SF Port Authority Shuts Down Tech-Hub Pier 38 - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/06/pier-38-shut-down/

<comment><USER2> This has been brewing for many years, the city has tried to kick out the landlord for about 10 years and he's been in bankruptcy proceedings for a while. It's amazing he's hung on so long. There's a detailed 9 year old profile about this crazy situation here [http://www.sfweekly.com/2002-11-20/news/griftin-on-the- dock-...](http://www.sfweekly.com/2002-11-20/news/griftin-on-the-dock-of-the- bay/)

I can attest from personal experience that the man is a paranoid hot head, and from this article he seems to be spiraling out of control: [http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-05-29/bay- area/29596184_1_po...](http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-05-29/bay- area/29596184_1_port-director-eviction-port-headquarters)

The question will be what the city wants to do with that space after they finally get rid of Carl. With the ball park next door I doubt they will want to keep it as an office building.

<comment><USER3> Wow, I didn't realize Carl was _that_ crazy.

This whole thing has convinced me to never do business with the City of San Francisco. Mountain View is _vastly_ more pro-business, low-politics, and sane.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In my experience, if you look far enough down the tracks of any forced eviction, you'll find someone's cousin who's a developer who'd love to build a trendy new hotel.

Looking at the place on google maps, I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount that we'll be hearing about a hot new night spot and a swanky new hotel right on the water. (plus a lot of gushing about what a good thing this will be for the local economy.) That or a nice bunch of million dollar condos the size of my closet.

</comment><comment><USER3> The pier (owned by the city) was always leased at below-market to a landlord with a connection to the maritime industry. All use had to have some connection to the maritime industry; I think there was a yacht club, lots of storage of boats, etc., in addition to the new tech offices (which were somehow maritime as well). After I went back to Afghanistan, there was some change where the former master leaseholder lost the lease and it got reassigned to someone else.

(I worked for Social Media back when we did the initial conversion, then started renting it out to other companies)

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm very sad to see it go, because I'm currently working at a startup in pier 38. It's a great space, even though it could use some renovating. The location is perfect, and being able to see the water directly when looking out the window makes for a great work environment.

I have a hard time seeing it remodeled as a hotel, or anything else—even though I've always thought vacant piers would make great spots for bars, nightclubs, restaurant and many other things. Most of the piers between the ferry building and pier 38 are vacant for the most part blight and urban decay. Pier 38 has the advantage of somewhat closer proximity to AT&T Park and the trendy King St, but that's about it. I have a hard time seeing how pier 38 will be different.

<comment><USER6> I have fond memories of working at True's office back at the start of Loggly. Not so fond memories of the restroom, however.

<comment><USER7> Yes, and walking in the garage at night was like being in a Stephen King novel. One motion sensor light turning on at a time

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "It's just amazing that the city of San Francisco isn't able to care about something that has generated so many jobs," writes someone in the comments of TC.

I enjoyed my Muni-view of the the neon "socialmedia.com" sign in the second story window just as much as the next guy, but it blows my mind to think that people believe it's the fiduciary duty of a municipality to keep a place like this open. My various points in short (1) These jobs inevitably move down Penninsula; (2) Tech is better off without government playing VC; (3) if you've ever seen this place, it does look like it's about to fall into the Bay.

The company makes the place, the place doesn't make the company. I hope companies like Automattic are able to pack up and make some other -- hopefully more structurally stable -- place famous.

</comment><comment><USER9> Can someone placed to comment (ie a resident of the building) tell us what aspects were considered unsafe - and ultimately whether this is justified or whether this is a new landlord who wants everyone out to redevelop the property?

<comment><USER10> I am not a resident, but have been there several times and have friends there. My understanding is that the issue has nothing to do with it actually being unsafe and more to do with zoning. Basically what was there previously was a restaurant and they converted it to office space without getting the proper permits from San Francisco. You can see something to that effect in Scoble's picture: [https://plus.google.com/u/0/111091089527727420853/posts/PefH...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/111091089527727420853/posts/PefH5XR1PFd)

Edit: great details posted by guelo suggests the story is not quite what I'd heard, the owner seems like a ridiculous person - it seems the city didn't care to certify his construction work at all at first but now wants to - [http://www.sfweekly.com/2002-11-20/news/griftin-on-the- dock-...](http://www.sfweekly.com/2002-11-20/news/griftin-on-the-dock-of-the- bay/)

[http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-05-29/bay- area/29596184_1_po...](http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-05-29/bay- area/29596184_1_port-director-eviction-port-headquarters)

<comment><USER11> Zoning and unsafe tend to go hand in hand. From Scoble's pic they converted the space illegally to office space with no plumbing, electrical, fire etc. inspections done. Essentially the whole thing could be a fire trap with bare electrical cables running over gas lines. Or it could be bullshit, point being it seems that no one can prove that anything in there is up to code. Someone fucked up the conversion pretty hard.

<comment><USER10> Re zoning and unsafe going hand in hand- that may be true in general, but typically a property like this that looks on the up and up is probably structurally sound.

I have done a few significant conversions / redevelopments, and zoning issues I've faced had absolutely nothing to do with actual problems with the property. They are more often a way for city employees and the city to make some money, and often the city architects/building inspectors are in on the game. It is the only form of outright bribery I've seen firsthand in this country, but for my contractor friends it is a part of everyday life. Typically you pay some fee for the city to look at drawings before you do anything and then if you want the building inspector to actually show up and rate it well you might be asked to grease the wheels to speed up the process. It's pretty unfortunate and I didn't think these types of things happened but they definitely do.

My properties are in Chicago and Pittsburgh and that is certainly the case in those cities (much worse in Chicago), not sure if it's the case in SF, but I would be willing to guess that it is.

<comment><USER12> Not to say this isn't the case, but San Francisco, in some cases, actually has a history of hostility towards developers. For example: Live/work conversions are banned in the city and have been banned since 1999. There seems to be a lot of bad blood dating back to the bubble burst and half-assed redevelopment of SOMA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I went to a meet-up hosted at Dogpatch labs once. Great venue. Pier 38 is not quite in the Dogpatch neighborhood. I grew up in the Bay Area, but never heard of a _Dogpatch_ neighborhood in S.F. until after the internet came along. The wikipedia article is no help [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogpatch,_San_Francisco,_Califo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogpatch,_San_Francisco,_California). When did _Dogpatch_ first get called _Dogpatch_? Perhaps it has something to do with the Hell' Angels clubhouse? Naturally the name comes from Al Capp.

</comment><comment><USER14> Interesting - the StartupHouse guys are offering to house the Pier38 refugees free through 2011 at their new place at 880 Harrison St.

More at www.startuphouse.com/pier38-refugees.html

<comment><USER15> Yeah, so the problem Pier 38 is that it has zoning for M2 which is "heavy industrial use". 880 Harrison St is on RSD which is live/work.

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/liako/6122632880/in/photostream></comment></comment>


What Every Programmer Should Know About Memory [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://futuretech.blinkenlights.nl/misc/cpumemory.pdf <comment><USER2> Click "past" on this article to read comments from one of the thirty other times this has been posted since 2007.</comment>


Quantifying and Time Tracking My Reading - <AUTHOR> https://cflynn.us/posts/2020-03-27-quantifying-and-time-tracking-reading <comment><USER2> Maybe I'll sound like an old fogey for saying this, but... I enjoy reading and I feel like this level of analysis would take all the joy out of it. With exercise you are competing against your past self to gain strength and endurance. With reading, what is the goal to optimize against? I think it would be more valuable to summarize and annotate thoughts as you read the book rather than measuring your progress through it by page count.

<comment><USER3> I do find some value in quantification but I resonate with your thoughts. I am curious about ways in which people summarize and take notes when reading books. Do you have any specific quirks or methods for doing so?

<comment><AUTHOR> I've somewhat shifted my focus from plain note taking to making spaced repetition flashcards (using Anki). I find it to be a lot more effective in aiding memory retention of details.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've always had a fascination with tracking things myself. I remember daydreaming when I was younger about wishing I had some kind of way to see how many of some particular food item I'd eaten over the course of my life, or how many words I'd ever spoken. I never got too heavily into making my own spreadsheets, but I got into tracking running and walking with apps like runkeeper, using a site to track every movie I watched, tracking each video game I owned and whether I had beaten it yet, and when I couldn't find a good site for tracking the TV shows I'd watched I did make a very simple spreadsheet for that.

Over time I've pulled away from the practice somewhat as I've started to think the obsession with tracking my activities was detracting from the experience somewhat. I'd end up thinking more about adding to my total miles walked on my tracker than enjoying the walk itself. On a level as granular as tracking 10-page chunks of books you must be getting distracted on some level from the actual content, I would think.

I still use that tracking site for movies and I do use Goodreads for books, and I find them great resources for figuring out what to read/watch next, but those are now more secondary to the actual enjoyment of the experience itself.

</comment><comment><USER5> Good stuff. One thing you are missing though. I like to measure my reading by quality too.

I simply keep a manual tally counter by my side while reading and every time I catch myself reading mindlessly or my mind drifting away, I count one distraction. Similar to some forms of meditation.

Ultimately, you want to bring up the quality by minimizing the number of distractions per unit of time.

The good thing about it is that you actually build up your focus and concentration "muscle" (in prefrontal cortex) as opposed to amping up the volume alone.

I too got inspired by gym :)

<comment><AUTHOR> That sounds like a good idea, currently when "zoning out" or getting distracted I don't record it I just try to jump back. For quality, the best thing I've come up with is making spaced-repetition flashcards w/ Anki. My confidence is higher that I've actually retained the information.</comment></comment>


Theranos' proprietary tech wasn't vetted by federal inspectors for two years - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/30/10690420/theranos-blood-test-no-fda-federal-inspections-elizabeth-holmes <comment><USER2> > This suggests one of two possibilities: either Theranos' customers received > test results generated by equipment that no federal official checked for > accuracy, or Theranos wasn't using the proprietary technology

This claim is really interesting. I'm very curious to see what happens next in this saga. It seems like Theranos could make all of this go away if they simply demonstrated that their devices work. Hand them to a third party (or multiple third parties) of scientists and let them validate the claims and use the devices.

Since they haven't does this mean the device doesn't work or isn't reliable? Or is it something else?</comment>


Show HN: DockerLabs – fast-track your Docker skills - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/alexellis/dockerlabs/blob/master/DockerLabs.md <comment><AUTHOR> I've renamed the project so it's clearer that the content is unofficial:

[http://blog.alexellis.io/handsondocker/](http://blog.alexellis.io/handsondocker/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The Official Docker documentation is great and DockerLabs (unofficial) is designed to be a progressive and practical way of learning the essentials. Each lab builds upon the last one and goes through a range of technologies including: nodejs, dotNET on Linux through Mono, Redis NoSQL and the linking of containers together.

The content is released under GPL - so clone/fork/star on Github and feel free to submit a PR.

What people are saying from our meetup last night:

"Fantastic event. Thanks everyone for organising...""

"Thank you - very good evening"

"great talk on docker tonight Alex, thanks for all the time and effort you put in to it."

"An excellent self-paced session following lab notes and with plenty of people on hand to help out. Great job guys!"

Meetup link: [http://www.meetup.com/Agile- Peterborough/events/229407898/](http://www.meetup.com/Agile- Peterborough/events/229407898/)

Fire up DockerLabs.md over on Github:

[https://github.com/alexellis/dockerlabs/blob/master/DockerLa...](https://github.com/alexellis/dockerlabs/blob/master/DockerLabs.md)

<comment><USER2> I attended the meetup and thought the whole session was well organized and executed. The content is perfect for anyone wanting to get an introduction to Docker and get up to speed quickly with this awesome technology. Highly recommended!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is really nice. I have been struggling to understand docker, but this made it a lot clearer.

<comment><AUTHOR> @PixZxZxA totally appreciate the feedback and would like to reach a bigger audience, especially on HN. How do you get more visibility here?</comment></comment>


GitHub commit messages analysed for swear words by programming language - <AUTHOR> http://www.webmonkey.com/2011/02/cussing-in-commits-which-programming-language-inspires-the-most-swearing/

<comment><USER2> Submission of the original: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2251171>

Related: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2070056>

Further, from <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html> :

        In Submissions
        ...
        Please submit the original source. If a blog post
        reports on something they found on another site,
        submit the latter.

This is just link-spam or blog-spam.</comment>


The Unintended Consequences of Rogers' Packet Shaping - <AUTHOR> http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1859/ <comment><USER2> _This has led to a technical "cat and mouse" game, with Rogers now one of the only ISPs in the world to simply degrade encrypted traffic._

Wow; that is so stupid.

Reading something like this always sparks some net neutrality support inside of me, but otherwise I'm still on the fence (leaning either way depending on the time of day). The principles of net neutrality are sound, but increased regulation always makes me wary. There may be high costs associated with "a packet is a packet" philosophy; for example, preserving the current nature of the Internet with legislation could stifle major overhauls to its core. And it just seems that some packet bias is necessary to ensure quality services for specific protocols.

I'd be less hesitant about neutrality if the proposed legislations was truly fine tuned to just prevent the ISPs from screwing the customers.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting, this is also one of the many reasons why Vonage will be unable to survive on its own, being as they are at the mercy of the last-mile carriers like Rogers, Comcast, ATT, etc.</comment>


Hulu may go on sale - <AUTHOR> http://www.tekgoblin.com/2011/06/21/hulu-may-go-on-sale/

<comment><USER2> Who would buy Hulu? We know that its backers - NBCU (Comcast/GE), Fox (News Corp), and Disney/ABC - are not making as nearly as much money off of it as they want to. As a result, if they sell it off they are unlikely to support their content being on there even with the fees, since the fees Hulu is able to generate are not adequate.

So with that in mind as soon as Hulu loses its media backers it appears doomed to go straight into the ground, who would pick that up?</comment>


Let's dig into the inner workings of facebook/react - <AUTHOR> https://annot.io/github.com/facebook/react <comment><USER2> What is this ? Is this your version of react documentation?

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, yes, kind of.

<comment><USER3> Wow I thought it's kind of official doc. Is it your website?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not mine but I recently started to use it as a place to share and organize what I learned from open source projects.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Study of Performance Characteristics of GPUs and CPUs for Database Analytics [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://anilshanbhag.in/static/papers/crystal_sigmod20.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> Github : [https://github.com/anilshanbhag/crystal](https://github.com/anilshanbhag/crystal)</comment>


Any ways to increase the chances of winning projects on freelancer sites? - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
We are a start up looking for some beta customers, to help us test and fine tune our service delivery solution, and to assist us in this quest we are about to start bidding on a few projects on several freelancer sites (namely, Freelancer, Elance, Odesk and Guru).
We thought it might be a good idea to ask if any forum members know of any ways to increase the chances of winning projects on freelance sites such as these?
Any tips or advice would be well received.
Kind Regards,
Gary <comment><USER2> You'll need to bid really low and over deliver on your initial projects to build up good feedback . . . it's tough getting projects if you don't have at least a few 5 star reviews.

Write a custom proposal tailored to the client and their project . . . outline similar work, suggestions to make the project a success . . . or improve on what they have in mind . . .

If it's something simple think about setting up a quick mock up, sample or demo.

Most importantly try to connect with them, get them to message you, ask them a couple smart questions that will most likely get them to message with you. Once you are messaging with them you can answer questions they might have, follow up with them, point them to demos/samples. Once you're communicating with them you have a good chance of winning the project.

Consider creating a video to link to in your proposal that outlines who you are, how you work, and your thoughts on their project and related experience.

The online sites are dominated by low fee offshore guys so you could tout your location, if you are not in that location and that all work is done by in house. Some US clients prefer US based . . . buy american, more secure, first language, etc.

I know this is only 'beta customers' but you need to focus on developing your own clients . . . your fees will be 2x to 4x vs. the typical work you find on the job boards and clients will be better too. (typically speaking, you will get nice gigs and clients occasionally, but the avg. is lower fees and lower quality clients).

Plus the rating system is super important for getting work and occasionally you'll get a client who either rates you 1 star because they are unhappy with your work or something totally unrelated to the project or they just don't understand the importance of 5 stars and rate you at 3 or 4 even if you do a great job. So that's a constant worry/battle to keep as close to 5 stars as possible.

If you haven't already . . . read everything you can from Patio11 and Brennan Dunn . . .and check out their podcasts.

Lots of good info on getting quality clients and doubling your freelancing rate . . .

Good luck . . .</comment>


Ask HN: What productive features could be added to a reminder app? - <AUTHOR> For context, I have built an web-app reminder-app that run locally on the machine, uses node and express see the project at https://github.com/priyank-p/reminder-app.
Currently some of its features I can mention are:

  * It reminds you of due reminders with web push notifications.

  * It can automatically startup when you start your machine.

  * It supports markdown for reminder content.

  * It can be added to homescreen, after which it almost feels like native app.

  * And, is totally cross-platform.
 Apart from those, I have started working on cross-browser extension so you can quickly add reminders.
Is there any other productive feature you can add to the app? <comment><USER2> Hi Priyank, That's a great app. My few wishes:-

1\. Reminders could be categorized as social, promotional etc. This will help in setting up priority as per the goal of your life.

2\. Having priority based reminding. The app could learn based on long term training and ML, what reminders you generally want to take and then set you up to do the things that you least want to do for times when you are most likely to do them, so that your overall long term productivity goes up.

3\. Incremental reminders.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, Nice list of ideas I can implement. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment> dev-p I have one feedback for the date picker, You should be able to edit the time by clicking on the time rather than having to click the time icon.

<comment><AUTHOR> I will try to fix this as soon as possible. Thanks for the feedback :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> There is a feature I really like in an app called 'Due'. You can have the app remind you of something at intervals until you tell the app that you have done it. So if I ask it to remind me to make a phone call, it will tell me to do it every minute until I do it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, Thanks for this idea, This was in my mind too, I will open a issue and try to incorporate this.</comment></comment>


How You Can Be Creative – A Lesson from Pablo Picasso - <AUTHOR> http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/how-you-can-be-creative-a-lesson-from-pablo-picasso

<comment><USER3> I doubt that Picasso said "Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist when we grow up," first because a little googling reveals no source for it (other than the usual spam sites), second because this is a popular post-1960s belief about children (the kind of thing Picasso's generation was unlikely to say, but that later generations would eagerly attribute to $arbitrary_great_artist), and third because from what little I know about Picasso's ego it seems unlikely that he would distribute the status of artist so equitably. So I think this quote should be put in the category of bullshit-till-proven-authentic.

It would be fitting if it were bullshit, since it motivates an argument that all anyone had to do in 1907 was decide to paint a few whores and they'd end up with this: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Demoiselles_d%27Avignon>.

<comment><USER4> Picasso was alive and active until 1973 - so he might be more contemporary than you're thinking. One of my favorite quotes of his is "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."

<comment><USER3> There's no evidence he said that one either.

<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pablo_Picasso>

<comment><USER4> Agreed. Quotes seem hard to perfectly attribute. I imagine a lot of quotes are retold and repeated verbally a few times before being written down, so I suppose there's lots of room for errors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What?

I mean, seriously, _what_?

The article seriously advances the following thesis: Creativity is basically easy; you just take something other people are already doing and make incremental changes; for instance, when Picasso painted _Les demoiselles d'Avignon_ all he did was to paint a typical nude portrait except that he changed a few things. A prostitute instead of a standard Noble Classical Figure. A group of them instead of just one. ... Oh, yeah, and among those little incremental changes was inventing a completely new style of painting.

This is, to use the article's own term, _complete bullshit_. Deciding to take something and make a bunch of incremental changes is easy. Finding a bunch of incremental changes that (1) amount to something really new and (2) still manage to produce something _good_ \-- that's what's difficult.

What made Picasso famous for his creativity wasn't the fact that he made a bunch of incremental changes. It's that he spotted some things to change that other people hadn't thought of changing (e.g., you could say that the step from "show everything from a single perspective, or at least make it look as if you're doing so" to "use a variety of radically different perspectives to show objects from multiple viewpoints and produce a sense of fragmentation" is just a matter of Changing One Thing -- but who'd ever considered that as a Thing that could be Changed, before the cubists came along?) and that he was able to produce compelling paintings despite making those radical changes.

(I don't disagree with everything in the article. In particular, the idea that you shouldn't ever reinvent the wheel is just as ridiculous as the article says. But the alleged recipe for creativity is silly, and the alleged example of how it works is beyond preposterous.)

<comment><USER6> >> _Finding a bunch of incremental changes that (1) amount to something really new and (2) still manage to produce something good -- that's what's difficult._ <<

Well of course it's hard. If it wasn't, everyone would be creative geniuses...

>> _but who'd ever considered that as a Thing that could be Changed, before the cubists came along?)_ <<

I think that's exactly the point. Who would have considered it? Well, if you systematically break something down into its component elements, and then make changes to those elements, it makes it much more likely that you'll stumble across something totally new. Think of it as a more sprawling form of A/B testing if you'd like.

The more salient takeaway is the fact that "creativity" doesn't have to be some mysterious lightning strike or whisper from the gods (or "non-linear intuitive leap" as someone describes below) that only a few of us lucky ones get to be party to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Excellent stuff, and I definitely believe that retaining some childhood wonder and immaturity is vital to happiness. If you mature and pretend to know everything, then where is the wonder and discovery in everyday life? How do you sustain happiness without belief that every day holds bright new colors and experiences?

I've never really looked at Picasso's art with any diligence or perseverance, but I have definitely been inspired by the picture in that post, to go download some of his cubist nudes and use them as screen backgrounds.

I'm sure Picasso would be happy to see people using him as an inspiration to creativity.

</comment><comment><USER8> Maybe this is relevant: Beside my day-job I spend a lot of time making music. When some artist or label wants me to remix something, I'll always avoid listening to the original work - I'd just receive the samples and midi data, even better if the filenames won't give anything (like the song structure) away, and start working on my interpretation of those loose pieces that would later develope into my idea of which parts should be key, emphasized or not considered at all, which may differ a lot from what the original artist had in mind.

At least when it comes to audio production and being asked to alter or re- invent the work of someone else, the results will benefit if you don't have a very clear reference point but just a bunch loose jigsaw pieces, that don't have any right or wrong combination attached.

I thought this approach might be relevant to the topic as it seems like an extension of the idea the article describes: If you try to make something different, it's helpful not to know how it's done "right".

</comment><comment><USER9> tl;dr: My theory is that creativity is - or at least is related to - <USER2> ability to express yourself. So you usually have _some_ creativity and you most likely can train it.

In my opinion and I spent a long time on this topic creativity is something completely different. The reason I spent so much time thinking about creativity is that I don't consider myself to be a very creative person. So I wondered what causes this lack. I considered a lot of things until I came to the conclusion that creativity is a form of expression, which means that creativity describe the ability to express "stuff". In most cases it's about emotions.

The outcome of creativity is usually considered to be art. Think about something you consider to defiantly be art, for example a book or music. What is it about or what makes it art? Yes I know, it's another term that can be very hard to describe, but one can deny that art is generally related to some kind of emotion or the absence of emotion. It's also why art often provokes.

So creativity _probably_ (it's all just a personal theory) means expressing yourself, so learning to express yourself means becoming more creative. It also means that as long you can in some way express yourself, especially your emotions you are creative, maybe not very creative, but you are.

I think this can also be backed by science. Humans, as (generally speaking) social species depend a lot on expressing themselves. They aren't like ants for example, with a relatively small scope of action. They are very individual and so it is important to understand emotions and express their own ones. If this isn't the case it's considered to be a sign of a mental illness. I guess that's also why people with mental illnesses receive a therapy where they do something creative (usually drawing) and why most artists are usually very emotional. Some of them also mention that their main reason for creating art is a psychologically.

Last, but not least their are hackers (the ones at the CCC and not necessarily intruders) who usually have a deep emotional commitment to the work they are doing. I think it's probably also related to geeks, who often play role playing games and when you think about science fiction stuff and things like Commander Data and Mr. Spock it's also a lot about emotions.

By the way, there is also emotional intelligence which might be related to this, but I'm not a psychologist, so I don't know a lot about this.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm sure that art can be broken into individual steps or elements but isn't something lost in that kind of formalization? I always thought art or any creative act for that matter was characterized by some sort of non-linear or intuitive leap?

</comment><comment><USER11> It all comes down to putting your own variation on something that exists. Then once you put out many variations on that original item, then that original item is now your new creation.

Ex: Just listen to music from the same genre. Each artist has their own song but there are similar elements from each song of all artists in that genre.

</comment><comment><USER12> I've strongly believed that formal education should involve "reinventing the wheel" with some knowledge before hand, but to push creativity, inspiration, and adaptation when further knowledge is gained. It's how I've taught myself so much, and I think it can work for a lot of kids/people.

</comment><comment><USER13> Does anyone ever actually see an improvement in their creativity from a system like that?

I'd imagine that most people just get stuck in a loop, reaffirming that those are, in fact, the necessary elements.

<comment><USER6> You say "necessary elements", but I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you take the list from the article, I wouldn't really call any of them "necessary" to create a nude painting. They were just the ones that a lot of other people were using. That doesn't mean they're definitive in any way.

I use this system in photography all the time. I find breaking something down into distinct elements really helps you identify what's going on. It feels decidedly "uncreative" when you're doing it, but it works.

<comment><USER13> Well, no, I didn't use scare quotes, though that was my intent. Usually it seems like the more people review some procedure, the more they convince themselves that is how it's done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Without great solitude no serious work is possible." – Pablo Picasso

</comment><comment><USER15> Looks like someone has successfully reinvented Zwicky's morphological box.

</comment><comment><USER16> People who are creative don't need to read articles on "how to be creative" because that's pretty much the opposite of creativity. If you want to be creative dare to play, dare to be different and just get to work.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, and people who are project managers don't need to read articles about project management. And people who are programmers don't need to read articles about programming. And entrepreneurs don't need to read articles about startups.

Because we're all born geniuses and perfect in every way.

<comment><USER16> Actually "swombat" unlike yourself I'm a creative professional who holds a design degree. As a CTO do you read articles on how to be technical?

<comment><USER17> Of course I do. Do you really read no articles about design? Your designs must be really good, then.

<comment><USER16> An article on design isn't the same thing as "how to be creative" swombat. And if makes you feel creative you can down vote this comment too, but that won't impact my awards shelf...

<comment><USER17> I didn't downvote your comment. You don't get to downvote replies to your own comment on HN.

This isn't Reddit, so I'll hold back my impulse to tell you where to put your awards and your attitude.

"michaelpinto".</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Dogs of Character - <AUTHOR> http://www.vqronline.org/profiles-articles/2016/03/dogs-character <comment><USER2> An interesting read, but I'm with the author in that those 'desired' breed characteristics are no longer relevant to almost all owners.

> Some liked one another just fine, but others might get into gruesome, > possibly fatal fights if she didn't rotate them into and out of the house in > "teams."

I'll stick to a friendly, daft Labrador thanks.

</comment><comment><USER3> Seems to be an excerpt from Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon - [https://www.amazon.ca/Pit-Bull-Battle-over- American/dp/03079...](https://www.amazon.ca/Pit-Bull-Battle-over- American/dp/0307961761/)</comment>


How modern life is transforming the human skeleton - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190610-how-modern-life-is-transforming-the-human-skeleton <comment><USER2> Archeological remains of English and Welsh longbowmen are frequently identifiable from the changes to their skeletons, from the hours of practice they put in to be able to draw a 180lb bow

[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-17309665](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk- wales-17309665)

</comment><comment><USER3> Those reading this might find John Mew's research quite interesting, this malleability of the bone is part of the theory behind orthotropics.

<comment><USER4> From what I understand, mewing only works in adolescents and younger children due to the fact that they're still growing and their skulls are more malleable, correct?

<comment><USER3> It still works in adults, it's just alot more work. The younger you are the more malleability you have.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I find it super concerning that "modern" life thinks putting things into silos (doing soccer twice a week, going to the gym, spending hours sitting at the office) is a good thing.

Not long ago there was an article about the healthiest group on the planet (~~) and it was a tribe in south mexico .. they were mostly eating few and walking tons everyday.

We need to reintegrate things.

<comment><USER6> Nicholas Carr wrote a great piece on this exact topic. You might like it.

It looks like his site is struggling so I'll include an archive.org link too.

Here are his last three paragraphs:

"There's something bigger going on here, and I confess that I'm still a little fuzzy about it. Silicon Valley seems to have a good deal of trouble appreciating, or even understanding, what I'll term informal experience. It's only when driving is formalized — removed from everyday life, transferred to a specialized facility, performed under a strict set of rules, and understood as a self-contained recreational event — that it can be conceived of as being pleasurable. When it's not a recreational routine, when it's performed out in the world, as part of everyday life, then driving, in the Valley view, can only be understood within the context of another formalized realm of experience: that of productive busyness. Every experience has to be cleanly defined, has to be categorized. There's a place and a time for recreation, and there's a place and a time for productivity.

"This discomfort with the informal, with experience that is psychologically unbounded, that flits between and beyond categories, can be felt in a lot of the Valley's consumer goods and services. Many personal apps and gadgets have the effect, or at least the intended effect, of formalizing informal activities. Once you strap on a Fitbit, you transform what might have been a pleasant walk in the park into a program of physical therapy. A passing observation that once might have earned a few fleeting smiles or shrugs before disappearing into the ether is now, thanks to the distribution systems of Facebook and Twitter, encapsulated as a product and subjected to formal measurement; every remark gets its own Nielsen rating.

"What's the source of this crabbed view of experience? I'm not sure. It may be an expression of a certain personality type. It may be a sign of the market's continuing colonization of the quotidian. I'd guess it also has something to do with the rigorously formal qualities of programming itself. The universality of the digital computer ends — comes to a crashing halt, in fact — where informality begins."

[https://www.roughtype.com/?p=5813](https://www.roughtype.com/?p=5813)

[https://web.archive.org/web/20160306010921/https://www.rough...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160306010921/https://www.roughtype.com/?p=5813)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> More of a meta-comment, but I'm disappointed there were no images in this article that visualized these changes.

<comment><USER8> I'm particularly interested in those giants, even if it's just two skeletons to compare. And surely someone made a rendition at some point!

<comment><USER9> According to [http://guam.org.gu/gary.heathcote.muscle/Legendary.Chamorro....](http://guam.org.gu/gary.heathcote.muscle/Legendary.Chamorro.Strength.2012.Heathcote.htm)

The Taotao Tagga mentioned in the article is estimated at being 5 feet 9.5 inches while records of European soldiers from Hungary, France, Bohemia, and Saxony who were born between 1735 and 1739 were around 5 feet 5.5 inches.

Noticeably taller, but maybe not gigantic. On the other hand I have a newfound understanding of just how gigantic George Washington (6 feet 2 inches, born in 1732) would have seemed to the vast majority of people.</comment></comment></comment>


Algeria fossils cast doubt on East Africa as sole origin of stone tools - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07570-z <comment><USER2> > The age difference between these tools and those found in the Rift Valley is > too short for the stone technology to have journeyed across the deserts and > mountains to North Africa

You are an archeologist, keep digging, don't tell me 200.000 years was a short time ...</comment>


Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40558067 <comment><USER4> When you're learning to cave dive, one of the first things that you learn is that you may very well die in there.

Most of the training focuses on systems, skills repetition, and understanding and using redundant systems - folks getting into cave diving typically are already extremely experienced divers who if anything need only some minor skill tweaks - most cave instructors will not take on students who don't already have significant open water technical diving experience (multiple tanks, mixed gas, rebreathers, decompression, wreck, etc).

A running joke is that the lost line drill (where you're placed intentionally off of the guide line and have to find it without a mask/light/visibility) is the most punctual cave task you'll ever do - you have the rest of your life to get it right.

Here's a few good books on it (non-affiliate links):

Caverns Measureless to Man by Sheck Exley (the father of cave diving): [https://www.amazon.com/Caverns-Measureless-Man-Sheck- Exley/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Caverns-Measureless-Man-Sheck- Exley/dp/0939748258)

The Darkness Beckons by Martyn Farr: [https://www.amazon.com/Darkness-Beckons- History-Development-...](https://www.amazon.com/Darkness-Beckons-History- Development- Diving/dp/1910240745/ref=zg_bsnr_290109_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=Q1DCCDZ0MMB4N2SCBYBQ)

Beyond the Deep by Bill Stone (the Tony Stark of cave diving): [https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Deep-Deadly-Descent- Treacherou...](https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Deep-Deadly-Descent- Treacherous/dp/0446527092)

The Cenotes of the Riviera Maya by Steve Gerrard (patron saint / mapper of Yucatan caves): [https://www.amazon.com/Cenotes-Riviera- Maya-2016/dp/16821340...](https://www.amazon.com/Cenotes-Riviera- Maya-2016/dp/1682134016/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=) This is more of a map and explanatory notes but gives great insight into the complexity of it. Currently there are 2 systems that almost all cenotes are part of in the Yucatan, and there's some really interesting work going on trying to link the two. Current work is going on at about 180m depth through a number of rooms at the back of "The Pit", and there are multi-day expeditions going on trying to find the linkage.

<comment><USER5> I would recommend this well written article: [https://www.outsideonline.com/1922711/raising- dead](https://www.outsideonline.com/1922711/raising-dead)

It's the story about the diver David Shaw and his attempt to recover the body of diver Deon Dreyer in one of the deepest sweetwater caves on earth. A bit of a read but well worth it.

<comment><USER6> This is not cave diving, though. It's a very deep sinkhole, but with a clear path to the surface. The risks in these dives are related to extreme depth, not to the overhead environment.

That said, it's a terrific article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Cave diving is one of those things that I am happy to only experience vicariously through the stories of others.

<comment><USER8> Or you can watch Youtube vids like this :

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtlwoX1YEmg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtlwoX1YEmg)

This has got to be the scariest video on Youtube in which no harm comes to anyone.

<comment><USER9> > This has got to be the scariest video on Youtube in which no harm comes to > anyone.

Off topic, but here is a viable contender: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFMHjDqHL_Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFMHjDqHL_Y)

There are videos of higher towers, but I believe that this video is the most thoroughly annotated one.

<comment><USER10> That's a real classic! A not as high, but way more reckless version is this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFUcxnvAeMc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFUcxnvAeMc) Guaranteed to induce acrophobia.

<comment><USER11> I really hope that guy practiced repressing the instinct to lunge at a bad throw when juggling. Extremely rare occurrence with such a simple pattern, but ooph!

I feel like any of Alex Honnold's ropeless climbs deserves a link too, for example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phl82D57P58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phl82D57P58)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Did a sensory deprivation tank for the first time a few weeks ago. An hour was tough. Hard to imagine 60, with the added doubt of "you may never get out of here."

<comment><USER13> I find "sensory deprivation tanks" (aka "floatation tanks") to be rather relaxing, and would have no problem spending many hours inside.

Now, being in a cold cave with a dangerous CO2/O2 ratio, exhausted, suffering from hypothermia and fearing for my life.. that doesn't sound like so much fun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > He realised the water at the surface of the lake was drinkable

Can someone explain this phenomena? How can the water in a sea-cave become potable?

<comment><USER15> I'm not familiar with Mallorca's hydrogeology, but I've done some cenote (cavern) diving in Mexico's Yucatan peninsula. The caves are inland, but sea water infiltrates through the porous and channel-filled rock. The water nearer the surface is rainwater.

The narrow region where freshwater and seawater intermingle is called the halocline, it creates a cool optical distortion which reminds me of the "oil paint" filter in photoshop.

<comment><USER16> This probably is a stupid question, but wouldn't the salty seawater be lighter than the rain water, and thus be at the surface ?

<comment><USER17> Salty water is quite literally more dense than fresh water. Average seawater is 1025 kg/m^3, pure water is nominally 1000 kg/m^3.

Somewhat related video: dense brine that doesn't freeze in Arctic sea ice sinks rapidly through liquid seawater below

[https://youtu.be/WyWn1XJ9kTE](https://youtu.be/WyWn1XJ9kTE)

<comment><USER16> Oh geez, you're absolutely right, I don't know what I was thinking. I probably needed my morning coffee.

<comment><USER18> It's OK, stingrays like you aren't expected to know about polar regions and super cold water.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm quite surprised at the detail that the rescuers attempted to drill into the cave from above in order to provide supplies .. is anyone familiar with the depth of the cave pocket? This seems like a surprising choice to make given the logistics - but I guess a safer one, in the end .. assuming one has a drill system available and the depth is not too great.

<comment><USER20> to follow up on depth (not just from a difficulty point of view), if care isn't taken - i'd assume that once there's a pathway to the surface, the water pressure would push the air out and drown him.

I also assume they're experts who know what they're doing, but at the same time, I guess there'd be too many unknown unless there was some established air-tight drilling technique specifically for this type of scenario?

<comment><USER19> To be honest, its a fascinating scenario which leaves many questions. I'm going to have to ask my geology friends if there is such a thing as an air- tight drilling technique that would not have resulted in the scenario you describe - google-fu doesn't seem to produce results - but I imagine there might be some sort of air-tight sleeve that can be used at the head of the shaft, which may as well be rather thin diameter for this scenario, after all ..

What I'm curious about is whether these cave-divers used this procedure, because they were prepared for it in some capacity. I mean, they managed to start - and then abandon - the idea, in a few hours.

<comment><USER4> A lot of us cave divers work in other areas as well - I'm an engineer in Oil & Gas - a lot of other folks I know are either scientists or engineers. This sort of activity appeals to us for some reason.

You described a blowout preventer ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowout_preventer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowout_preventer)) by the way :)

Many cave systems are quite shallow, and while I don't know the details on the one there in Mallorca, by the size of what's described it was probably above the water table even though there likely wasn't a free-air connection to the surface.

<comment><USER19> Thanks for the BOP reference. :)

Terrific balls, you cave-divers! Definitely not for me .. though the stories do delight, and sometimes .. terrify.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Does anyone know any more detail about their plan to drill down to him - <USER2> is similar rescues have been preformed this way? I'd be interested if the air he was breathing was 'trapped' and if drilling down would release it, and drown him, or if the air had a slow route in and out of the pocket he was in. Fascinating stuff.

</comment><comment><USER22> I might be speaking out of line, but taking on these kinds of risks with young children at home seems kind of selfish. The fact that he went back into the same cave that nearly killed him only a month later...almost as if to say:

"I would rather my kids grow up without a Dad than live without my adrenaline fix"

I am neither a father or a cave diver though, so I might be missing a piece of the puzzle. Would either groups of people care to comment?

<comment><USER23> Or maybe what he's saying is, "I would rather my kids learn that they should explore and enjoy the world, rather than never take any big risks."

There are a lot of parents in the world. Once you start judging them (for actions other than abuse and neglect), you very quickly realize how limiting that is. Do we need to look down upon astronauts who have children? What about pilots? People who travel for work for days or weeks at a time? Someone who commutes an hour to work each way in a car that has a poor safety rating?

The good news is that once you become a father, you'll get to decide (possibly with a partner) what the acceptable level of risk is for you and your family.

<comment><USER24> Given the choice of having a father at home or have one dead in cave but famous for exploring cool places I don't think it's hard to guess what most children would pick.

> The good news is that once you become a father, you'll get to decide > (possibly with a partner) what the acceptable level of risk is for you and > your family.

That's a obvious. What I think is being questioned is if they made a good decision. In other I can freely decide not to strap my kid in a car seat but that doesn't mean I won't get a ticket or my child won't be seriously injured or worse in a car accident.

<comment><USER25> > Given the choice of having a father at home or have one dead in cave but > famous for exploring cool places I don't think it's hard to guess what most > children would pick.

In all seriousness, I do have a hard time guessing which one most children would pick. I can see reasonable arguments made on either side. Personally, I think it would be far more inspiring to have a father who died pursuing his passion, then one who gave it up to stay at home.

<comment><USER26> If you just asked them, in all their ignorance, you're undoubtedly right. If you asked the children who chose the adventurous dad _after_ he had died pursuing his passion, nearly 100% would trade the world to reverse that choice.

<comment><USER27> Your hypothetical survey method has a literal survivorship bias (and a statistical one...you're not asking the children of parents that took risks and didn't die). Looking at risk the way you're looking at it is a recipe for wasting your life. The better way to think of it is like the way that poker players look at their decision making...don't be outcome oriented. There's a logical, statistical way to do this and it's called the micromort. 1 micromort equates to a 1 in 1 million chance of death. Each activity that has been engaged in widely enough to be measured will have a micromort value and, while the math is a bit more complicated, they mostly just add up. Just because he engages in an exotic activity that carries some risk, doesn't mean he's being reckless.

Put another way, would you say a father that chooses to drive a 2 hour commute (each way) per day is being reckless? No doubt you can find countless children who lost a parent in an auto accident who would tell you they would have wanted their father to have a shorter commute and still be with them. But since driving is a familiar activity, no one questions the risk that someone is incurring with that kind of decision. And yet that 2-hours to work and 2-hours back drive is, based on the stats that I've been able to find, around 1 micromort. Over the course of a year, that adds up to around 200 micromorts, or roughly 1/5000 chance of dying. I can't find the data on cave diving, which is no doubt higher than recreational diving, but SCUBA has a value of 5 micromorts per dive, so it's roughly equivalent to driving 1250 miles on a highway. Someone doing 40 dives per year is taking on roughly the same risk as that 50,000 mi/year driver.

Humans are really bad about estimating risk. We do it by equating risk to the ease in which we can imagine something happening. It's why so many people are afraid of statistically safe activities like air travel while underestimating much more serious dangers. We need a framework, like micromorts, for thinking about risk logically to better determine what amount of risk to take on and then "spend" that risk budget in whatever way helps us get the most out of life. Parents can say, "I'd like a 90% chance of being alive when my kids turn 10, a 75% chance of being alive when they turn 18 and a 50% chance of being alive when they turn 30." Once you've decided on a risk threshold, you can work backwards to determine how many micromorts you're allowed to take on each year.

Otherwise, you're just living your life based on irrational fears.

<comment><USER28> This reads like the most sophistic argument to the point he was trying to make. The diver was a cave diver, not a regular scuba diver. It's very different and notoriously risky. He almost died in the same cave previously. His point was well taken.

It doesn't mean that being risk averse is the _right_ way to live. It's a fair point and a good thing to consider when you are a parent. That's all.

<comment><USER29> >He almost died in the same cave previously.

While I get the emotional impact of this, it really shouldn't be an argument either way once you begin using some framework to judge decisions.

Think of it this way, if I nearly died in a car wreck on the way to work, would it be fine for me to never get in a car again? I almost died doing that once!

It would make more sense to determine the risk. That he already nearly died doesn't really change the risk profile. Cave diving is extremely risky. That should be the important factor. Having nearly died should not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> See also this story if you want to make sure you don't really want to go diving in a subterranean cave: [http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36097300](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36097300)

</comment><comment><USER31> I wonder - did they take steps to replenish the cave's oxygen? If not, it's useless for the next person...

I guess this is kind of silly and naive, but it's what I would do.

<comment><USER32> I'm a little surprised there aren't caches of emergency supplies for situations like these.

<comment><USER33> Cave-divers are expected (and taught) to carry reserve gas supplies with them. From the description, they had reserve supplies - enough reserves to search for an hour - but failed to recover their guideline within that time.

The issue was that they lost their guide-line leading to the exit, rather than running out of gas. In such a scenario, no amount of reserve caches could really solve that problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'd like to address the false assumption in this thread that cave diving is more dangerous than driving a car!

I cave dive on a regular basis with two other guys. We've dived together as a team for nearly 10 years. I'm late 60s and single, the second guy is 50s and has a partner but no children, and the third is early 40s with a six-year-old, who he has every intention of seeing grow-up into adulthood.

We often dive in a system comprising a complex maze of 8kms of underwater tunnels. Some are large, and would fit several divers across, but some are small, and you can barely squeeze through. The only entry to and exit from this system is a small pond, about 6 feet across and 4 feet deep, just big enough for one person to get in at a time. Then you scrunch yourself up, and drop down through a slot to enter the system.

We'd generally go about 700m into this system, making up to 13 seperate navigational decisions (left? right? straight ahead?) which we have to reverse precisely to get back out at the end. This is all completely underwater, there's no air anywhere except for two air pockets hundreds of meters apart. As I like to say, in cave diving there is no UP – there is only OUT!

It all sounds pretty dangerous, right? Wrong.

NAVIGATION. The whole system is set up with fixed lines, each of which has a numbered marker every 50m or so. Before each dive, we consult the map, and plan exactly where we're going to go. I commit that plan to memory, write it down on a wrist slate, and also in a notebook which I take underwater. All three of us do this independently. Underwater, when we come to a junction, each of us checks the direction to go, then marks the exit direction with a personal marker. If anyone makes a mistake, for example, turns in the wrong direction, or forgets to leave a personal marker, the other two pick that up immediately. On the way back, when we get to each junction, each of us checks that it's the junction we expected, and we can see our personal markers. Each individual's markers can be distinguished by feel alone, so we could get the whole way back, separately, in total darkness, if we had to. So the odds of us getting lost in the system are very low.

LIGHT. These caves are absolutely pitch black, so naturally you need a torch. In fact, nine torches! Each of us individually has a multi-thousand-lumen canister battery light, plus 2 backup torches, each of which would last the whole dive. I could also navigate by the light of my dive computer screen, and I'm considering carrying a cyalume chemical lightstick as well. So then I personally would have five different sources of light, and we'd need 11 sources of light to fail before the team would be left in the dark. The risk of this happening is basically zero.

GAS. Each of us has two tanks in a fully redundant setup. If one side fails, we just go to the other and call the dive. In fact, our gas planning allows one diver's entire gas supply to fail, at the point of maximum penetration, and either one of the other two divers could get that guy back, plus himself, without relying on the third diver at all. However, gas is certainly a limited resource underwater, so it's always on our minds, and all three of us will turn the dive as soon as anyone hits their safety limit.

There's lots more equipment involved, but let's leave it there for the moment, and turn our attention to...

DRIVING! Each of us lives >400 km away from that system. So there and back is a five hour drive. During that drive, you could fall asleep and run off the road; have local fauna run out in front of your car; get head-on crashed by drunken drivers, and so on. Several of those are external risks that are not under our control.

So the simple fact of the matter is this. Our cave dives are almost certainly SIGNIFICANTLY SAFER than driving to and from the dive site! The cave dives carry significant potential risks, but most of those are mitigated with proper training and equipment. Whereas there's not much I can do to stop a drunken driver running head-on into me.

Certainly there are risks like tunnels collapsing and blocking the exit. But statistically, I'm sure that those are orders of magnitude less likely than having a heart attack, or falling over and breaking your neck.

Hope that helps :-)

<comment><USER35> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort) has a single scuba dive as having the same risk of death as ~1700 miles in a car. And cave diving is even more dangerous.

<comment><USER36> More interestingly, running a marathon is equally fatal as scuba diving.

Unfortunately I think the scuba-diving in this list includes _every_ type of scuba and not the riskier types focused on in the articles linked in this thread.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> _" I only turned it on when I went to pee or to climb down to get fresh water," he says._

I know this is really dumb question but why did he need to turn on his light to pee?

I presume he is in his wet suite?

<comment><USER18> I would presume that he didn't want to pee in his water supply, perhaps? So he had to aim very precisely toward a low-lying area.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Reminded me of the very sad story of Peter Verhulsel: [http://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/11/12/Scuba-diver-lost- in-c...](http://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/11/12/Scuba-diver-lost-in-cave-dies- waiting-for-rescue/7366469083600/)

<comment><USER38> I'm a qualified advanced recreational diver, and most diving by properly- trained (not 'quick tutorial at the dock' like a lot of tourists get) divers has a very manageable level of risk, even at altitude or under ice. Cave diving and mixture diving (esp. in overhead environments like the Andrea Doria) is well beyond my personal acceptable-risk horizon, but most of the people who go there are extremely experienced, well-equipped and cogniscant of the risks and how to mitigate them. (Those that aren't tend to die or learn they really shouldn't be there very fast). I would never call it safe, but thise that go there (or, say, K2) aren't being foolhardy.

<comment><USER39> What level of tuition should tourist divers be getting? I've only been diving a few times, and we were given (what felt like) a reasonable amount of safety briefings before even travelling to the dive site. IIRC the deepest we went was 12-13m (third dive with the same crew; first two were sub-10m), and I was under the impression (thought I'm __far__ from being an expert!) that it was difficult to cause any major problems at those depths unless you do it all the way the wrong way (i.e. fast/direct ascent to surface).

<comment><USER38> From 12m, all you'd need to do is hold your breath and surface rapidly to give yourself a potentially fatal lung injury. Note that this is exactly what you would reflexively want to do in nearly any emergency or if you just got claustrophobic in the mask and reg (common) or had a sudden abyss panic (not uncommon) or even a trivial even like having your mask kicked off by a buddy. Recreational training should include a half dozen or so pool dives to practice skills. This gives you the training and confidence to cleanly handle minor emergencies, followed by three or four supervised training dives to test those skills in a real environment, and to give you a comfort level that gelps prevent panicy action later. Those first few dives to shallow depth are actually among the most dangerous you ever do, because you're a novice in an environment where your reflexes will kill you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> No one has mentioned the risk subjected upon the rescue team to come get him. So there's that.

<comment><USER4> Rescue teams for caves are usually regional volunteer groups - and usually it's body recovery. They go into it knowing what they're likely to find - <USER3> rarely (if ever) are they first responders or typical public service employees, at least as part of their job function

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> There should be a law against bringing in and leaving nylon ropes in the cave. If this continues, all the caves are going to be filled with nylons ropes left by previous divers. Do we want these caves, too, to eventually become a garbage dumping ground?

<comment><USER42> "I'm not a cave diver, have no emotional attachment to this article, and I don't have even a rudimentary understanding of the culture surrounding cave diving but I made an account just to say I think those people should have arbitrary limits placed on them."

<comment><USER43> With you, except for "no emotional attachment to this article" \- why is this needed?

<comment><USER42> They don't mention anything about the central topic of the article; the man who was stuck in the cave. If they had any sort of emotional reaction to the article, I imagine they would have said something about it.

<comment><USER43> I understand. My point is, why do they need an emotional reaction?

<comment><USER42> They don't, no one does, but any one of the three things I listed would have most likely caused someone to contribute something useful to the conversation.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


FutureTap responds to Apple's patent application - <AUTHOR> http://www.futuretap.com/blog/the-patent-case-we-havent-called/

<comment><USER2> Coverband is right. People need to READ the patent. They aren't patenting Where To, just showing how their patent could improve it. Apple has a legal team and surely understands the concept of "Prior Art" basically if an invention is "disclosed" or revealed to the public the inventor has one year to file a patent. Even if Apple tried to patent that app a patent examiner would not grant it because the app predates the patent application.

<comment><USER3> > They aren't patenting Where To, just showing how their patent could improve > it.

Most people just file a feature request.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It seems to be a stupid misunderstanding: Apple is not patenting these guys' application, they're using it as an example for a product that could consume their patentable process.

<comment><USER5> I don't see any good reason to include a highly recognizable likeness for a third party's app in the patent without their consent, however. There's a reason things like example.com, NorthWind etc. exist.

<comment><USER6> It is one of the requirements of the patent process. This is why Apple uses the shape of an iPhone or an iPod in their patents, as they are required to provide examples.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm getting very uncomfortable with Apple. Not sure how to describe this in the best terms, but this is just plain wrong.

<comment><USER8> Ditto. Those who have seen my posts in the past know that I am far from an Apple hater - but their recent shenanigans have made me question if I want to continue to support the iPhone platform.

Many of the things they've done in the past few months have been highly questionable - but this is way over the line.

Here's hoping Android UI improves sufficiently between now and next July, when my contract is up ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Slow but working coral cache link (the futuretap site was down when I tried the link): [http://www.futuretap.com.nyud.net/blog/the-patent-case-we- ha...](http://www.futuretap.com.nyud.net/blog/the-patent-case-we-havent- called/)</comment>


Ask HN: Need analysis of Google Analytics data across multiple sites? - <AUTHOR>

Google Analytics does a good job of providing metrics for one site. But say you have one 'brand' with multiple sites (perhaps it is landing pages across different domains, or different countries, etc.) analysis can get pretty ugly, pretty quickly.
Either add a comment on this thread with your contact info, or email me directly at the email address in my profile.
Thanks.
P.S. My normal rate is $100/hour, but running an introductory rate for new clients at $75/hour. <comment><USER2> I don't think this is really an appropriate post for HN. There is some self- promotion of consulting work in other threads, but nothing quite as self- serving.

Please do not post this type of material here.</comment>


The Pros and Cons of a Freemium Model for B2B Companies - <AUTHOR> http://www.techvibes.com/blog/the-pros-and-cons-of-a-freemium-model-for-b2b-companies-2014-10-17?utm_content=bufferfb69c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

<comment><USER2> Nice post there, but I would like to ask a question regarding this topic. I hope anyone of you could enlighten his/her thoughts.

We offer a Free Trial, which is great but only when people actually activate it! We often find that potential clients (even those who are really interested and engaged us rather than vice-versa) literally don't have the time/resources to devote to an evaluation. I would wager the next comment is "make the trial simpler", so that it doesn't take as long to get a feel for the product, but unfortunately the nature of our software and its complex application means that's not really an option. Can you offer any thoughts? Cheers.

</comment><comment><USER3> Very interesting post I must say, but I would think it would be subjective to how you differentiated your free product vs.your paid product as well as how you promoted that value to your existing free customers.

I know in the consumer space the churn from free to paid can be around 18 months according to the CEO of Evernote. I would think in the B2B space you could shorten this given the ability to focus on individual high value customers.

It seems to me a question of early cash flow vs. early marketing. And certainly early cash flow can pay for early marketing

</comment><comment><USER4> I hate to be one of those "Great Article! very interesting post" guys but, man, it is a great and interesting one! I'm one of those who though that your move of "doubled" your freemium plan was a competitive strategy (and I admired it that way) but now, after reading the reasons you posted in your article, I found it brilliant. Highly appreciated,</comment>


The F-35 Is Worse Than HealthCare.gov - <AUTHOR> http://www.vocativ.com/usa/military/f-35-worse-healthcare-gov/

<comment><USER2> The F-35 has already done what it was supposed to do - transfer lots of tax dollars to various arms merchants.

\- Scrap it, buy more of what we already have or even YF-22's. \- Buy more drones if necessary. \- To get around the prohibition on fixed wing aircraft (army isn't allowed to have them) make 2 branches of the armed services: Army + Air Force (AA) and Navy + Marines (NM) or possibly merge all 4 completely (AANM).</comment>


Turkey blocks access to Reddit under controversial censorship law - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/14/9734910/turkey-reddit-internet-ban <comment><USER2> The Turkey situation is deteriorating and fast. Erdogan is moving towards dictatorship with strong Islamist streak. There is chaos on its borders. And where there is order - it is upheld by people that Turkey hates (the kurds). With that context - banning of reddit is not unexpected or shocking.

And the possibility of 3 sided civil war, while small is increasing rapidly. Which will make the current middle east situation referred as the "good old calm days" if that happens.</comment>


Alzheimer's Is Type 3 Diabetes - <AUTHOR> http://bigthink.com/devil-in-the-data/alzheimers-is-type-3-diabetes

<comment><USER2>
and Alzheimer's are now firmly linkedin the scientific literature.

linkedin?</comment>


Diet Soda Beats Water for Weight Loss, Industry-Funded Study Finds - <AUTHOR> http://www.livescience.com/45889-diet-sodas-weight-loss-doubts.html

<comment><USER2> Ugh, I hate it when stories talk about studies and then don't link to them. Link to study:

[http://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/oby20737...](http://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/oby20737.pdf)

Eh. The difference in weight loss was 1-2 kg over 12 weeks. That's incredibly negligible. Moreover, while they monitored for exercise adherence, they didn't measure dietary adherence at all; they didn't measure adherence to "study drug" (were the people even drinking the recommended quantity of diet sodas / water?); while they did take the diuretic effects of soda into account, they didn't have a caffeine control which is an obvious potential contributor; and it sounds like people may have been allowed to drink diet tea which could introduce other confounding variables.

Most importantly, this is a link bait title for an observational study. At best all you can say here is that drinking 24 ounces of diet soda per day during a weight loss routine is correlated with slightly more weight loss, not that nutrasweet / diet soda induces weight loss as the title implies.

<comment><USER3> Let us not forget the downsides of the artificial sweeteners, and the phosphoric acid in a lot of these drinks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It may be that people who drink diet soda consider it a treat, so they doesn't indulge in other fattening treats. The people who drink plain water might succumb more easily to temptation.

But we don't know it this is the case, because the people who did the study probably just run to publish it the minute they got the results.

</comment><comment><USER5> Not quite on topic, but back in 2004, I switched from sugar soda to diet soda and lost 40 lbs. I didn't make any other changes at the time, and I did and do continue to drink a lot of soda. So the idea that some people have that diet soda cannot aid in weight loss is silly. Next time you see a fat person at the store with 4 12 packs of sugared Mountain Dew, imagine them 40 lbs lighter with 4 12 packs of diet Dr Pepper. That was me.

<comment><USER6> Why would anybody think that switching from sugared to artificially sweetened drinks cannot help in weight loss? The question at hand is whether it helps as good as switching to non-sweetened drinks.

<comment><USER7> _Why would anybody think that switching from sugared to artificially sweetened drinks cannot help in weight loss?_

Because multiple prior studies have shown that. Switch from regular soda to diet soda, and on average you end up eating more calories elsewhere to compensate. Switch from regular soda to water, and that doesn't happen. The human body is really complicated, and diet soda seems to mess with the systems that govern how hungry we feel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The study was funded by The American Beverage Association so I'd assume it was a bit like having a hammer and looking for nails

</comment><comment><USER9> Does anyone have an actual link to the study? I love a good ad-hominem as much as the next guy, but being able to read the actual thing might be useful. As far as I can tell, every single link on livescience.com leads to livescience.com, which is hardly enlightening...

<comment><USER6> I guess it is [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20737/abstrac...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20737/abstract). Clicking the PDF link gave me a PDF.

</comment></comment><comment> k-mcgrady I can see how this might work. For example on a 'slow carb diet' a can of diet soda per day is permitted. It has no sugar and people may consider it a treat - i.e. it's better to have that and stave off cravings than to have a chocolate bar.

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't think this is news or worth even discussing if it isn't a proper peer reviewed neutral study. Rather this is more a PR exercise.

</comment><comment><USER11> Would be interesting to read the original paper, but it does makes some logical sense that consuming laxatives would result in some water loss, and therefore weight loss. (Some artificial sweeteners are laxatives). Unfortunately it would not be the kind of weight loss most people are looking to achieve.

</comment><comment><USER12> It's only a matter of time: Brawndo, it's what plants crave.

[http://www.avclub.com/article/emidiocracyems-brawndo-is- now-...](http://www.avclub.com/article/emidiocracyems-brawndo-is-now- available-in-a-drink-75314)

</comment><comment><USER13> diet teas – AKA laxatives.

headline should read "diet soda + laxatives" beats water for weight loss

</comment><comment><USER14> You've got to be kidding me...

</comment><comment><USER15> Probably the study was done on hamplanets who's body has changed to process diet-soda/mayo like water.</comment>


Google DeepMind's Untrendy Play to Make the Blockchain Actually Useful - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/2017/03/google-deepminds-untrendy-blockchain-play-make-actually-useful/ <comment><USER2> My very coarse understanding of a blockchain is that it's essentially a public ledger that cannot be modified. Can somebody explain or point to a resource that explains how you build on that to create things like what is described in the wired article?

Lots of VC money seems to be flowing to blockchain-based startups and I've never understood how you build on a public, immutable ledger.</comment>


Startup Quote: Fred Wilson, co-founder, Union Square Ventures - <AUTHOR> http://startupquote.com/post/1982022117

<comment><AUTHOR> If you want to create something great and do it faster than the competition, you need to be action oriented.

\- Fred Wilson (@fredwilson)

<http://startupquote.com/post/1982022117></comment>


Non-Advertising Business Models for Your Startup - <AUTHOR> http://johnndege.com/2008/04/06/advertising-not-the-only-way-to-make-money-from-your-startup/ <comment><USER2> Summary: sell something ---or if that doesn't work, try an advertising business model.

<comment><USER2> Top 3 on news.yc:

1) Non-Advertising Business Models for Your Startup

2) Picasso's Top 7 Tips for Creating an Exciting Life

3) I've found God, says man who cracked the genome

This sucks.

<comment><USER3> It's a Sunday afternoon, guy. All of these top stories have only a few points. I don't think a Sunday afternoon is representative of quality here.

<comment><USER4> I'm not your guy, friend!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think all models need advertising - in the act of advertising your , freemium, subscription and affiliate products. (but yeah banners degrade a site more than the profit they generate)

</comment><comment><USER6> Nothing new under the sun..

</comment><comment><USER7> Here is a non advertising business model for a startup.

Make something so great most people couldn't of imagined it, don't bother people with ads they hate anyway, serve an unmet need so deep most people don't know it's there until they see your product, and make people value your product by charging a fair price with your head held high.</comment>


Facebook Admits Some Decrease of Usage Amongst Young Teens for the First Time - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/30/facebook-teens-drop/

<comment><USER2> Do they need young teens? Facebook is better as a mature communication platform with a wide range of acquaintances and friends. Young teens can grow up with SnapChats and whatever's popular in the moment, and then migrate to Facebook in their early to mid 20s.

<comment><USER3> Why would they migrate, and why would they migrate to Facebook?

The reason people use a social network is because they coalesce around their peers. If an entire demographic is not attracted to a product, they're all free to bind to another. Grabbing them at that 'first choice' all but ensures lock-in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not sure why investors freaked out over this news...

Will it hurt Facebook 5 years from now? Maybe, but I'll get back to that. Right now Facebook is growing their revenue like crazy while daily users is still growing. Mobile revenue is now around 50% and they killed expectations.

As for the decrease in usage with younger teens...luckily they bought insurance. It's called Instagram. A thriving and rapidly growing social network, which just so happens to be popular among teens.

If Facebook did not own Instagram, then I would completely understand the market's reaction to hearing that. In my mind, this is just the market over reacting.</comment>


Learn Anything Faster With The Feynman Technique (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2012/04/learn-anything-faster-with-the-feynman-technique/

<comment><USER2> As a current physics PhD student, I'd like to mention that this is exactly how I've gone through my educational career. In physics, such simple terms go a long long way, and to this day I still fall back on very simple ideas to understand sophisticated systems (e.g., "Well, there is positive charge here, so negative charge would want to get close to it", etc.). Many papers and many people make things seem far more complicated than they are. Personally, I am a huge fan of using colloquial language in describing things, as I think it makes things far easier to parse and get something out of it that you feel comfortable with.

I've seen a lot of success in my teaching, too, largely because of my effort to keep things colloquial and down-to-earth. Too many teachers fall into the trap of not falling back on things students are comfortable with when students are not understanding the material (or, hell, maybe the teachers aren't particularly comfortable with the subject matter). A huge part of my success as a teacher is exactly that I try to see where the students' train of logic gets derailed and take a step back in how abstract the explanation is there while also providing ample motivation for that sort of thinking.

Lastly, I wanted to recommend a great resource for learning specifically physics from a guy that is fantastic at explaining things in simple terms: Walter Lewin. Walter Lewin is a professor at MIT, and has incredible video- recorded lectures on electricity and magnetism (the class is 8.02). if you have an ounce of interest, go watch some --- you won't regret it.

<comment><USER3> _Many papers and many people make things seem far more complicated than they are_

 _cough_ wikipedia _cough_

<comment><USER4> Many professors love making their students feel dumb for some reason.

<comment><USER5> You can generalize that to "many people love making less experienced or knowledgable people feel dumb."

Feel free to add qualifiers such as "experts", "position of authority", "newcomers", and "it's tradition!"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is how I have intuitively learnt pretty much everything that I know so far. Didn't know there is a name to this technique. The only way to know that I understood something properly, is to try to explain it in my own words/vocabulary/analogies. Mostly I would be thinking out loud to myself or writing down/drawing flow chart etc, during such 'absorb info & explain' phase. Sometimes sounding off to a friend or colleague also helps.

</comment><comment><USER7> TLDR: Learn what you're trying to learn well enough that you can write it in your own words.

Feynman was wonderfully intelligent, but I'm not sure he deserves to be named the inventor learning.

</comment><comment><USER8> this works great for me!</comment>