Ask HN: How do you know if the startup you are working at will succeed? - <AUTHOR> What are signs that it is worth continuing to work at the startup you are currently working at? How can you tell whether it will lead to a better career outcome that taking up other opportunities? <comment><USER2> I worked for failed startup, and now I work for successful startup.

How do I know the one I work for now is successful? Founders are transparent about burn rate and available funds and also they do not hesitate to share information about revenue. This does not sound like much but from my experience is already a good sign.

Maybe some users here will find it difficult to believe but previous startup I worked for (the one that failed) was not transparent at all. We would hear stories of potential big.co customer that will bring millions and then... we would hear about another potential big.co customer that would bring millions... And every month or two we would hear the same story. And then one day we was informed that the company can no longer keep us so we are released with immediate effect.

Revenue is (usually) a sign that people want the product you build. And if people want it hard enough to put their money into it then you know you solve a real problem and that there is actually market for it.

</comment><comment><USER3> This question is a non-starter. Of course nobody knows. Even if the startup is an astronomic amount of funding and strong growth it could still fail. One man's definition of success also drastically varies from another's.

Enjoy your life, put some money in the bank.

If you're lucky, your hard work and intellect will reward you one day. Granted, only hard work get's you a seat at the table, connections might improve the cards you're dealt.

</comment><comment> thrown-away-32 I was at a startup that failed, I was actually the last non-founder to leave. Not because I didn't see the problems, but because I was the last one of us to find a new job. Everyone began looking for a new opportunity around 6-12 months before our runway actually ran out.

Here were some of the issues:

Over time, the information flow from our founders degraded in quality and quantity. When you're at a company of 5-10 people, everyone should know everything.

When engineers left they weren't replaced. Tech transfer was just a formality, and projects were shelved entirely. If a startup isn't growing, it's dying.

The founders attempted the same monetization strategy for about 2 years with zero success. Not as in "unsustainable" but literally, not a dime!

So TL;DR: if your company is shrinking, non-founders kept in the dark, and nothing seems to be changing in strategy when no one is paying you, the company is probably going to die and you should move on. However, staying around until the end of your runway will lead to a glowing reference for future job searches.

<comment><AUTHOR> How would you qualify a startup as growing? Is it limited to getting new customers?

<comment> thrown-away-32 In the abstract, growth means "more." Its good to ask "more what?" but the "what" depends on your business/market. You should be able to ask your founders what their growth metrics are and what they look like.

If your startup is growing, it means that you as an employee will have more work to do, problems to solve, bugs to fix, features to ship, employees to help onboard, meetings to schedule, etc.

When that starts to stagnate (no new hires, no new sales, no new bug reports or feature requests, nothing new to discuss with colleagues, etc) that implies a lack of growth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've worked on a couple of SaaS startups and it was important that MRR was growing every month and there was low churn / cancellations.

</comment><comment><USER5> There are often key assumptions the financial statements are based upon. Without clarity, you would never know.

</comment><comment><USER6> I always assume it will fail. I ask what I can learn/gain even if it fails.

</comment><comment><USER7> Investors are a pretty big signal for this. For example startups that raised money from YC is pretty much guaranteed to be successful.

<comment><USER8> Can you define successful? Only one single company from YC has gone public. To me, having "successful" illiquid stock is the definition of "not successful" from the employee's perspective.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a really good point, but I assume there have been other YC Companies that have exited (acquired, etc.)

<comment><USER8> Being acquired very frequently yields a payout for investors and executives, and a $0.00 check for rank-and-file employees (or even less if they foolishly exercised their stock before acquisition).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot - <AUTHOR> http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration <comment><USER2> So, the article mentions that Congress was kept unaware, but was the Obama administration also in the dark about this investigation?</comment>


Windows Startup Sounds - 1.0 to Vista - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKXXX-XdumY&mode=related&search=

<comment><USER2> The Windows 95 sound (which I rather like) was done by Brian Eno, a noted ambient composer. From an interview Eno gave (found on his Wikipedia page):

"The idea came up at the time when I was completely bereft of ideas. I'd been working on my own music for a while and was quite lost, actually. And I really appreciated someone coming along and saying, "Here's a specific problem X solve it." The thing from the agency said, "We want a piece of music that is inspiring, universal, blah-blah, da-da-da, optimistic, futuristic, sentimental, emotional," this whole list of adjectives, and then at the bottom it said "and it must be 3 3/4 seconds long." I thought this was so funny and an amazing thought to actually try to make a little piece of music. It's like making a tiny little jewel. In fact, I made 84 pieces. I got completely into this world of tiny, tiny little pieces of music. I was so sensitive to microseconds at the end of this that it really broke a logjam in my own work. Then when I'd finished that and I went back to working with pieces that were like three minutes long, it seemed like oceans of time."

<comment><USER3> Cool. Did he ever publish the other short pieces?

<comment><USER2> Not that I know of, unfortunately. I'd definitely be interested in hearing them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> daniel-cussen It just gets slower and noisier as time goes on.

</comment><comment><USER4> ah, fond memories of programs crashing, and then eventually being thankful they were only crashing if i used bad device drivers (but if you did, the entire OS would go down), and then rarely crashing at all.</comment>


Ask HN: What kit/add-ons should I get for Rasberry Pi? - <AUTHOR>

I'm buying my cousin a Rasberry Pi as a belated wedding gift. Any must have kits/add-ons I should get with it? He already has a breadboard and all your typical wire/resistor/led packs. Any input would be great. Thanks! <comment><USER2> Something from here? <http://adafruit.com/category/105>

I like the 'Cobbler' and the 'Prototyping Plate' but I haven't got around to buying either of them yet.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sweet. I'll take a look. I was looking for something along this line.</comment></comment>


Choosing The Right Freelancing Niche [audio] - <AUTHOR> https://simplecast.com/s/d16eaa57 <comment><AUTHOR> Hey! Interviewer here. This is my recent talk with Connie Holen, who is kind of a badass - how many web designers do you know who are former fighter pilots? O_O

Anyway. Connie is pretty cool and she figured out some useful things about running a freelancing/consulting biz. If you want to chat about the episode or have any questions, I'll be around.

Hope you find this useful. Thanks!

<comment><USER2> Any chance these podcasts are transcribed somewhere?

<comment><USER3> Looks like it isn't online for this episode yet, but usually Chris has full transcripts on the 100kfreelancing.com website. It'll probably appear here when it's ready:

[http://www.100kfreelancing.com/0117-choosing-right- freelanci...](http://www.100kfreelancing.com/0117-choosing-right-freelancing- niche/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I was just coming in here to post this!

Sometimes it takes me a day or two to get the transcripts up. I don't have them for every episode yet, as I just introduced the feature 3 or 4 episodes ago, but I'll have one up for this episode soon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> For those looking for the RSS to add to your podcast player.

[https://rss.simplecast.com/podcasts/2725/rss](https://rss.simplecast.com/podcasts/2725/rss)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I should probably share that more prominently on the website.

</comment></comment><comment> rezzz-dev Great episode! I know that when I focused my business and really only targeted one kind of client, my revenue went up.

My monthly recurring revenue 10X in just 6 months.

<comment><AUTHOR> 10x is craaaaazy. I mean, unless you were only making like $500/month before. And I know that's not the case! :)</comment></comment>


The origins of the TV remote - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180830-the-history-of-the-television-remote-contro <comment><USER2> Wow, now I know where the term 'clicker' came from.

Funny that they mention sunlight changing the channel on the original optical sensor-based systems. Even in the 80s I could change channels on the VCR by strobing a maglight across the IR receiver. I guess the flashlight emitted enough IR or the IR sensor was not selective enough about what wavelengths it received.

As a kid of the 80s (with a late 70s TV in the family), I always left the TV on '3' for the RF adapter from the VCR, and used the VCR (with its IR remote) as the tuner, to change channels. Of course, I still did most of my watching on my back, with my feet up against the VCR to change channels, and I could reach up with my leg to turn the volume knob on the TV.

<comment><USER3> > Wow, now I know where the term 'clicker' came from.

Where is this term used?

<comment><USER4> I've heard it amongst older people here in Ontario.

<comment><USER5> I've heard it used in many places around the globe, but almost entirely always by folks 70+ years of age.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> We didn't get our first TV until 1960. It had that space command. As a child, I could hear that ping, but it wasn't unpleasant. When you pinged it, the predecessor of a stepping motor actually rotated the mechanical channel selector. Or, a relay cut off the sound. The TV was black and white, and it was horrible. The humidity of NYC soon rendered the TV tuner very touchy: it was an art to fine- tune channels manually at the TV and this rendered the channel clicker useless. The synch circuit was also unreliable and given to long bouts of screen rolling. But on that TV, I watched the 1960, 61, and 62 World Series, which included Bill Mazeroski's home run which beat the Yankees, and the whole drama surrounding the Kennedy asassination. And most of the Mercury and Gemini launches.

<comment><USER7> When the new Kennedy silver half-dollars came out, you could change channels by rattling them against other coins in your pocket.

This was discovered by accident of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I used my grandfolks' Zenith Space Command remote on their 50s b+w console (of course). Its carrier was ultrasonic but it still sounded like striking a couple small pieces of metal together. I felt it more of a Clunker than a Clicker.

<comment><USER9> That's exactly how it worked. Tuning fork with ultrasonic harmonics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > "One idea was radio waves, but that was dismissed early on, says Taylor. "If > you were in an apartment building, you might start changing the channel on > the TV in the next room as well as your own."

This reminded me how as kids in the 90s, the remote unlock button for our parents' car would set off our neighbor's car alarm if you were too close to them.

</comment><comment> m-i-l > "frequencies used in remotes like the Space Command were too high for the > human ear to pick up"

Pretty sure I used to be able to hear the different high pitched whines as a child (bearing in mind children can hear higher pitched sounds than adults).

<comment><USER5> Some adults have unusually high hearing range too. I'm almost 40 and yet can easily detect sounds up to 25khz, sometimes higher depending on the strength.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> When I was very little my uncle had one of those ultrasound remotes, I'm pretty sure it literally had only one button (next channel). If you pressed it when the dog was in the room, she would go crazy.</comment>


Magic mushrooms found to lift severe depression in clinical trial - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/17/magic-mushrooms-lift-severe-depression-in-clinical-trial <comment><USER2> From personal experience in my youth, I can definitely say that psychedelics (mushrooms in particular) can help you think in different ways that make your problems seem trivial and imminently solvable. Those changed patterns of thought seem like a revelation at the time -- like the clouds opened and an answer came down from the sky. So I'm not at all surprised with this.

That said, this study had only 12 participants with no control group -- so it's hard to draw any meaningful conclusions. But as a canary study, it says that there might be something here, so further, more rigorous studies are warranted.

<comment><USER3> Roland Griffiths at John's Hopkins is trying to do proper research on psilocybin, i.e. with control groups. Although it's kind of hard since the effects of psilocybin are rather noticeable.

[http://www.tedmed.com/speakers/show?id=526372](http://www.tedmed.com/speakers/show?id=526372)

Just in case anyone here hasn't already seen this: [https://xkcd.com/1462/](https://xkcd.com/1462/)

<comment><USER4> Can't they just lower the dosage drastically?

<comment><USER5> You mean like micro-dosing and homeopathy? And see if they're not depressed for the next 15 seconds?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> When I am finishing a mushroom experience I usually have overwhelming feelings of love and am excited to start the next day. My brain is racing with all the possibilities of life and ways I can make things better for myself.

People should be coached in how to have a good mushroom experience and what to expect. Nature + fresh fruit + good music + comfy place to sleep has always been a winning combination for me.

<comment><USER7> Fresh fruit? How are you hungry let alone craving fruit on shrooms?

<comment><USER8> Eating oranges while tripping on shrooms was a very intense experience to me. I agree with OP's statement, a comfy place with calm music and fresh fruit is all you need.

<comment><USER9> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hqgYYASenc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hqgYYASenc)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> For those seeking to break down the barriers of the mind, psilocybin and mescaline are the most intelligent options. SWIM (Someone Who Isn't Me) grew mushrooms and peyote cactus to enable revelations in the minds of consenting adults, and every single person who ingested these naturally-occurring organic substances thanked SWIM for a life-changing experience.

That said, there are obvious risks to glorifying psychedelic use, especially when available psychedelics are usually in the form of LSD. While these synthetic compounds can yield the same results as their organic counterparts, there is no way to verify the amount of LSD in a dose. Overdosing on LSD can trigger schizophrenia and several other mental problems in those who are prone to it. This is why SWIM recommends organic psychedelic compounds that can be clearly measured into an appropriate dosage for the individual's size and past psychedelic experience.

There is also an overwhelming trend amongst unscrupulous suppliers to market doses of DOC ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,5-Dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetam...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,5-Dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetam...)) as LSD. While the observed effect of the two are similar, DOC can be extremely dangerous to those with hypertension and high blood pressure. DOC is also an amphetamine with greater risk of physical addiction.

SWIM also wants to point out that SWIM engaged in countless adventures with varying levels of psilocybin and mescaline dosages, and arrived at the conclusion that psychedelic substances are not necessary for seeing the beauty in life or the purpose that one may have in this world. SWIM's most transformative revelations came about while completely sober at a Taoist monastery of the Wudang mountains in China. It is SWIM's opinion that all can know beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness (Tao Te Ching, chapter 2), and now urges people to pursue safe and well-known techniques (meditation, yoga, tai chi, qi gong) for improving one's state of mind.

<comment><USER11> >there is no way to verify the amount of LSD in a dose

Nor psilocybin in a mushroom...

<comment><USER10> The variance in potency is negligible, especially when compared to the variance in potency of LSD doses. It is generally known amongst those taking mushrooms that 2 - 3 grams is within most people's comfort level. The real variance comes from how dry the mushrooms are - mushrooms that are more moist will be less potent. This is why a responsible mushroom grower will thoroughly dry their mushrooms before consuming them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> From the study:

> A logical next step would be to carry out a placebo controlled randomised > trial in which the level of therapist contact is consistent between > conditions.

[http://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/pdfs/S22150366...](http://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/pdfs/S2215036616300657.pdf)

Depression studies are subject to well-known, powerful placebo effects, rendering this study's conclusions next to useless:

[http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/are- antidepr...](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/are- antidepressants-just-placebos-with-side-effects/)

<comment><USER13> > next to useless

No study or scientific curiosity is "next to useless". You are being intentionally antagonistic and there's no need for that. All research has to start somewhere, and this study is a significant start to this field. In no way is it or its conclusions "next to useless".

<comment><USER14> Agreed. One might say to take the conclusion with a grain of salt, but "next to useless" is being overly dismissive.

<comment><USER15> No, it is simply a statement of fact. Given that _all_ treatments for depression produce a powerful placebo effect, any non-placebo-controlled trial tells you absolutely nothing about the effectiveness of the treatment. It's true that it does tell you if the treatment is safe, but I think it's fair to say that that information is "next to useless", as there are an almost infinite number of potential treatments. The _only_ way to know if any of them are effective is to do a placebo-controlled trial.

Still, I think it is a plausible treatment, so hopefully there will be some better trials.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I owe my entire successful career in science and mathematics to repeated use of LSD in my late teens/early 20's. It woke my desire to seek answers to the underlying mechanics of the universe. Before that, I was just a high school drop-out with low self-esteem, no direction, and no positive role models.

<comment><USER17> I have read that LSD can induce your brain into learning states similar to that of a baby, where new connections (and disconnections?) are able to be formed effortlessly. Given your experience, I wish there were more research being done. It could be another tool to help people overcome trauma or personality disorders.

<comment><USER18> This is definitely what it feels like at least.

A sense of raw novelty is evoked with our lack of understanding of the world around us becomes focused front and center.

Everything is beautiful in its own right. And the fractals in all of existence thoughts and visions run infinitely deep but we can almost grasp them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It worked for me in my 20's, but I think if I tried it again in my late 30's, it might make things worse. Mushrooms don't let you hide problems from yourself.

<comment><USER20> Then how exactly did it work for you in your 20s? Did it help you realize that you didn't have problems?

<comment><USER21> _Did it help you realize that you didn 't have problems?_

Something like that. This is actually a pretty common sentiment. I know a lot of people who experimented with psychedelics in their 20s who in their 30s have said some variation of, "I don't think I'd want to do them now. I have too many things on my mind."

<comment><USER18> I completely agree with this as I am in the same boat!

But what people in their 30s really mean is they are unable to relax because they have so many more obligations and problems on their mind.

But believe me -- this problem is remedied by hanging out with good, positive people you trust and removing yourself from a stressful environment.

<comment><USER19> Nah, for me it's an admission that some things are now harder or impossible to reverse course on. You can't reverse time, and making dramatic changes to your life after you're settled with people depending on you has the potential to upset a lot more lives than your own.

<comment><USER2> I dunno, I think psychedelics can actually help you accept that fact and rid yourself of any nagging "what if?" questions (i.e. mid-life crisis scenarios, etc). For most people, they're more likely to confirm your sense of identity than challenge it. They're great for helping you rid yourself of your insecurities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > It took 32 months between having the grant awarded and dosing the first > patient, says Nutt. By comparison, it took six months "to get through the > machinations" for his team's previous studies using the equally illegal > drugs LSD and MDMA, he says.

I thought we were making progress...

</comment><comment><USER23> Says more about how poorly the brain is understood than anything else.

Also, very possible that the measures that were take to keep people "safe" were a factor. Anyone know if there was a control group given the same treatment (double blind) - but with a placebo? __________

EDIT:

Direct link to the related research paper:

Psilocybin for treatment-resistant depression: a feasibility study

[http://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/pdfs/S22150366...](http://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/pdfs/S2215036616300657.pdf)

<comment><USER24> I wonder what could be given as placebo tho. It is not like you do not notice you are tripping.

<comment><USER25> I think in Johns Hopkins studies they were using amphetamines, and also they recruited people who were hallucinogenic-naive.

<comment><USER26> But then you'd have to do a study of amphetamines and depression. It's really tricky to come up with a sham effect in a placebo without destroying the integrity of the control group.

<comment><USER18> Can't you physically isolate the two groups somehow?

<comment><USER26> The problem with studying a drug using control groups and placebos is that for some drugs (such as marijuana, LSD, etc.) people will know that they must have gotten a placebo due to the lack of effect.

Researchers will sometimes use a substitute to create some effect that a naive participant may believe to be the real thing, but it can be difficult to be convincing. This can damage the integrity of the control group because they would know they hadn't gotten the real thing (and thus possibly negating the placebo effect).

People who know they got the real thing may see benefits that are actually the placebo effect, and if your control group isn't able to control for this effect, it lowers the quality of your study.

There are also moral issues with tough studies such as last ditch experimental studies on stage IV cancers. Even in a double blind study, the research will know they are giving placebos to some of the participants, and thus have no chance of helping them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Is there any literature in their efficacy in treating anxiety disorders? As somebody who's suffered from severe anxiety since my mid-teens and had it cleared up more or less from medication I'm extremely interested in seeing how Psilocybin would affect the disorder. I would be quite willing to try it out but I'm very hesitant because I suspect my underlying anxiety would undermine the experience and possibly leave me in a worse off state than before.

<comment><USER28> Hey, so... I've got pretty severe PTSD from my experiences in combat. Loads of anxiety. I have to tell you since you made this point, that mushrooms specifically have helped me so tremendously to manage the anxiety. The way I describe it to other veterans (to encourage its use among people suffering from these disorders) is that mushrooms help ground me by providing a safe, chill, unique experience that I can later use as a point of reference when my anxiety gets bad. Make sure you know what you are putting into your body, don't take too many, don't eat them in a strange environment (a quiet weekend night in your living room is a good place), and only do mushrooms with someone you know and trust (and who has experience with the experience). You will thank yourself for doing it. It will change your life for the better if you follow those simple guidelines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> More anecdote leaning towards truth that my friends were self-medicating and not simply "doing something bad."

I am now, well into middle age, firmly in the camp that I missed out, due to fear, propaganda, and mis-information. And that my life might have been much better if I had not bought so heavily into that message and instead had "experimented". Trust your observations; not blind authority.

Anyway... I'm currently trying to overcome a combination of symptoms, thoughts, and feelings, stemming from years of abuse, PTSD, and eventually significant knock-on physical health effects.

In the past, I've tried SSRI's, NSRI's, Wellbutrin. Immediate, horrible reactions to each. The only thing that helped was a small dose of Adderall -- much lower than standard. And St. John's Wort. Almost impossible in the U.S. to find a doctor who will agree to simultaneous use of both -- unlike in Europe, so I understand. And the doctor I found was a jerk who almost cost me my chance to purchase next year's health insurance, due to his lack of response on paperwork. So, no more Adderall.

I'm ready to try magic mushrooms. Maybe a low, pure dose of ketamin. Or perhaps MDMA. Under supervision -- medical or simply experienced and well- intentioned. But, there is no avenue for this.

And big pharma and the "war on drugs" will do their best to keep it locked down.

I simply have no trust left in the Establishment, in the U.S., with respect to medical practice. Or, very select trust, in individual practitioners. Who are often caught in a system that severely hampers their ability to actually practice effective medicine and treatment.

<comment><USER30> I agree with you completely. When I was young I smoked a lot of weed but was afraid of LSD and mushrooms. Now that I'm nearing 60 I feel that I definitely missed out. Since dealing with pretty bad anxiety from, I assume, extreme stress at work for decades, I'm ready to try mushrooms and, in the right setting, LSD.

My problem is availability.

<comment><USER29> Except for one minor contact high at a party, I never even experienced weed.

I have a friend who had strikingly similar experiences as a child. She quit school for a while and got high daily -- mostly weed, as I understand it. About the age of 21 or 22, she got herself back into school and now has a very successful professional career.

Drugs may indeed destroy some people. But, the messaging is far too simple -- and simplistic.

And, those people often are not helped. They are simply castigated and ostracized.

I don't mean, at all, to make light of such circumstances. And, I have currently been helping someone -- help to the tune of dozens of hours per week and hundreds of miles driven, and hundreds of dollars -- who came darned close to being lost, herself.

I'd still trade my life for hers. She's lived hers -- mistakes and all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I really do believe some of the more negative stereotypes and stigma is beginning to lift surrounding the therapeutic use of entheogens. Like you stated time and accurate information with disciplined research hopefully leads to change. I think we have all seen that occur with marijuana for both medical and recreational use. I am very optimistic about the future of psychedelic use for those that need it and those that desire it.

</comment><comment><USER32> Lots of people with positive experiences with psilocybin in this thread. I have also had many incredible experiences and advocate its use, with conditions. But. And this is a very important thing to know before anyone reading decides to try it for the first time.

Psilocybin experiences can be truly traumatic. If you have existing mental health issues, please be very, very careful before you decide to take it. Do all the research you can. I have one friend who went completely over the edge, reached the point of no return. It triggered a predisposition to a horrible mental illness. It has destroyed his life and his familys. For a small number of people, this can happen.

If you think you might be vulnerable to this but still want to go ahead, please make sure you are responsibly and get an experienced sitter and a safe, familiar setting.

<comment><USER33> > I have one friend who went completely over the edge, reached the point of no > return. It triggered a predisposition to a horrible mental illness. It has > destroyed his life and his family.

Have any details you're comfortable sharing? Particularly the mental illness, what happened when they were triggered and how often they dosed?

<comment><USER32> Sure. They had an incredibly bad time with the trip, far worse than what you usually associate with a bad trip. Violence, screaming, paranoia, gibberish. All stuff (maybe apart from the violence) that can happen on a bad one, but this was extreme. Setting was familiar and safe, no external stresses during the period. This was his first time with mushrooms, although regular cannabis smoker (which also might have caused an issue). Regular dose.

The next few days he was still recovering, but thoughts still very scattered and incoherent. Unfortunately this didn't taper off. I had not seen him for a few weeks until his family were in contact. The behaviour had become drastically worse, violence and paranoia. Eventually he was diagnosed with schizophrenia.

From what I have read, with a certain kind of predisposition it would have probably manifested itself later in his life if he was unlucky.

I don't want to put people off Psilocybin as it can be an incredible thing. Just be damn careful and do your research.

<comment><USER33> Thanks. I ask because I've also seen this happen before to someone who was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder. They had a history of dosing often, enough that I'd consider it unhealthy for someone who had a clean bill of mental health. They've returned to "themselves", but clearly suffer significantly from the disorder along with their family.

It's more than sad that this can happen to people. I'm someone who has had beautiful experiences with mushrooms, but also have a family history of schizo-* disorders. It's put me off from taking psychedelics again. It's a risk I don't want to take now that I'm old enough to realize the possible consequences. I recently "lost" a cousin in his late 30s to drug induced schizophrenia after he experienced psychosis on cocaine.

Psychedelics are amazing substances, but family mental health history and set/setting are crucial to keep in mind before ingesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I like how marijuana and psilocybin have no negative side effects and it's taken hundreds of years to be taken seriously as clinical treatments.

Meanwhile, according to the FDA, there were "56,000 emergency room visits, 26,000 hospitalizations, and 458 deaths per year related to acetaminophen- associated overdoses during the 1990s. unintentional acetaminophen overdose accounted for nearly 25 percent of the emergency department visits, 10 percent of the hospitalizations, and 25 percent of the deaths [per year]." [1]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol#Liver_damage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol#Liver_damage)

</comment><comment><USER35> The irony of psilocybin classification as a Schedule 1 drug is that it's not even addictive. But then again, the US government and America in general has never let facts get in the way of their goals to ruin people's lives. People have known this is an effective treatment for depression for many years. How many lives have been ruined simply because of its being illicit and unavailable to treat patients who needed it? When I think about it that way, I can't help but hope these murderers will one day get justice, but I know they won't.

</comment><comment><USER36> Twelve people. No control group. And as a person who has suffered lifelong depression, and up until 2.5 years ago had serious substance problems: duh, drugs change the way you feel.

I'm not saying there's nothing worth exploring here. My personal intuition is that psychedelics could be a huge help in some cases, especially for treatment-resistant depression. But this "study" isn't worth squat.

</comment><comment><USER37> On a similar note, there are many studies about ketamine administration (the anesthetic) having positive impacts on depression and chronic pain.

There are ongoing clinical trials, it has been widely covered in media lately, and many major US cities have doctors who run ketamine clinics.

[https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00088699](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00088699)

[http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/03/what-its-like-to- treat-...](http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/03/what-its-like-to-treat-severe- depression-with-a-hallucinogenic-drug.html)

[http://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2015/09/28/44320359...](http://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2015/09/28/443203592/club-drug-ketamine-gains-traction-as-a-treatment- for-depression)

Is it really surprising to anyone that mind altering chemicals could alter mental states? A silly question, obviously.

</comment><comment><USER38> This is more excellent work by ICL and the Beckley Foundation. Science is rapidly changing in this area.

Check out their publications list from this year alone, a few world firsts in there:

[http://beckleyfoundation.org/resources/science- publications/](http://beckleyfoundation.org/resources/science-publications/)

</comment><comment><USER39> i think we'll be looking back at our time with amusement to say the least - these people, like millions others, were having serious problems for decades (17.8 years avg in the article) while known remedies like cannabis, mushrooms and other stuff is just prohibited out of the irrational fear and powergrab desire driving the war on drugs.

</comment><comment><USER40> Legalize, standardize, tax, repeat. Why is it that difficult? People will do anything to keep their grip on (perceived) power - even if it means destroying someone's life.

Gov't doesn't really want jobs, or tax revenue at the expense of their jobs. What would cops do if they weren't locking up kids for a joint?

<comment><USER41> Not everything is a giant conspiracy theory. If society changed to the point where drugs didn't have such a stigma against them, then the politicians would legalize them. They excel at doing things that are popular - be it good or bad things. Case in point Canada with their goal of legalizing marijuana.

It's harder to do that in the US because you have more conservative people who see drugs as morally repugnant. My prediction is blue states will continue legalizing and red states will be the last holdout.

<comment><USER42> On the other hand, much of the stigma comes from the illegality.

<comment><USER43> Sweden has a long history of strong legislation and rhetoric against all kinds of drugs (except alcohol and tobacco of course). This lead to some pretty strong advertising of the type "One marijuana will leave you a mindless and desolate husk! Don't do any of the marijuanas!". Shown in schools even.

Because of the propaganda to science ratio, this had the awkward effect on people who nevertheless ended up trying weed that they sometimes assumed that the authorities must have been lying about the other drugs as well. So, "Weed didn't kill me. I guess the other stuff is a lot less harmful than they made it out to be as well".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Does anyone know what species is in the picture? Someone on the Flickr page asks if they're Cyanescens. My guess would be Allenii just based on the fact that they were found in San Bruno, but I don't have a good species concept for either.

</comment><comment><USER45> Going through that whole process to run the trial could easily lead to depression.

</comment><comment><USER46> I'm shocked!

</comment><comment><USER47> It's great to see the advances in research that are being done around Psilocybin, MDMA, and Ketamine as the results that are coming out look incredibly promising.

That being said, godDAMN how in the hell is anyone ever going to take studies like this seriously when they're being reported as "Magic Mushrooms" in Scientific American of all places? This isn't raver kiddies eating dried who- knows-what out of ziplock bags at raves, this is a controlled dosing of psilocybin in a medical setting for treatment of a serious illness. The stigma around researching these drugs is never going to go away unless the language itself changes.

<comment><USER48> > Scientific American

My wife got that for a year, and I was quite unimpressed. It's not _that_ detailed, mostly, and there's a lot of not very rigorous editorializing, from what I recall. Also, their 'please renew' campaign was quite deceiptful, sending us some kind of "you owe $$$!!!" notice that was really "you owe $$$ if you want to resubscribe".

<comment><USER49> > Also, their 'please renew' campaign was quite deceiptful, sending us some > kind of "you owe $$$!!!" notice that was really "you owe $$$ if you want to > resubscribe".

It amazes me how the entire magazine industry is like this. The most staid and respectable publications have circulation departments that make my local used car dealer look like a saint. It's a huge disconnect, and has always bothered me.

<comment><USER50> I remember when I was subscribing to The Economist, and they had a dark pattern in the process to trick you into paying for another publication. I strongly considered cancelling (and only didn't because I was ordering for other people as well.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> not surprised

</comment><comment><USER51> They needed a study to show that magic mushrooms make you happy? That is why they are called "magic" mushrooms

</comment><comment><USER52> 12 people isn't a scientific study! Where is the control group? I think maybe we need a few more studies before people go out and start eating magic mushrooms to not be depressed.

<comment><USER53> I'm a bit skeptical of just one small study too. From what I am aware, there have been plenty of other 5-HT2A agonists that are not the "classic" psychedelics out there in the labs, and I rarely see them thought of as anti- depressants in Wiki pages etc. (5HT2A agonists being thought of as other treatments? Yes, treatment of migraines and glaucoma have been mentioned in some of the articles -- one example here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AL-34662](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AL-34662) \-- but a lot of things seem a long way off even there.)

But there's precedent, so who knows. Remember a few years back there was several articles about ketamine being discovered to also helping major depressive disorder? These articles still appear in fact:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health- science/a-one...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health- science/a-one-time-party-drug-is-helping-people-with-deep- depression/2016/02/01/d3e73862-b490-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html) [http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/03/what-its-like-to- treat-...](http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/03/what-its-like-to-treat-severe- depression-with-a-hallucinogenic-drug.html)

From what I am aware, this revelation _was_ a big deal at a deeper level, in that it showed a new pathway to relieving depression -- glutamate. Previously I think almost all anti-depression drugs was based around serotonin. Ketamine on the other hand is an NMDA antagnoist (the NMDA receptor being one of the main binding sites of glutamate) so was completely different than SSRIs.

Hallucinations are honestly considered a "bad side effect" for a clinical anti-depressant, so there has been a fair bit of work in developing drugs that modulate the NMDA receptor / glutamate in a way that relieves major depressive disorder without the psychedelic effects. ([http://www.medpagetoday.com/psychiatry/depression/54448](http://www.medpagetoday.com/psychiatry/depression/54448)) I know that one of them, Rapastinel:

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

Has seemed to move rather quickly through the FDA clinical trials, currently phase 3 / FDA fast track.

I suppose you could attempt to gobble ketamine, too, to try to self-medicate your way out of depression. But there are risks with that approach. (Short of waiting for the big pharmaceutical approach, there are "ketamine clinics" which, while definitely "off label" / experimental, are at least a more controlled way of attempting this treatment.)</comment></comment>


Introducing the Hackpad change feed - <AUTHOR> https://hackpad.com/yvE7V1XnDyo#Introducing-the-Hackpad-change-feed

<comment><USER2> I love Hackpad! Just about all Meteor API designs, emails, and blog posts start life as Hackpads.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hackpad is an excellent collaboration tool, if you don't use it, you should.

</comment><comment><USER4> Please expose this as an RSS or Atom feed!

</comment><comment><USER5> sweet deal</comment>


Poll: What advertising network are you using? – Adsense, Infolinks, Adf.ly etc. - <AUTHOR>

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm using Adsense, Infolinks and Adf.ly on my website; banned.io - but am finding I am not earning what I would expect for the amount of traffic I gain. Perhaps the days of advertising networks is gone..apps maybe now? :/</comment>


Uber says air transportation drones are closer than we think - <AUTHOR> https://dronelife.com/2018/11/27/uber-elevate-its-closer-than-you-think/ <comment><USER2> Electric Osprey-esque coaxial bicopter tiltrotor with ridiculously high disc loading and unguarded props sharing ground-space with pedestrians and then flying over densely populated urban centers? At a communter-friendly price which will enable "transportation at scale"? Oh, it's exactly as close as I think it is.

<comment><USER3> To my understanding the reason helicopters are expensive is the cost of acquiring and operating the airframe.

I would imagine a scaled up drone-like airframe would be a lot more cheaper than helicopter.

That's why I don't think "drones as flying taxis" is as silly as you make it sound. Helicopters are used in urban areas. I don't see any fundamental reason why drones would not work equally well but with more traffic since they would be cheaper.

Like you point out, the unguarded props and so on mean it wouldn't be sharing ground-space with pedestrians - not at least like cars do.

Unless..

I don't know if there any way to do an emergency stop to a large scale electric prop. At least power saws stop instantly to stop cutting limbs away. Maybe there could be a similar "proximity failsafe" in the props of urban taxi-drones.

<comment><USER4> Power saws don't stop instantly. There is a massive amount of energy in those spinning disks. There are some safety mechanisms available (atypically) that use explosive charges to move the blade away and/or physically destroy it (in the case of table saws), but you cant simply stop something with that much momentum.

<comment><USER5> /some/ power saws can stop instantly - if you try and touch this one with a finger it will stop before it can do damage: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiYoBbEZwlk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiYoBbEZwlk)

<comment><USER6> The method these use, retracting the blade, and jamming it into a block of metal to stop the momentum would not work on a aircraft.

This method (whilst pretty amazing) does not work outside of a static machine. You would need a couple of tons of metal attached to each rotor, and thats before getting into what would happen when you actually try and stop the rotor.

<comment><USER7> I am sure it could be made to work. Some kind of shroud designed to crumble in the right way, maybe start rotating itself partly. Not tons of metal. But of course, it would make the airframe a heavier and you'd pay a cost for all flights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Five years ago: We're in the best position to develop autonomous cars.

Now: Look we botched the cars but the airplanes are going to work on the first try!

In five years: Nevermind those crashes we'll be dominating the autonomous spaceship market!

</comment><comment><USER9> I could see the business model working for short haul direct to destination flights, think Bay area -> Tahoe/Yosemite. where driving is slow and conventional airline infrastructure is ineffective. I am however quite doubtful of their ability to engineer a safe consumer-grade osprey at an appropriate cost-point.

<comment><USER10> Imagine it is easy. The downside of it as well.

Whatever capacity that drone will have, it will cost more than a taxi. Now you have already something with high risk and higher price. Who will use it? The avg John Doe? Nope.

It is only usefull for a handfull of people. Probably people who have enough money to use something quicker than a car on the road. Do i wanna have some rich ass idiot flying above me in a city legally?

No.

And for everyone asking why: Noise and Risk.

<comment><USER9> It's a different use case than a taxi. Think 4-6hr drive times down to an hour or so by air - without the hub-to-hub / security restrictions of commercial jets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What I distrust about a race is there is often the willingness to cut corners to be a winner. In the case of an automobile, as long as it doesn't spontaneously explode, flip over when turning a corner at "moderate" speed, or fail to stop when you break, the corner cutting results mostly in annoyance and costly repairs. In the case of a flying vehicle, the list of potential ways to have a very bad day goes up very quickly. The main reason we don't have it yet is because it isn't necessary yet. It would require new dimensions of traffic laws and safety precautions.

</comment><comment><USER12> s/air transportation drones/their ipo

Expect all manner of Hot New Things coming from their PR dept over the next couple quarters.

</comment><comment><USER13> > _Uber is partnering with a variety of aerospace companies to develop a VTOL > vehicle that can overcome the limitations of using helicopters for > transportation at scale: noise and cost._

What about energy efficiency?

Perhaps that's covered under cost? But if not, this could be a step backward in a way.

<comment><USER14> Isn't the primary noise of a helicopter the airflow? Sure the engines make some noise which you could reduce but how do you remove airflow noise and generate enough lift?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that those drones would be bigger than what most people think of as drones.

The typical consumer drone is small, lightweight, but has a range of a few hundred meters even without payload.

The drone Uber is talking about is probably the size of a large suitcase with rotors the size of bicycle wheels; the size would allow it to have a bigger battery to carry some payload and to have a bigger range. I'm not sure if I'd like to see this type of drone flying around in swarms in my city.

<comment><USER8> Military drones are comparable in size. And we don't like to see those flying around cities either.

<comment><USER16> Maybe if you lived in a city in a warzone you'd see more drones overhead?

<comment><USER8> I don't think I would like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Uber's opinion might be distorted by the high importance of being first to autonomous drones / autonomous cars to keep their business model intect and justify their valuation.

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm worried about emissions from the aircraft, which I am guessing will probably be gas powered. Airplane emissions are not as tightly regulated as automobiles. In fact, airplanes are allowed to use leaded fuel [1]. Now imagine a fleet of uber planes flying around constantly over your city.

1\. [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lead-in- aviation-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lead-in-aviation- fuel/)

<comment><USER19> Leaded avgas is going away, although slowly. No one is developing new piston engines or complete aircraft that use it. Any liquid fuels for new aircraft are going to be unleaded gasoline or (more likely) kerosene.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Why is there no discussion of a this response: "Of course Uber says this; they're heavily invested in this tech and want it to succeed."

I don't understand how a tech company that's developing a thing saying the thing is being developed is relevant to bring to everyone's attention.

Why does this exist?

<comment><USER21> How is it not relevant? It's PR to keep excitement and anticipation growing so that they can continue to get investors putting money into it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Sounds the same than Samsung annoncing a foldable smartphone in 2012 and doing the same every year until it inevitably becomes true. I highly doubt we are that close to air transportation but I truly wish I were wrong.

</comment><comment><USER23> A few "drones" flying through the air with 2-4 people aboard, looking down on a traffic jam with hundreds or thousands of cars and this is going to "solve" something?

</comment><comment><USER24> Much closer than self-driving cars, I'd venture to suggest.

</comment><comment><USER25> If you can pay the insurance, anything is possible

</comment><comment><USER26> Airlines at LAX must love their LA plans...

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't think so.</comment>


The Hexacopter - <AUTHOR> http://www.wimp.com/thehexacopter/

<comment><AUTHOR> More information is available here:

<http://mikrokopter.de/ucwiki/en/MikroKopter>

</comment><comment><USER2> The thing shoots off like a bat out of Hell.

Mind, I'm not terribly familiar with RC helicopters - what do more familiar folks think of the performance?</comment>


Track.Tax – Startup that allows contractors to track expenses via SMS - <AUTHOR> https://www.track.tax <comment><USER2> Very nice!</comment>


Firefox adds NextDNS alongside Cloudflare for DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) - <AUTHOR> https://www.neowin.net/news/nextdns-partners-with-firefox-to-help-enhance-user-privacy-and-security <comment><USER2> Why is DOH only used for resolvers. What about authoritative servers. Caches are not authoritative soures of DNS data.

Nameservers for registries and registrars do not offer DOH. DNS over HTTPS is only used for "recursive DNS".

DNSCrypt has the same issue. It is used for resolvers only. It is possible to offer DNSCrypt from authoritative servers with dnscrypt-wrapper, but AFAIK no one does.</comment>


Down to Lunch Founders Pursue Less-Traveled Path to App Success - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/technology/personaltech/down-to-lunch-founders-pursue-less-traveled-path-to-success.html <comment><USER2> I recently did some research on sites like this and one of the oldest ones I found was "Yo You Want To" from 2009. It was basically the same as the others, but what was really interesting was finding analysis of why it and all the similar services since haven't made it by the founder in a comment:

Nikhil Nirmel · Lawdingo Founder

I, too, started a site like this for college kids back in the day (perhaps the first one. See: [http://columbiaspectator.com/2009/11/04/columbia-students- sa...](http://columbiaspectator.com/2009/11/04/columbia-students-say-yo-new- meet-site)). This idea doesn't work. The primary reasons are:

1 - there's not sufficient motivation among people (let alone busy college students) to meet for platonic reasons. Either there's a prospect of clothes coming off, or there isn't interest.

2 - It requires, right out of the gate, a high proportion of students to be on it. It does the app not good if it has ten thousand users spread across 1000 schools.

3 - The time-based expiration means that there has to be huge number of requests posted; a lull in activity will mean there's no content, thus discouraging future activity.

4 - No good way to monetize. No virality since.

5 - And perhaps the biggest problem: even if all of these things were solved, it doesn't add more utility that mere messaging or group messaging.

[http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/30/google-asks-if-you-are- down...](http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/30/google-asks-if-you-are- down/?fb_comment_id=950961164964557_954475077946499)

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, talk about a product that is not on my radar. Right now, I'm too geographically constrained to find it useful (it takes too long to casually meet up with friends), and in New York, we all just group texted each other. I guess this is nice in comparison to mass text/email (I'm speculating since I don't have the app) in that when one person replies "Yes!" or worse, "No", not everyone has to get that message. And right now, Facebook Events seem too formal a mechanism for setting up casual meetups. I could see that differentiation making a product...but how did it reach a critical mass?

It's funny that the article mentions that the app can be used for invitations to a variety of events, _" even a church service"_. This sounds like the kind of app that would seemingly have _originated_ from a church community. A lot of people go to megachurches for the daytime social networking, and stay loyal through small groups (Bible study, recreational sports, etc)...while it's often joked that this serves as a dating service for Christian singles, there's a lot of eagerness for platonic casual meetups, or just wondering if anyone is going to go to Wednesday night service this week. If a pastor recommended his 10,000 congregants to use an app to best stay in touch...I'd think that its adoption would spread very quickly...and the church-going crowd is still a big sector in America.

</comment><comment><USER4> I guess other people enjoy this style of socializing, but I like to know at least the day before if we're supposed to hang out. I get annoyed when a friend texts me "hey let's do this thing right now", or in an hour or whatever. I already had an idea of what I was going to do that day, and it messes that up.

<comment><USER5> On the flipside, that is what makes me feel old.

In my teens/20s, my friends/colleagues and I would just go casually someplace to hang out after work/school without planning squat. (After class) Hey, let's go to x's house and chill. (After work) Everyone, let's go to x bar and unwind for a few hours. Now? I can't remember the last time I could casually say to a friend to hangout tomorrow. Practically everyone (save one's SO) seems like they need a few days to weeks notice in advanced. It's not an exaggeration to say that sometimes I have to book people 2-4 weeks in advance just to have a coffee/lunch! All I have to say is thank god for meetup.com which fills the space in between.

<comment><USER6> I had the same experience when I hit my 30s. I think it's because peoples' social networks expand through their 20s, and there's a bit of a social arms- race once peoples' calendars and social circles start to fill up. It's often considered rude to say "Somebody invited me to something else and I'd rather hang out with them than you, so I have to cancel", so most people take a first-come-first-serve approach to accepting invites. That means that each one of their friends needs to schedule before anyone else gets to them, so peoples' calendars fill up increasingly far out.

And then they get promoted, get married, and have kids, and they don't have time to hang out at all...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've seen this app come up on the App Store search page, took a look and didn't get it. Just gave it a download based on this story.

Maybe I'm just old (28, a couple years older than these guys). But I don't get it. And I'm very much over this "growth hacking" trend. Asked for contacts, I said sure, figuring I'd see if anyone I knew actually used it. I'm now being prompted to share the app with everyone I know on every view of the screen (and it tells me how many friends they have on the service, which just feels weird to me).

At least the growth hacking will aid the inevitable "pivot", where they go Sync.me and sell all that contact book data.

I know I'm just being bitter and jealous. But the app doesn't even support the iPhone 6 screen size! It's literally a hand few of views! Like, how does the New York Times do a full expose on this? Like I wish I could offer to do the UI layout fixes for free, just so I could be less embarrassed that this is one of the top apps available today in my industry.

<comment><USER8> Have you ever thought about the possibility that NYT wrote about it because it's one of the most popular apps nowadays? Snapchat UI used to be super ghetto too. When you provide something that resonates with people, nothing else matters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I built exactly this app (functionally, but even used "down" in our vocab) in 2003 for a class project called Nitester using the web and an AIM bot. If only I had the drive then to push it further rather than jump to the next project :/

[https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~wgg/CSE118/presentations-2003.html](https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~wgg/CSE118/presentations-2003.html)

<comment><USER8> > I built exactly this app (functionally, but even used "down" in our vocab) > in 2003 for a class project called Nitester using the web and an AIM bot. If > only I had the drive then to push it further rather than jump to the next > project :/

Do you seriously think a web based, AIM bot from 2003 is "exactly the same app" as a mobile, iOS, push notification based app of 2016? Your takeaway from this shouldn't be thinking you would have succeeded if you had the drive and kept working on it. There are probably at least tens of thousands of other people who tried solving the same problem, counting myself. I honestly have no idea how this took off because I've seen so many apps that tried to do the same thing and never took off, but these guys did. So I give them credit for the execution.

<comment><USER9> I rarely would say things like I built the same thing, and yes web/mobile are very diff but given the context it effectively was the same thing at that time.

I actually had never seen anyone do anything quite like it since until now -- what are these other ones?

Social is very tricky -- network effect is everything, and the founders ability to time and push that out is a combo of luck and skill. Just looking at the history of chat services is a clear demonstration of that.

Thus I'm not saying nitester was guaranteed to be successful, but the concept was the same, the context was good (I was in college and Facebook didn't exist yet so social was open), and I had the friend networks and already threw big parties/raves. I just regret not giving it a bigger shot. It did help me get into MIT for grad school so at least something good came out of my laziness :)

<comment><USER8> If you are asking "where are these other ones" you probably need to do some market research. There are many many many others that are much more "exactly the same" as this than yours. You can start here: [https://www.producthunt.com/tech/down-to- lunch](https://www.producthunt.com/tech/down-to-lunch)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't recommend that founders pose for photos in their office in their bare feet (and while eating!). Yuk.</comment>


Nowjs for Node - Directly call remote functions in Javascript - <AUTHOR> http://nowjs.com/ <comment><USER2> Previous thread with more discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2316005>

</comment><comment><USER3> Is it your plan to just spam HackerNews with this project? I'm going to put this to rest here: __this is not interesting __

Just use dnode and socket.io. The authors (substack and guille respectively) have ridiculous chops when it comes to Node.js and have been working on their projects for more than a year.

[http://substack.net/posts/85e1bd/DNode-Asynchronous- Remote-M...](http://substack.net/posts/85e1bd/DNode-Asynchronous-Remote- Method-Invocation-for-Node-js-and-the-Browser) <http://socket.io>

<comment><USER2> NowJS dev here: regardless of what you may think of our project, we are not responsible for this post. We posted a link to nowjs exactly once and also two unrelated projects/blog posts that did not promote NowJS in any way.

I'm going to put this to rest here: we do not endorse this dupe post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> See also dnode: similar functionality, but more mature.

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5317282/what-is-the- diffe...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5317282/what-is-the-difference- between-dnode-and-nowjs)</comment>


New Firefox OS Images - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/19/omg-new-firefox-os-images/

<comment><USER2> Interesting. It looks nice enough, but I wonder how well it will be able to differentiate itself from Android?

I guess, at any rate, it's good to have some more competition in the mobile space.

<comment><USER3> "how well it will be able to differentiate itself from Android"

I think, two reasons:

1\. Its a browser, so no native code. This will attract more developers. Building apps will be easy for web developers.

2\. Companies like HTC, Samsung. They will try to go with this and not with Google's Android.

<comment><USER4> Virtually all Firefox OS apps should also run on Android (maybe with a trivial wrapper), but Android apps will not run on Firefox OS. This sounds like a problem for developer adoption.

I would also say that building Web apps is easier only if you don't care about the resulting quality (e.g. buttery smoothness).</comment></comment></comment>


Why it costs so much to be poor in America - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/01/25/why-it-costs-so-much-to-be-poor-in-america <comment><USER2> Yep. I, and I'm sure a lot of others here, have been on both ends of this spectrum. I remember having to roll quarters to go to the city to pay the water bill (they wouldn't accept loose change and a money order from the corner store was $1.49 which was often 5% of my water bill at the time) and then wait under the clerk's wary gaze while the coin rolls were counted and a couple of random rolls were verified.

The worst was the electric bill. I've been in the exact situation described in the article, past due by under $100 and service remotely cut off. TXU Energy wanted a grand total of $793 to restart service, including the past due balance, a reconnection fee, and a deposit (plus a fee for taking such a large deposit). Fortunately, at least at the time, Texas' deregulated energy market rules didn't prohibit a subscriber from switching companies even when owing a balance to a previous one, so I was able to get my mother to co-sign on my having service with Texas-New Mexico Power.

These days, two jobs and many salary rises later? My water/sewer/garbage bill is direct debited from my checking account, same for the gas bill. Seattle City Light, CenturyLink, T-Mobile, and every other bill? Automatically charged to one of a handful of credit cards I have with >$20,000 limits. The house where I live ran into a medium-sized electrical problem that cost about $5,300 to fix. Instead of panicking, I charged the bill to a credit card and then used a 0% balance transfer on another one to make it be an interest free loan for 18 months.

I spent more in one year on overdraft fees ($1,550) back in the early 2000s than I spend on mobile phone service ($1,200) this year, to say nothing of all of the costs for payday loans and late fees and all of that. Being poor in America absolutely sucks ass and, the worst part is, I'm pretty sure virtually every one of our societal and financial systems is engineered to enforce that feeling of helplessness, not to make it better.

<comment><USER3> I spent months repeatedly buying disposable dishes because I couldn't afford real ones. Ironically, I couldn't save the meager amount to purchase real dishware because of the perpetual cost of disposable dishes. My brother once told me that he had a similar situation with candles eating into his paycheck when his power had been shut off.

If your current paycheck doesn't take you far enough to solve the problem, you have to pay for substandard stop-gap solutions in between. This serves to prolong the time it takes to accumulate the capital needed for a permanent solution.

<comment><USER4> This reminds me of how constantly rushing to fill the client tickets and accumulating technical debt eats into a development team's ability to ever address the core problems in their software.

<comment><USER5> Industryautomation here: It always takes two. One to tackle customers complaining and keeping the system running, one two actually diagnose and fix the problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Had a similar experience with a relative that did some time in prison.

The conditions of parole required weekly visits to a far off parole officer visit that had no public transportation access.

So, no prospects to get a job because of (now almost universal) background checks. So, no income. And a defacto requirement to either have a car, or have money for a 15 mile Uber trip every week.

It basically means that if you are a parolee, you beg friends and family, or violate and return to prison for longer than your original sentence. The trip is a 3 hour commitment, so begging doesn't work well unless you have a really flexible friend or relative.

Oy. Guess what cycle that creates? People turning down parole just to not have that monkey on their back. Trading 5+ years of their lives because they can't satisfy an impossible ask. All for drug addict type issues... possession, shoplifting, public intox, loitering, driving with no insurance, etc. No violence, no real palpable victims other than themselves. US problem if you didn't guess already.

<comment><USER7> > possession, shoplifting, public intox, loitering, driving with no insurance, > etc. No violence, no real palpable victims other than themselves

I'm with you on all but one of these -- driving with no insurance seems like a seriously bad idea, and should have consequences. Two tons of steel, even at moderate 35mph speed, is a lot of damn momentum and can do some real damage, and most certainly should be insured.

<comment> crooked-v If you have no money, how do you pay for insurance to drive so you can get a job so you can have money?

<comment><USER8> How do you buy a car in the first place if you have no money?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Yeah, barely scratching the surface.

Can't afford a car or taxi/Lyft/whatever? You're going to lose hours _every single day_ trying to get around. Hard to work two jobs to make a decent income when you can't get to either one expediently.

Don't have a job? Good luck getting to interviews on time. Good luck when they ask whether you have reliable transportation. And heaven forbid you have a felony on your record. And whatever you do, don't twist your ankle walking to the grocery store, because miss too much time from work and you're fired.

Oh, you do have a car? Good luck paying for decent tires, or gas, or the tow bill when it inevitably breaks down, or to replace the glass when someone breaks into it, or the insurance, or...

Money begets money. Poverty begets poverty.

<comment><USER10> I sympathize and agree with your general points. I do wonder about the general idea that there is nothing you can do. People can get bus fare for $1 [1]. They can scrounge money from people they know or total strangers to get more. They can move, even as a transient to a larger city. They can get housing in the new city with public support. They can live in shelters overnight until the support comes through. They can get jobs within walking distance in the city. They can do all of this on their own or with a little help from their fellow humans. Humanity has done this for thousands of years.

Would I want to do any of that? No. Would I if necessary. Yes.

1 - [https://us.megabus.com/](https://us.megabus.com/)

<comment><USER9> In my city, you can use the bus system and still lose hours each day getting around. And try moving as a transient with young children. Or other family who needs you. Or as a rehabbing drug addict.

<comment><USER9> I also suspect that moving to a new location and throwing yourself at the mercy of the locals worked a lot better when there were fewer people.

(Warning: unsupported speculation follows.)

The more crowded our environment gets, the more we feel that helping someone in need is someone else's problem, and the less likely it is that the random person who might be able to lend you a room, for example, feels confident the community will back _them_ up if you turn out to be trouble.

The kind of charity you need as a transient is harder to come by at an individual level than it used to be. You're more reliant on institutions, and that's a thin safety net to rely on to throw yourself across the country.

<comment><USER11> > The more crowded our environment gets, the more we feel that helping someone > in need is someone else's problem

This reminded me of the Murder of Kitty Genovese, AKA the Bystander Effect. However, I just looked it up, and it sounds like recently researchers have questioned the validity of the original story, claiming that NYT exaggerated the number of witnesses.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It was only a few years ago that almost all of this article applied to me. I remember before the cfpb forced banks to make overdraft "protection" out-in and being charged $35 instead of the card being declined. I remember biking across town at 5in the morning to make $35/day at a day labor place then giving 2 of those dollars to a check cashing place. Unless you've been poor, you really have no idea how hard it is to get out of that position. And if you have anything on your record, you can forget about not being poor. A record is a lifetime sentence of poverty in America unless you have connections or family wealth.

</comment><comment><USER13> Why does anyone have an account at Bank of America or Wells Fargo? There is a community bank in every town in the country.

<comment><USER14> Agreed. Bank with a local credit union. It's a better deal in general, and, when you hit an issue, you can talk to a human who a) gives a shit, and b) can actually do something to help you.

<comment><USER15> I spent about 6 hours in a local credit union finalizing a loan for a new car I purchased early last year.

They had made some mistakes, specifically saying they could extend the initial certification beyond 30 days when they could not, and couldn't disperse the funds without having the loan re-certified by a loan officer. Unfortunately, it was a Saturday and there were no loan officers on-hand. Double unfortunately, they needed the _original_ bill of sale (pink carbon paper) to certify the loan.

Every single bit of the process of getting this loan was like pulling teeth. That said, they pulled it off even on a Saturday. They realized they had made a mistake, they called in a loan officer who came to the branch on a Saturday and certified the loan. They even stayed open about two hours late so we could drive to the dealership and get the pink-slip and drive back.

While the whole process was kafkaesque compared to dealer financing, unlike dealer financing these people were friendly and genuinely seemed to want to help and they did genuinely everything in their power to actually help.

And, I got a crazy-low interest rate on my loan too.

If they just spent a bit more time on their process, say, a PDF with a list of information on what you need to provide for a loan and when and things like approval expiration timelines they could make the process so much more pleasurable.

In any event, A+++ would credit union again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _If you do not have it, the alternative is a low-end hotel where you can pay by the week, which lacks the upfront cost but costs much more over time — for the room itself but also increased food costs and life complexity._

This ignores hotel taxes which often run 15-20% with the revenue earmarked for attracting tourism/convention traffic. In some ways, hotel taxes may be the most regressive commonly imposed tax scheme in the US.

<comment><USER17> A friend of mine who was having a hard time was doing a mix of squatting, camping outside, crashing with friends and staying in a cheap hotel when she had the money.

The hotel itself charged refundable deposits that were 20% of nightly rent, and looked for ways not to refund them (checking out two minutes late, letting another guest come in your room). Meanwhile, prostitutes and drug dealers more or less only visit rooms in the high end hotels less than a mile away with nobody batting an eye.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> On the banking side, some of it is fairly straight forward - the estimates I've seen say it cost ~$100-$500 for a bank to administer a checking account annually. The current net interest margin banks earn on your money in the US is 3.15%.

Which means if a bank charges no fees - and it costs them $315 to administer your account - you need to maintain a $10,000 balance for them to break even.

Once you understand that dynamic - you understand that banks that want to offer low balance free checking - need to either make it up on fees or on cross selling opportunities...

<comment><USER19> _the estimates I've seen say it cost ~$100-$500 for a bank to administer a checking account annually._

Is that an average or an actual cost per account?

<comment><USER20> And what is the breakdown on that? What's actually costing the banks that much?

<comment><USER18> I don't know the breakdown, but it's: banking software, mailed account statements, debit cards, phone support centers, websites, bank branches, compliance, ATM networks, check processing etc.

Obviously some of these costs scale very cheaply, but there is quite a bit that goes into a modern bank account+ some customers are costlier than others (lost of call center calls/lost debit cards for example)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is why I left the United States. I live in Germany, and while every place has its drawbacks, I feel safe, have affordable housing, and don't have to worry about healthcare and predatory things like this if things go south.

</comment><comment><USER22> Single serve items like shampoo, candy, soap are readily available in developing countries like Nepal, they cost much more than the normal sizes we receive in the developed world when you adjust for the quantities. Much worse for the environment over here as well, have seen so many plastic fires in the city with the single serve packaging being utilized as fuel.

Being broke sucks, capitalism at its finest.

</comment><comment><USER23> Being poor always costs more. Rich people can shop around for better deals on pretty much everything, if they want to (eg lower interest rates, lower taxes, etc). Many options that are available to the rich are definitely not available to the poor, and that doesn't even factor in the charges talked about in the article. It doesn't surprise me one bit, sadly.

</comment><comment><USER24> "and, the worst part is, I'm pretty sure virtually every one of our societal and financial systems is engineered to enforce that "

</comment><comment><USER25> I can sympathize with some of the poor people who had accidental expenses that they could not have planned for. But I'm really having trouble understanding how this article makes it seem those fees are hard to avoid as poor person.

When I was living under $1000 budget, overdraft fee was unheard of, because when you have very little money, it's easy to manage, you only need a few hundred dollars in your account for daily spending. And bigger purchases (>$100) are planned so they can be actually paid for. I also never knew there were consequences for paying electricity late, because renting my own place is out of my budget.

Funnily, I only ran into those "poor people" issues like expensive credit card interest, overdraft fees, predator car loans after getting my first full-time developer job, because I stopped managing my expenses.

<comment><USER6> It's the unexpected stuff. Parking tickets when you honestly didn't mean to do anything wrong, your car unexpectedly dying, roto rooter for the pipe that blew in your shitty mobile home, the surprise tax bill because you filled out your W2 wrong, the unexpected 2x bump for your bottom end heath insurance, your car's catalytic converter dies and it won't pass inspection, your Mom that suddenly has Alzheimer's, lease renewal comes up and your neighborhood has been gentrified and is suddenly 2x the original cost, right sizing and layoffs, etc. Maybe you can work out a paycheck to paycheck strategy, but chaos theory gets you eventually.

I lived this, and got past it, but luck was a big part of it. Right place, right time, and some hero[1] gave me a chance. Not everyone is this lucky.

[1] Big thanks Gene, if you're still out there.

<comment><USER26> Don't forget the toll it takes on your psychologically. That's the worst part. Still haunts me.

The Genes out there are rightly heros.

<comment><USER6> Good to hear from a fellow "survivor". I'm stunned to have gone from living in my car to being a middle class dope. Lost touch with Gene, I hope he did well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> How much money do you have to have to eliminate this?

-> How much money do you need to start a bank?

-> How much money do you need to start a school?

-> How much money do you need to start an organization such that regular people can join and said organization can provide health care benefits this country really needs?

-> What does it take to start an organization that can attract talent to be sustainable and simultaneously have a structure such that it can provide the above benefits?

<comment><USER11> Go for it, and report back to us.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Take money where it is: in poors' pockets! They do not have much but they are so many!

</comment><comment><USER28> Take money where it is, in poors' pockets: they do not have much but they are so many!

</comment><comment><USER29> _"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."_

<comment><USER30> The boots is just the beginning. Through financial products, the rich actually get paid simply for having money, while the banks charge fees to customers simply for being poor.

Banks charging customers simply for being pior is just the tip of the iceberg of how our society is designed to increase the stratification of rich and poor.

The more you already have, the more you can make money just by having more than other people. It's exponential increases on returns the richer you get.

The poorer you get the harder it is to make even slight progress toward bettering your situation.

But we as "normal people" are to blame for this. We all agree to play by the rules of a few mentally ill sociopaths and that's really on us.

<comment><USER31> > But we as "normal people" are to blame for this. We all agree to play by the > rules of a few mentally ill sociopaths and that's really on us.

That it's true.

But I've also seen in a lot of countries poor people voting for policies which will actually make them poorer.

Poor people arguing against universal health care. Arguing against taxes for the rich and regulation.

Typically because they are tricked to fight against other poor people (other religions, other ethnicities, other backgrounds)

<comment><USER32> I know it is easy to assume that people are tricked. Perhaps the obvious alternative is that they are evil. If you want to understand these people, consider that they instead have different values which do not derive from a fight against other poor people.

People will vote against government benefits for many reasons, even if at first glance it seems to hurt them.

One reason is self-respect. Many of these voters feel terrible if they are getting government help. They might feel a need to take it if offered, but also feel that it isn't right. It can feel like stealing and it can feel like being treated as a child. Some people value independence and do not want to be tempted with dependence.

Another reason is a concern for the economy. If a bit of welfare is good, then lots of welfare must be extra-good... but then nobody works (except under treat of arrest) and you have an economy like that of Venezuela. So if that is what we'd get, voting to go the other way is the safer choice.

Some people feel a religious opposition to taxing the wealthy: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology)

<comment><USER33> > One reason is self-respect. Many of these voters feel terrible if they are > getting government help. They might feel a need to take it if offered, but > also feel that it isn't right. It can feel like stealing and it can feel > like being treated as a child. Some people value independence and do not > want to be tempted with dependence.

Which is a perfect example of what people have been tricked to believe and then it got repeated as often as possible to make sure it gets burned into peoples brain to make them believe "that's just the way I am"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I was thinking about just this today. There's an interesting corollary, though: just as it can be a vicious cycle downwards, it can also be a virtuous cycle _upwards_.

<comment><USER35> > just as it can be a vicious cycle downwards, it can also be a virtuous cycle > upwards.

Hrm. I see how the two are _options_, but they aren't in equal proportion.

Did Wells Fargo take the fees earned from the millions of accounts they created during their sales-quota scandal and use it to subsidize other poor account holders? More likely than not, they simply used it to pay into their capital reserves and redistribute to shareholders.

I have the strong suspicion that there are mental blocks that prevent people from addressing their low balance (in addition to not being flush with cash). My father kept getting a very noticeable "overdraft fee" postcard in the mail. I offered to help him keep a floating balance just to keep him from paying the $25-50 per overdraft. He declined and continued to get a few per month. It was simply mentally taxing for him to move his money from one checking account to another in time for his checks and other payments to clear.

I hope all of the {Facebook, Twitter, *gram, etc.} A/B testing programmers retire from "growth hacking" social media websites and start putting those psychology-manipulating skills to non-profits that help people train themselves to lose less money. I suspect one of the reasons many people are poor is because they simply haven't learned to "life hack" the small things that prevent you from losing money (as opposed to making more).

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Direct deposit frequently just means ACH transfer, which can even be from your own account at another bank. Need $250 in direct deposit? Transfer $125 in on the 1st, out the 7th, in the 15th, out the 22nd.

<comment><USER37> No. Most banks can see the difference between an ACH and direct deposit. M&T doesn't, but Chase does for example.

<comment><USER36> Oh? Chase was actually the bank I was thinking of, since they waived the fee on my account as a result of transfers from another account. Been a few years though.</comment></comment></comment>


iPhone 11 performs 134% faster than best Android flagships on Speedometer 2.0 - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1174802413548474368 <comment><USER2> The interesting news here is that it's 20% faster than the XS. IIRC A-Series chips have a special optimization for an operation very frequently used by Javascript runtimes.

This unmatched performance may be a very good reason for them to switch to ARM, at least on their "browsing machine" Macbook Air.</comment>