India bans e-cigarettes, citing youth health concerns - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/18/india-bans-e-cigarettes-citing-youth-health-concerns/ <comment><USER3> If we are to ban anything that could endanger public/youth health, then we should ban alcohol & driving as well. (In the US) It's absurd that same cities/communities that were behind legalization of cannabis also are the first cities to crack down on vaping. Why is one thing a champion of individual freedom while another is the scourge of soccer moms?

Make the legal limit for everything 21, I don't care. I'm an (young) adult and would like to consume the same substences humans have been consuming for 100s of years; alcohol, cannabis, & nicotine (tobacco), It shouldn't matter that I'm mitigating the harm of the worse one (tobacco). The goal isn't to be 100% safe, otherwise I'd also have to eliminate driving, red meat, etc.

<comment><USER4> Huh?

They're not banning tobacco, they're banning e-cigarettes, specifically because there is a ton of evidence that youth get addicted to nicotine via e-cigs.

If you want to smoke tobacco, go ahead, you're still free to do so. No need to hyperventilate.

If you want to quit smoking tobacco, don't use e-cigs. Start using products like nicotine lozenges, gums, patches, etc in addition to therapy or other medical interventions. These nicotine delivery mechanism have not been shown to get youth addicted to nicotine.

<comment><USER5> > specifically because there is a ton of evidence that youth get addicted to > nicotine via e-cigs > If you want to smoke tobacco, go ahead, you're still > free to do so

So we should freak out about youth using a thing that's a 95% harm reduction compared to smoking tobacco, and not ban tobacco. Got it.

> Start using products like nicotine lozenges, gums, patches, etc

Last I checked these were half as effective as e-cigarettes for quitting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think we've hit the "moral panic" stage with e-cigarettes.

<comment><USER7> Or, alternatively, we've hit the "preponderance of the evidence" stage for e-cigarettes and vaping in general being bad for your health and governments are doing what they think is correct for the health of their constituents.

<comment><USER6> There's much more evidence for fast food being bad for your health, and we're not up in arms about that one (collectively). I'm not _for_ vaping, necessarily -- and I don't like it in public: I'm for smoking in general to be banned from public spaces because of the way it affects other people -- but if you want to choose that in your own house, go for it.

<comment><USER8> I hate when someone produces a cloud of vape steam in the middle of a crowd of people waiting to cross the street. It just hangs there, a visibly stinking, redolent horror invading everyone else's nostrils.

<comment><USER9> This is all subjective. I personally don't mind at all, but cigarette smoke irritates the hell out of me

<comment><USER10> This is why public spaces have to target a relatively high standard -- everyone is bothered by and allergic/sensitive to different things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > "The data that we have largely is derived from the US' experience and it the > US the latest stats that I have before me states that there has been a 77.8% > growth among school students who are at the 10th and 12th level."

> She also pointed to "surprising" growth in e-cigarette use among US middle > school students — up 48.5%, per stats she cited.

It's interesting that they are citing US data for this decision directly. Not that you can't learn from others, but you'd think the Indian government would be able to gather its own domestic statistics on this.

If I had to spin a theory about the reason for this ban, I'd say that this is more about preventing the urbanized middle to upper class youth - who are more likely to mimic trends form the US - from starting the habit. It seems like more of a political signal that "we are in cultural control" to conservative voters (who are mostly middle to upper class in India). Also, note the similar ban on flavored e-cigarettes by the US administration just a few days ago. Perhaps one government is taking political queues from the other? Wouldn't be the first time that has happened lately.

It can't be practically related to health, since as others have noted, the extreme urban air pollution is likely the primary broad-based driver of respiratory disease in India, not vaping.

<comment><USER4> Why can't it be related to health? It seems like it's an attempt to prevent Indian youths from developing nicotine addiction, which is probably a pretty smart idea even if it's done for culturally chauvinistic purposes.

Personally, I'm ambivalent on whether or not nicotine by itself is harmful, however, I would use the precautionary principle here for the following reasons:

1) vaping isn't just nicotine alone, there are other chemicals and the jury is still out on their effects, why take the risk? which leads to... 2) risk profile: the risks associated with not vaping are virtually non-existent whereas the risks associated with vaping include consuming chemicals other than nicotine and any risks associated with chronic nicotine consumption (both the risks we know and the risks we don't know about).

In other words there's no actual benefit from chronic nicotine consumption.

Now, I do believe occasional nicotine consumption can be used to enhance cognitive performance. Of course, the business model for vaping doesn't support occasional use. Vaping is all about getting people addicted so they're forced to buy your product even though your product doesn't benefit them beyond just alleviating withdrawal symptoms - symptoms which wouldn't exist if they hadn't been addicted in the first place!

For those who can control their addictive urges I recommend using nicotine gums, lozenges, and patches once in a while (as long as you're in good health).

<comment><USER11> >Why can't it be related to health?

I don't think it's not related in some marginal way to health. I just doubt that it will have much impact on health given the terrible air pollution that people are already subjected to, regardless of whether they smoke. The stronger explanation is the political moral signaling.

It would be a different thing if e-cigs were banned in a country that had very low air pollution and, say universal health care like Canada, because in that case the taxpayer is on the hook for paying for whatever the negative health effects of vaping are - and the connection between vaping and the condition would be much clearer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Any government that bans e-cigarettes without banning normal cigarettes should just give up and dissolve.

<comment><USER13> Which other risky activities should be banned? American football? Alcohol? Unsustainable consumption of natural resources?

I don't see a need to ban things that don't hurt others. I'd rather plow more resources into educating members of society of the consequences of their actions.

Edit: I was under the impression that e-cigs don't produce second hand smoke harmful to others like old cigarettes, but if they do then I would change my position. I was under the impression e-cigs are harmful to their users only.

<comment><USER14> > I'd rather plow more resources into educating members of society of the > consequences of their actions.

And how has that worked for smoking levels in Japan, South Korea - I would say they have pretty high levels of education, with no dearth of information on bad consequences of smoking.

Edit: I think people are assuming I am for the ban. I am not for the ban. I don't think bans like this work. But plowing more resources into the education system is just not particularly effective at preventing addictive behaviors.

<comment><USER13> Then that is their choice? Children play sports even though they break bones, people at desserts even though carbs and sugar are bad for you, people fly to island resorts for vacation even though it's destroying the planet.

On the scale of things causing negative externalities to society, e-cigs are not at the top of my list. Although, the smell of cigarette smoke and its effects on others's lungs is of course harmful to others, so I could get behind stricter regulations or banning of those.

<comment><USER14> I am not denying them their choice, nor am I in favor of the ban (I don't think bans work).

I am saying that education does not dissuade addictive behaviors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Are cigarettes banned in India?

<comment><USER16> Does it matter? This is about vapes. Pointing at something else that is harmful and saying "What about this though", is unhelpful and lazy.

<comment><USER3> It matters because, if the law drives people to smoking tobacco then this could have a net-negative health effect.

<comment><USER17> I don't think the law is driving people to tobacco. The law seems to basically give up on incorrigible cigarette smokers who won't (can't, even if they try?) be swayed by the best of intentions and data, and trying to ensure that less well-informed people don't fall prey to fancy e-cigarette ads which don't do much to specify how much nicotine they contain and how addictive they are.

I agree that it's not the best of implementations. Unsure how effective it will be though, but it's one of the easiest to cook up.

edit: I fully support downvotes if you think this comment is insensitive, but at least provide a bit of logic so I can understand what I might be missing?

<comment><USER18> You don't have a clue. The alternative for many of (myself included) is cigarettes, not quitting. You can call us lazy, weak, whatever, it doesn't matter; we like smoking and we're not going to stop.

<comment><USER17> Yes, I don't have a clue. No, I'm not calling you weak/lazy/whatever. Incorrigible doesn't mean either of these things. You like smoking, feel free to do so. I'm just saying that it's known that nicotine, in general, is a bad idea. If you know that and yet you smoke, go ahead. But there's going to be efforts from any reasonable government to not get any new members to the club.

> we like smoking, and we're not going to stop

I have a feeling that you don't mean that, but would you rather have a bunch of kids thinking they're doing a cool thing (apparently a lot of kids used to think that about Juul not too long ago in the States)? For them, cigarette's not going to be a substitute as it is for smokers currently. Cigarettes are already that icky thing old people do and cause lung cancer (basically their favorite movie star told them so for 2 years).

By all means, smokers can continue smoking, but they should expect some backlash towards your new favorite thing because it might be less harmful than smoking, but is still harmful for potential new users.

<comment><USER18> >I have a feeling that you don't mean that, but would you rather have a bunch of kids thinking they're doing a cool thing (apparently a lot of kids used to think that about Juul not too long ago in the States)?

I do, and please spare me the "think of the children" argument. It's not a good enough reason to infringe upon my rights and health. Kids have and will do things that are bad for them. It's inevitable. I'm not saying don't try to curb it, just don't punish me at the same time. Make it harder to get for anyone under 21. Institute reasonable regulations for juice manufacturers. I'm fine with that.

>By all means, smokers can continue smoking, but they should expect some backlash towards your new favorite thing because it might be less harmful than smoking, but is still harmful for potential new users.

Banning it completely is far from "some backlash".

<comment><USER17> > please spare me the "think of the children" argument.

For the sake or argument, why? Don't they deserve some thought? Or are you completely insensitive to so many of the teenagers who've gotten addicted and can't go back to a nicotine-free life?

> It's not a good enough reason to infringe upon my rights and health

What's a guard rail for you is a potential car crash for the rest.

> It's inevitable. I'm not saying don't try to curb it, just don't punish me > at the same time. Make it harder to get for anyone under 21. Institute > reasonable regulations for juice manufacturers. I'm fine with that.

I'm sure that's what they said (and maybe did) about cigarettes. How's that going? "We like it and we're not going to stop" \-- that's what an entire generation which didn't have full knowledge about the ill effects of smoking might be saying. That's what a million vapers from the next generation are going to say because they didn't have full knowledge of the harms, and people better hope it's just an addiction issue and not a health one. Kids will probably always do what's bad for them, but it's up to the adults to minimize damage. And yes, there's a gap. A Juul is going to reach middle India faster than the knowledge that it's addictive and should be handled with care.

> Banning it completely is far from "some backlash".

Yes, and I didn't say it was perfect; in fact I believe it might end up having an opposite effect. But the reasonable ways out haven't worked well. There's a very high probability that the government knows this too, and is going to end up trying all the steps you suggested. But at least the message is out.

<comment><USER18> >For the sake or argument, why? Don't they deserve some thought? Or are you completely insensitive to so many of the teenagers who've gotten addicted and can't go back to a nicotine-free life?

Because it's an emotional response that gets people all worked up and all of a sudden facts, logic, and adult choice go out the window. There is a wide array of actions which can be taken to curb child use which are far short of a complete ban, and let's not forget that this all began with "VAPING IS KILLIN PEOPLE!" headlines, an issue which has nothing to do with vaping in general or its long term effects.

>What's a guard rail for you is a potential car crash for the rest.

How so? We have no reason to believe that vaping is harmful long term. It's a risk, sure, but "car crash"? Based on what exactly?

>I'm sure that's what they said (and maybe did) about cigarettes. How's that going?

Smoking rates are way down. Why do you think it's your responsibility or right to dictate whether or not I can smoke?

>But the reasonable ways out haven't worked well.

What are those? What have we tried so far? Btw, cigarettes are still perfectly legal!

<comment><USER17> > What are those? What have we tried so far? Btw, cigarettes are still > perfectly legal!

Why do you think that is? Even after all those full-pack warnings! Don't people know they're bad?! And to answer what we tried: Gutka (a form of tobacco) banned in most Indian states. Ban on advertising of alcohol and tobacco products. Full scale cancer pictures on cigarette boxes. Why not a blanket ban? Because, well, people want it, just as much as you're vigorously defending now... the ban on vaping is before the majority starts wanting that too. It sucks, but in the eyes of the government, it's something which is easier to defend.

> and let's not forget that this all began with "VAPING IS KILLIN PEOPLE!"

No, it began with people getting hooked to nicotine-delivery substances and not being able to stop.

> How so? We have no reason to believe that vaping is harmful long term. It's > a risk, sure, but "car crash"? Based on what exactly?

Vaping might not be bad health-wise. Nicotine addiction is bad, at least on economic consequences (remember, this isn't a rich country, so for many people it's a choice between nicotine and other necessary goods), and might be multiple-packs-a-day bad, because you know, addiction. I'm not sure if I want to wait for multiple generations to get hooked up to addiction before the health results of multi-decades of careful research (sometimes sponsored by vaping companies) are out.

> Smoking rates are way down. Why do you think it's your responsibility or > right to dictate whether or not I can smoke?

Yeah, and look what that took. Millions of people dying before a dent in the numbers (and let's not attribute that to vaping, at least in India, because it hasn't caught hold on that scale yet). A developing country can't see people die for that long for addiction risk declines. And yes, it is my right as a citizen to support something I know is curbing a bad thing before it gets hold in my country. You might be benefiting from vaping, but I don't see an issue in preventing large companies peddling more bad stuff to people, kids or otherwise.

Again, the last thing I would say is helpful is banning things, and I'm kind of starting to understand your points as well. But vigorous defense of nicotine isn't the right way to go IMO. We can trade arguments all we want, and honestly, I'm not fully antagonistic against anything here, but it is my belief that I'd like to make a smoke-free person's opinion heard alongside people who are struggling with quitting, or don't want to. I enjoy a smoke- free and addiction-free life, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, but it took me a lot of fighting peer pressure + manipulative advertising to be in this position today. It shouldn't have been a fight at all, but there's no company which is going to profit from non-smoking/teetotalism/whatever, and governments aren't going to see revenues from it.

<comment><USER18> >Why do you think that is? Even after all those full-pack warnings! Don't people know they're bad?! And to answer what we tried: Gutka (a form of tobacco) banned in most Indian states. Ban on advertising of alcohol and tobacco products.

I thought we were talking about vaping. I already said I was more than fine with restricting purchase, advertising, etc. in the same way we do with tobacco. But no, it's now a ban, and we've tried nothing.

>No, it began with people getting hooked to nicotine-delivery substances and not being able to stop.

That's ridiculous. Of course the current hysteria did. Whether or not I want to be hooked on nicotine is none of your damn business.

>Nicotine addiction is bad, at least on economic consequences (remember, this isn't a rich country, so for many people it's a choice between nicotine and other necessary goods)

Again, don't need to be people's nannies. Do we have real data on that or are you just thinking aloud? Are there no other vices that would take its place? C'mon.

>I'm not sure if I want to wait for multiple generations to get hooked up to addiction before the health results of multi-decades of careful research (sometimes sponsored by vaping companies) are out.

I'm not sure it should be up to you. That's my point.

>And yes, it is my right as a citizen to support something I know is curbing a bad thing before it gets hold in my country.

You don't know it's a bad thing. In a vacuum where it is the only harmful substance known to man, sure, but you ignore the fact that people are just going to go back to cigarettes. Why isn't your country as concerned with those?

>Again, the last thing I would say is helpful is banning things, and I'm kind of starting to understand your points as well. But vigorous defense of nicotine isn't the right way to go IMO.

I'm not out to defend nicotine. I wouldn't want my son to start vaping, but we have to weigh what we _lose_ at the same time we discuss what we may gain.

One thing I'd like you to understand is that, from my end, I'm worried. I'm worried I'm going to lose vaping and will go back to cigarettes. I hope I don't, but I've failed before, and I have a family who is worried as well.

<comment><USER17> > One thing I'd like you to understand is that, from my end, I'm worried. I'm > worried I'm going to lose vaping and will go back to cigarettes. I hope I > don't, but I've failed before, and I have a family who is worried as well.

Sorry to hear that. I didn't intend to add to your worries; this was all for purposes of a debate. I do hope things turns out well for you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> black market e-cigarettes harms/kills some people

the solution people come up with?

ban legal e-cigarettes

</comment><comment><USER20> Since this is a relatively new vehicle in delivery of an addictive substance it would seem prudent to ban it while possible before wide spread adoption.

India already has a problem with heavy pollution that basically amounts to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day just living in most of its cities. Add to the fact that cigarettes and tobacco are widely available, why even introduce more ways to destroy peoples health.

<comment><USER21> Vaping is a substitute for smoking. If you ban vaping, you get more smokers and overall worse health outcomes.

Using just US statistics, you get the following result[1]:

> ...if a public e-cigarette ban reduces the number of smokers who switch to > e-cigarettes by 2%, you've just killed an extra 9000 people per year – about > three 9-11 attacks, or twice the number of US soldiers who died in the Iraq > War.

1\. [https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/28/thank-you-for-doing- so...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/28/thank-you-for-doing-something- ambiguously-between-smoking-and-not-smoking/)

<comment><USER22> Vaping can be a substitute for smoking, but a lot of people are now vaping who weren't previously smokers, especially young people.

Maybe it should be offered as a prescription drug to quit smoking...

<comment><USER21> You are assuming that vaping is comparable to smoking in terms of danger. It isn't. Vaping is incredibly safe. The only people who have gotten sick or died have been using black market THC cartridges. Smoking kills around 400,000 Americans per year.

If you make vapes harder to acquire than cigarettes, you will cause mass death. Cigarettes are available without a prescription. You can get them at any gas station, corner store, or supermarket. If vaping isn't as convenient or as available, you will get more smokers and worse health outcomes.

Again, a 2% increase in the number of smokers in the US is 9,000 deaths per year. I understand where you're coming from. It certainly doesn't feel good to let a bunch of teenagers get hooked on vapes. But you are weighing a hypothetical, unlikely harm against a concrete ongoing harm that is several thousand times larger in magnitude. One's intuitions simply can't be trusted in these cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Wonder how big a check the traditional cigarette makers cut to make this happen.

<comment><USER24> It's happening in the US too, and we're all falling for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> i think they should just ban the nicotine, not the vaping.

as a person with a nicotine addiction, i can tell you it's a hard one to crack. as a person who has smoked, i can tell you vaping is hardly a substitute.

that being said, i know some friends who have gotten way worse nicotine cravings as a result of vaping more or using stronger liquid than what they'd have in their regular cigs.

something worth noting, in countries outside the US, you can get approximate dosage labels on your cigs.

something else worth noting, my own nicotine dependency seems to have been made way way worse by using hooka, instead of cigarettes. surely, this is n=1.

edit to add: i don't actually think they should be banning any of this shit... but if you want to prevent people from getting hooked on a substance that can later be further used to manipulate behavior (e.g. by adding other things to it) then you should ban the nicotine.

in the end, i think they're wanting to ban vaping because they want to prevent people from smoking thc.

<comment><USER18> >as a person with a nicotine addiction, i can tell you it's a hard one to crack. as a person who has smoked, i can tell you vaping is hardly a substitute.

I smoked a pack a day for fifteen years. Vaping was the only thing that got me off of cigarettes because it is _far_ more enjoyable. Cigs now taste like eating a bonfire.

You should preface that with "IMO" because obviously it doesn't apply to the tens of millions who have successfully switched over.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> e-cigarette marketing was targeting youth demographics [1]. They could have stuck with marketing to adults, but they got greedy, and I have no sympathy for these companies now that governments are coming down hard on them.

[1] [https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco- indus...](https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-industry- marketing/4-marketing-tactics-e-cigarette-companies-use-target)

<comment><USER18> Nonsense. Honestly, how do people swallow the garbage argument that only children like sweet flavors? As you typed that out did you forget that you enjoy the taste of ice cream more than the ashes of a bonfire?

<comment><USER26> The marketing is obviously directed towards youth in certain circumstances -- for example they have packages that look exactly like Lucky Charms and Froot Loops.

Would you also argue that Lucky Charms and Froot Loops cereal commercials are not advertising to children, because some adults happen to eat sugary cereal?

<comment><USER18> So... let me understand this... the flavors are literally Lucky Charms and Fruit Loops, right? What else would they put there? Do you think adults don't like sweet cereal?

I don't think that is "obviously directed towards youth." It's only obvious that it's directed toward people who like Lucky Charms and Fruit Loops, of which many are adults.

>Would you also argue that Lucky Charms and Froot Loops cereal commercials are not advertising to children, because some adults happen to eat sugary cereal?

No, because those ads are obviously aimed toward children. They're full of kids and the boxes contains toys! Nothing like that is happening with vape juice (and it shouldn't if it is.)

That all said, I'm with you; bring down the hammer on that sort of thing. Get rid of the flashy packaging. Keep the warning labels. That does far more good than harm. Just don't take the flavor away from me if I want it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Here's a question:

Are there any studies on the relative addictiveness of various forms of tobacco? IIRC, cigarettes have been explicitly engineered to deliver a high, short-lived dose quickly, while cigars and pipe tobacco, and apparently vaping liquids, do not have the same psychoactive effects.

</comment><comment><USER28> Equal treatment of both; otherwise e is better than traditional one as it harms other less

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm hoping that e-cigarettes decreases second hand smoking that I have to endure, which is affecting me quite badly.

If a person comes to my house I prefer that he smokes e-cigarette over a real one at least while he's visiting me.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm a life-long straight-edger who knows next to nothing about e-cigarettes except that it looks like they're much better nicotine-delivery systems which don't have the extra harmful stuff cigarettes have wrapped up, so please take all I say with multiple grains of salt.

IMO is a good decision. And I say this with full cynicism; I really don't care either way. I don't have many people in my circle who're smokers or vapers, and I've never done either, so I can't really relate.

I feel this is a good decision because:

\- Cigarette and beedi ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beedi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beedi)) companies have been entrenched in this society for long, so they can battle things out for the existing products. Most people have started to wisen up to these though, so the effects on mass population are reducing day by day (education and those large images of cancer help). In e-cigarettes' case, getting something out before it becomes entrenched, is IMO, a good thing, however unpopular. It took so damn long for people to realize tobacco is dangerous. Better this info gets out quicker now, especially in a country like India where accurate and well-rounded information is hard to get.

\- E-cigarettes still contain addictive nicotine. While the current war against normal cigs/bidis might be about the smoke and other stuff, the central hook is still an addictive substance. E-cigs have the potential to dial up delivery of this addictive stuff up to 10. This isn't good for most people.

\- Say whatever you want about e-cigarettes. It's known that it's seen as a cool thing among kids, and the packaging is damn near perfect. a country could do better to avoid getting its future generations getting hooked up with a snazzy-looking thumb drive before realizing too late that their parents' money is now captive to fruit-flavored pods. I've noticed juul usage amongst teens in the US, and some seem hooked beyond repair (just like smokers are today).

I don't really care however this goes, I'm not going to be the one who'll be vaping or smoking or whatever so I don't have much of a stake in this (I don't even like the current politics either). But to me, getting something out of the picture before it becomes a huge issue might be a good idea (unless, like in Harry Potter parlance, where the best thing Umbridge did to make sure The Quibbler was read was banning it...)

<comment><USER24> Ya, who cares how many people this decision kills. It doesn't affect you, right?

<comment><USER17> Well yes, it doesn't affect me. Doesn't mean that my viewpoint is not of any value.

I'm not sure if this decision "kills" people. I know nicotine is addictive. I know giving up addictive stuff is hard. But if you think that having something which is less harmful for people already consuming more harmful stuff and more harmful for the rest who might be pulled into this, I'd believe that some action to reduce the damage being taken is not a unilaterally bad decision.

I try very hard to not get addicted to stuff, because I know it's damaging. But I'm not sure if it's a good idea to keep something we are pretty sure is bad (nicotine addiction) around just because it's an easy out for someone who's already doing harm for himself and people around him.

People fought to contain smoking, they lost. Clearly neither forced abstinence or knowing temperance is an awesome solution. But I'd rather ban something small which has the potential to get to the big bad real soon (e-cigarettes don't come with a doctor's approval as far as I know), because it's doable, than handhold people into something we know is not ideal, and can possibly be much worse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Sign. India in the lead on this one and US lags behind.

I'm disappointed that with the big tobacco settlement (1998) they didn't start automatically raising the legal smoking every year by another year - <USER2> basically phase out tobacco forever.

<comment><USER31> Same with alcohol and caffeine and addictive prescription drugs.

<comment><USER32> And water.

<comment><USER33> Ban dihydrogen monoxide now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Alrighties. Are they going to ban cigarettes too?

</comment><comment><USER35> It's good that e-cigarettes are not safe. There shouldn't be a "safe" smoking alternative and we should never believe the tobacco industry.</comment>


Sheldon Brown's Articles - <AUTHOR> http://sheldonbrown.com/articles.html

<comment><USER2> One of the best sources on the net for cycling esoterica. I practically lived on this site when I was putting together and fixing up older bikes.

Especially good information on practical fixed gears and three speed hubs.

Before he passed, I sent an e-mail asking a few questions and Sheldon responded personally, with fairly detailed responses. It was pretty rad.

There's a _lot_ of really useful information on there.

Some of my favorite parts.

The three speed hub with a fixed gear: [http://sheldonbrown.com/asc.html](http://sheldonbrown.com/asc.html)

The section on frame fit (semi controversial topic depending on the crowd): [http://sheldonbrown.com/frame-sizing.html](http://sheldonbrown.com/frame- sizing.html)

<comment><USER3> I love his page on wheel/tire sizes, [http://sheldonbrown.com/tire- sizing.html](http://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html)

<comment><USER4> Agreed. That's one of my favorites. Sheldon was such an awesome guy. It's really cool seeing all these positive comments here!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sheldon Brown's site is amazing but I'm afraid it's going to get increasingly stale now that he's passed on.

I've thought it'd be neat to turn the site into a wiki that can be maintained by bicycle enthusiasts.

<comment><USER6> That was the first bookmark i added to my browser when i got a bike a long time ago. If you work on your own bike, and you are a geek/nerd, you will end up on this site regardless.

i'm using a lot the bicycle site at stackexchange. granted that most answers are just pointers to sheldon's site for now :)

<comment><USER7> Where I think bicycles.se tends to excel is less on the mechanical aspects of cycling and more on the technical aspects of riding. There have also been interesting discussions that are more esoteric, too, like how to get your bike on an airplane while avoiding fees.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm pretty sure any semi-serious biker knows about Sheldon Brown by now. His site usually tops search results.

I like to use his gear calculator to remind me why I spin out on the top end: [http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/index.html](http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/index.html)

<comment><USER9> His gear calculator is terrible! Use this one instead: [http://www.andrusia.com/gearseer](http://www.andrusia.com/gearseer)

<comment><USER10> At least his calculator works in Chrome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I love this guy. He was the only place online that I could find an explanation for why the left pedal of a bike screws on opposite to normal direction. Everyone that fixes bikes knows the left one screws on "wrong", but no one at any bike shop could explain why the _left_. Because on a first analysis, it seems that it should be the _right_ one that needs reverse threading to keep from getting unscrewed.

[http://sheldonbrown.com/pedals.html](http://sheldonbrown.com/pedals.html) (scroll down to "Pedal Threading")

<comment><USER3> Ha, I had the same experience.

I also loved imagining people's left pedals falling out, until it happened to me (well, it was the right). Make sure you screw your pedals in tight!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is a great example of a mature vanity website. I mean that in the best possible way. It's a throwback to the early web days, pre-geocities even, when people would make unique websites about themselves and their hobbies. The UI and the information architecture might follow some best practices, or mimic slightly the arrangement of another site, but they were fundamentally unique to the site in question.

Brown's in particular is full of personality, not only in his writing, but in the layouts, color choices, photo choices, quotes, et cetera.

I also have benefitted from many hours spent reading through Brown's site. What a great resource and gift.

</comment><comment><USER13> If you're unsure about Sheldon Brown's authority on bikes this sticker sums it up: [http://images.ecdn.bigcartel.com/bigcartel/product_images/31...](http://images.ecdn.bigcartel.com/bigcartel/product_images/31074795/max_h-1000+max_w-1000/RIDE_sticker- wm.jpg)

<comment><USER14> Totally picking some of these up. Thanks for this!

<comment><USER15> Link: [http://www.retro-gression.com/product/ride-sticker](http://www.retro- gression.com/product/ride-sticker)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> One of if not the best resource on all thinks bike. Unfortunately Sheldon passed away a few years back. They have people updating the pages.

Sheldon was married to Harriet Fell, my finite state automata professor. I think she's doing some of the page maintenance.

</comment><comment><USER17> Hey! What a treat to see this here. Don't know if it'll survive long, but I'd say the takeaway from this guy is

1) He's practical to a fault -- he doesn't delude himself or others

2) He's extremely generous with his knowledge.

Anybody from any profession can take a lesson from his life.

RIP Sheldon Brown.

</comment><comment><USER18> Like many others, his was one of the very first sites i came upon in my search for great bike nerd info.

In addition to the incredible depth of very practical info, the fact that his site exists is a demonstration of what the pre-commercial web was all about: 1 guy contributing knowledge for the benefit of many others, giving time/effort for the greater good.

Never met him, but i miss him.

</comment><comment><USER19> Somewhat surprised and delighted that this site has surfaced on Hacker News. It's a wonderful resource provided in the true spirit of the old-school web.

I never met Sheldon but he has been and will continue to be my go-to person for bike advice. Whenever I'm fixing my brakes and have to take a minute to think about mechanical advantage, I think of Sheldon. I'm very thankful for his efforts and the ongoing efforts of the people who maintain his site.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've been a fan of his since the '90s. I once had the opportunity while visiting a relative in Boston to ask Sheldon in person at the shop where he worked (Harris Cyclery) if he could help me find a rather obscure part for my old Raleigh. I really had no expectation they would have it, I just wanted to see the shop and maybe encounter him. Sure enough, they had it, and my encounter with The Oracle only cost me about $5.

Was a sad day when he passed.

</comment><comment><USER21> The author is sadly deceased and while this is a great resource it's worth noting that a lot of the technical stuff on here is not very applicable to newer bicycles which use threadless headsets etc.

<comment><USER3> Well, that specific example isn't true: [http://sheldonbrown.com/headsets.html](http://sheldonbrown.com/headsets.html)

<comment><USER21> Ah, good spot. I wonder if someone is updating the site because I could have sworn I didn't see that last time I was fettling with a headset.

<comment><USER3> I remember seeing stuff about threadless headsets on the site a few years ago, but yes apparently the site is being updated

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm impressed this popped up hn.

Thanks to Sheldon my bike workshop grows and grows and I basically can do all aspects of bike maintenance myself.

He's a true DIY pioneer for real!

</comment><comment><USER23> This was an absolutely indispensable resource when I built my bike many years ago. The man's a genius, and I was incredibly sad when he passed. RIP

</comment><comment><USER24> I bought my first bike from his shop, and built my second and third from his tutorials. A very great dude. RIP.

</comment><comment><USER25> One of the first places that I go whenever I am uncertain when fixing my old bike. Great resource.

</comment><comment><USER26> Slightly surprised but very pleased to see Sheldon's site on hackernews. The wealth of information on the site is fascinating to go through even if you don't do any kind of bike activities.

His cycling in France articles were a pleasure to read.

</comment><comment><USER3> I always liked his shoutouts to the other Sheldon Browns of the world at the bottom of his personal page: [http://sheldonbrown.com/home.html](http://sheldonbrown.com/home.html)

</comment><comment><USER27> He inspired me to start building my own wheels, to experiment more with 70s-era French steel frames, Raleigh 3-speeds, Raleigh 20s, flip-flop hubs, fixed 3-speed Sturmey-Archer hubs, and on and on. Wonderful man.

</comment><comment><USER28> It warms my heart to see that this web site is still running.

</comment><comment><USER29> Saint Sheldon.

</comment><comment><USER30> Indeed, great reference material. Once upon a time, I typeset his site in LaTeX for better printing.

</comment><comment><USER31> Love this site - I've used his stuff for several bike mods.

</comment><comment> hex- Sheldon Brown is a legend. Amazing resource.

</comment><comment><USER32> As Always Sheldon Has The Answer</comment>


Facebook disguised sponsored ads as regular posts, Adblock Plus fixed that - <AUTHOR> https://sociable.co/social-media/facebook-disguised-sponsored-ads/ <comment><USER2> Reminder that Adblock plus sells ads and extorts advertisers: [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/business/media/adblock- pl...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/business/media/adblock-plus-created- to-protect-users-from-ads-opens-the-door.html) [https://medium.com/@trybravery/please-stop-using-adblock- but...](https://medium.com/@trybravery/please-stop-using-adblock-but-not-why- you-think-13280e76c8e7). (HN commentary: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16997272](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16997272))

Use Ublock Origin for a real adblock.

Also, I find it suspicious that the user who submitted the post only exclusively submits articles from "sociable-co".

</comment><comment><USER3> I noticed one of these recently and tried to block it with an adblocker by finding the word Sponsored. I looked at the source code and found that they separated each letter of the word 'Sponsored' into separate html tags, making it impossible to find it by text. So sleazy, Facebook.

<comment><USER4> That's brilliant, in an evil way. At that point I would just draw the text on a canvas (not to give any ideas).

It's ironic that people who use adblockers are the exact people you don't want to push ads onto, _even if you can_. They have adblockers for a reason, and they'll just ignore them anyway!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Isn't this a violation of FTC rules?

<comment><USER6> Only if you interpret what they are saying in the way that they intended you to, despite the fact that it's not what they are explicitly saying.

When they say "Facebook were disguising 'sponsored posts' as regular posts", all that means is that Facebook changed something in such a way that Adblock Plus was no longer detecting it as a "sponsored post". It doesn't mean that sponsored posts looked the same to users as regular posts.</comment></comment>


Apple will list NAV as an an approved virtual currency in the app store - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/NAVCoin/status/953159990860230656 <comment><USER2> The tweet implies they're in the process becoming an approved currency in the app store, not that they've already been approved. Am I missing something here?</comment>


The Hacking Team Defectors - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-hacking-team-defectors <comment><AUTHOR> What is going on in Italy? This article gives the impression that the downfall of HT is seen there as a _bad_ thing. I wouldn't call the US culture "zealously anti surveillance", but this little snapshot of Italian culture paints them as way off the deep end in support of it.

I'm asking seriously, knowing there are lots of Italians reading HN. Am I getting the wrong impression from this article, or is the culture in Italy different?</comment>


What to do When a Tech Giant Decides to Eat Your Lunch - <AUTHOR> http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2011/06/13/what-to-do-when-a-tech-giant-decides-to-eat-your-lunch/

<comment><USER2> Duplicate: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2651730>

There is no discussion there yet, I add this imply to ensure that if any comments are made, they don't get split between the two submissions.

And yes, I've set each to point to the other.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Too bad there's no way to delete this one (that I know of); it would be nice to remove dupes submitted close in time to each other.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Visualmarks - markdown/html round-trip editing and publishing services - <AUTHOR> http://www.visual-marks.com

<comment><USER2> Slick integration of ace editor and redactor !</comment>


A better way to learn a new programming language - <AUTHOR> https://codewithoutrules.com/2017/09/09/learn-a-new-programming-language/ <comment><USER2> I'm still a student but that seems to be a great way to learn :) But, what do you do if debugging requires skills you don't have yet ?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think debugging is a skill every developer must have, once you learn to debug, it does not matter in which language you are debugging.

If you are using an IDE, debugging is pretty straightforward.</comment></comment>


Valuable Content Should be your Goal, and then Engagement will Follow - <AUTHOR> http://blog.intigi.com/valuable-content-should-be-your-goal-and-then-engagement-will-follow/ <comment><USER2> i think thats fairly obvious but perhaps not to all.</comment>


Dehumanized: When math and science rule the school (2009) - <AUTHOR> https://harpers.org/archive/2009/09/dehumanized/ <comment><AUTHOR> The original article is from 2009. There's a current interview with the author, Mark Slouka, at "To the Best of Our Knowledge" (audio):

[https://www.ttbook.org/interview/what-happens-when-math- and-...](https://www.ttbook.org/interview/what-happens-when-math-and-science- rule-school)</comment>


One man's 3-year experiment in eating organic food - all the time - <AUTHOR> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/04/healthscience/snparker.php

<comment><USER2> One problem with his health is that he has significantly adjusted his diet, in addition to switching to organic food. This makes the conclusions about his health very suspect (Especially as Americans eat too much meat and not enough fruits/veggies/grains, IIRC).

<comment><USER3> Exactly. Unfortunately, I doubt that a proper controlled, double-blind study would be practical for this amount of time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _His urine is a brighter yellow, a sign that he is ingesting more vitamins > and nutrients._

Other, equally scientific explanations: He's happier. He's drinking more sunshine juice. The yellow humors are growing.

<comment><USER5> _Other, equally scientific explanations: He's happier. He's drinking more sunshine juice. The yellow humors are growing._

Sunshine juice? Do you mean Sunny D? I don't think that's organic :)

I always thought the yellow urine was a sign of too much salt and not enough water in your system. Isn't clear, water-like urine the optimal case?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's an interesting idea, but the article doesn't really give any details except that he wakes up earlier, feels like he has more energy (very subjective, as they don't back this up with any facts) and his urine is brighter yellow. I wish this had been a better article, but still a nice find. Perhaps they are saving the details for the book.

<comment><USER7> I thought urine yellowness had to do with how much water you drank, so it's more or less diluted.

<comment><USER8> It seems he is overdosing on vitamins.

 _Yellowing/light Orange may be caused by removal of excess B vitamins from the bloodstream._

 _"Fluorescent Yellow / Greenish urine may be caused by dietary supplemental vitamins, especially the B vitamins."_

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine#Unusual_coloration>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Must be a millionaire

</comment><comment><USER10> _Fruits, vegetables and animals can be 100 percent organic._

As opposed to fruit, vegetables and animals that are _not_ entirely derived from living organisms?

<comment><USER10> Just in case anyone's still confused, yes, fruit, vegetables and animals _are_ living organisms ;-)</comment></comment>


Teen electrocuted after dropping charging iPhone in bath - <AUTHOR> https://www.news24.com/World/News/russian-teen-electrocuted-after-dropping-her-charging-phone-in-bath-20181211 <comment><USER2> What am I missing here? Shouldn't the phone end of a cord only be a few volts? Is the article talking about people dropping power strips into the bath?

<comment><USER3> I thought the same thing, although I have heard it's not the voltage but the current that kills. Also in most modern households(at least in North America), bathroom electrical outlets are required to have a gfi or ground fault interrupt circuit breaker, to prevent accidents like this from killing.</comment></comment>


The Videogame That Finally Made Me Feel Like a Human Being - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2014/02/left-behind-women-video-games/ <comment><USER3> I honestly hate when stats are distorted. The "almost half of gamers are female" stat is true, but the majority of female gamers favor puzzles and extremely casual games. AAA title customers are still strongly dominated by male audiences and thus, the market will cater towards that demographic. There's really nothing wrong with this. It's about as sexist as the male section in my local Macy's being 1/10 the total size of the store.

<comment><USER4> Hi! I'm a female video gamer.

I grew up playing video games. I have played, and still play, a lot of games involving shooting things, punching and kicking things, and colorful explosions. I got hooked on the medium with Williams' "Defender".

I don't play FPSs because they are, with very few exceptions, coded as Games For Guys. I've had a great time playing Portal, System Shock 2, Antichamber, and a few other first person puzzle shoot things, because they are either genderless, or are strongly feminine. (You would destroy me in a high-speed deathmatch because my 'put cursor on dude' skills are minimal - <USER2> because almost every single 'put cursor on dude' game requires me to inhabit the grey/brown shoes of Mancho McGruntsalot, so I really don't feel like playing them.)

I avoid most AAA games for similar reasons. They are all clubhouses with a "NO GURLS ALLOUED" sign hung out front. I played the hell out of Skyrim and Saint's Row 3/4 in no small part because I could make female avatars and the game would happily let me be that. (For that matter, I basically quit buying the 3D GTA games when they stopped having any 'play as another model' codes that I could input to force the game to acknowledge my gender. Even if it did sometimes result in a cutscene where a lady model stood with her legs wide open, talking in a male voice, and dangling a gun in front of her crotch obscenely.)

I have a bunch of lady friends who have spent tons of time playing MMORPGs. I haven't, myself, because I know I'd fall into that hole and never come out - but again: easy access to female avatars right there in the stock game, no hassle, hey maybe we'll welcome women.

<comment><USER5> I don't really play a lot of videogames anymore, but I have a lot of trouble empathizing with this. When the gender roles are reversed it seems silly to me.

"most every single 'put cursor on dude' game requires me to inhabit the grey/brown shoes of Mancho McGruntsalot, so I really don't feel like playing them"

As a male, I don't think I've ever had an issue following a feminine video game character. In fact, I've never felt compelled to paused and think that role-playing a female character was weird (say in Tomb Raider, or No One Lives Forever, or any other of the relatively few female centric games). Can you elaborate on why is this a hang-up for you when it comes to playing a man?

<comment><USER4> Imagine a world where every major video game stars women. Where when there is a man in the cast, his only character trait is "he's the guy", versus an assortment of ladies who are at least two-dimensional. He is also probably going to be kidnapped, so he has no agency as a character - really, he only exists as a prize for the ladies to fight over.

This is not one game. This is pretty much any video game. This is pretty much every single video game in the world. Games where a male character has agency are rare. Really, games are all for girls, and you should go back to your little man things, like cooking and raising the baby.

Oh yeah, and any big budget movie has a similar gender distribution too. Almost every animated feature you watch growing up tells you to be a good little prince and wait for a brave princess to come save you. Same with TV. Everyone chases the disposable income of the teenage girl, and molds their product to her taste.

And of course there are big chunks of society that basically want to disempower you because of your gender, too.

Wow, it sure would be nice to be able to have a space where you could imagine being someone who can kick ass and not bother taking names now and then. Maybe to even spend some time pretending to be someone who'll inspire you to take more control of your real life. But all the games like that are for the women. And everyone says the games about guys aren't 'real' games anyway. They're "casual" games. And are all about cooking and taking care of babies anyway. Not very good for escaping from reality.

The few games that star dudes kicking ass become precious to you. Larry Croft, Bayonet, Kay Archer, Samuy, these are rare chances to pretend to be someone not too far off from your actual self who has POWER to actually change their environment. Sometimes you might even find yourself thinking "how would Bayonet handle this situation" and taking inspiration from it, because he's one of the few role models of your gender available for you to really inhabit via games. One of the few times you've been able to take the role of a supremely confident and capable guy, instead of a supremely confident and capable woman.

Then you have the temerity to speak up about how good the rare game that lets you play as a guy with guy concerns, who can also kick ass, and you immediately get a bunch of ladies piling on and insisting that this all seems really silly and that games are made for women, guys have those "casual" games about cleaning and cooking or about ungendered abstract puzzles and they sure play a lot of them, don't they!

And then you whimper softly to yourself and pick up your Vita to play TxK because Jane Minter may be a lady, but she's a lady who makes a damn fine abstract game about blasting the shit out of abstract things.

It's not pretending to be the opposite sex for one game that's the problem. It's pretending to be the opposite sex for almost EVERY game. It's pretty fucking wearying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Woah! So wait. Dave Sim is a misogynist? Like, a card-carrying member of the Misogynist party?

 _THE_ Dave Sim, creator of the Cerebus comic book?

How do you kick off an article with a bold statement like that, and not include at least a link to an interview or something? Is he like, the founder of some kind of Men's Rights Advocacy group or something? Does he run a political action committee?

Is he quoted anywhere as explicitly stating anything like:

      Hello, my name is Dave Sim, and I hate women. Yes, all of
      them, and as a general rule. You may know me as auhor of
      the independently published comic book, Cerebus. At this
      time, I'd like to go on the record about my opinion of
      women: I hate them. Make no mistake. Much like racists
      hate other races, my hatred of women is similarly general,
      and all-encompassing. To reiterate, I, Dave Sim, am a
      self-proclaimed misogynist.

Like, really? He's simply a misogynist, and it's a bald fact?

<comment><USER7> Have you read his stuff on women? I like Cerebus, but he definitely has issues with women.

 _" Emotion, whatever the Female Void would have you believe, is not a more Exalted State than is Thought. In point of fact, I think Emotion is animalistic, serpent-brain stuff. Animals do not Think, but I am reasonably certain that they have Emotions. 'Eating this makes me Happy.' 'When my fur is all wet and I am cold, it makes me Sad." "Ooo! Puppies!' 'It makes me Excited to Chase the Ball!' Reason, as any husband can tell you, doesn't stand a chance in an argument with Emotion... this was the fundamental reason, I believe, that women were denied the vote for so long."_

 _" Behind this...lies the Greater Void, the Omnivorous Engine which drives every... institutionalised waste of human time and energy, which drives, in point of fact, our entire degraded society. The wife and kids."_

 _" In one of those Poor Us studies for which the Emotional Female Void is notorious, it was pointed out that after a divorce, the average male standard of living rises... the average female standard of living drops... I think the...explanation is that the excision of a five-to-six- foot leech from the surface of a human body is going to have more of its own blood in its own veins. Unless the leech finds another body, it is going to go hungry."_

 _" In labouring to fill the insatiable Void Need for material possessions at home, his time and his energy and his spirit disappear into the Vaginal Bottom Line of the workplace."_

 _" The Male Light and the Female Void: Seminal Energy and Omnivorous Parasite."_

 _" If you look at her and see anything besides emptiness, fear and emotional hunger, you are looking at the parts of yourself which have been consumed to that point."_

 _" It wouldn't be that big a stretch to categorize my writing as Hate Literature against women . . . in this Fascistic Feminist country"_

<comment><USER6> Well! Those certainly are some, eh... curious... statements, aren't they?

I never read Cerebus cover-to-cover, because, well, it's freaking huge. I've only perused a couple of volumes, in particular, the first and last volumes.

I'm reading his wikipedia article now. I never realized he'd become mired in a controversy and gained such a weird reputation. He doesn't seem to self- identify as misogynistic though.

<comment><USER7> He self identifies as being a defender of _The Truth_ against a feminist dictatorship that invents things like child poverty.

For him to identify as misogynist would require him to accept a world-view where viewing women as unthinking beasts was hateful, rather than being a divine message from the true god Elohim about that female trickster Yahweh.

Personally I just think he went crazy with hate over his ex-wife.

<comment><USER6> It's tough in a court of public opinion, though. Especially when it comes to artistic works of fiction as interpretted by adversarial critics. Some of this is just so much gossip. Such is the life of the cartoonist who courts controversial topics, I suppose.

If the guy tries to explain himself, and only comes across as even more batshit insane, then I suppose that's his own tough luck (...or grand design, if that's what suits him). At any rate, when a person winds up in a hole, it's usually best to stop digging. From the sound of things, it seems entirely possible that he probably doesn't even really care, either way, anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord The best video game with a strong female protagonist that I've played is NOLF. _Criminally_ underrated and almost never noted these days, even in feminist discourse.

Anyway, this is apparently a DLC pack to a ludicrously well received game called _The Last of Us_ , which honestly I had not heard of before. I can't help but think the reviewer is overly dramatic here, though.

Finally, I want to address this:

 _Although women make up nearly half of all gamers, only a fraction of videogame characters are female, and fewer still are playable._

This is a fallacy as it only takes up the raw total percentage and completely ignores some critically important details: gender distribution by genres. That makes a huge difference.

For instance, women make up very high numbers for things like casual games, World of Warcraft, The Sims and others.

On the other hand, a lot of major AAA titles like Grand Theft Auto, Devil May Cry and Mass Effect enjoy only small female audiences (14-22%).

That's why there's not much of an incentive. Don't just grab the whole percentage and throw it around like a gospel of injustice when you're going to voluntarily ignore the complexity and fragmentation of the market.

<comment><USER8> > Although women make up nearly half of all gamers, only a fraction of > videogame characters are female, and fewer still are playable.

Double false claim. Women certainly don't make half of gamers (unless you consider people playing Tetris and phone games real gamers, and that's a very different subject altogether).

Fewer are playable, false claim as well. Tomb Raider, Bayonetta, Most adventure games from Roberta Williams, Lots of japanese games have female lead characters too (too many to list here), and a lot of these games were very much liked by male gamers as well. I'm personally a huge fan of Bayonetta, and the fact that the character is a female had a huge part in this preference.

<comment><USER7> Of course tetris fans are real gamers.

<comment><USER8> Well, yeah, Tetris is a game. But it's a game in the same way that a termite is also a living species just like an elephant is another one. They just do not benchmark on the same scale.

<comment><USER9> I strongly disagree. A game should be first and foremost measured by its gameplay, and Tetris easily beats 99% of the games released each year on that department.

<comment><USER8> I wouldn't picture myself playing Tetris all my life, just like tons of games in the same time that you find nowadays on mobile phones, so I strongly disagree with your view. I wouldn't count Flappy Bird as a "game" as well - for me it all goes in the same bucket as Tetris, i.e. something to kill the time, but nothing I would consider to be a serious game in any measure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> ugh, that was a painful read. Even text adventures were more emotionally charged than most games today, and i didnt have to wait 2014 to feel like a human being. you just had to play computer games and not console games.

<comment><USER10> Painful how? It sounds like the author was genuinely moved by the game. It has to be a good thing that a AAA console title can have that effect, even if it only took 30-odd years for us to get there.

<comment><USER8> Such console games "get" this effect just because they look more and more like movies, not because they are better intrinsic games than what we had before. And the examples shown by the author show her clear ignorance of PC games in the 80-90s, so it's not surprising he didn't feel "much" in front of consoles games. We basically had to wait for late SNES games and PS1 games to see more and more games on consoles with deeper storylines and character development. But this occured on PC way before it happened on consoles, and you had actual strong female characters way before on PC too (hey, come on, the Roberta Williams games had almost always female protagonists, and were hugely popular!).

The idea that "we had to wait until 2014 to feel something when playing games" is what I considered the most painful. Because it's preposterous.

Wired has really become an over-hyped tabloid.

<comment><USER9> The whole article is about how the author found a game which she could identify with the character, yet you still refer to her as "he".

I just thought it was curious.

<comment><USER8> Corrected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Boys got action figures, not dolls. Boys got to have watergun fights, not play dress-up. Much like their videogame counterparts, boys got to do things, and I wanted to do things too"

Find the error...

If you want to do things, don't buy stuff, do things. If you feel you need to buy stuff to do things, you have already lost.

<comment><USER12> Accidentally upvoted. So to counteract: TFA is talking about _children_. You know, impressionable and malleable young minds that don't yet have the benefit of wisdom and experience.

Your post is Shit HN Says material.

<comment><USER11> She's claiming girls can't do things because they don't get action figurines. That's "Shit Feminists Say" material...

I feel sorry for her if she really didn't get to do water battles. I wonder where she grew up, some ultraconservative Victorian household?

I sent my niece 4 water guns for her birthday and the whole family had a blast. It never occurred to me that girls wouldn't do water battles. The author is probably just extremely unlucky with her family.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> OK, to go off on a tangent...here's the best example I can think of that illustrates the imbalance of gender neutral roles that men take for granted and that women basically have never had: the only time I can think of, in American entertainment history, that a woman achieved the authority and an unforgettable identity that had nothing to do with "...because she's a woman" is: Ripley in Alien and Aliens (never saw 3 and 4, and probably never will).

In fact, she was so good at being "just" Ripley that it wasn't until I saw Sigourney Weaver in other movies did I realize, "Huh, Sigourney Weaver is a woman and _she is hot_ "...She is the only female character I can think of in which her gender has no real bearing to how she acts, what she says, or how she is presented on screen.

I challenge anyone to think of any other woman character who follows Ripley's mold:

1\. Does not overtly seek a romantic relationship

2\. Sexual tension is not a compelling foil or conflict for the character

3\. Is not thrown into an action role purely for the spectacle of a woman kicking ass

4\. Is not shouted down or treated differently specifically because she is a woman.

5\. Is not shown in a gratuitously sexual light (she is in her underwear the same time everyone else is logically in their underwear).

6\. Is unequivocally the hero of the movie. In fact, in both movies [spoiler alert for 20 year old movies], it's quite notable that she is literally the last human being standing, and she wins on her own terms.

No other contenders, that I can think of, meet this standard, _especially_ in the action film role: Catwoman, Aeon Flux, Tomb Raider...nope. Clarice Starling...even if you want to argue that no sexual tension exists between her and Hannibal Lecter (even though he specifically refers to it), much of the non-gruesome psychological conflict her character faces is precisely because she is a woman in a (tall) man's world. Beatrice in Kill Bill...great role, but again, it only works because she is a woman and it is a spectacle, even if empowering (i.e. could you imagine Kill Bill being made with a man in the role?)

The only woman character who comes close to the unisex appeal of Ripley is Marge Gunderson in Fargo. Other than that, it's pretty slim pickings...whereas for males, there are too many to count.

Anyway, I sometimes wonder how much growing up with Alien/Aliens affected how I think about gender roles and imbalance. Those being among the first and the most interesting of the action movies I'd ever seen (then, and today), I kind of think that the idea of a woman action hero was _completely normal_ to me. And yet, as far as I can see, no one like Ripley has since been written...

<comment><USER14> Excellent points. I think if we broaden our scope to television (which is arguably becoming looked upon just as highly as movies) there are better pickings. There are a lot of characters that are _based_ on sex, but there are a few that could work either way. That's not to say that sex-specific situations don't come up. They do, but that's more because of the need for greater amounts of filler content on a TV show than because of a fundamental basis for that character. So, not as perfect as Ripley, but not bad.

(I don't watch a lot of TV, but Continuum and The Black List come to mind, though neither offers a true Ripley)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Samus Aran is a great character in general, not just a great _female_ character.

Except for in Other M.

</comment><comment><USER16> There are some great games out there with female protagonists and quality interaction (e.g. The Dreamfall series). There are also many games that bend over backwards to be gender (and sexual orientation) neutral, such as the Mass Effect series. However I have to agree with the poster that adolescent males are far more frequently targeted by any sort of game that actually has a plot. While some might argue that most female gamers simply stay away from such titles, I question this assumption and wonder if this is another instance of the girlie-beer phenomenon.

i.e. In recent years, several brewers have attempted to market beer to women with pink packaging and, in some cases, pink dye in addition to supposedly "girl friendly" qualities such as being low-calorie, not too strong tasting, etc.. The problem is, women who don't want to drink beer won't, and women who like beer want good beer, not beer made for women who don't like beer. So far these girl-branded beers have all been abject failures.

Would more female gamers play blood-and-guts action games if they were gratuitously girly, or would it barely be more than those who don't mind playing as muscle-bound brutes when they crave a bit of the ol' ultraviolence? I'm not saying that the industry shouldn't do more to marginalize misogynistic characterizations, but I do suspect that male protagonists and testosterone driven character interactions tend to give blood-and-guts games more credibility even with female audiences. That should change slowly with time, as we're seeing in cinema, but we should also recognize that this is the present we're currently dealing with. Women aren't an audience that are being ignored. It's what they want that's the problem!

It's also worth noticing that we are very selective about what we define as "guy stuff" in male dominated video games. It's definitely not "older guy" stuff. e.g. When was the last time you saw a male protagonist blow thousands of enemies to bloody giblets and, in the next scene, talk about his prostate problems, the virtues of fiber, and his receding hairline? Really, these games are about violence. If a woman does the slaying, it doesn't bother most male gamers at all. It's when they start talking about the female analogues to "old guy stuff" that _everybody_ , males and probable females alike, start to get itchy trigger fingers.

This tendency of most video games to sate adolescent desires for violence while ignoring more mature material is, in my opinion, of equal concern to both genders. Any game that makes male-female relationships a part of core game-play instead of an optional bolt-on is instantly branded as a weird Japanese dating simulator for Otaku's who never leave their houses. Games that focus on drama or exploration without "sufficient" violence are frequently viewed as having "boring gameplay". Video games are no longer an emerging art- form. Their gross sales have surpassed that of cinema! However, video games are still stuck in the Nickelodeon era. Practically everything is gratuitous violence with a smattering of sex. However, only now are adult audiences starting to outnumber adolescent ones. The next few decades for video games may well be remembered similarly to the early twentieth century when cinema progressed from being a low-brow diversion to an art-form that fascinates all!

<comment><USER11> Sticking to the beer example, what is the possible solution? Why don't the women simply drink beer that is good? So they won't drink beer that is simply good, but they won't drink girly beer either. Yet they claim to be avid beer drinkers? Is there some magic wonder beer from fairy land that they would finally drink?

Should there be more games about prostate problems?

I think it fundamentally doesn't make sense to claim that games should be different. If anything, you could ask for more other games, where nobody seems to know what they should like.

Note the irony that the author complains about a girlish upbringing and then revels in a game that finally lets her do girlish things.

<comment><USER17> Women who drink beer do drink good beer.

The author is saying that too many "good videogames" mistreat women.

The point is good beer doesn't have a history of marginalizing women they way popular videogames tend to.

On a more general note, videosgames aren't much different from music or movies. Just like bubble-gum pop singles & mindless action movies there are tired AAA videogame titles, all with dubious critical value, but enough appeal to sell to the global lowest common denominator. However, if you really care, there are niches out there doing some incredible stuff.</comment></comment></comment>


Paul Buchheit: Assume that I'm going to get rid of $20,000 and... - <AUTHOR> http://friendfeed.com/paul/3fab3000/assume-that-i-m-going-to-get-rid-of-20-000-and-my <comment><USER2> I love this discussion, but the thread is so long that I'm intimidated into not replying on FriendFeed. (I also really wish they had paragraphs in comments.) So, replying here:

Gates, school, startup (how ambitious is the startup? If we're talking another Google, this rises to #1), car, government, S&P.

The Gates Foundation focuses on health in developing nations, which is a prerequisite to everything else. You can't exactly learn, work, or start a company if you're sick.

School gives you the raw materials with which to found startups.

Startups innovate and come up with better ways of doing things for everyone.

The car, government, and S&P 500 are all basically a wash. They redistribute wealth but don't create it, unless you really really want that Prius.

I'm also puzzled by Robert Scoble's idea that creating jobs is the best way to benefit the common good. Doesn't he know that hiring that talented engineer may mean that he doesn't start his own startup, depriving society of his innovations? ;-)</comment>


When Years Have Passed, Will You Remember Today? [video] - <AUTHOR> http://blog.bucketlistly.com/post/42755491934/when-years-passed-will-you-remember-today

<comment><USER2> I spent a year backpacking (got back last summer), one of the most striking things is I can point back to any date of the trip and instantly know where I was, what I did, how I felt. The density of experience is intense, it makes for a strange hard to pin down hollowness on return.

<comment><USER3> I have had similar periods of time in my own life, but even these have begun to fade over many years. Luckily, there are plenty of techniques to avoid this and many are not new. E.g., Diarists have used writing to remember day-by-day for centuries. For travelers like you, remembering or recoding locations by date definitely helps to organize memories.

Unlike a written diary, which is conceptual, I like how Cesar is systematically compiling small _visual queues_ using a discipline amounting to a form of sampling or measurement. I'm not sure how a video beats a photo-of- the-day, but perhaps it simplifies the overall process of selecting images?

I'm also guessing that his daily sampling method might control for the natural tendency of sensational moments and aspects of life to eclipse the less sensational parts over time.

<comment><USER4> _I'm not sure how a video beats a photo-of-the-day_

I hadn't thought about this before but perhaps it's because the mind doesn't actually remember snapshot images, we don't work that way. We remember events comprising several images, sounds, smells and emotions. In that way, perhaps describing memory as a series of short video snippets is more accurate than the traditional photographic memory model.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a great idea, I'd love to do that too. But how would one actually go about this?

Does he just film everything with a camera or his phone? He must spend a lot of time manually going through all the footage to find the second that best represents that day. And surely he has to do this everyday too whilst all the memories are fresh in his mind so he can find the most important second? And then he manually strings them all into a video?

Sounds like a lot of work (although the results certainly seem worth it). Or am I missing something here? How would you guys go about it?

<comment><USER5> He made an app for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Would you rather record yourself in front of a computer or yourself walking outside experiencing life?"

I wouldn't feel too guilty about recording one-second screenshots. I get a lot of enjoyment out of writing, designing, programming and working on other creative online projects.

Having a balanced life, which includes outdoor activities, is definitely important, but I wouldn't discount the value of learning, creating and communicating in a digital space.

</comment><comment><USER7> Having a boring life in which most day's memorable second is similar to the previous one is not a bad thing. It's living a meaningless life we should be weary of.

Shameless plug: but I do want to indulge in the ego pampering of storing memories of my life, so I wrote an app to do just that --- and save geolocated notes and photos not only in your iphone, but also in google's servers, using fusion tables and picasaweb. The free version is [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/geopostrfree-remember- share/...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/geopostrfree-remember- share/id454179218) and the .99 add-free version is [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/geopostr-remember-your- walk/...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/geopostr-remember-your- walk/id411874811)

</comment><comment><USER8> Honestly, I'm not a fan of the whole thing. Why would I want to remember every single day? I'd much rather spend the time required to compose these 1 second bits on building up and moving towards a much more significant moment.

</comment><comment><USER9> There are some interesting comments in previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5025498>

</comment><comment><USER10> I didn't know I his app he was working on had launched... Indeed it has!

[https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/1-second- everyday/id58782354...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/1-second- everyday/id587823548?mt=8)

</comment><comment><USER11> On mobile, none of the custom header or the sidebars show up. In other words, I see only what seems to be the default Tumblr mobile layout, with no links to the product page, etc. Kinda defeats the purpose of the blog.

</comment><comment><USER12> Great post thank you</comment>


Ask HN: How did you choose an idea to work on? - <AUTHOR> I have a ton of ideas and no issues executing them (I have the technical ability and drive to work on things). My problem is figuring out how to pick one thing to focus on. They're all generally good ideas, and with dedication each one could become something useful. However, I'm constantly doing multiple projects because everything interests me. I know if I put all my effort into one thing I'd get so much more done.
Does anyone have experience with this? Any methods on how to choose an idea to pursue? Maybe specific criteria to evaluate each one on? I would appreciate any guidance or advice on this. <comment><USER2> They aren't all good ideas. Start with your goals.

Do you want to "build something" where you follow through all the way to launch and hit some # of users that will feel like you "did it"?

Do you want to replace your day job? Do you want to raise funding and explode into the sun? Do you want to learn specific things throughout the process?

After you know _why_ you want to work something, then rank your possible projects through the lens of "most likely to achieve my goals".

Lots to consider during that process: how excited you are about the thing, dogfooding opportunities, market size, competitive landscape, problem scale, technical challenges, business overhead (admin required beyond just coding the product).

Without any additional context I'd suggest building something that: you'll use (helps with motivation and you are your first user), will stretch your skills and challenge you to improve weaknesses (even if it fails, you've grown), can be launched then improved and extended through incremental iteration (avoid an all-or-nothing megaproject).

<comment><USER3> "Start with your goals"

Very well said and I am amazed to see that a lot of us fail to realize this key thing about life. If you don't have goals of some sort, it becomes a lot harder to do anything with a purpose. I am not saying everyone needs to have some crazy goals but you need to ask yourself: where do I see myself in next 2,5,7,10 years and you work your way through it then.

Starting a side project also should follow this. Yes we all have lot of ideas that are similar, nothing new. We all struggle to focus on that ONE thing to start with. The reason is because we are fearful. We fear what if that ONE thing fails since we have so many ideas. We analyze and paralyze. Result is: we do nothing.

Ok so lets say you have your 2,5 years goal set. Now lets say multiple ideas could take you there in theory (since you don't know for sure without trying execeution). In that case, give yourself few days.

Day 1: Make a list of all your best ideas that you want to execute on.

Day 2: You have a gun to your head. Take 1 idea off that list. Only one. leave the rest. Once you discard the idea, you can not add it back to the list.

Day 3-n: Repeat Day 2 until you are left with that 1 idea.

Final day: execute, execute, execute. No remorse. No guilt on dropping other ideas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Most ideas will just happen without me. Those ideas are either not worth doing, because someone else can do the work and I can still reap some of the benefits. Or they might result in more competition.

So the way I pick, is the hardest idea I can carry. The one that is least likely to happen without me. This also tends to be the most valuable, because I wouldn't even be pondering doing it if it weren't worth it. It ends up being the easiest idea to pitch for funding, and the easiest kind of company to sell, if that's the goal. It's the one that some tech giant like Facebook or Tencent can't just come in and throw a million dollars at to do- and as such they might even throw a million dollars at you to buy it. Sometimes current revenue doesn't even really matter; something like YouTube is worthless on its own, but plugged into the behemoth that is Google Ads, the revenue gushes in.

The next step I do is work on it every day. As in actual work, not just planning. This filters out some ideas; I can't reform the education system or work on nuclear fusion one day at a time, but there are things I can do.

<comment><USER5> > So the way I pick, is the hardest idea I can carry. The one that is least > likely to happen without me.

This was a really useful metric. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've been trying to do this for a few years (admittedly failing).

You can come up with complicated models as some do, but I prefer simple models (3 dimensions or less): What do you want? What are you willing to build/iterate on for years? What can you find feedback on fast?

(1) because if you're using it you'll build something nice and have a lot of insight internally.

(2) because you'll need to work hard, fast, and for a long time to make something great.

(3) your reward systems depend on feedback.

Sometimes answering these questions isn't straightforward so I recommend building a lot of smallish things without an outcome in mind before answers to these questions become clear. You tend to know when you're well suited to something because you can't stop yourself from coming up with ideas and working on it.

Example: I spent a long time building/understanding [http://choremate.co](http://choremate.co) because it's something I NEEDED. Despite finding insight, (1) I found the work hard to do because it was boring (I don't enjoy CRUDing web apps), (2) I'm not innately interested in the research domain (behavioral and institutional economics), (3) feedback is best found living in a large shared household like a coop or fraternity and I don't live in that situation.

</comment><comment><USER7> I wish I had a good answer for you. All I can really offer is commiseration, by way of saying that I have the same issue. I spread myself way too thin, trying to work on multiple projects at the same time, instead of picking on and working on it exclusively (or even _near_ exclusively).

That said, to the extent that I _have_ gotten any better at this over the years, I did the following:

I created a page on my personal wiki, with a "todo list". At the very top, before any of the todo items are a series of questions. Every time I look at the list, I'm reminded to ask myself those questions.

I don't have the list in front of me right this second, and I'm not sure I'd want to share the exact list anyway, as it's kinda subjective and personal. But assume it includes things like:

 _1\. What is the single most important thing I could be doing RIGHT NOW, vis- a-vis creating revenue?_

 _2\. Whatever I 'm about to do, WHY am I doing it NOW?_

etc.

It helps a little bit, but not completely since so much of what I do is kept in my head and I don't consult this page all that often. But at least I get a little reminder every now and then of what I'm supposed to be focusing on, in terms of the strategy I wrote down.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, I appreciate your perspective. Sounds like you've worked on this problem yourself by working at it from a different direction, namely starting from what you want to do/why you want it and moving back towards the thing to be doing.

<comment><USER7> Sort of. I have several projects I'm working on, and in a sense I don't "know" which one to focus on. But underneath everything, I know that I ultimately want to build a company that makes money. Not that "make money" is the _only_ thing I want to do, but it matters for $REASONS.

Anyway, given that, I can work backwards from "what action(s) are most likely to lead to somebody paying me even 1 dollar for any of this?" And if I keep that "time to first dollar" in mind as a north-star of sorts, it helps me focus. To a degree.

In reality I don't always actually _know_ what is going to minimize "time to first dollar", and sometimes I just say "screw it" and work on what seems like the most fun. So it's a really rough sort of heuristic at best. This is probably one reason why we _aren 't_ making any money yet. But that's OK, because other goals besides "make money" include "learn cool new stuff" and "have fun."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > I have a ton of ideas and no issues executing them

Branch out to ideas that skirt the edges of your knowledge. If you're too comfortable you're not growing stronger.

> They're all generally good ideas, and with dedication each one could become > something useful

Then they need to battle. Think evolutionary. Find a concrete set of resources for them to fight over (money, time, space, popularity?) and score them. Iterate them. Combine them. Kill them. May the best idea win!

If that doesn't work then find the most profitable and productive idea that can serve the most people. Those tend to be few and far between.

</comment><comment><USER9> Select the top 3 ideas. Put out landing pages for each with mock demos. Don't write code yet. Gently engage people online (ex: twitter) to gauge for concrete interest. You'll naturally start focusing on the idea with the most excitement and engagement.

Bonus point if you get people to commit to the idea with money.

<comment><USER10> Honestly OP this is your best solution. First find out if there's an easy accessible market for your project, and if it had costumes interested in it.

I promise you that is better to start off with validation of your concept, and an interested market (who you can then start testing your iterations with), before you write a line of code.

If you can't get product market fit, then either there is no market, or you've simply not found the market yet/sold the concept of your product well/or the market just doesn't want what your offering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Let me start with the most obvious one. Start working on a project that you actually need and are going to use, preferably in long term. That is how I started Bilinual Project around 2 years ago: [http://www.bilinual.com](http://www.bilinual.com)

</comment><comment><USER12> Unfortunately, I don't have a clear cut answer for you either, but share my experience:

1\. I didn't "choose" the idea, the idea chose me. i.e. It took on a life of its own, and we had product market fit.

2\. The fact that you are dabbling might actually be a good thing i.e. the explore-exploit dilemma.

</comment><comment><USER13> Just determine the reason why you're working on these ideas.

Is it for fun? Education? Money?

You should be able to determine which of these ideas are more aligned with your end goal.

</comment><comment><USER14> Over the years I've come to realize that the answers to your question is like asking what the meaning of life is, it's very subjective. So instead of giving you practical advice like "Write an essay on why not to make and idea." (which is actually really effective by the way when done right), I will give you some indirect advice:

1\. Know the difference between reasoning and logic. Reasoning is like telling a story whereas logic is more like writing an axiomatic proof. Don't give in to reason, only logic will help you find the right answer. I call reasoning "scheming" when it's done in the context that the person doing it believes they are thinking logically but are just fooling themselves.

2\. Shut the hell up! Stop your inner narrative in your life keeping you stuck in life and just observe the world around you. I find it helpful when I'm _doing_ something and not making progress to _not-do_ what I'm doing—it's quite magical and isn't what it sounds like. What I mean is you assume an indifferent mental state which frees up your brain's resources to take notice and inventory of details you and others missed about a problem.

3\. Follow the path with heart! Is there a splinter in your mind but can't quite put your finger on it? Don't expect to find your life's purpose instantly, it takes time. The best advice I can give you is pursue what makes you the most curious, not what will make the most money. This is because things you are curious about take less energy to think and learn about.

4\. Be compassionate, not passionate. What I mean by that is don't pursue "ideas" but pursue what makes you happy and others happy; be a buddha and end the cycle of suffering. All that matters in this world is happiness. If making money like Warren Buffett does makes you truly happy (but not for the money itself) then become a stock investor first, programmer second--you see what I'm saying? Too many programmers have paralysis when it comes to side project ideas because what they enjoy most is programming and they are already programmers, so shouldn't you be happy by now ;)

5\. Be patient! Don't try to think of an idea, rather find a problem (which could just be a tedious task you do often) as a consumer, not a programmer, that really bothers you. Then, rather than make a complete product at first, do experiments first not by building a product but testing assumptions or hypotheses, doing a trial, and draw conclusions from what you learned. Over time, all those experiments will result in _learning_ which is the modus operandi of business.

6\. Do your homework! Spend a good year at least researching all you can about the problem you are solving (unless you're just making a metoo app) and why it isn't solved yet, because you may find out for example the problem is intentional which means it can't be fixed, it is corrupt by design. You may discover a simpler way of solving the problem that incumbents were too fancy to notice. Treat your problem like it's a real conspiracy which forces you to think differently about the problem than others; rather than just being an engineering challenge, it becomes web of even deeper problems, and you may just find that your problem is just the tip of the iceberg.</comment>


Show HN: Codidate – online technical interview platform with code intelligence - <AUTHOR> https://codidate.com <comment><AUTHOR> What are your thoughts on code intelligence (intellisense) in a coding interview tool?</comment>


Now You Can Play Dwarf Fortress in Real-Time 3-D - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/07/dwarf-fortress-3d <comment><USER2> In my experience, the ascii graphics in DF was the least of the contributors to the steep learning curve in the game. Many people would complain and be turned off by its ascii graphics, but you really do get used to it pretty quickly. Think of that matrix quote "All I see now is blonde, brunette, redhead", after a while of playing you really do just see trees, water, dwarves, etc. In my experience, the difficulty of the game comes about because of the sheer complexity of the simulation and the clunky UI (the menus not the graphics). The latter of the two really a minor annoyance when compared to the former.

While stonesense may encourage more players to start previously turned off by the ascii (as did the 2d tileset mods before it), it will not help the actual difficulty of the game.

New players aside, current players also seem ecstatic about the mod.</comment>