US Surgeon General Declares E-cigarette Epidemic Among Youth [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://e-cigarettes.surgeongeneral.gov/documents/surgeon-generals-advisory-on-e-cigarette-use-among-youth-2018.pdf <comment><USER2> We should be clear what the actual object of this "epidemic" is. It isn't really about vaping. It's about Nicotine. And this fight is just one battle in a larger war: the societal struggle to define the proper moral dimensions of chemical dependency.

Many people have a knee-jerk reaction to "chemical dependency"... they assume it must be a bad thing. That somehow sobriety is the "natural" state of human beings, and that any dependence on a mind-altering chemical is a weakness, a deviation.

You can see this in the way we mix up terms like "dependency" and "addiction". People treat the former as if it were equivalent to the latter, but it isn't: "addiction" is when the harms of a dependency outweigh the benefits, when it becomes "maladaptive" (a vague, value-laden term). But a dependency by itself isn't necessarily maladaptive. Sometimes it's a positive adaptation.

Consider this, one of my favorite essays, about a woman whose relationship with Nicotine appears to have enriched her life:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/opinion/sunday/can- nicoti...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/opinion/sunday/can-nicotine-be- good-for-you.html)

There are certainly chemicals that cause far more harm than good... there's no denying that. I'm not saying we should embrace Fentanyl. But it would be a mistake to treat every chemical dependency as an obvious evil. The moral valence of Nicotine dependency is far from black-and-white. Sometimes we depend on something because it's good for us. (Notice how nobody's complaining about a coffee epidemic.)

<comment><USER3> Yes to the moral dimension -- obscured by the health issue.

It's also about children. Most parents won't allow young kids to drink coffee, for instance. Childhood ought to be a preparation for freedom and addictions have the potential to limit that freedom before it even gets started.

Adults may weigh the benefits for themselves. Sometimes the result is indeed positive.

<comment><USER4> Do any states prohibit selling caffeine to minors?

<comment><USER5> In Russia, "energy drinks" are forbidden for minors (< 18 years), but coffee, tea and coca-cola-like drinks (which AFAIK can have caffeine too) don't have such restriction.

<comment><USER6> Dosage and sweetness is surly part of the rationale. Coffee is not a cool, sweet, refreshing drink. Soda is but has around 50 mg of caffeine, while energy drinks have between 80-160 mg. Probable harm from high levels of caffeine much easier to hit with energy drinks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The fun part about the e-cigarette epidemic: states have a perverse incentive to keep cigarette smoking rates from dropping too quickly. The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement gave states an annuity from tobacco profits, and many states took a lump-sum payment instead. That money has already been spent. If cigarette smoking rates (and thus, profits) drop too much, they have to pay back the money.

Everything with e-cigarettes was fairly hunky-dory and not an 'epidemic' until 2014, the year teen smoking rates plummeted and e-cigarettes took off. Most of those teen smokers who took up vaping instead of cigarettes will likely never become cigarette smokers. This alters the math on the annuity payments that were already cashed in for up-front money, and thus the states could end up in the red on their bond payments. Thus they have a financial incentive to keep e-cigarettes from fully replacing combustible cigarettes, even if they are a definite harm reduction tool.

<comment><USER8> > Everything with e-cigarettes was fairly hunky-dory and not an 'epidemic' > until 2014, the year teen smoking rates plummeted and e-cigarettes took off.

Yes. E-cigarette usage wasn't an epidemic until usage "took off".

That's just the definition of "epidemic"; everything else you try to associate is irrelevant.

<comment><USER7> Don't epidemics usually create sick people? I realize the counter-argument will of course be "we don't know the long-term effects," but people have been exposed to aerosolized glycerine/propylene glycol for decades in the form of fog machines at concerts and clubs. Surely if this was the next asbestos we'd be seeing _something_ by now.

<comment><USER9> How many people spend a significant percentage of their time right next to a fog machine breathing in highly concentrated amounts?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just my personal take but as an adult who just quite smoking a few weeks ago the availability of vaps has been tremendously helpful. I feel night and day better in terms of health despite consuming probably similar levels of nicotine.

And while I don't view nicotine (or vaporized VG, PG) as particularly harmful it probably should be reserved for those 18+. What doesn't seem to be helpful is that vaping comes in all sorts of flavors (beyond synthetic tobacco flavor)that would probably appeal to people minors (mango, cotton-candy, etc). In contrast any flavorings of those types in cigarettes was banned a decade ago (with the notable exception of menthol).

> Currently, no flavors are banned from other tobacco products, although > research suggests flavors may also make these products more enticing to > youth and young adults. Data from FDA's Population Assessment of Tobacco and > Health found that nearly 80 percent of youth ages 12-17 and nearly 75 > percent of young adults ages 18-25 who were current tobacco users in 2014 > reported that the first tobacco product they ever used was flavored.25 > Alternatively, FDA is aware of self-reported information suggesting that the > availability of flavors in some noncombusted tobacco products such as > e-cigarettes and other ENDS may help some adult users reduce cigarette use > or switch to potentially less harmful products.

[https://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/ProductsIngredi...](https://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/ProductsIngredientsComponents/ucm2019416.htm)

<comment><USER11> Nicotine is little different from caffeine. Either you ban both, none, or you decide your policy is arbitrary moral posturing supported by no evidence.

Ultimately, there is little in the way of physical dependency; nicotine is as addicting as sugar and fat loaded burgers and fries, and the health risk to the population of those blow any risk from nicotine out of the water. In fact, the evidence probably shows we could promote the use of vaping instead of overeating on junk-food, and should ban minors from entering fast food places.

<comment><USER12> >Nicotine is little different from caffeine. Either you ban both, none, or you decide your policy is arbitrary moral posturing supported by no evidence.

They are quite different in their mechanism of action. Caffeine works via Adenosine, Nicotine works via Nicotinic Acetylcholine receptors.

<comment><USER11> Yes, they are both nerve agents, harmless to humans beyond some nootropic effect. No physical dependency.

<comment><USER13> > Nicotine on direct application in humans causes irritation and burning > sensation in the mouth and throat, increased salivation, nausea, abdominal > pain, vomiting and diarrhea.[17] Gastrointestinal effects are less severe > but can occur even after cutaneous and respiratory exposure.[18] Predominant > immediate effects as seen in animal studies and in humans consist of > increase in pulse rate and blood pressure. Nicotine also causes an increase > in plasma free fatty acids, hyperglycemia, and an increase in the level of > catecholamines in the blood.[19,20] There is reduced coronary blood flow but > an increased skeletal muscle blood flow.[20,22] The increased rate of > respiration causes hypothermia, a hypercoagulable state, decreases skin > temperature, and increases the blood viscosity.

Nicotine is one of the most toxic of all poisons and has a rapid onset of action. Apart from local actions, the target organs are the peripheral and central nervous systems. In severe poisoning, there are tremors, prostration, cyanosis, dypnoea, convulsion, progression to collapse and coma. Even death may occur from paralysis of respiratory muscles and/or central respiratory failure with a LD50 in adults of around 30-60 mg of nicotine. In children the LD50 is around 10 mg.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/)

<comment><USER11> You can also die from caffeine. What is your point, beyond "the dose makes the poison"?

<comment><USER14> The fact that a risk _exists_ is irrelevant, and it was never the point. If you want to understand the risks associated with nicotine and caffeine, you measure them. There are a number of metrics we can use as a proxy for risk, like margin of exposure or margin of safety, but these give us an incomplete understanding of the risks. The problem with electronic cigarettes is that children are particularly prone to the following things:

\- Eating or drinking inappropriate things,

\- Eating or drinking things which are colorful or have a pleasant aroma, and

\- Being more sensitive to certain chemicals (e.g. nicotine) than adults.

So if you told me, "Let's put nicotine in a mango-scented liquid and put it in reach of children," I think we should be alarmed. Likewise, when we took iron supplements and put them in the shape of colorful pills or animals with a sweet taste like candy, and then children started eating them and getting iron poisoning, we got concerned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I read an article the other day about how juul modifies the nicotine to make it less painful so they can put more in each pod. An interesting side effect of this is that people who don't smoke can start smoking easier because it's less painful. That information combined with this report just makes me so upset on so many levels...

<comment><USER16> Can you cite the article? I cannot find any reference to Juul modifying nicotine to make it more palatable.

<comment><USER17> Juul uses nicotine salts, where as standard vape juice is just freebase nicotine. The salts are said to be 'milder' or easier to consume. In the US, vape juice comes in 0, 3 and 6mg/mL doses. Juul does not publish nic levels, but its probably closer to 48+mg/mL.

<comment><USER18> Most vape liquids I've seen come in 0-24 mg/ml (in 6mg increments, except for 3).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Is this more serious than the sugar epidemic?

Or exposure to traffic pollution?

Or reduced freedom to roam?

It would seem that there are many social threats to my children, and vaping is maybe in the top 10? Should it be higher?

<comment><USER20> I wonder if the big tobacco companies are behind this.

They have much to lose because e-cigs are not used for tobacco, in my experience.

So they (tobacco corps) will lose future tobacco addicts to e-cigs and vaping liquid producers.

peace.

<comment><USER21> The nicotine in e-cigs are produced using tobacco and I'm pretty sure big tobacco doesn't care if kids are smoking actual cigarettes or e-cigs, only that they are smoking.

<comment><USER22> > I'm pretty sure big tobacco doesn't care if kids are smoking actual > cigarettes or e-cigs, only that they are smoking.

I disagree.

Tobacco is an industry with high regulatory barriers to entry and decades of very effective marketing behind it. "Big Tobacco" makes money at the wholesale and retail levels pretty much unopposed.

Vaping is effectively unregulated, and there really aren't any truly big players in e-liquid market. Everyone who vapes seems to have their favorites, but even a small vape shop will have a dozen or more brands on the shelves.

Vaping isn't going to kill tobacco use, because as you said, the nicotine ultimately comes from tobacco - but its rise is cutting significantly into the revenue of "Big Tobacco".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > approximately two-thirds of JUUL users aged 15-24 do not know that JUUL > always contains nicotine.

I find this very, very difficult to believe.

<comment><USER23> How many people do you know aged 15-24? It would not surprise me one bit.

<comment><USER24> I'm a high school teacher (and kids have no concept of privacy and talk openly about everything), and I completely agree. Not sure if it's 2/3, but I'd say definitely over 50% don't realize that most probably contain nicotine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Juul is cited many times in that document. I am generally intrigued by Juul. Their intention to "end combustible smoking" and help "adult smokers" smoke with less pain/more easily seems good for the target user (create a system with fewer toxins-to-nicotine ratio). The side-effect of engineering a better system is that it's easier for all users to smoke, i.e. intended for adults, but tech-savy kids will devour this concept).

<comment><USER26> Juul is reported to have higher nicotine levels though.

<comment><USER25> I see. I'm not very familiar with their product. I would think that their product is good for weening "adult smokers" off of nicotine through tapered usage (e.g. reducing nicotine intake over a timeline by using specific dosage cartridges). Which of course go against a sustainable business?

<comment><USER27> They actually did just introduce lower level nicotine packs of their pods. The device worked for me because if you look into the world of vaping, it is almost like another hobby. So many parts, batteries, coils, juices, etc... the juul was dead simple and really just replaced my 13 year pack-a-day habit. It is a little unfortunate how it took off in schools and I do truly believe that was never their intention. It really works as a "cigarette replacement" if you aren't ready to quit cold turkey.

<comment><USER25> Thanks for sharing! That's an interesting point regarding simplicity of design and how the complexity of vaping can actually create a hobbyism that keeps you in the realm.

If you don't mind me asking (and you sharing): How long did it take to stop smoking? Can you describe the weening process?

<comment><USER27> Sorry for late reply. It was literally overnight....I didn't wean myself off the real thing it just sort of changed. It felt good and certainly has social benefits, but the downside is I can smoke the juul basically anywhere, including indoors. I would still recommend it for some who "wants" to quit (but doesn't really want to). No more smells or coughing up gunk every morning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> fwiw, vaping is treated the same as tobacco use by most insurance companies with regards to what is provided to employees.

I have been amazed at how some who vape think it is acceptable indoors in public places that other tobacco use is not. At work it had to be reminded more than once it was not acceptable outside of designated areas. It simply is an addiction that is easier to partake of and hide than most.

<comment><USER29> People who vape are under the impression that exhalation only releases water vapor into their immediate surroundings; I've heard this on multiple occasions from smokers. The question then of course becomes, how does it have a scent if it is just water vapor?

<comment><USER30> I've heard people say this but it's never even been water vapor. It's vegetable glycerin and/or propylene glycol even if there were no other flavorings or nicotine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I have had COPD for a little over 9 years, about two years ago, I began to do a lot of research and learnt about a COPD TREATMENT from Rich Herbs Foundation and their success rate with the treatment,i immediately started on the treatment, few weeks into the treatment, i experienced significant reduction in major symptoms, including the shortness of breath, fatigue, cough and wheezing. Visit RHF page ww w. richherbsfoundation. c om. Its been over 1 years since treatment, i feel great and breath well

</comment><comment><USER32> Recent related discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18712622](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18712622).

</comment><comment><USER33> Ecigs are this generations 70's cigarette moment, thanks to social media. It has been glamorized and thus cool:

[https://vsco.co/search/images/juul](https://vsco.co/search/images/juul)

</comment><comment><USER34> E-cigs haven't shown to be harmful in the least bit, in fact, there's a lot of evidence that nicotine is a nootropic with neuro-protective properties. Increases cognitive performance and decreases the likelihood of developing Parkinson's or Alzheimer's.

Also while nicotine is addictive, there is some research showing that it is addictive only in the presence of MAOI's (present in normal cigarettes not but E-cigs).

EDIT: I'm getting downvoted, and maybe you guys are right, E-cigs haven't been shown to "not be harmful in the least bit." But their risk profile is more akin to eating junk food than tobacco, which is on a whole different level (disclosure: I don't smoke E-cigs, but I do smoke tobacco)

<comment><USER35> Alright, so dealer's choice on who you want to believe:

* cancer.net? [https://www.cancer.net/navigating-cancer-care/prevention-and...](https://www.cancer.net/navigating-cancer-care/prevention-and-healthy-living/stopping-tobacco-use-after-cancer-diagnosis/health-risks-e-cigarettes-smokeless-tobacco-and-waterpipes)

* CDC? [https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/Q...](https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/Quick-Facts-on-the-Risks-of-E-cigarettes-for-Kids-Teens-and-Young-Adults.html)

* Harvard? [https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/electronic-cigarettes-go...](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/electronic-cigarettes-good-news-bad-news-2016072510010)

* Stanford? [https://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/tobaccopreventiontoo...](https://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/tobaccopreventiontoolkit/documents/ecigarettes/Risks%20of%20E-Cigarette%20Factsheet.pdf)

I think it's pretty far from "harmless".

<comment><USER19> Thank you for the links. I did read them, but failed to reach the conclusion "pretty far from "harmless"".

It sounds like an understudied but potentially very safe mechanism for nicotine delivery. The big issue seams to be poor behaviour from companies like JUUL, and large quaestions around dosing for adolescents.

I honestly couldn't tell you from those links if I should be more concerned about nicotine, sugar, caffeine, THC, or alcohol.

At this point I suspect that I should be more worried about soda than vaping.

<comment><USER35> > Even still, the mounting evidence shows that these devices are not harmless.

> Chronic nicotine exposure may lead to insulin resistance and type 2 > diabetes, although this risk may be offset by the well-known appetite > suppressant effects of nicotine. Inhaled nicotine increases heart rate and > blood pressure. Nicotine is highly addictive in its own right, and it may > lead to changes in the brain that increase the risk of addiction to other > drugs, especially in young people. Nicotine may also impair prefrontal brain > development in adolescents, leading to attention deficit disorder and poor > impulse control. These potential harms of nicotine are particularly > worrisome in view of soaring rates of e-cigarette use in U.S. teenagers.

> Using nicotine in adolescence can harm the parts of the brain that control > attention, learning, mood, and impulse control.

> Many people incorrectly believe that these devices produce a water vapor > when in fact they create aerosols that contain harmful chemicals, and ultra- > fine particles that are inhaled into the lungs and out into the environment, > making them harmful to the user and others nearby.

I guess you're assuming people aren't going to read the actual links?

Further, this isn't a zero sum game; you can be worried about soda _and_ e-cigs.

It bothers me more than it probably should, your attitude. You're letting this stuff ruin lives all because you want to get high.

<comment><USER34> What about the positive effects of nicotine? Are you saying that the negative effects out weight the good? Or are you just opposed to anything that gets you "high."?

<comment><USER35> PCP also gives you immense strength. Let's give our kids PCP!

Short term advantages don't make up for long term consequences.

Edit: I'm sorry, that was overly snarky. I should be clear, I don't give a shit what adults do to themselves. My sole concern is this normalization of nicotine reaching kids. They're being marketed to very strongly with this "it's safe!" argument, which doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

<comment><USER34> I mean, maybe not. But it's a personal decision.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Why are there conflicting reports on the stats from the CDC?

The CDC's website[1] says there's been a 0.6% increase in vaping in middle school and 1.5% increase in high school since 2011. This advisory however says "E-cigarette use among U.S. middle and high school students increased 900% during 2011-2015, before declining for the first time during 2015-2017." Was there a nearly 899% drop in 2015-2017?

[https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/yout...](https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/index.htm)

<comment><USER8> > Why are there conflicting reports on the stats from the CDC?

There aren't.

> The CDC's website[1] says there's been a 0.6% increase in vaping in middle > school and 1.5% increase in high school

No, it doesn't. The 0.6% and 1.5% numbers appear, but as the base incidence in 2011 from which an increase occurred, not the percent increase. Quoting the relevant passage of your own source (emphasis added):

"Nearly 5 of every 100 middle school students (4.9%) reported in 2018 that they used electronic cigarettes in the past 30 days— _an increase from 0.6% in 2011_."

"Nearly 21 of every 100 high school students (20.8%) reported in 2018 that they used electronic cigarettes in the past 30 days— _an increase from 1.5% in 2011_."

There is a difference between an "an increase FROM _x_ % IN 2011" and "an increase OF _x_ SINCE 2011"; you seem to have confused the former for the latter.

The middle school increase reported is 717%; the high school increase reported is 1287%. There is nothing obviously inconsistent with aggregate 900% increase 2011-2015 with a slight aggregate decline thereafter.

<comment><USER36> Yes, yayana explained my error pretty succinctly before you did...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Epidemic seems a little strong...

<comment><USER38> Because you feel it's not widespread enough or not damaging enough (or both)?

<comment><USER39> I think it would be about rates of increase or decrease rather than overall numbers. If it were about overall numbers, well, its pretty clear we've ended a tobacco epidemic over the past 60 years.

Not sure if any one else here remembers cigarettes in restaurants, but imagine spelling camels while getting your salad bar refill at Sizzler.

We've come a long way.

<comment><USER15> That doesn't mean we're finished. Pretending this problem is solved will just result in it getting out of hand again.

<comment><USER39> What do you mean by 'finished' and 'solved'? You speak as if there is some sort of societal goal in mind here. You've clearly got an agenda here and I think you should make it clear that you've got a goal in mind here regarding whats 'right' and 'wrong' for other people to do with their time, lives, and money.

If people want to smoke, let them smoke. Is it bad for them? Yeah. Does it have a negative cost against society? Yeah. But its a slight cost that I'm willing to bear to uphold personal liberty and freedom of choice.

Overall, smoking rates are pretty low, and we're probably on the other side of the overall costs smoking writ-large will have on society. So its fine. If people still want to smoke, warn them of the negatives, then let them smoke.

<comment><USER15> I assume the societal goal is to help young people, whose brains aren't yet able to make sound decisions ([https://www.aacap.org/aacap/families_and_youth/facts_for_fam...](https://www.aacap.org/aacap/families_and_youth/facts_for_families/fff- guide/the-teen-brain-behavior-problem-solving-and-decision-making-095.aspx)) and keep them from doing things which might really hurt them in life like developing nicotine or alcohol dependency. ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4519837/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4519837/))

<comment><USER40> They already require people be over 18, maybe the punishment should be higher on those who are supplying children with them?

The reason I'm so against more regulation is that the current trend in the war against ecigs is to ban pretty much any good tasting flavors (all but menthol), and I don't like that what entails for our future. I don't even vape, but the idea that the majority will go around banning what they don't like "for the good of the children" is something I refuse to support.

It's not going to stop if it gets started.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> ELI5: what makes vaping more dangerous or concerning than say coffee or energy drinks?

<comment><USER42> The withdrawal symptoms are far worse, for one.

If you go off caffeine, you're drowsy for a few days, no big deal.

If you go off nicotine, you're condemning yourself to months or years of craving that never fully goes away: the physiological components of nicotine addiction are more or less permanent.

That's just off the top of my head. I wouldn't be surprised if there are detrimental dosage effects of nicotine that caffeine doesn't have.

<comment><USER41> I quit smoking daily (at least half a pack per day) for 3 years straight,and it was "cold turkey" as they say.

Once I quit,I felt a bit uncomfortable like a very mild headache(almost background annoyance) for about two weeks and that was all there was to it. Now,I've never been addicted to caffeine even though I drink espresso shots daily for weeks and for a few more weeks might not drink any caffeine,so I have no frame of reference for comparison.

Stress does still cause me to be tempted but it's no worse than being tempted to eat fast food.</comment></comment></comment>


What's Your Primary Consumption Device? - <AUTHOR> http://www.launch.is/blog/whats-your-primary-consumption-device.html

<comment><USER2> I'm still on my desktop(well laptop) at least 8-10hrs a day. Otherwise my phone and occasionally on my ipad before bed.

</comment><comment><USER3> iPad for all reading - ebooks, HN, flipboard; otherwise it's desktop for development work.</comment>


I just launched my first bootstrapped startup. What do you think? - <AUTHOR> http://churchpr.es

<comment><USER2> Very, very nice. I manage my church's website, but I don't have the time to constantly upgrade Drupal (or WP), and it looks bad. My only thing is that I have a small church, and while $25/mo seems reasonable to me, I doubt my church would go for it. They're looking for "as free as possible", to the point where I have to donate space on my own server. Also, we have an existing MX provider, but it seems like you're wanting to handle DNS (since you offer email and CDN). Do we still get access to set custom CNAME and MX records?

I guess what I'd also want in a service is something to guide me (or really, the pastors) on how to effectively use social media. We have the accounts, but they go unused because we cannot figure out what should and should not go there. I think a very valuable thing would be a portal that helps you post to those service and maybe gives you a prompt for what to do. Something like that might help justify the $25/mo for small churches. I'm thinking something like where the pastor can post a blog (devotional thoughts), and have the tool automatically prompt him to make a FB post about the blog, maybe asking a compelling question that will get you to interact. If it integrates with FB for commenting, that would be even better!

I guess my main point here is that there is a market for teaching small churches with older pastors how to properly integrate social media. The website management is a great start, but the social aspect is where we fail hard. If you can solve that problem for us in a way that integrates with the website functionality, we'd be a definite customer.

Edit: Oh yeah, the media aspect. Our church cannot afford to pay for custom graphics or images. I occasionally buy stock photography. If you had a library of images or graphics that could be used by the churches, that would be a major selling point.

Edit 2: I feel like an idiot. Just noticed you provide $50 social media training. Assuming this was comprehensive and geared to the completely non- technical, this might facilitate some of my thoughts above. Saw the banner before and thought it was training on how to work with the website.

<comment><AUTHOR> Lots of great ideas, thanks!

My goal is to make a platform that offers everything a church would need but also removes any of the "technological" complexities. If a church has someone that is familiar with DNS than I won't have a problem letting them make any changes necessary but there is no menu setting or options panel in the website backend that would allow DNS changes to be made.

The social media aspect is something I try to cover by offering social media training but your idea is actually a lot better. Having, more or less, a guided tour or helping hand directly integrated into the backend itself. That is something I will definitely consider and look into.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Out of curiosity how is the application setup? I see you are using WHMCS to manage the domains and the orders, but after that are all the sites WP sites that have custom modules and are themed?

</comment><comment><USER4> Congrats! How are you approaching the churches, and how has that process been? Any paying customers yet?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey thanks! So far, I have just sent out emails to a few churches. I want to take it pretty slow so I can easily adjust to what customers want and changes I need to make. I have a relatively long list of churches, blogs, church networks and ministers to contact. Locally speaking, I plan on going to several churches and making a pitch in person.

Technically, I launched a week ago today and I don't have any paying customers yet. I have several who registered for a free site though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Def. a big/interesting market - what's your plan on reaching these churches? Would love to hear

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey John thanks for the comment. I touched on your question a little bit in a previous comment. In short, I plan on contact a lot of churches, blogs and church networks. I also personally know several seminary professors and ministers that I will contact to see if they could pass along a recommendation to any churches they might know who are looking for a website.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looks great. Good luck, and I've bookmarked the blog to keep up with it.

</comment><comment><USER7> Wow, brave move! Good for you!

</comment><comment><USER8> Know that one of your biggest hurdles is going to be the fact that every church has a "tech guy" who will "do the website" for free.

It's a big market, but probably not easiest hill to climb.</comment>


Ask HN: What music alters your state of consciousness? - <AUTHOR>

When you are feeling unproductive/unfocused what one piece of music alters your mind state and helps you refocus? For me it's Carl Craig "At Les" http://bit.ly/3KfNRh interested to know what yours is... <comment><USER3> Songite link: <http://www.songite.com/#e0eecb>

\--

Glenn Gould playing Bach.

London Elektricity's Syncopated City

Most pieces by Steve Reich

The Koyaanisqatsi soundtrack by Philip Glass.

Burial's Untrue.

Fujiya & Miyagi's Transparent Things.

Apparat's Walls

Miles Davis' In A Silent Way

DNTEL's Life Is Full Of Possibilities

The Weather Report's Heavy Weather & Black Market

...

I'm not sure what the linking thread is here. For example, elevator-cheesy Heavy Weather is worlds apart from just about everything else on the list. But it all works, at least to get me into the zone.

<comment><USER4> I never heard about Apparat, sounds great!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Lately I've become a big fan of AIR, they make great instrumental tracks, as well as songs with lyrics. I tend to listen to the soundtrack of the virgin suicides quite a lot. Many people don't like the atmosphere of their music, but I feel as if I get their songs. I also like the soundtrack of donnie darko, the mood is quite unique, haven't discovered it anywhere else. I don't know why but that kind of music doesn't distract me at all and makes me calm and more productive.

<comment><USER6> Two of my favourites as well. AIR are the perfect 'background music' and i don't get distracted by their lyrics. The Donnie Darko soundtrack is moody and atmospheric.

Also, anything by Sigur Rós. Not because they are a great band, but because they don't sing in English (or Icelandic a lot of the time). I find their music isn't distracting and really enthuses me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I recently noticed that if I put on something extremely hard or caustic - <USER2> kind of screamy metal like Protest the Hero or Tool - and turn the volume up to the point where I can't hear anything else, I stop noticing the music altogether. It kind of feels like it puts my auditory nerve on overload and everything gets filtered out.

The intense, ear-crushing metal also confers the added bonus of warding away pesky human distractions.

<comment><USER8> As an added benefit, you'll soon lose your hearing altogether and the annoying sound of human voices will become a distant memory!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Anything electro/techno:

\- Justice

\- Boyz Noise

\- MSTR KRFT

\- DeadMau5

\- Erick Morillo

\- (sometimes) A-Trak

This almost the _only_ way I can get work done, otherwise I am reciting lyrics & enjoying guitar riffs.

<comment><USER10> I've found these mixtapes by Moneypenny quite enjoyable:

<http://www.urchicago.com/spandexxxmixtape>

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYUdixQGF0w> (Rossini La Gazza Ladra Overture Abbado Vienna 1991)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CMo_mLNz38> (Tchaikovsky, Piano Concerto No. 1 - Mov 1, Part 1/3 (Martha Argerich, 1973))

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG2hGSL345I> (Rossini - William Tell overture (Part 1))

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU_QR_FTt3E> (Rostropovich plays the Prelude from Bach's Cello Suite No. 1)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B49N46I39Y> (Holst - Jupiter)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLHj-eekdNU> (Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 4, 4th mvmt)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0Sx5lbVlQA> (Pavarotti Last Performance "Nessun Dorma" @ Torino 2006)

</comment><comment><USER12> A varied selection:

Jazzanova

Old Blue Note Jazz stuff

Glenn Gould Goldberg Variations (1. version 1955)

Bach Cello Suites (Pierre Fournier)

Minimal Electronica

Daft Punk/ Justice/ Etienne de Crecy (French Electro)

Drum n' Bass (old Roni Size stuff - New Forms/ V Label)

almost forgot: Giles Peterson's monthly podcasts

</comment><comment><USER13> Alcest -- <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaDm6n2oo1c>

[http://rapidshare.com/files/90534814/Alcest_- _Souvenirs_d_un...](http://rapidshare.com/files/90534814/Alcest_- _Souvenirs_d_un_autre_monde.7z)

<comment><USER14> Thanks, I had totally forgotten about Alcest. If I remember right, they actually started out playing black metal

<comment><USER13> The 2005 album Le Secret is _more_ black metal in that it has some dirty vocals but purists would probably scoff at calling it black metal. I haven't listened to Alcest's 2001 demo.

Alcest is a solo project of one guy from Amesoeurs. The full band Amesoeurs is darker and actually black metal, though with an interesting mix of new wave. Their recent album is good if a little inconsistent.

If you know more bands that sound like Alcest, I'd love your recommendations, I haven't managed to find much with exactly that sound. Maybe some of Jesu's recent stuff.

<comment><USER14> I don't know if they're quite the same, but if you like Alcest, I bet you'd enjoy Agalloch. The Mantle is really a beautiful album, though it has some BM vocals.

I think the new Pelican album, What We All Come to Need, is also pretty relaxing, and uses distorted guitars.

<comment><USER13> Thanks for the recs, I like them both. Agalloch reminds me of Ulver.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> m83, bach, buckethead's acoustic work

i.e. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJud5kqFEDU>

</comment><comment><USER16> air

boards of canada

burial

caribou

m83

memory tapes

mogwai

mum

ratatat

sigur ros

<comment><USER17> Caribou was formerly known as Manitoba, for any of you who want to look up their older stuff. Really chill music.

I'll just put my list here while I'm at it:

-anything trance, mainly Tiesto

-Caribou (Manitoba)

-Architecture in Helsinki

-Frou Frou

-The Faint

-world music - no artists in particular as I just listen to last.fm radio channels.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> It depends what state of consciousness I'm currently in and what state I'm trying to get into. I think though that the best way to hack your state of conscious is by selectively engaging or disengaging all of the senses at once. There is actually a machine that was at least patented to do this for you, although I'm not sure if it ever actually went into production or not:

[http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec...](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5725472)

</comment><comment><USER19> Lately I've been liking Analogue Bubblebath and Selected Ambient Works Volume II by Richard D. James, AKA Aphex Twin. I play the tracks softly when coding and I feel it assists my concentration.

</comment><comment><USER20> When I really listen to a few songs, at certain parts, I get an intense tingly feeling all over my body that feels awesome.

Yes - Close to the Edge (when the organs come in) Tchaikovsky - 1812 Overture (the finale)

These two do it basically every time. Anyone know anything about this? Do other people get this awesome tingling sensation?

I also find that harpsichord music is good for concentrating as well as music by Can. In particular, I'll often put on Can's Tago Mago when I need to get work done.

</comment><comment><USER21> The music that alters my state tends to be the kind of music that creates an atmosphere:

* Anything by Gas (but mostly Zauberberg and Königsforst)

* Eno and Fripp

* Burial

* Montauk

<comment><USER22> I'm with you. These two are great too:

* pole

* biosphere

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Sahib Teri Bandi by The Derek Trucks Band: <http://www.songite.com/#c30f63>

(Disclosure: I built Songite a few weekends ago)

<comment><USER24> Wow, I'm really liking Songite. Great work keeping it simple -- not enough of that these days.

Edit: Just noticed something playing around with it. Is there a way to correct its results if it doesn't happen to get them right? For example, I searched for _All That You Are_ by Mudvayne, and the only result that gets queued is an 8-second intro.

I like the "I'm Feeling Lucky" simplicity, but there should probably be a way to fix the choice -- e.g., a button on the song for "not the right one" that expands a list of search results.

<comment><USER23> Thanks. I'm definitely thinking about ways to correct songs that are wrong - my current idea is a button next to each song that pops out a list of alternatives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Ratatat usually gets me going.

</comment><comment><USER26> Here's a Spotify collaborative playlist with some suggestions from the above...

spotify:user:niallsmart:playlist:2Y7iDJaEoozuBDj4Npbm7L

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Niall this is awesome. Syncing right now for the week ahead :)

<comment><USER26> Happy hacking :) Hopefully you're more productive as a result.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Not so much a particular piece, but many albums -- I rarely listen to single songs, just albums and full discographies.

      Iron & Wine, particularly Woman King
      Splashdown and Universal Hall Pass
      Porcupine Tree - Stupid Dream and The Incident
      Agents of Mercy
      The Flower Kings
      The Decemberists

</comment><comment><USER28> Apparat's Walls album. If there is a way to hack consciousness, Walls does it: <http://www.lala.com/#album/1513490949824332234/Apparat/Walls>

Try Fractals part 1 and 2. It really does feel like the audible equivalent of a fractal!

<comment><USER3> Love the album.

As an aside, if you're an Ableton Live 8 user, you can go download Fractales (both parts) as an Ableton Live Set -- part of their 10th anniversary celebration. It is fun to tease apart the track and figure out what makes it tick.

<http://www.ableton.com/able10-artist-packs> (see Apparat)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> <http://searchyc.com/submissions/ask+hn+music>

<comment><USER30> This one I think is an interestingly specific question. I'm not upvoting it, but I'm not flagging it, either: It might lead to interesting answers.

Steve Reich's Music For 18 Musicians does it for me. It's a beautiful, pulsating piece, with every movement focusing on a single chord, with no progressions for minutes at a time. It's one of the most unique classical pieces I've ever heard, and it gets my mind in a relaxed mood almost instantly.

<comment><USER3> You might find some other Reich tunes equally powerful, then. Among the best I've found for programming: Electric Counterpoint, Tehillim [Original ECM recording], You Are (Variations), Eight Lines (the re-instrumented version of Octet), and Music For A Large Ensemble.

(Reich has also written some wonderful music that I find harder to listen to in a programming context, including the landmark Different Trains [try the recording that also has Electric Counterpoint], City Life, and the Desert Music [try the San Francisco Symphony recording])

<comment><USER13> Also check out Terry Reiley...

<comment><USER30> I've heard that before. Where would you recommend I start with him.

<comment><USER13> I like A Rainbow in Curved Air, but it may be a little distracting for programming work.

<comment><USER30> That's okay: I'm not a programmer.

<comment><USER29> You're not? What are you?

[edit: that came out wrong]

<comment><USER30> Uncertain. Definitely not a programmer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> A lot of Psybient music:

Shpongle, Bluetech, Entheogenic, Phutureprimitive

A lot of Dubstep:

XeNMaSTA, Cookie Monsta, Bassnectar, 16Bit, Logik

Ambient space music:

Steve Roach, (quite a few here, too lazy to look em up)

Classical Guitar:

Jesse Cook, Rodrigo Y Gabriela, Zabuca, Linstead

<comment><USER32> Steve Reich?

<comment><USER31> Never heard of him, Steve Roach does really awesome ambient music though...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Anything instrumental and epic sounding. Right now my favorites are:

* Explosions in the Sky

* Red Sparowes

* British Sea Power's Man of Aran Soundtrack

I'd also recommend a band called Souvenir's Young America which sounds like the soundtrack to a zombie/western movie.

<comment><USER13> You would like Crippled Black Phoenix -- not entirely instrumental, but similar influences. Linked is their recent double album, Night Raiders opens with their post-rockiest track.

[http://rapidshare.com/files/177917402/CBP_-_2009_The_Resurre...](http://rapidshare.com/files/177917402/CBP_-_2009_The_Resurrectionists_by_exhalethesound.blogspot.com.rar)

[http://rapidshare.com/files/177890387/CBP_-_2009_Night_Raide...](http://rapidshare.com/files/177890387/CBP_-_2009_Night_Raiders_by_exhalethesound.blogspot.com.rar)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I find trance music extremely unobtrusive and yet motivating. Almost everything else is distracting.

I am a sworn procrastinator, yet as soon as I turn on one of Armin van Buurens radio sessions, I can do an entire days work in two hours.

</comment><comment><USER35> The Bladerunner soundtrack has worked wonders for focusing my mind since about the age of 15. Gastr del Sol's Camoufleur LP also performed admirably during my arduous PhD write-up.

</comment><comment><USER36> I really like stuff without lyrics that's fairly repetitive. Some examples: <http://www.songite.com/#c1f21f>.

</comment><comment><USER37> Most of the soundscapes from WildSanctuary (<http://bit.ly/2IHocS>) have a pretty amazing effect on my productivity.

<comment><USER38> I just discovered NatureSpace [<http://www.naturespace.com/>]. They call is "Holographic Sound", and its pretty amazing. Check out their website (there is a preview on their landing page, and I strongly recommend having a pair of stereo headphones/earbuds on ;-) )

They have a free iPhone app, well if you have an iPhone, and want to try it out.

[Update - Seems they have options for the Android too]

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I particularly like arch carrier, by autechre: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYikLIMPHSs>

</comment><comment><USER40> The later works of Scriabin. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Scriabin>

</comment><comment><USER41> Prince (the old stuff) I have tons of music but that's realy the best stuff for getting me to focus and make me feel energized.

</comment><comment><USER32> Stars of the Lid

</comment><comment><USER42> Rachmaninoff. Also, look at "pink noise" tapes: rainforests, oceans, all that new-agey crap. It actually works.

</comment><comment><USER43> Pink Floyd, Alan Parsons Project, New London consort, Slash's Snakepit... and many many many more

</comment><comment><USER44> vocal trance <http://di.fm/vocaltrance>

<comment><USER45> <http://di.fm/trance> is really good on Wednesdays and Thursdays. Global DJ Broadcast and Corsten's Countdown are awesome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> That's an interesting question!

But please post full links rather than shortened ones.

</comment><comment><USER47> For me, it depends on the day. Today, I put on some 90's ska. It's not usually that.

</comment><comment><USER48> Jean Michel Jarre

Shpongle

</comment><comment><USER49> recommend Boards of Canada

</comment><comment><USER50> The Future Sound Of London, especially their old radio sessions

</comment><comment><USER51> I like any upbeat mowtown or stax records jams.

</comment><comment><USER52> Ratatat Kelley Polar Bon Iver The Knife

</comment><comment><USER4> I love Bygdin, esp the Setesdal track.

</comment><comment><USER53> fateh ali khan

(p.s. unless you need to meet a text message minimum, don't use url shorteners)

</comment><comment><USER54> phish

grateful dead

john coltrane

</comment><comment><USER55> trance, rock

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for all the great answers HN...inspired by NiallSmart (see comment) I created a playlist of all the music mentioned in this post - it features one track of every artist listed in the comments. Specific track was used when referenced.

spotify:user:zen53:playlist:5JtUZrhOvBV0IqySyhoDwF thanks again!</comment>


Ask HN: Trivial etiquette question - can he touch my laptop screen? - <AUTHOR> Coworkers often touch my laptop screen, jabbing at some interesting item. I don't like it. Actually, I think it is rude, but I feel bad about requesting that they don't do it, or even quietly getting out my eyeglass polishing cloth and removing the mark in front of them.
Is it OK to touch someone's laptop screen?
Or am I being over-sensitive?
As a freelancer, I have my own (expensive) laptop, whereas many co-workers have company-bought ones, but I felt that way even when I had a company one. <comment><USER2> I always start the sentence with...

"I know this is weird, but..."

It helps me get to the actual point of direct confrontation, but by blaming it on myself it helps absorb some of the awkward.

Truly though, I hate it when people touch my laptop's screen!

<comment><USER3> Let out a little scream like a madman, "aaaahhh! no touch screen!"

Silliness works.

Or my favorite: "Touching my computer is like touching my penis. Seriously."

<comment><USER4> Ok, if someone used your favorite line on me it would provoke an entire hand rubbing across the screen, but then I'm a bit of a real life troll. :-)

<comment><USER5> I don't think what you would have done would be trolling, it'd be making a pass at him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow I'm hearing tons of complicated ways to avoid direct conversation. If you pay several thousand dollars for a machine, I'm pretty sure you get to decide to gets to do what with it. If it is your companies screen, you are still responsible for it, so the same thing applies. Next time it happens, just politely explain how you feel. There's no need for the passive aggressive solutions that a few people are suggesting.

<comment><USER7> The reason people have all these passive aggressive solutions is because they feel kind of embarrassed that they have such an attachment to an inanimate object. It's like telling someone not to touch your baby.

I know most people will claim that it's just the cost of the item, but in reality I think it's that they're addicted to that little window into the machine. I know I am.

<comment><USER8> It's more likely because you don't want to have to clean fingerprints off the screen.

<comment><USER7> Wow, this is proof that this place is turning into Digg more and more every day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I see a lot of posts from the anal retentive crowd. Here's the opposite opinion:

I think it's ok to touch laptop screens. I touch my own and if I'm interested enough in pointing something out I may touch yours because at that point I'm at a completely different place mentally and not thinking about your little quirks. One of my co workers stressed out every time I touched his screen but it didn't make me stop. I'd avoid it when I remembered but I frankly don't believe it's a big issue. He'd let a loud annoyed sigh and reach for the cleaner that he kept by his desk and I'd laugh at him.

Your pet peeve is not really my problem.

Your expensive screen is not brittle and will not crack at the slightest touch. It will not melt under the powerful corrosive force of my finger oils. It just makes a little streak. Get over it and carry one of those fuzzy lcd wipey things with you if it bothers you that much.

Anyway, people like me exist. We will annoy you but it's (mostly) unintentional. You can try to point out your annoyance in all sorts of amusing/passive aggressive ways but it's not going to completely work. It's still going to happen. Realize that you're being a bit irrational and get over it.

<comment><USER9> I've learned that people like you exist, and there is an easy way to deal with them. Simply flat-out refuse to engage in a meaningful dialog unless you stop touching my fucking screen. In fact, I'll even get up and walk away if necessary. ("How about we go discuss this at your monitor?")

It's not about the expense, and calling it a pet peeve is very dismissive. It's about respect and personal space more than anything else.

Consider this: I'm more comfortable without pants on. When I work from home, in my own space, I'm usually not wearing pants. But when I come into the office, I put on pants, because I have some modicum of respect for the people I work with, and I know that pantslessness is going to make people uncomfortable.

Your behavior doesn't bother _you_ , but ignoring the fact that it bothers _others_ is the very definition of rudeness. Do you also lick strangers?

<comment><USER10> Damn, now I want to take my pants off and smear my hands across your screen.

Honestly, if you started getting up and walking away every time I came to your cube, I'd be there 3 times a day and half of the other people in the office would be in on it and find it hilarious and you'd probably end up in the cupboard crying and hand in your notice.

Seriously just say "please don't touch my screen" instead of this hilarious behaviour.

<comment><USER9> Jeez, why would anyone want to work with such a bully? Do you take your coworkers' lunch money, too?

I'd just quit, simple as that. If my boss wanted me to stay, he'd make sure you stopped or left. I'm an experienced javascripter in Silicon Valley. Finding a job is not a problem, in this or any economy, and nothing's worth working in a hostile environment. If you were working for me, you'd be fired on the spot for such behavior.

In a professional environment, blatant disrespect should not be tolerated. I'm pretty sure my feelings on this matter are not unusual.

<comment><USER10> So you'd tolerate your co-workers passive aggressive bullshit?

The "don't touch my screen" thing is fine by me, but that mardy shit can fuck off, either say it or get out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It is not OK for others to smudge/grease/smear/taint/foul or otherwise violate your screen. No matter how expensive the screen is or who owns it.

I used to be one of those until I forced myself to take a pencil everywhere for if I could not hold back the urge. This keeps the screen clean and makes pointing more accurate.

My advice: Don't feel bad about telling them to back off - they may not even know this is not done. And if they do it again, compare it to if they had to use a (sweaty) friend's keyboard or mobile phone. So, limiting possible exposure to this is in everyone's favour.

</comment><comment><USER12> I agree completely, people do this all the time, waving pens at my screen, etc. I think the easiest way to do it was the way you suggested, most people will get the hint if you just polish the smudge they left in front of them. You don't have to be rude or anything. You can even be discreet about it. People will still get the point.

<comment><USER13> I had a co-worker who used to stop what she was doing, and blurt some variation of "here, let me help you clean that fingerprint off my monitor" and then proceed to engage in her ritual of cleaning the CRT (this predated LCD monitors). Several other coworkers intentionally would poke the monitor with their fingers (the grease from the side of your nose is great for this), just to get a rise out of her.

The day she pulled her little routine on one of the vice presidents was her last day at the office. She was out of the building before lunch.

<comment><USER14> This is almost making me angry. Someone would fire someone else for that? Please tell me you're not saying that.

<comment><USER15> The company shouldn't fire someone for not knowing their place in front of a vice president and making a snide remark? I think that's absolutely acceptable. If the vice president wants to touch your screen, you're not really in a place to chew him out about it. I would venture to guess that doing so was most likely indicative of broader issues with the employee in this case, i.e., if she doesn't know her place in front of upper-level executives, how is she interacting with important customers, contractors, vendors, government officials, etc.?

<comment><USER14> This is _hacker_ news dude! We hate authoritarians throwing their weight around.

<comment><USER15> I stand by what I said. Just because I'm a hacker I don't have to have a misplaced sense of my own self-importance in front of someone like a vice president.

<comment><USER14> I wouldn't do what this person did in front of a VP either but being fired for it is not something I approve of. Although, as another commenter mentioned, if it was delivered in a significantly snotty way being fired becomes quite predictable. Authority believes it has earned the right not be spoken down to but real winners won't care, much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've seen children do this (and asked them politely to look but not touch), but adults, really?

You could keep a couple of laser pointers handy for the touchy ones. Just hand it to them whenever they show up. Everybody likes lasers.

</comment><comment><USER17> Boy, it seems like your post hit a nerve. On the other hand (no pun intended), we look forward to buying Apple's tablet... Go figure.

<comment><USER18> If the Apple tablet is real, it will most likely come with that fancy-schmancy oleophobic screen they put on the iPhone 3GS. So, no problemo: put it in your oversized pocket, take it out, and "boom" (tm) it's clean.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19>
      don't touch it
      slaps with large trout
      so sad a smudge

</comment><comment><USER20> First of all, you shouldn't apologize for telling people not to touch your screen.

I would be curt about it when it happens: "Please don't touch the screen, thanks." And say it with a smile. That way it would almost be a disposable, passing remark like: "Watch your step.". Making a big production of it would be worse for both sides. You want to say something and just move on so the incident doesn't linger too long. In a way, you are trusting the person to get the point. If he/she doesn't get it then it's their fault, not yours. I can see how this would be difficult if it doesn't suit your personality or the one you project at the office.

</comment><comment><USER21> This thread is really fascinating, ranging from the hilarious to the intelligent. I agree that touching isn't THAT big of a deal that you need to get all worked up. However, there are legitimate reasons for not touching people's screens. I have a screen with a matte display -- that's without the extremely glossy and reflective glass covering. If someone has even the shortest of short fingernails -- and most people do -- they're going to do some kind of damage to the rather sensitive, uncovered screen. I'm not about to go get a mirror -- other people call them glossy screens -- just to protect my screen from your projectile fingers. If I do touch a screen, which happens because like some person said, you don't always think about it, I make sure to touch with the pad of my finger and not the nail. And pens are a complete nofuckingway no matter what kind of screen it is. They will ruin any screen. You ever try to get ink out of a tiny indentation in a glass screen? Because you can't. It's happened to me.

So in conclusion, if your screen isn't glass-covered and they're coming at it like an ICBM, definitely say something polite (Excuse me..., Please don't..., Umm...). But if your screen is protected and they're not using a pen/knife to point...let it go. Most screens are so bright you can't even see smudges.

</comment><comment><USER22> There was an article here the other day from some hacker that almost proudly stated that he went through 2 or 3 laptops a year. I thought this was absolutely ridiculous. My laptops last five years or more. What a waste of money.

If you love something, take care of it and it'll last longer and treat you well. We live in a disposable society. I was always taught to take care of things so they would last. You too apparently.

I like a clean screen.

</comment><comment><USER23> I think it's fine to touch the screen.

<comment><USER24> You think it is fine to touch the screen, but this thread is showing you that many people do not agree.

Please do not touch my screen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I ask people to use the back of their finger (the fingernail side), instead of the part with all the oil. Its a nice compromise and keeps off most smudges while not taking away people's ability to express themselves.

As for a pen, that simply warrants breaking someone's hand for a first offense. Word will get around quick after that ;).

</comment><comment><USER26> It's mostly clients who touch my screen, and they also happen to be the last people I would ever say anything to. But truth be told, I don't really consider it that big of a deal. I am of the opinion that you should pick your battles in life and in most cases it's just easier to take a cloth out of your drawer and wipe the screen than it is to say something to someone who may take it too personally or cause you unneeded grief in some way. When you tell someone not to touch your screen, most of them will immediately feel embarrassed. Some people will channel this embarrassment into not touching screens anymore and others will take your comment too personally and channel this embarrassment into making your life unpleasant in some way that just isn't worth it.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'd say it's more rude to touch someone else's screen than to ask someone not to touch your screen. Go ahead and tell them not to dirty up your screen.

The situation with the company laptop is a little more complicated because the property is, in some ways, as much theirs as it is yours. Still, you're using the equipment so you have a right to keep it smudge-free, whether by wiping off the mark or by asking them not to do that. Hopefully they'd take the hint if they saw you wiping away the smudge.

</comment><comment><USER28> Interesting to see all the followups. I had no idea that anyone cared about this. Reminds me of guys who don't like people touching their cars. I'd encourage all the folks advising the OP to be curt or to ostentatiously rub out the smudge to imagine a guy in a polo shirt wearing Ray-Bans. Perhaps his collar is turned up. Now imagine this man behaving the same way after someone touches the finish on his Corvette. You are the geek equivalent of that guy.

<comment><USER29> Except Mr. Polo doesn't have to spend ten hours a day staring straight into his car's finish.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I hate when people do this. And I'm surprised by how many people don't understand the problem.

It's not necessary to touch the screen even if you're pointing something. Grab the mouse (or use the touchpad) or just point without touching. Is it so difficult?

It's obviously a habit acquired by interacting with paper and less fragile (and expensive) media. But for me it is a sign of ignorance.

I hate this so much that I avoid to bring my laptop at meetings unless it is strictly necessary.

<comment><USER31> > Grab the mouse (or use the touchpad) or just point without touching. Is it > so difficult?

Point without touching please. I never want to touch someone else's mouse or keyboard. They are among the dirtiest most germ infected places you can find and touching them is bad for both you and the person with the keyboard / mouse / touchpad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Wow. I must admit that I'm guilty of being a screen-toucher. It's not out of ignorance or disrespect or anything like that; I've been around computers my whole life. I have no idea why I do it, but I've even done it a couple of seconds after someone asked me not to. I don't get annoyed at all at people when they tell me not to, I get embarrassed and sometimes annoyed at myself for having done it (especially if it's repeated).

<comment><USER9> You should just not have conversations near other people's monitors about what's on their monitors. Ask them to come to your cube, or take a screenshot and circle the spot in question.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> OK, at least I know it's not just me, even if it is trivial.

Good points all around. I still think that some things are not for casual touching (camera lenses, laptop screens, TV screens, eyeglasses, mirrors, etc) but I get that the smudges don't bother some people at all, so it's not that they are being rude, just they aren't aligned with my personal peeves.

My laptop is an important personal item, not that it has a pet name, just that it's something I use all day every day and chose carefully. Maybe like a bicycle couriers bike, or something. I make my living with it. Treat it with respect, please.

Anyway, I find the smudges distracting. In the end, that's the thing.

Obviously clients, prospects, and vice presidents get to touch it with impunity. Colleagues with pizza fingers will get cschep's prefix.

</comment><comment><USER33> Haha, yay! Now I can bring people to this post to show them that I'm not alone.

I agree wholeheartedly, why do they just have to touch our screens?

I'm a direct person so I just say swiftly and quickly "Don't touch my screen."

</comment><comment><USER34> Well, my girlfriend and co-founder flips out whenever I touch her monitor. I understand where she's coming from, and we're still together, so you can probably get away with warding off your co-workers paws.

This assumes of course that they don't harbor some secret dislike for you, such that your complaints might touch off an avalanche of retribution that leaves you jobless, homeless, and pariahed by society at large.

</comment><comment><USER35> I remember getting chewed out when I was assisting in some training class for my company and accidentally touched this guy's screen.... I think it's a pretty common gripe and there's nothing inherently wrong with asking them not to do it, but if I were freelancing? I certainly would not be complaining about trivia like this. In social situations, I find it best to be positive, positive, positive!

</comment><comment><USER36> Well, I would just tell them not to do it, because the screen gets dirty and you have to either clean it all the time, or you can't see anything on it. It's not rude to say something like "Well, I'm sorry, but please, don't touch the screen, it gets dirty, ok?". At least I think so.

Of course this is most likely very depending on the culture and place where do you live.

</comment><comment><USER37> With thé upcoming generalisation of touch screens it will be difficult people not to touch the screen. On the other hand a pal upgrading from the iPhone 3G to 3GS told me that his preferred feature was the oleophobic screen. So touching other screen may not be an étiquette problem anymore but a normal way of interaction.

</comment><comment><USER38> I think the problem with telling most people not to touch your screen is that often they don't see an alternative. So I always make sure I have a pen with me. If someone touches my screen, I usually just hand them my pen and say "Here, point with this".

Not only do you avoid the finger-oil issues, but it's also more accurate.

</comment><comment><USER39> The only proper response is to touch their glasses, leaving an identical smudge there.

</comment><comment><USER40> Yea everyone loves touching mine too. But since mine is hard, it probably isn't harmful, but it _is_ annoying.

I have the macbook pro with the hard black screen. Though the matte screen might be more of a concern if someone touches it.

</comment><comment><USER41> It's completely unacceptable to touch someone else's laptop screen without asking.

</comment><comment><USER42> If somebody actually touches my screen while pointing at it I immediately say "Do not touch the screen!" It appears that people don't perceive it as rude and just continue pointing without touching.

</comment><comment><USER43> I used to clip a telescoping pointer on the edge of my CRT. Nowadays I just break your finger at the knuckle and say, <Moe>What's the matter with yooouu</Moe>.

</comment><comment><USER44> My boss used touch my screen with a pencil. He'd actually draw light lines on the screen with the graphite.

I had to buy a box of wet wipes to clear the screen whenever he left my desk.

Drove me nuts.

</comment><comment><USER45> I threaten them openly. Touch my screen again and I will hurt you. If they repeat the offense I snap them over the fingers.

Worked in every company I was employed...

</comment><comment><USER29> "can he touch my laptop screen?"

Absolutely. As long as he doesn't mind losing the finger he touched it with.

Of course, I'm assuming you _meant_ with his finger...

</comment><comment><USER46> I've tried moving my laptop further away from their hand, but that was apparently too subtle. Next time I'll be more vocal about it.

</comment><comment><USER47> Sometimes if I'm pointing something out I can't help but touch the screen by mistake but I'm always apologetic about it :/

</comment><comment><USER48> I put a sign on the top of my monitor saying "Don't touch the screen".

And I'd smack people's fingers with my ruler when they did.

Damn fingerprints! :-)

</comment><comment><USER49> I usually say "Here, you can use the mouse to point at the screen" and then clean the smudge in front of them.

</comment><comment><USER50> Buy some a soft cloth and some cleaning fluid (that won't dissolve your screen).

Make a big show of cleaning it.

</comment><comment><USER51> It isn't rude for them to do it until after you tell them not to. So tell them to stop.

</comment><comment><USER52> Haha! Pisses me off too, just like people that adjust my car stereo!

</comment><comment><USER53> I say "Don't touch the screen, it easily smudges or gets scratched."

</comment><comment><USER54> Related but tougher:

s/coworker/other people's kids/

s/laptop screen/your house/

s/coworker's finger/food/

</comment><comment><USER55> If you don't have the personality to tell them, just print out a small label that says "Please don't touch the screen" and tape it to your laptop.

<comment><USER56> or "Thank you for not touching the screen"

<comment><USER57> Or "touch the screen and I'll fscking kill you" ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58>
        Don't touch my screen. Yes I'm serious. Go clean it up. Now.

I use this method and it helps me avoid building up resentment towards people.

</comment><comment><USER59> Create a funny web page and have it bookmarked on your browser.

Whenever someone approaches you, quickly switch to that web page.

donttouchmyfuckingscreenorillkillyou.com is available.

<comment><USER59> This bookmarklet may help:

      javascript:document.write("
Don't touch my screen!
")

<comment><USER59> Also this one (Firefox only)

      javascript:(function (){document.querySelector("body").style.MozTransform="rotate(180deg)";})()

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> That isn't fucking acceptable, invite the douche bag to clean your screen for you the next time he does that.

</comment><comment><USER61> Only if he buys you dinner first

</comment><comment><USER62> I told you homeboy U can't touch this

(...)

Look in my eyes, man U can't touch this

</comment><comment><USER57> "Oh, you like the screen, apparently if you clean it with urea it stays brighter [hushed tone] I know a cheap source, I manufacture my own [looks down momentarily],[returning to conversation] now where were we ..."

</comment><comment><USER63> Yeah, this makes me crazy, especially since it always seems to be the clueless project managers who touch my screen.

Personally, I have long arms, big hands, and terrible close-up vision, so I approach other people's monitors very slowly, with the back of my pinkie, and really do my best not to touch the part of the computer that isn't supposed to be touched. Anything else is just rude; you are sticking your finger into the retina of the person who owns the machine.</comment>


Taking Out the Trash? That's Still Man's Job, Even for the Liberal Coastal Elite - <AUTHOR> https://nytimes.com/2017/12/29/style/who-takes-out-the-trash.html <comment><USER2> What tripe. The new NYT motto: "All the news (and nonsense that sells newspapers) that fits, we print."</comment>


How To Recover From Mistakeningly Emailing A Million People - <AUTHOR> http://www.problogger.net/archives/2013/04/16/how-not-to-send-an-email-a-day-wed-rather-forget-but-a-story-we-need-to-tell/

<comment><USER2> Not bad advice, it seems, but a rather turgid retelling. "Triage, apologize as soon and as honestly as possible, then take your lumps" is more succinct.

</comment><comment><USER3> I did something similar to this the other day, accidentally tweeted the release of my metal band's new music video to the followers of one of my Android apps... Neither have more than a few hundred followers, so not too bad, but deathmetal certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea.

<comment> mike-cardwell Was interested in taking a look at your music, but couldn't find any info in your profile. Any chance you could post a link here, or send some info my way (my contact details are in my profile).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm a bit confused about why it was possible to send an email to a million wrong people. Don't million-person lists usually have some form of moderation?

<comment><USER5> Presumable this is their subscriber list and they are the moderators.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> So... all of these people got really angry over getting one email? Maybe I'm reading the article wrong, but I get tons of emails all the time that I didn't ask for. It's just part of using the internet as far as I can tell.

<comment><USER7> If they sent it to 1 million people and only 0.1% of people complained that is still 1,000 people complaining.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Love the stuble title.

</comment><comment><USER9> People rightly crave accountability, & it's refreshing when it's displayed, as it's display is so rare lately. Don't fear accountability, embrace it.

FYI, my company (GoPhoto) had a similar "oops" email event & can validate that the approach in this article is right-on & valid.</comment>


Too many good ideas to build? Quantify your personal values to pick one. - <AUTHOR> http://noisytyping.com/quantify-your-personal-values/?version=1.1

<comment><USER2> Why would I use your thing over just making a spreadsheet?

<comment><AUTHOR> For all the benefits of being mobile, I suppose.

I've found it cumbersome to edit this spreadsheet on my iPad using the Google Drive app. My real spreadsheets are much larger, of course. A dedicated app could also have pre-fab templates for common decision cases. This is just what I can think off the top of my head.</comment></comment>


PostgreSQL 9.5 Released - <AUTHOR> http://email@example.com <comment><USER2> You've jumped the gun. Postgres 9.5 is not due to be released until January the 7th. This link is to a stamp commit for 9.5.0; a git tag REL9_5_0 will be created separately.

Granted, it is true that it's been determined exactly what will be in the release. But packages have yet to be cut, and there is a media kit that has yet to be released. We'd have preferred if you'd waited until the 7th, which is slated as the official release date.

<comment><USER3> > _We 'd have preferred if you'd waited until the 7th_

Ok, let's bury this thread so that we can have a proper thread on the 7th. There's no hardship in waiting a couple days.

<comment><USER2> Thanks!

Hope I was not unduly curt with the poster, but there are simply no packages available for 9.5.0 today, and won't be until Thursday. There is an official embargo observed by the -packagers group.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you're curious about what's new in Postgres 9.5 give [https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/What's_new_in_PostgreSQL_9....](https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/What's_new_in_PostgreSQL_9.5) or [http://www.craigkerstiens.com/2015/12/27/postgres-9-5-featur...](http://www.craigkerstiens.com/2015/12/27/postgres-9-5-feature- rundown/) a look.

</comment><comment><USER5> Postgres 9.5 is a great release. Upsert is, obviously, a very welcome addition.

But I am more interested in row level security policies and its impact on evolution of technologies like Postgrest. It may even spawn a new generation of backend architectures that don't really need app servers to power SPAs and mobile apps. A possible exciting new niche for Postgres.

What is not great about Postgres ecosystem is that megacorps who benefit the most from selling hosted Postgres instances ( AWS/Amazon and Compose.io/IBM ) are not present in the list of significant sponsors of PostgreSQL foundation! Heroku/Salesforce is only on the Silver sponsorship level.

That's really bad.

[http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors/](http://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors/)

<comment><USER6> Probably true of most open source projects, whether they have a foundation or not.

<comment><USER7> Took the extent that amazon sponsors open source, I suspect that'll change as AWS RDS grows in importance...

<comment><USER5> Amazon RDS support for PG was released in November 2013 so I wouldn't hold my breath.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Release notes: [http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-5.html](http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-5.html)

</comment><comment><USER9> This is especially great news for me personally.

I'm developing an app in PHP 7 that hasn't been released yet, and I was hoping to make it use PostgreSQL 9.5 features (i.e. modifying JSONB). But I was worried about it not being released before my project was finished.

Luckily, I was significantly delayed!

EDIT: Looks like it actually comes out on the 7th, but my delays are pretty significant.

</comment><comment><USER10> Anyone have any idea when we're likely to see this on RDS (or Google SQL, for that matter)?

<comment><USER11> I thought Google SQL was based on MySQL?

<comment><USER10> It is; this is a not-so-subtle feature request on my part to Google.

<comment><USER12> Does postgres have any use at Google? When I was there, they had many ex-mysql people and used mysql internally (e.g. for YouTube, iirc.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> pg_rewind is great, with this the infrastructure for some really great replication tools are in place - recovering a failed primary has been my biggest pain point with my repmgr + barman setup, so combined with some UI improvements (reducing the incantations needed to initiate a failover and restore a failed primary) I'd say it could be about as painless as setting up AlwaysOn Availability Groups with MS SQL Server.</comment>


Ask HN: Why is every technology book 500-1000 pages - <AUTHOR>

 I am trying to catch up with Java and am looking for a concise book that can get me caught up with it. To my surprise I couldnt find anythign within <200 pages. Upon searching more for different technologies I realized every book out there is 500+ pages. Its almost like the publishers wont except anything less than that and as a result authors are forced to writing long books. Do anybody else find this frustrating ?<p>Would like to hear the communities thoughts on how they learn/brush up on technologies in this era of limited time and unlimited distractions ? <comment><USER3> As an author, I can say that much of the length of my books/courses comes down to experience in the classroom from the previous teach/course or from feedback I get from students. A contrived example:

1) For product release 2.0 in 2000, I create a 2-day course and write a companion 300-pg book. I teach said course and students say, "Dang... not what I hoped for. It's too much intro and not enough stuff that I can use to accomplish"

2) Marketing/sales team comes to me and says, "We need more beef. The feedback is that people have trouble installing and configuring and, as a result, the rest of the book/course is tough. Also, we need to highlight these new features"

3) Version 3.0 of said software comes out and, to accommodate everything and everyone, the course becomes a 3-day adventure and the book is now 400 pages. The feedback this time is "Okay, now we're seeing trouble at the basics - <USER2> need more time spent on x and y"

4) Version 4.0 comes with a 4-day course and a 500-page book. The sales team pushes back and says, "No way we can sell a 4-day course. Make it 3-days. And by the way: don't remove any content!" Yikes - that's impossible. The compromise then is that I keep high-level content (overviews, introductions) to sections and move the content from the course to the book. I then have to expand the book by 100 pages (it's now a 600 page book).

5) Version 5.0 comes out in 2010 and it's a total re-design of the software. There are also completely new features that are very complex. Sales says, "Great job on the last course - don't change anything, just add the new features!" Hello 800 page book!

6) It's 2013 and now every pubs manager knows this cycle backwards and forwards. A new tech comes out and the pubs folks go ahead and tell the author, "Don't bother writing a succinct intro - go ahead and flesh it out. It needs to be at least 500 pages or else people are going to complain that it doesn't have enough meat and weight."

"But Scott, this is your problem. A better author could show in 200 pages what you took 800 pages to show!"

There's simply a minimum amount of time that it takes to teach a topic. It's all about "scope" \- if the scope of the book is to teach you the basics to a programming language, it just can't be done in 200 pages for any sufficiently complex language. I think that the way to approach this is to (a) design design an actual in-person training course in which real human students will sit in a room with you, and your job is then to teach them a skill that they will have to take back to their job (which paid handsomely to send them). Given a 6.5 hour training day (9:00-4:30 with breaks, lunch = ~6.5 hours of training time), how many days of training is your course? A given day is probably 150-300 pages in a book. If you try to "Teach Java in 6.5 hours", it just doesn't work. You might need 3-5 days to learn the true basics of the language in such a way that you can "think in Java" (which is the basic starting point). Bam - 1000+ page book.

<comment><AUTHOR> May be I am being a typical engineer, but looks like sales and marketing, as usual, work in a 'vacuum' and as a result the impact to the overall outcome can be somewhat negative. while the course might be successfull (read it made the money it set out to), its systemic effect is incentives are placed in the wrong place.

I feel more and more we are seeing the need for technical sales and technical marketing people, basically people who understand both sides.

None the less its an interesting problem. Would love to attempt to disupt it by providing real value.

<comment><USER3> I can say that, in my experience, the sales/marketing folks are never truly technical people; they are sales/marketing people who've been trained about the basics of the technology. However, every company I've worked with always has a technical person review important things like table of contents, chapter outlines, and such. And then there's almost always a technical editor. To what degree they "work" is dependent upon many factors though.

I think sales/marketing work, in this regard, as a response from their customer base. If people are saying, "Well, we would spend $30,000 to send eight people to this class if only it featured generics", then what do you think happens next? Big money talks. That's why so many mature products that have "new features" are often features that less than 1% of the companies would use - that 1% of user sales represents 20% of revenue (or something to that effect). It's fine to wax philosophical and debate, "What should a training course or book do?" However, the companies writing the big checks almost always determine what goes in and to what degree. It's hard to sell a training course using phrases like, "We'll teach you the things that you won't use in your real-world job!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't know what you mean by "catch up with Java" but when I was getting acquainted with Java for the first time, I remember searching all over the place for a good in depth yet terse tutorial only to realize that the official docs and official tutorial were the best thing out there.

<comment><AUTHOR> Personally I feel I know java from J2EE/2004-5 days After that I have been doing more non tech work then tech work. As a example I missed out on annotations, and everything after that. While I do know what annotations and generics etc do. I feel my knowledge has gaps because I learned it in bits and pieces (read I learnt about it in passing when I need to). As a result I feel the need to 'brush up' \- basically looking to feel confident such that I have a good grip on Java as it is today. If you have any specific tips on how I can brush up, I am all ears.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's driven partly by the economics of publishing technical books.

Technical books are often more expensive to develop; there may be more authors, technical editors, illustrators, etc. working on a technical book. A book may have only one or a few authors listed on the cover, but if you look at the acknowledgements page there may be a dozen or more people involved.

Technical books also typically have a smaller potential audience than other books; you can count the number of technical blockbusters on the fingers of one hand.

As a result, publishers must price technical books relatively high. In order to convince buyers that their book is worth the higher price, they make it longer. In the case of Java books, they throw in huge appendices that cost them very little in development cost. Most Java books include the interface specifications of the complete set of Java libraries; information which is widely available online.

Your best bet is to find a highly rated book, skim the first 50 or more pages to get past the parts where the author explains why his book is the best in the field, then stop reading when you hit the first appendix. I would also recommend buying the e-book version of the book; being able to electronically search through a technical book is hugely valuable.

</comment><comment><USER6> The answer is quite simple: in a tutorial, or in a book covering technology X, there is necessarily more material, than what is found in the reference documentations and specifications of said technology X. That's because technical documentations are concise (if only to avoid inconsistencies).

Unfortunately, most technologies start with references that are already over 1000 pages! Check any standard or language reference, or framework reference. There are several frameworks with more than 1000 classes! imagine how many printed pages for the reference documatation! A book about those frameworks that wouldn't even be exhaustive could very well be over 10,000 or 100,000 pages.

</comment><comment><USER7> Buyers evaluate a books price by it's length. That is they're more willing to pay $50 for a 500 page book than a 50 page book.

It's completely irrational, nevertheless it a behaviour that even completely rational people display.

<comment><USER8> It is not irrational. Books, before all else, are primarily entertainment. Programming books don't so much compete with the web on content as on medium: Reading a book, for people who buy books, is more pleasurable than sitting at the keyboard.

<comment><USER9> You're absolutely right about this. I vastly prefer reading a technical book rather than piecing together information from online sources. I like just sitting back and being immersed in a subject. I enjoy that I get a complete and logical tour of a subject from a book. The length of a book is signal with regards to this (on any technical subject worth reading a book about at least).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've been reading node.js books and they're around 300 pages.

I mean Java is a freaking huge language. Generics in Java alone is a giant book.

It depends on the tech I guess...

<comment><USER11> Why is generics so huge? You can cover it in a chapter, possibly two.

<comment><AUTHOR> Completely agree with your question. I think if the author can't explain it conceptually in a chapter or two may be the author dosnt know it really well or should employ a ghost writer

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The economics of publishing are such that the authors choose to add every area they can on a given topic so that people won't reject their book for another on the basis of one missing item.

As others point out, it is also a crude proxy that buyers use to evaluate the worth of the book without reading the entire thing.

Of course, there are exceptions. One of the reasons that The C Programming Language by Kernighan and Ritchie is so popular is its conciseness.

</comment><comment><USER13> The most ridiculous example is the 5th edition of "Learning Python" by Mark Lutz. It's supposed to be an introduction to the Python language and it's almost 1600 pages long. The 1st edition was less than 400, the 2nd was 550, the 3rd was 750 and the 4th around 1200 pages.

It's a very nice book, don't get me wrong, but I think it's intimidating for a beginner.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed. Forget the beginner, even for the person know works with it everyday, it can raise the question about how much they know and lot of it is noise. I can understand if the book is a desk reference - thats a different story. but to learn..come on. I think this thread is common in new papers too...nytimes wsj etc. all thier articles are like 4 pages, when the whole point is to be concise. I do understand that a 4 page article generates 4 times more ad revenue. "The smartest minds of our generation are trying to figure out how to display and get people to click on ads" \- :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Many books are written by multiple authors to reduce the latency to market so there is inherent repetition between the chapters along with the (non-)manditory boilerplate that should be replaced by open content.

More concise, better written content takes longer to write and revise. If I had more time, I would write a better response to you.

<comment><AUTHOR> As usual, incentives are in the wrong place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Stroustrup's _The C++ Programming Language, 4th Edition_ is 1,368 pages long. It has a fair amount of repetition, but it makes sense because it gives an overview, then quickly gets more detailed as you go through the book.

Personally, I like that. But then, I love reading computer books.

</comment><comment><USER15> Back in the days when physical bookshops mattered, you wanted a thick spine on the book to take up more shelf space, and give you more room for a bold title to attract the eye.

<comment><USER16> A friend who once worked at a bookstore once told me this. The way he put it was: publishers want their books to take up a lot of shelf space so there is less room for the competitors.</comment></comment>


Warming to boost deadly humidity levels across South Asia - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40793019 <comment><USER2> South Asia already sits at ~100% humidity _most_ of the year

How is that going to "boost"?

<comment><USER3> The problem is not that humidity will increase. The article explains that the human body's ability to dissipate heat into air that is both hot and humid decreases significantly around 35C.

<comment><USER2> The headline says humidity will be boosted

Maybe it's not what they _meant_ \- but it's what they _wrote_</comment></comment></comment>


U of Toronto Acquires the World's Largest Collection of Chinese Restaurant Menus - <AUTHOR> http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/02/02/u-of-t-acquires-the-worlds-largest-collection-of-chinese-restaurant-menus.html <comment><USER2> "The Search for General Tso" on Netflix [http://www.netflix.com/title/80011853?s=i](http://www.netflix.com/title/80011853?s=i) dives into this collection a bit. Really fun documentary, too.

<comment><USER3> One of the producers and primary contributors to that documentary, Jennifer 8. Lee, presented a proposal at the most recent Unicode meeting to include dumpling, chopsticks, fortune cookie and chinese takeout menu into Unicode's emoji. Very well done. She did a TED talk in 08

[https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_8_lee_looks_for_general_t...](https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_8_lee_looks_for_general_tso)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting.

My dad owned (second owner) one of the first "fake Chinese" take out restaurants in Toronto - opened in 1955. He used to have a collection of all the old menus from his restaurant.

At one point in the late 80s, I did some updates for him in Quark Xpress on a Mac SE.

It has changed hands a couple of times since my Dad retired in the early 90s though. I just dug up their current menu [1], and it looks like they're still using a variant of the menu that dates back to the 70s.

While I miss the free food, I sure don't miss working there...

[1] [http://www.chopstickfoods.ca/en/menu.html](http://www.chopstickfoods.ca/en/menu.html)

<comment><USER5> I live in Toronto. Is this place worthy of checking out?

<comment><USER4> I haven't eaten there in over 20 years as I live out of the way, so to be honest, I have no idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've always wondered why beef with black bean sauce is common to see on menus in Canada but not in the US. Also, chow fun seems to be served at particular restaurants.

<comment><USER7> Other particularities I've noticed are the lack of Orange Chicken in Canada and the lack of Ginger Beef in the states (they don't know what they're missing).

<comment><USER8> From my understanding, this is because neither of these are actually true "Chinese" dishes,. Ginger Beef was "invented" by a Chinese immigrant in Calgary in the 1970s [0], whereas the westernized Orange Chicken is actually a variation on General Tso's chicken, which was invented/popularized in New York in the early 1970s [1].

[0] [https://web.archive.org/web/20090330125905/http://cbc.ca/new...](https://web.archive.org/web/20090330125905/http://cbc.ca/news/background/chinese- newyear/calgary.html)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Tso%27s_chicken#Name_a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Tso%27s_chicken#Name_and_origins)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Now this would be an interesting collection of data to analyze. Is the #7 lunch special Beef with Broccoli in more than 90% of the menu's?

<comment><USER10> It depends, in china pork and chicken are more popular than beef which is more on par with lamb. And they use less broccoli and more cabbage family veggies.

<comment><USER11> It's clear what you meant, of course – but it's an interesting tidbit that broccoli is a "cabbage-family" vegetable!

In fact, broccoli is the same species as cabbage, which are both cultivars of _Brassica oleracea_.

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

<comment><USER10> Gah, you're right I'd forgotten. I meant the cuisine tends to the more leafy versions of the cruciferous veggies like cabbage, "white vegetable", and some others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> They plan to finally, once and for all, settle the timeless question of if you can order beef, chicken, or tofu as the protein, and if you can order broccoli, mushrooms, or peppers as the vegetable, and if you can order white rice, brown rice, or noodles as the starch, then how many total dishes can you order?

<comment><USER13> 27 unless you allow deletions, then it's 4^3-1 since a plate with no food is not particularly satisfying.

The real question emerges once you consider quantities & lesser adjuncts like ginger, soy sauce, mushrooms, etc. It's surprising how fast this stuff can add up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I was kind of thinking it was the CS department collecting them to build SweetNSourNet.

</comment><comment><USER15> The comment about the first image [1] was confusing to me:

"The text is a mix of English words written in a style reminiscent of Cantonese."

Does the author even have a clue what he's saying?

[1] [http://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/gta/2016/02/...](http://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/gta/2016/02/02/u-of- t-acquires-the-worlds-largest-collection-of-chinese-restaurant-menus/webold- menujpg.jpg.size.xxlarge.promo.jpg)

<comment><USER16> The sentence preceding the one you quoted should explain it. The point is that there is a particular font style used in "mock Chinese" imagery that makes English words look like they are written with the sort of sharp strokes that Western audiences saw as being like Chinese characters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm tempted to start doing this for the places in my town. Cashew Chicken is a big deal here.</comment>