy the same stock back, but it has tax implications. Look up "wash rules".

<comment><USER25> Thanks for explaining

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Daddy Powell to the rescue?</comment>


Where the digital world is going - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@HeadsnHands/where-the-digital-world-is-going-20971c37ee5f#.hsqefryxs <comment><USER2> I saw stargates and thought about human transportation. It's really exciting to explore other galactic, bring new technologies in our world and exchange our experience. Can we be sure that someone like Jack O'Neil fights with replicators now? I don't think so. Maybe one day our successors will call a cab to going to another planet.</comment>


Junk Food Turns Rats Into Addicts - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48605/title/Junk_food_turns_rats_into_addicts <comment><USER2> ...and processed food leads to depression <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=916688></comment>


Polymath David Gelernter's wide-ranging ideas about American life - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/theres-enough-time-to-change-everything/517209/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> blown away by how much he knows ..I think he could beat Watson in Jeopardy

<comment><USER3> I'm only familiar with one of his works, "The Muse in the Machine", which is a bit dated now but provides an excellent informal discussion of the relationship between human and computerized intelligence. It seems he has published on some [even] more controversial topics since then, but I can easily recommend the title I mentioned to anyone with even a passing interest in the subject.</comment></comment>


Obnox OS: The Worst Operating System - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3TXeh_t23o <comment><USER2> an oldy but a goody, and let's not forget _the office of the future_ >> [https://youtu.be/G_jMGApsAnM](https://youtu.be/G_jMGApsAnM)</comment>


Buy Now, Pay Later (Maybe With Your Allowance) - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/business/07digi.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Very innovative. Seems like a huge opportunity.

Excerpt from the article:

Minors as well as adults can buy items in the games with a "Kwedit Promise," which can be paid off later in a number of ways — with a credit or debit card, for example, or with cash sent in a mailer that Kwedit supplies.

But here's an entirely new payment option: A user can print out a barcode and head to a 7-Eleven store, which will accept cash, scan the code and notify Kwedit that payment has been made. In the next three months, a Kwedit logo will join those for credit cards and other payment methods on the doors of all 7-Elevens, a company spokesman says.

As game purveyors, Kwedit's current partners sell virtual goods whose marginal cost is virtually zero, so there's no risk of real financial loss if the promise is not repaid. But by offering Kwedit's service, the game publishers capitalize on the most frictionless form of sales: buy now, pay later.

</comment><comment><USER2> This is really a great way to keep parents out of the loop, which is great for the kid players and the game, because if I found out my son was spending $3/week on virtual dog food I'd turn off our internet.</comment>


Schneier on Blockchain, and Trust - <AUTHOR> https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2019/02/theres_no_good_reaso.html <comment><USER2> His statements about trust in "institutions" misses the mark for me. Deutsche Bank has been convicted and fined repeatedly for money laundering. They have neither reformed their operations not been penalized enough to impact their business. Same for all the other large financial institutions that caused the 2008 collapse. No figureheads or executives were punished financially or criminally. Another example would be the Equifax hack that stole the private data of 143 million Americans and again no civil or criminal penalties for the people responsible.

These companies are too big to fail and don't respond to market forces. They have captured the government regulators and create barriers to entry for competitors.

For many people there is no "institutional" trust as Schneier describes. There is forced institutional interaction, mostly likely because it benefits the government to monitor individuals. Perhaps cryptocurrencies are a fad, but I doubt his conclusion that there is no utility value in a "trustless" system. The current system is broken and nobody is fixing it.

</comment><comment><USER3> he's spot on about private blockchains

he's also spot on about Ethereum and other alts

he's not absolutely right about Bitcoin. If there's a hard money that is better than gold, and that's backed by electricity --- it solves lot of problems dear sir ! please try to understand that aspect. For the love of technology and logic.

Please read Bitcoin Standard once, of course it is massive experiment that can fail but saying that it is useless dis-credits the efforts of many bright computer scientists working in this field. Yes 95% is scam and most are conmans, but that is true with any greenfield area. AI must had, security must had scams.

</comment><comment><USER4> Just to head off the pro-Bitcoin trolls ...

> For many people there is no "institutional" trust as Schneier describes.

Nobody thinks of the banking industry as a role model. But everybody relies on going to the ATM for successful withdrawals. That's the trust that Schneier was referring to, not your personal spirit quest.

> Equifax ...

is not a bank.

> massive amt of electricity used in gold mining

Gold is a rare element, with tangible uses.

> Please read Bitcoin Standard once ...

Nobody denies the mathematics, so mentioning the math is just a red herring used by apologists - "if you only knew what I know"

> so many banks employing millions of people and using so much computation to > print money out of thin air

Most large banks are run on a single mainframe computer (Tandem or IBM) with low-power terminals at branches. That mainframe consumes about as much power as one mining rig.

Source: worked at a national-level bank in their data center.

</comment><comment><USER3> and.... there's massive amt of electricity used in gold mining(and toxic for environment for how it's done) and so many banks employing millions of people and using so much computation to print money out of thin air (debt issuance, fractional reserve, derivatives, fiat-backed by just trust on your govt, artificially low interest rates, modern monetary theory - you name it) it is not sustainable dear sir.

Forget Bitcoin and crypto and tech, have you ever thought about that problem? It could very well be one of the biggest mess our society is in at a global scale.</comment>


Ask HN: hourly rates for part-time php developer - <AUTHOR>

Hey guys, What are the standard hourly-rate in you country for php part-time developers(or any part-time developers you are aware of). I am currently in Singapore, so if you know anything about Singapore rates, please enlight me!<p>Thanks! <comment><USER2> Figure out how many hours you can work in a month. There is no standard here. In the U.S. the standard work day is 8 hours but you may only really be able to focus on coding for 4 - 6 hours per day. Multiply that number by 12 and then subtract the number of hours you will lose from vacations, sick time and any other down time you might have. Then divide that number by 12 to get your monthly average. Next come up with your preferred monthly income plus business expenses. Divide that by your average monthly working hours. The resulting number is your hourly rate.

However, don't let that be a constraining number. Depending on the client, circumstances and other variables, sometimes you can charge whatever you like. In a scenario where you are relatively busy and you get a new big client asking for you to take on an emergency project, then go ahead and throw out whatever crazy number you think the client might accept. You already have work, so it doesn't hurt if the client declines.

Also raise your rates as you get more clients lined up and you get busier. That's supply and demand. As your demand goes up and you have more opportunities than you can handle, raise your rates to bring that demand down to a level you can handle.

Your rate shouldn't be based on where you live other than the fact that you need to at least charge enough for your living expenses, and that can greatly vary based on where you live.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, thank you for detailed explanation. That makes it really clear and makes sense. It is my first freelance experience, so I am a bit disoriented. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> For your standard 'php developer,' $20-40/hour.

For an actual programmer, doing something that requires more than WordPress + jQuery, $60-150/hour.

That's in a highly depressed economic market and not a city. In a big city (like NYC), you can probably charge 50-100% higher.

</comment><comment><USER4> In London, a freelance PHP Developer could realistically earn £40 an hour.

</comment><comment><USER5> No idea about Singapore rates, Russians charge $25-$35 an hour.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is pretty good. Thanks! I was thinking it is about 15$...</comment></comment>


Show HN: Communicate, track tasks, and automate workflows in a single app - <AUTHOR> https://pyrus.com/ <comment><USER2> looks great but without a mail activation system I can sign up to pyrus as bill gates with email@example.com as microsoft corp. :/

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks good! Will try later</comment>


Ask HN: Question for Lisp Hackers - <AUTHOR>

I'm having a hard time convincing my buddies at school (or anyone for that matter) to try out Lisp. No one seems to care when I talk about code as data or macros. I am a fairly inexperienced programmer, so when they answer with "so what?" I can't really come up with anything.
Then I got to thinking.. What is supposed to motivate new programmers to try out and use Lisp when today we have dynamic languages such as Python and Ruby?
Personally, I got into it because I am hungry for knowledge and I've heard that some of the best CS literature out there uses it. But what about others? Is there a clear advantage to using Lisp that is not apparent to non-Lispers? <comment><USER2> The best i can come up with is to write something cool in lisp and show it to them. And by "cool" i don't mean a lame example snippet showing off closures, or an implementation of an "unless" macro, i mean a real app. Not too big(because it will take you longer to write, and also it will be harder to explain all the details to your friends while showing them your code), but not too short(its easy for languages like python or ruby to have shorter versions of very small lisp programs, so you might fail to impress if your app is too trivial).

If you just want to "geek out" on them and spit a lot of hype about lisp, that might not be a good idea. Its good to educate yourself about lisp and other languages, and be ready to answer questions, and explain your choice, but IMHO its better to show lisps power with real code.

</comment><comment><USER3> See "The Blub Paradox" in <http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html> on why it's hard to get this across.

The "clear advantage" that Lisp still has is the best type of homoiconicity (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiconicity>); see items 8 and 9 in <http://www.paulgraham.com/diff.html>.

I'm not sure why this is hard to get across; my first introduction to Lisp was a "Learn Lisp in 15 Minutes" talk/mini-seminar/whatever and it was immediately obvious to me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I thought about it as I was writing the post. But what I'm interested in finding out is how (and if) it is any different today (2010) than it was when the essay was written. In other words, has anything changed that would make another language a close alternative to Lisp? Or is Lisp still at the top of the continuum ?

<comment><USER3> Well, you might want to look at other declarative language paradigms (which you can of course be neatly programed in Lisp) such logic programming (e.g. Prolog) and defining functions through pattern matching (e.g. Haskell, Qi).

There's some serious power there and in the latter case it's general purpose.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I say quit trying to convince them to get into Lisp. Lisp does not maintain rockstar status like Python or Ruby nor does it have the big daddy status like Java or C++, although it is older and (in some cases) better than all of them combined.

You yourself stated that you got into Lisp as you knew that some of the best literature uses it as a medium and you were hungry for knowledge. This may not be so for your buddies.</comment>