Ask HN: What non-email tool do you use for internal discussions?   - <AUTHOR>

Where I work, we have too much noise in our inbox. Consequently, it's difficult to get people to concentrate on the more-involved discussions because they are too distracted with calendaring meetings and booking travel.<p>If you aren't using a primarily email-based tool (like a listserv), what do you use to facilitate in-depth, asynchronous discussions on internal and confidential issues? <comment><USER2> We use blimp ([http://getblimp.com](http://getblimp.com)). Works very well.

</comment><comment><USER3> We actually use Skype at work, but I'd go with IRC if it was up to me.

</comment><comment><USER4> I like Jabber (XMMP) w/ persistent 'chat rooms'.</comment>


Is Having a Child Really as Bad as Taking 72 Transatlantic Flights a Year? - <AUTHOR> https://auclimate.wordpress.com/2018/04/07/carbon-legacies-and-responsibility-is-having-a-child-really-as-bad-as-taking-72-transatlantic-flights-a-year/ <comment><USER2> In terms of total accumulated radiation damage, the flights are much worse because having a child produdes no additional radiation explosure - transatlantic flights certainly do!</comment>


Show HN: Coronacoach – Dealing with the Pandemic - <AUTHOR> https://coronacoa.ch/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey, this is Philipp from Pocketcoach ([https://www.pocketcoach.co/](https://www.pocketcoach.co/))

I want to share a tool we built in the last days ([https://coronacoa.ch/](https://coronacoa.ch/)).

The aim is to help people educate and cope with the pandemic in a calm and positive conversation.

Our goal is that if you feel anxious or are worrying about the current situation, you have a chat with Coronacoach and feel a bit better afterwards. :)

Feedback so far was quite positive, ranging from people who it really helped a lot and made a difference in their life to people who finally could find a way to relax for a moment with an exercise.

The tool was built with [http://landbot.io/](http://landbot.io/) The app behind it is made with React-native and we also do have free content in the app to help deal with anxiety, stress and a course about the coronavirus.

I truly hope this helps at least one person on HN

all the best from Austria</comment>


UK Climategate Investigation Conclusion: Hiding the Decline was "Misleading" - <AUTHOR> http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/08/uk-climategate-investigation-conclusion-hiding-the-decline-was-misleading/

<comment><USER2> The linked article is dishonest. It does quote the investigation report correctly, but then expands on what it allegedly means in a way that is entirely inconsistent with what the explanatory text in the report (which they don't quote) says.

So, after the text they quote ending "... the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading", the investigation report says:

 _We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain -- ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text._

So the complaint is not that there's anything wrong with the results, but that they should have said more about the procedure by which they were obtained. The Heritage Foundation, on the other hand, says:

 _What they were trying to hide was the discrepancy between actual temperature readings and the temperatures suggested by tree ring data. They have relied on tree ring data to show that the earth was cooler in the past. If the tree ring data is not reliable (as the discrepancy in recent years would suggest), then maybe the earth was actually hotter in the past than these researchers would have us believe -- and perhaps the hot temperatures of recent years do not represent unprecedented global warming but just natural variation in climate._

So the Heritage Foundation's complaint is that the tree-ring reconstructions might be just plain wrong, and that the CRU's material obscures that and therefore suggests more confidence in AGW than is justified by the data. Note first of all that none of that is supported by the material from the investigation report. Secondly, it happens that the investigation report _does_ comment on the issue of whether recent divergence between tree-ring data and temperature shows what the Heritage Foundation suggest it shows. Here's what the report says:

 _21\. We do not find that the way that data derived from tree rings is described and presented in IPCC AR4 and shown in its Figure 6.10 is misleading. In particular, on the question of the composition of temperature reconstructions, we found no evidence of exclusion of other published temperature reconstructions that would show a very different picture. The general discussion of sources of uncertainty in the text is extensive, including reference to divergence. In this respect it represented a significant advance on the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR.)_

 _22\. On the allegation that the phenomenon of "divergence" may not have been properly taken into account when expressing the uncertainty associated with reconstructions, we are satisfied that it is not hidden and that the subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers._

In other words: when you look at the bit of the investigation report that's concerned with the _exact issue the Heritage Foundation is complaining about here_ , it turns out that they think that complaint is invalid. But of course that doesn't fit the Heritage Foundation's agenda, so instead they quote a different portion of the report and pretend it says what they want it to say.

<comment><USER3> >> So the complaint is not that there's anything wrong with the results, but that they should have said more about the procedure by which they were obtained.

Then we just would have had people screaming about the conspiracy basing everythin on data they even admitted themselves was invalid. The "Broader Issues" section is actually more interesting:

 _35\. Handling the blogosphere and non traditional scientific dialogue. One of the most obvious features of the climate change debate is the influence of the blogosphere. This provides an opportunity for unmoderated comment to stand alongside peer reviewed publications; for presentations or lectures at learned conferences to be challenged without inhibition; and for highly personalized critiques of individuals and their work to be promulgated without hindrance. This is a fact of life, and it would be foolish to challenge its existence. >>The Review team would simply urge all scientists to learn to communicate their work in ways that the public can access and understand. That said, a key issue is how scientists should be supported to explain their position,<< and how a public space can be created where these debates can be conducted on appropriate terms, where what is and is not uncertain can be recognised._

The only people who (think they) have time to read scientific papers are (1) other scientists, and (2) people with an agenda. I've tried to read a couple, and keep getting lost and having to re-read parts, and maybe go look up what things mean, and it generally takes forever.

 _36\. Openness and Reputation. An important feature of the blogosphere is the extent to which it demands openness and access to data. A failure to recognise this and to act appropriately, can lead to immense reputational damage by feeding allegations of cover up. Being part of a like minded group may provide no defence. Like it or not, >>this indicates a transformation in the way science has to be conducted in this century<<._

They really can't be blamed too much, since what they did to make things worse didn't _used_ to make things worse.

Also, _sufficient_ openness on issues that attract public attention is likely _really hard_. Scientific papers are meant to be read by other scientists in the same field, so they tend to be inaccessible to the general public. So you need to publish everything twice, once in a standard in-group format, and once in some sort of hypertext form that explains (or links to) all the details that you don't have to care about inside your in-group because everybody already knows them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> _The researchers were not trying to hide evidence of a decline in global temperatures over the last decade we have plenty of actual thermometer readings to show temperatures in recent years. What they were trying to hide was the discrepancy between actual temperature readings and the temperatures suggested by tree ring data. They have relied on tree ring data to show that the earth was cooler in the past. If the tree ring data is not reliable (as the discrepancy in recent years would suggest), then maybe the earth was actually hotter in the past than these researchers would have us believe and perhaps the hot temperatures of recent years do not represent unprecedented global warming but just natural variation in climate._

Sounds reasonable (unless there's some other very solid evidence that the trees really are linked to temperature as the model says, and just nobody talks about it because everyone who knows thinks everyone else is too stupid to bother with).

 _Now let's see if the media can report the result in a way that is not itself misleading._

It's the media, their "core competency" is writing to attract eyeballs for advertisers. I'd take that to mean they'll be (accidentally, even) misleading by default, and since they don't know more than the rest of us they won't know to correct for that.

<comment><USER4> As far as I can gleen, this line of thinking is considered completely unreasonable by right-thinking people. As for explaining why this is so, I will need to leave that in the hands of one of those right-thinking people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> These guys definitely have a political agenda to push, so take their conclusions with a healthy dose of salt. The Wikipedia entry has more: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation>

<comment><USER6> _These guys definitely have a political agenda to push, so take their conclusions with a healthy dose of salt._

Good advice. Could be usefully applied to just about everything ever written on the subject of global warming, unfortunately.

(...except this comment. I am untainted.)

<comment> william-newman Good advice would be "so be particularly careful to check whether their arguments are logically sound and properly documented;" the original advice to skip past the quality of arguments and data to "so take their conclusions with a healthy grain of salt" is bad advice. The ad hominem fallacy isn't just unsound in principle, it tends to be pretty useless in practice. It can look reasonable at the time if there's enough groupthink, but would anyone like to nominate some cases where with two or more generations of hindsight we can agree that ad hominem arguments were a better guide to truth than simply addressing the technical arguments? And it can be wrong no matter how impressively much circumstantial evidence suggests that there could easily be a political motive: see, e.g., <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Conquest> .

<comment><USER5> I wasn't saying their conclusions are automatically wrong, but merely pointing out that this one requires a little bit more scrutiny given the obvious political leanings.

It's like reading a science paper that questions something with a ton of evidence behind it. You just have to ask "really?" of all their claims before accepting it or rejecting it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's 2010, and there are _still_ people pushing this tired old "climate change is all a made up conspiracy" crap?? I despair.

<comment><USER8> I'm more disappointed that it's 2010 and people are still talking about Climategate on HN.

<comment><USER9> You're disappointed that someone posted a followup article to something that received a lot of attention? On the contrary, that's exactly what I like to see (although perhaps not this particular spin). Followups may not be as interesting as the original debacles, but they are more informative.</comment></comment></comment>


Whats the dark side of Silicon Valley? - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/Silicon-Valley/Whats-the-dark-side-of-Silicon-Valley

<comment><USER2> I keep getting headhunted for positions in the bay area. I keep saying no. Founders and recruiters can't seem to understand why -- as if it has never occurred to them that someone would turn down an offered interview based solely on location. Michael Church's answer is exactly why I won't ever, ever move to the SF Bay area.

</comment><comment><USER3> Vaguely interesting. To read the rest of my comment you must sign in...</comment>


12 San Francisco Tech Obsessions That New Yorkers Haven't Discovered Yet - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/08/12-sf-obsessions-new-york-hasnt-discovered-yet.html

<comment><USER2> I cannot be the only person in NY reading HN! NY Mag has it wrong.. maybe it won't be the next Page Six, but there is an audience here in NYC.

Uber is so entrenched, I am not sure Lyft will ever catch on at this point. I, for one, will never get in a car with a pink mustache.

</comment><comment><USER3> Spoiler Alert: everybody's favorite website is on the list.</comment>


In-office Table Tennis ranking app (looking for a couple BETA users) - <AUTHOR> http://www.pingpongninja.com/

<comment><USER2> Forgive my ignorance, but is there some reason why Table Tennis ranking is different than any other kind of sports ranking?</comment>


Define 'Correct'. Conways 'life' and the central clock - <AUTHOR> http://jacquesmattheij.com/Define+Correct+-+Conways+life+and+the+central+clock <comment><USER2> "Karl's book takes clockless concurrent process to be fundamental(as it is in nature)." - from a review of _Computer Science Reconsidered_ :

[http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Science-Reconsidered- Invocati...](http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Science-Reconsidered-Invocation- Expression/dp/0471798142/)

From the same author:

[http://www.amazon.com/Logically-Determined-Design- Clockless-...](http://www.amazon.com/Logically-Determined-Design-Clockless- Convention/dp/0471684783/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Each cell could implement a Phase Locked Loop that locks to one of its neighbors. This would decentralize the clock while the system remains self- referentially synchronous. You would still need a reference signal to start the system's initial frequency and phase, but then I think you can remove the reference and the system would continue in sync.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-locked_loop>

<comment><AUTHOR> I've once seen this amazing little demo of electronic 'fireflies' that self synchronized after an initial period of instability.

<http://www.instructables.com/id/Synchronizing-Fireflies/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The author is doomed. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability_in_electronics>

In short if your digital circuit is going to accept arbitrary patterns of inputs then there will be cases that cause it to produce non-stable output for arbitrary periods of time. Curse you, laws of physics.

<comment><AUTHOR> From that same wikipedia article:

> Metastable states are believed to be inherent features of asynchronous > digital systems and systems with more than one clock domain, but careful > design can often make the probability of a system failing very small indeed.

Which is more or less what I'm getting at, I wonder about the 'careful design' domain. Not perfect, but good enough to get the job done.</comment></comment>


Manipulating Human Psychology To Turn Users Into Addicts - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@dankaplan/the-complete-moral-bankruptcy-of-manipulating-human-psychology-to-turn-users-into-addicts-d09b98281ef <comment><USER2> When you think about technology critics none seems more relevant today than Aldous Huxley.

The traditional Hollywood criticism on technology goes along the lines of Frankenstein, Metropolis, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Terminator and Matrix: technology will control us. I find it dumb, frankly.

Then there is the political criticism along the lines of George Orwell and some Luddites: technology is a tool for control and domination either by governments or evil capitalists. It is not totally wrong (e.g.: China, Turkey) but not the exact true sometimes.

But the Huxley criticism is, for me, the most interesting: technology will entertain us to stupidity, apathy and alienation. This seems to be very much the case in here.

<comment><USER3> We are in a society that has the distractions of Huxleys world with the surveliance of Orwell. The only thing different is the fact that no one expected our computers to get so small . That we would stare at screens that watch us every hour of every day. The anime psycho pass is much more relevant .

<comment><USER4> I think it's easy to get hung up on the means (that each authored). But as we know, the prediction business is a tough one.

For example, Orwell (in 1984) focused on the filtering, manipulation, constriction and reconstruction of information in order to continuouly redraw the history / truth. But today the truth is something that's often just as fuzzy because we're overwhelmed with too much information and too many distractions. Different means, same ends (read: confused and manipulated proles).

But it's the ends that matter. Both Huxley and Orwell have warned us. The irony is, at this point, too few are paying attention.

<comment><USER5> The truth has always been fuzzy/slippery. There never was a golden age of unbiased nothing-but-the-correct-truth journalism. The only change now is it's a little more obvious.

<comment><USER6> > The truth has always been fuzzy/slippery. There never was a golden age of > unbiased nothing-but-the-correct-truth journalism. The only change now is > it's a little more obvious.

And IMO that realization is a sort of "coming of age" that isn't in any way unique to modern generations.

When you become an adult and realize that the people running the show are just humans like you...

And that anyone selling you a simple "one right perspective" is only selling you part of the truth.

<comment><USER7> Or you realise that anyone selling you anything is merely wanting your money.

These days media organisations cause outrage for the sole purpose of getting you mad, only to read the article and realise the title is nonsense and you've just given them ad money.

<comment><USER8> I think you're wrong in a tiny but important point. It's not "All media organisations offer you senseless outrage and clickbait", it's "Some media organisations". There are plenty of meaningful, in-depth, well-written articles which provide new viewpoints on topics that it's important to talk about. You just have to find mediums. And I find it important to honor them instead of claiming "all media provides bullshit", which fuels a certain, toxic "truth is no where in media" atmosphere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My knee-jerk reaction to the book Hooked (which I've somewhat shamefully avoided reading out of a sort of premeditated disgust) was based on the general arguments laid out in this blog post.

I believe the tech world has a huge problem on its hands here, and that problem doesn't get anywhere near the attention it deserves. Large swaths of the population are turning into zombies and tech is the facilitator. Try looking at the drivers turning through a busy intersection some time. It's obscene how many are staring down at their phones rather than at whatever might be in the road around the corner.

That said, I don't believe the problem is simply that certain products remind or encourage people to use them at times. Rather, it's that there is a class of truly addictive products that don't do much (if anything) to help people manage the resulting dependency. And that approach is celebrated far more than it's scrutinized.

Coincidentally, I wrote the following on Twitter yesterday:

"Any potentially addictive software/service should offer a way for users to lock themselves out of their own account for a predetermined set of hours." [0]

It was meant in my usual tongue-in-cheek style, but I do think that a solution for breaking tech product dependency is sorely needed and hope this discussion gains some steam.

[0] [https://twitter.com/ncantelmo/status/930876372620374017](https://twitter.com/ncantelmo/status/930876372620374017)

<comment><USER10> "Any potentially addictive software/service should offer a way for users to lock themselves out of their own account for a predetermined set of hours."

It's really noticeable that Hacker News provides exactly this feature, and absolutely no other site that I've seen does.

<comment><USER11> Discussion regaring profile options: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4855004](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4855004)

For years I resorted to hacking /etc/hosts to block HN. Mentally, I just assumed that no website would have such settings so I never bothered to learn what noprocrast meant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> IMO tech has simply become the dominant form of media. People who would earlier spend 3 hours/day watching TV might now spend 4 hours/day on Netflix/FB/Twitter etc.

The fundamental problem is not tech, it is the incentives of those who pay for the media we consume. Advertisers pay for media and it is in their interest to make the medium as addictive as possible. And when there is enough money to be made as an employee or shareholder of ad companies like FB/Google, people look the other way as long as they benefit.

The root problem is simple greed, and its a very old problem. Things are not going to change anytime soon as long as people are able to rationalize doing a small amount of evil for enough money/prestige. (not to say I wouldn't do the same)

Thats why these discussions seem pointless to me. Ultimately the people paying/investing in a company decide how a company operates, and they do not give a f __* about the next article telling us how bad the product is. Even ordinary shareholders will happily buy FB stock if its projected to go up, nevermind why that is. When you operate within an economic system that is built solely to optimize revenue... it optimizes revenue, at all social costs.

<comment><USER13> I think there is a great truth to what you said, but the reduction of Tech to just media hides a set of critical and novel dangers in doing so.

Tech provides a new set of tools - both finely grained, invasive, and mass produce-able - which target areas of human existent earlier protected just because of how arcane and nebulous they were.

As human beings, we have many tendencies that are unguarded for buffer overflows, or malicious code injections.

With these tools, and corporate/shareholder incentives - firms and teams will run amok.

Its no longer just 1 way media, its now very close to mind invading media.

Sadly the only solution seems to be to ditch the smart phone whole.

<comment><USER12> You are saying tech is a more powerful tool than traditional media. I agree. But the purpose the tool serves in society is a question of how people wield it, not how powerful it is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> dj-wonk I am glad to see more people caring about long-term effects of their use of social software. More of us are mindful in how we engage with technology.

Now that I've said the positive, let me talk about the negatives. I bet things will get worse before they get better. At present, the commercial pressures on social media platforms to manipulate "users" dwarf human pushback against these "dark art" techniques.

I don't see any easy solutions. As with many collective challenges, we need increased awareness to effect change. This is arguably a political problem; we need social organizing as a counterbalancing force.

<comment><USER14> We don't need "increased awareness", we need a social decision system (aka "an economy") that rewards positive social outcomes and disincentivises negative social outcomes.

At the moment we have the opposite. No one cares how you make your first billion or two, or how people suffer as a side effect. They only care that you have a billion or two. Toxic side-effects remain invisible and uncounted.

There's a certain irony in attacking EA for building a game economy that's closer to the effort/reward profile of the real economy - for both players and owners - than any other game economy to date.

<comment> dj-wonk First, a question for you: What values would you like your "social decision system" to embody?

Second, I advocate for increased awareness because awareness is the first step towards rational thought. Many psychological manipulation techniques work best on the irrational parts of our brains, so often a useful first step is to engage the rational mind. That said, I'm not claiming awareness guarantees systemic change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> a-guest And then today in YC a blog about "Startup Ideas", there is a suggestion for a "Social Network for Children".

[https://blog.ycombinator.com/13-startup- ideas/](https://blog.ycombinator.com/13-startup-ideas/)

Please, no.

</comment><comment><USER15> I was going to clap for this story, the first time ever (despite my misgivings regarding grammar and spelling - I'm sure I've made errors in this post, but none as egregious as the ones I've found in the essay) but anyway it turns out to clap on medium I need to create an account. I decided to forgo the opportunity out of respect for the author's evident wishes.

<comment><USER16> Ironically, clapping, is the very device Medium uses to keep writers writing, the same stimuli that releases dopamine in other platforms.

And yet, the author decided to write his article on the very site that uses techniques Nir talks about to promote engagement.

<comment><USER17> I agree. There is a contradiction here. And I am nearly as uncomfortable with centralized publishing platforms as I am with mass scale behavior design for profit.

And yet.

I originally published on my own site and it didn't get much traction.

But when I edited it substantially and published as a direct response to Nir's post, it reached 30,000 people, 6000 of whom finished the whole thing...in less than 24 hours.

Since the goal for me is spreading the message and fueling the converstion, I gotta go where distribution follows.

<comment><USER15> hmm, sounds like that distribution thing is highly addictive /I kid

<comment><USER17> I'd be lying if I said that reaching an audience and seeing my post generate (mostly) positive, thoughtful discussion didn't feel good.

But that feeling (for me, at least) is closer to gratitude and hopefulness than it is to ego gratification.

The claps and notifications of retweets are, however, quite addicting, in the truest sense of the word.

I find myself checking twitter more than is reasonable to see where it's going.

And while there is some upside there (connecting with and engaging in conversation with like-minded peeps), the frequency of my checking is highly disproportionate to that Value.

Ugh.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The thin end of the wedge here is advertising. It is deliberately manipulating people using psychological insights, often targeting weaknesses to create a recurrent cash flow.

Yet the entertainment and content-creating side of the internet relies very explicitly on ad revenue.

Are creators that rely on revenue generated by manipulating human psychology morally bankrupt?

<comment><USER19> They invented a whole language to paper over the fact that their entire field is weaponized psychology employed against their customers. Do a noun for noun substitution to unpack a marketing meeting, and you'll want to puke.

Frankly, it's shameful for any company that says they care about their customers to employ marketing psychology tactics. Marketing and advertising are (in their modern, virulent form) simply an attempt to hack viewers to shift the locus of control from the customer to the business. (Other objectionable things about tech have this kind of behavior, too.)

Frankly, it's just disgusting and I can't blame customers for really viewing companies negatively based on their advertising practices.

(If all that wasn't bad enough, online advertising often comes with literal malware ontop.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> For me, the main problem is that I need my computer for what I consider "legit" activities such as working or communicating with my friends. Starting from there, it's easy to get trapped into other "toxic" activities such as facebook or news. I'd like to be able to just put the computer aside for a few days but it's almost impossible.

</comment><comment><USER21> I've never agreed with an article quite as much as this one.

<comment><USER22> Also, I would like to point out three things to folks who are asking "What about personal responsibility? What about agency?" here and on the article comments.

Facebook's shadow profiles take away any 'agency' and 'personal responsibility' out of the equation. While I don't yet know Facebook using shadow profiles to make someone's life worse off, their penchant for saying "Screw it" to any ethical considerations makes me feel its only a matter of time before even that crutch goes away.

Secondly, there is the complexity. You cannot take personal responsibility for something that you don't fully comprehend. At the same time, we are at a point where AI produces data insights that even the AI builders cannot reason about. For example, how does someone take responsibility for clicking the Like button on a post and then finding out that most of the people who liked the post were (say) closet anarchists which was then correlated with them being the best targets for some kind of subversive advertising from (say) the NRA?

Thirdly, there is the asymmetry involved in "moderate use". It is possible for Facebook to create "automated notifications" implemented at a very tiny cost to them in terms of their resources/profits while the effort needed on your part to make sure you don't turn into a Pavlovian "notifications" dog comes at an extremely high time cost to you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> When max profits means max attention from users this will naturally get public companies like FB to craft products this way

</comment><comment><USER24> The thing is, it doesn't seem like much of this is even intentional. A/B tests (probably inspired by some sort of thought experiment re: 'getting more engagement') tell a story that says you have more users if you do this thing, when that thing just happens to be addictive.

<comment><USER25> I used to think that, until Sean Parker recently stated it was a conscious, deliberate, decision to exploit people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> There's a thing in essays where the author signifies cutting through the bull with some earthy and down-home talk, but I think this sentence "It's too soon to tell, but it ain't look so pretty from here." is a step too far.

<comment><USER15> actually maybe the article just needs an editor or at least a proofreader.

<comment><USER17> Chose to use this grammatically broken slang very consciously.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Nir Eyal didn't invent anything. He simply adapted mass media techniques to the App era.

</comment><comment><USER27> Gamification can provide value. Stack overflow is all about addiction and value. The blog title was manipulative in its hyperbole, btw.

<comment><USER28> I wouldn't call _stackoverflow_ addictive - if anything I use it too little! - but I do have that problem with some of the linked network sites on stackexchange. "Why yes, who would win in a fight between Aquaman and The Flash _is_ more interesting than why the third argument of the ExampleFooAPI constructor doesn't behave itself!"

(I'm glad adblock lets me hide that block. Really helped me avoid those distractions).

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I´ve read a book recently called "Hooked" by Nir Eyal. [https://www.amazon.de/Hooked-How-Build-Habit-Forming- Product...](https://www.amazon.de/Hooked-How-Build-Habit-Forming- Products/dp/0241184835/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510910504&sr=8-1&keywords=nir+eyal+hooked) It´s exactly about this topic. He also gives quite a few examples of the achievements of Apple and so on. Really interesting.

<comment><USER30> The entire post is addressed to him, and not in a positive way. I tend to agree...

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Stories like this might appear to hurt Facebook and similar companies, but they actually help create a barrier to entry for the "next Facebook" to not be able to use the same strategy.

<comment><USER32> I highly doubt a blog post will have that effect.

<comment><USER17> Me too. But you know what they say about the pen and the sword?

Maybe we need to update the saying: "the keyboard and a content database can be mightier than the predator drone"

?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is a fairly similar argument to saying drug dealers are bad because they profit off your addiction. I don't know if I agree or disagree with that, but at what point do we actually acknowledge agency?

<comment><USER34> Drug dealers don't have intricate control over the effects of the drugs they're selling. I imagine if synthetic drugs were legal in general rather than specific compounds you might see similar problems pop up (e.g. 3-fluoroethamphetamine, a compound screened in rats to be maximally addictive) but it's reasonable to advocate for a drug market that avoids this.

<comment><USER35> > Drug dealers don't have intricate control over the effects of the drugs > they're selling.

yet

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The original article seems fine. I don't see how it was immoral. Seemed more like "amoral"

[https://medium.com/the-mission/the-morality-of- manipulation-...](https://medium.com/the-mission/the-morality-of- manipulation-c3115fb2bb3d)

      In the meantime, users will have to judge the yet
      unknown consequences for themselves, while creators
      will have to live with the moral repercussions of how
      they spend their professional lives.

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

<comment><USER34> People are amoral, acts are immoral. An act by an amoral person can certainly be immoral.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> If you can name a successful product which does not manipulate users to continue using that product, then it's not a product:

* I've been manipulated to bring an umbrella because I don't like to get rained on.

* I've been manipulated into liking broadband because it provides the internet faster than dialup.

* I've been manipulated into owning a car because it's a fast convenient mode of transportation.

This is the basics of products and services that provide value, this isn't magical or new, and this book is probably being more honest than most industries are.

The point the book was making is that if you don't want a product to be flash in the pan garbage, follow some simple guidelines which ensure that your service is actually providing some sort of value to end users, or your end users will eventually leave and find better things to do with their time and resources (Unless you're selling heroin I guess).

I don't consider Facebook sending me an email when I get a personal message to be exploitative, but I find no value at all when they send me something every time one of my friends fart. I specifically avoid interacting with those "hey someone did something" emails because they are annoying and make me want to stop being on facebook altogether. That's the result of abusing the hook model, users go away because it's annoying and unproductive.

<comment><USER14> You haven't been manipulated into buying an umbrella at all, because deciding you'd rather stay dry than wet is a straightforward choice; a product that offers you that choice is a straightforward product which provides a tangible service.

To be manipulated, you'd have to exposed to a constant stream of ads telling you how wonderful umbrellas are and what an unattractive loser you are for not owning one; how desirable people with high status use exclusive umbrellas while most people get by under a wet newspaper; and how you should buy a new umbrella every year because they're constantly improving, and this year's umbrella already has more a billion users worldwide and offers 23% more anti- rain features thanks to the exclusive Umbrella Corporation[tm] lifestyle eco- system. (And now here's a video of attractive people smiling, and of a world- famous umbrella designer talking earnestly about engineering, design, and craftsmanship.)

You'd also see paid testimonials and likes on social media sites. They'd appear to be spontaneous and sincere praise, but in fact they'd be factory farmed and produced to order by unhappy people working in open plan offices paid so little they can barely afford the rent.

 _And_ you'd have an umbrella that only worked reliably some of the time, so you'd have to keep considering the purchase of an improved model - in the vain hope you could finally end your constant nagging frustration with umbrella technology.

Worst of all, you'd believe you were making a straightforward umbrella-buying decision entirely on your own initiative, using perfectly objective and rational criteria.

<comment><USER37> Has facebook done any of that? Did you come to facebook because of an ad, or was it because you wanted to keep in contact with your friends and family? The fact that they are trying to use those social ties to make you look at more ads is what's amoral, not the fact that they sent you an email that doesn't apply to you as a "hook".

<comment><USER28> The explicit description at one of the Facebook developer conferences I went to was to do things which _caused users to stay for longer_. I think the word they used was some pleasant-to-neutral term like "compelling content", but the goal was to switch from "more users" to "longer stays" - and to use psychology to achieve that.

Then there is the games sector. I was only in that sector from 2007 to 2010, but when I left many of them were asking how to make their content "addictive".

I'd say it's immoral that Facebook et al have wasted subjective lifetimes of their users' consciousness by addicting them to whichever drug the brain synthesises to reward the minor and unfulfilling social interactions that it provides (and the reverse, the pain from the fear of missing out).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Oscillofun (2008) [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4YyI6_y6kw

<comment><USER2> I'd love to read up on how this is done.

The only source code I was able to find is : [https://github.com/kieve/Archive/tree/master/projects/Oscill...](https://github.com/kieve/Archive/tree/master/projects/Oscillofun)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> (I'm aware this was posted before. Four years ago; zero comments or votes. It's a cool hack!)</comment>


Ask HN: What purchase of &lt$100 has most +ve impact on life in recent years? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Buying a pet was the best investment I have ever made.

<comment><USER3> I know this isn't normally the tone of hacker news, but we'd love to see a pic

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Induction cooking plates which i can fold up against the wall, Wok, Acceptable earphones (some Sony over-ears for €11, not an audiophile), solid state disks, the showerhead mentioned here, but with nothing removed becaus ECO was the reason, while enjoying a dozen settings from anything between needles almost peeling your skin and soft rain for €5, drinking green teas (Sencha Ariake (Kagoshima Prefecture), Gyokuro Asahi).

</comment><comment><USER5> Earlier this year bought a UI design book (Refactoring UI) from here [https://refactoringui.com/](https://refactoringui.com/) that helped improve tesults.com, the intended audience (of the book) includes developers and since Tesults is dev heavy we needed it. Still a lot to do.

</comment><comment><USER6> 1) quality pillow (upping my sleep game has been a life changer) 2) password manager 3) office365 instead of google docs

<comment><USER7> Would you have any advice on choosing a quality pillow?

<comment><USER6> I suspect this is wildly individual. I myself prefer down pillows while my wife sleeps on one filled with wheat. My second favorite pillow is actually the IKEA Kornvallmo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> New showerhead with the eco-water-limiter removed.

</comment><comment><USER9> Bullet journal book and journal.

</comment><comment><USER10> Collecting Free Cryptocurreny from recent years and cashing them out from their meteoric rise in value.

</comment><comment><USER11> Ear caps!

</comment><comment><USER12> Cryptocurrency</comment>


Telstra 4GX Portable Router Persistent Root Shell etc 0day - <AUTHOR> https://lizardsquad.ru/ <comment><USER2> Telstra doesn't seem to care about security. Their high end Technicolour router stops working for me when I change the original password after a device reset. Their advice: "Don't change the password".

If I recall correctly, it also stopped working if I updated the firmware.

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah back when heart bleed first came out it took a week and eventually after giving up getting through their call center to find someone who could understand what heart bleed was, i ended up tweeting their vulnerable domain at them. Some reporter spotted the tweet and forwarded it to someone they knew at Telstra. If i remember correctly it was their Juniper VPN.</comment></comment>


The longevity gap - <AUTHOR> http://aeon.co/magazine/being-human/will-new-drugs-mean-the-rich-live-to-120-and-the-poor-die-at-60/

<comment><USER3> If you speak Italian head over noisefromamerika and search "modello superfisso", there you can see why this reasoning is flawed. Prices of stuff are not fixed, they are a function of demand and offer. The true problem here is how you innovate enough to make the offer high enough that prices will drop. Instead, the writer is focusing on the myth of the 10% owning the 90% and he gets lost in yet another useless complain about spreading the wealth. Go look at why health services are so expensive in US, hints: monopolies, artificially low number of doctors, lobbies, patents…

By the way, about 44% of my gross salary is managed by the State (tax and social contribution). How much more does the writer want to tax people in order to "help" the poor?

<comment><USER4> Why is labor income taxed so much more than capital gains? Effectively those with large fortunes are paying a way lower effective tax rate than most salaried employees.

<comment><USER5> Because the capital that you invest has been taxed before, when it was earned. Kind of harsh to tax 40% on your income, and when you save it, tax again the same amount on your returns.

<comment><USER6> So is Sales tax which regressively Hits the poor the hardestas they spend 100% of income. This is a non argument. Tax what least inhibits growth or like alcohol and cigarette taxes things that you would like to be used less.

<comment><USER7> If savers eventually consume whatever they saved, they too will be hit by the sales tax. Their tax rate will be 1-(1-Income tax)(1-savings tax)(1-sales tax), compared to the consumer who will pay only 1-(1-Income tax)(1-sales tax).

If they never consume what they saved, they have effectively given it to society anyway.

The idea that a sales tax is regressive (w.r.t income) is simply an artifact of your measurement period. It's strictly speaking a flat tax over the long term, but it becomes regressive _for a single individual_ if you break his lifetime up into year-long chunks and if his income or consumption isn't stable.

tl;dr; do the math, the "sales tax is regressive" meme is silly. Any true regressivity is solely an artifact of progressive income taxes and vanishes when you measure progressivity w.r.t. after-tax income.

<comment><USER8> In terms of what the phrase "regressive tax" colloquially means it is clear that sales tax is a regressive tax. The percent of wealth poor person pays in sales tax is greater than the percent of wealth a rich person pays in sales tax. Of course if the poor person wins a billion dollar lottery the next day then for that person it is no longer true. Thus, this is why when talking about this issue it generally is the case that we are talking about the here and now and don't factor in lifetime earnings and whatnot.

<comment><USER7> Colloquially, "progressive" usually means "w.r.t. income". I.e., dMarginalTaxRate/dIncome is positive.

By definition, a sales tax is not regressive w.r.t wealth - dMarginalSalesTaxRate/dWealth = 0. The fact that consumption / wealth goes down up as money is shifted from savings to consumption is simply a mathematical identity and not very interesting. I.e.:

        (consumption + 1) / (wealth - 1) > consumption / wealth

<comment><USER8> The percent of income (let's include capital gains for the year since this is where really rich people derive the increase in their 'money') paid in sales tax by a rich person is far less than that of a poor person for a given year. Thus, in the minds of the general populace, sales tax is considered regressive. This is what people mean when they say this. The effect of a sales tax on food for a poor person is far more detrimental to them than a sales tax on food for a rich person. Thus many people find this to be regressive.

<comment><USER7> As I said, the idea that a sales tax is regressive is simply an artifact of your measurement period. The "rich person" you describe is simply a saver - <USER2> some future point he will become a consumer.

Literally the _only_ reason the tax appears regressive in year A is because the act of saving has shifted the taxes to year B > A. This is an artifact of your measurement period and vanishes in the long term.

<comment><USER9> _the idea that a sales tax is regressive is simply an artifact of your measurement period_

But people have finite lifespans. When all is said and done, who do you think will have paid more sales tax (and VAT) as a proportion of their total income:

A) Bill Gates

B) Me

Before you answer, please also imagine an alternate world in which Bill Gates isn't so generous, and in which there are no estate taxes.

<comment><USER7> There are two possibilities. One is that Bill Gates and his descendents spend everything. In that case, the sales tax paid is the same.

The other possibility is that some of Bill Gates' money is _never consumed_. In this case it's effectively a tax of 100% - Gates produced wealth for the world and was never compensated for it.

If the rich escape sales taxes, it's only because they provide benefits to the world without being compensated for it. Complaining about that is pretty silly, as is focusing on sales taxes while ignoring this.

<comment><USER9> Yes, but now you're bringing Bill's descendants into the discussion. I agree with your extension of the term regressive to include an arbitrarily long time frame, but I don't buy the inclusion of an abitrarily long line of descendants.

On your other point, I'm not complaining. I was just stating the fact that I will pay more sales tax (as a proportion of my lifetime income) than a richer person like Bill Gates. So, by the common definition of 'regressive tax', sales tax is a regressive tax.

I'm not saying this is good or bad or neutral. Just that it is so, by definition. (BTW I don't like the term regressive tax, because the term 'regressive' sounds intuitively negative.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Kind of misleading title after clicking through:

> Costly new longevity drugs could help the wealthy live 120 years or more – > but will everyone else die young?

Drug research is costly, but it's not wealthy benefactors of the clinical application that pay for it. Some research is privately funded, much is government funded but it's also costly to fail to pay for it.

The age gap due to wealth discussed in the article is not related to the cost to the individual of drug research and development.

Once the research is done, most drugs become inexpensive to produce and if they prevent the burden of ageing on healthcare and society. Reason to fund gerontology research if it decreases healthcare expenditure.

The then minor cost could be subsidised and there would be little argument in limiting its availability beyond that of aspirin and clean drinking water.

The current longevity gap due to poverty/environment discussed isn't a reason to discount increases in healthspan/lifespan that might benefit the rich more immediately.

Gerontology/drug research is not mutually exclusive of improving access to education, mental health and reducing pollution etc.

</comment><comment><USER11> > College-educated white men can expect to live to age 80, while counterparts > without a high-school diploma die by age 67.

I wonder if reality is as bad as it sounds here. Factors that cause early death might very well correlate with bad education outcomes. Any kind of lacking self-control could result both in bad education outcomes as well as early death.

<comment><USER12> > might very well correlate with bad education outcomes

So would dying at age 16.

It's definitely possible (probable?) they've taken the appropriate figures here, but there's definitely a chance for bad statistics here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think the idea of revolution as a result of age-disparity is a tad overstated. At the point most people would become sufficiently aware of any age-gap, and angry-enough to want to riot about it, you'd probably be suffering age-related effects and want a nap.

Also, drugs eventually fall out of patent and become available at far lower prices to everyone. The poor have far larger problems than whether they get to live an extra 10 years or so once they get to 70.

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't see a single argument why the life spans of the less wealthy should shorten further, even though this is claimed several times in the article. Did they just take two data points and extrapolate from there?

<comment><USER15> It's the politics of envy at its worst. Better that the rich die earlier to make things more fair, than everyone live unevenly longer.

<comment><USER16> I think that's unnecessarily dismissive. More even societies are higher trust, more orderly, and by most accounts more pleasant. The U.S. is much richer than Finland, but I doubt the majority of Finns would rather be Americans.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> While thinking about these things is important, it would be good not to lose track of the greater picture. I couldn't possibly say it as well as Nick Bostrom, so I won't try: Death is bad; it needs to go.

This seems like an apropos time to re-read [http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html](http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html)

</comment><comment><USER18> Nota bene the high cost of such meds won't be the meds themselves, but cost for the social system. Will those super old people work until they are 100 years old? If not, it has to remain the luxury of a small minority.

</comment><comment><USER19> What about A. de Gray's theory that states with universal healthcare will pay for this tpe of treatment, as it will be cheaper than treating diabetes, cancer, etc...?

</comment><comment><USER20> I dont' want to live 120 years, do you?

<comment><USER21> I'd be happy to live as long as the Sun, longer if we start colonising new planets. As long as I can die before the heat death of the Universe.

<comment><USER22> No way! Give me then a few mirrors and I'll start trapping far-red photons to restart the Universe again.

<comment><USER23> You're going to have to construct your mirrors from far-red photons, that's sort of the problem. Without stable matter you're not going to be doing much of anything (or even _be_ much of anything).

<comment><USER17> And I'm happy to worry about this problem _for as many trillions of years as it takes_.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask YC: How to provide an overview of web development to a non-techie? - <AUTHOR>

I volunteered to provide an overview of  web development to a friend of mine who is a project manager (not in technology). He wants to start managing web development projects but he does not have a technical background. I put together the following list of things to cover. I would appreciate your advice on this - should I add more? How much detail should I provide and is there any order I should follow? How do I keep my cool when he does not get things, even after explaining a 5th time! TIA
1. Web Servers and Browsers - How websites are served and viewed.
2. HTML and CSS - Show him the basic ingredients to build a HTML page. Tell him what CSS is. And then teach him to build a simple site in Dreamweaver (the guy is not a coder!)
3. Site Layouts and Structure - Explain common layouts used in most websites eg - brochure site, blogs, newspaper sites, ecommerce sites, social news sites, video sites, etc.
4. Design - Not sure what to tell him cos my own design skills suck. I just know its really important.
5. Open Source vs. dot net (maybe I should not even include this)
6. CMS, - Talk about Joomla, Wordpress.
7. Common components used in websites - video, forums, FAQs, user registration
8. Domain names, whois, etc.
9. Different phases of web dev
    - A. Requirements, B. Design, C. Build Out, D. Content, E. Testing, <comment><USER2> I think having somebody build a site in HTML and CSS is a waste of time. There has to be some knowledge of the space and I think almost everyone has the basic knowledge of what is a website now. You've mentioned one development process, but a lot of good shops are doing iterative development, extreme programming and - in particular - test driven development. The big hole I see here is scalability and distributed systems. This is a very technical topic, but the fact of the matter is if you are building a large scale web application it has to, well, scale. That means clusters of servers, managing memory across these servers (memcached perhaps), transactions, consistency all this stuff.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not to be _too_ negative, but I think it might be a bit ambitious to get someone with no technical background up to speed on the entire web development lifecycle quickly. Being an effective web project manager _is_ software project management; it just happens to be client/server software with a very, very large installed base of clients.

I would focus less on specifics of servers and implementation languages, and more on numbers 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9. If he can focus on the information architecture, usability, and overall project workflow, a decent design and engineering team can support him in the rest.

</comment><comment><USER4> if you're going to talk specifically about HTML/CSS to cover markup/styling, you should also maybe mention programming languages to make them understand how things like CMS and such are built.

edit: i'd include this instead of the OS vs .net debate, with possibly the OS vs .net debate as a sub-topic.

i'd also expand the CMS topic to include all software packages, but focus on CMS and similar things.</comment>


Neil Young's new "Pono" music player smashes 800k Kickstarter goal - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1003614822/ponomusic-where-your-soul-rediscovers-music?smash

<comment><USER2> "The better your headphones, the better the sound, but the Ponoplayer sounds good with all headphones."

"Use it in your home stereo, car...and the difference in the sound will be amazing."

Which is it? I have to believe the quality of your speakers will be a big difference. will it be just "good" or truly "amazing".

I'm honestly surprised at the amount of pledges. They're basically selling a device on the hopes of hearing something amazing. I've heard flac audio and it is better. You don't need a $300-400 paperweight to pump out great sound.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure why this exists either.

Most consumers benefit far more from improving the acoustic system (speakers, headphone, room) than the playback system.

Once you have $200 headphones or $500 speakers and $500 room treatment, you _might_ be able to hear a difference with lossless or 24-bit audio, assuming that the source material was recorded properly _and not overly processed_. But until then, a fancy music player or even FLAC audio isn't going to help much.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you deal with spam profiles? - <AUTHOR> Over the past months, our service has been hit pretty hard by spammers who create corporate profiles (which we do not allow) and then pack them with search terms. More recently, they've started posting topic and comment spam along the same lines (think: "best family lawyer in Rochester, NY").
I've tried a number of ways of dealing with these folks, but with no success. As such, I'm forced to watch site activity carefully, and then delete accounts/content as quickly as I can. (This is the first thing I do every morning. I repeat the process numerous times a day—and even peek in once more, before going to bed.)
Today, though, I reached out to the SEO company's client directly, noting that their SEO provider is using black-hat methods. To my surprise, the person at the company got back to me, apologized, and cc'd me on the email they sent, questioning their SEO provider on what was going on.
As such, I'm considering doing this (alerting the company mentioned in the spam) with every spam account created on our service—and seeing if it stems the activity. Just curious if any of you have experienced the same, or have any suggestions on potential ways of discouraging this sort of activity. <comment><USER2> When the service your site is being spammed with is something reputable then I think the approach you are taking works very well. The trouble is when it is more sketchy services that your site is getting spammed with that you can't take the same course of action. Other than that though, have you tried integrating a captcha or something? Or are you fairly certain it is a human doing the posting?

<comment><AUTHOR> These are all manual postings. Seems that a bunch of "SEO" companies in the U.S. are outsourcing this work to Bangladesh.</comment></comment>


Machine Learning Can Extend Life of Flash Storage - <AUTHOR> http://www.informationweek.com/cloud/cloud-storage/machine-learning-can-extend-life-of-flash-storage-paper-finds/d/d-id/1326556 <comment><USER2> What we used to call "predictive statistics" now has the magic name "machine learning" applied.</comment>


Long-Term Coffee Consumption and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2013/11/07/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.005925 <comment><USER2> "Conclusions: [...] Moderate coffee consumption was inversely significantly associated with CVD risk, with the lowest CVD risk at 3 to 5 cups/d, and heavy coffee consumption was not associated with elevated CVD risk."

I am confused here (with the word "inversely"). Do I understand correctly that: a) moderate consumption of coffee leads to a _reduction_ in the risk of CVD compared to when a person does not drink coffee at all, and b) strong consumption does not affect CVD risk comparing to the moderate coffee consumption?

<comment><USER3> The relative risk vs coffee consumption curve fist goes below 1.0 (no coffee = 1.0) and reaches minimum around 3-5 cups then starts to increase slowly again. cardiovascular disease and stroke risk go above 1.0 after 9-10 cups per day.

The study mentions that results may not apply to unfiltered coffee (eg, French press, Scandinavian boiled, or Turkish/Greek coffee). Other studies have shown that cholesterol-raising factor in coffee does not pass a paper filter.

<comment> semi-extrinsic > Other studies have shown that cholesterol-raising factor in coffee does not > pass a paper filter.

And yet other studies are increasingly pointing towards dietary cholesterol intake _not being such an important causal factor for CVD_ after all [1], and that _important evidence going against the cholesterol-is-bad theory was never published properly_ [2] since the people doing the studies thought the data was flawed since it went against the prevailing theory.

[1] [http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638&atab=7](http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638&atab=7)

[2] [http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/04/15/fro...](http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/04/15/from- the-far-corner-of-the-basement)

<comment><USER4> I was born in the early 70's. It seems like a good many of the dietary recommendations I was raised on were BS. It's strange.

<comment><USER5> It's worse than strange. Consider margarine vs butter. I mean, margarine was promoted during WWII to conserve dairy for the military. And it was later promoted as healthy. Gotta cut down on those _bad_ saturated fats! Except ... Except that hydrogenation (to make vegetable oil solid) creates trans partially saturated fats. Which raise LDL more than saturated fats!

<comment><USER6> I've recently taken to just not having any spread on my bread other than the main ingredient.

Example: toasted slice of yeast bread (my recipe is 50% white, 20% rye, 30% wholemeal) with jam or with a slice of cheese or hummus or fool maddamas or an apple. Just no butter/marge/whatever.

I do now have butter and toast a couple of times a week.

<comment><USER7> Giving up the bread and keeping the butter would be the more healthy choice.

<comment><USER6> I take the point, and I do cut the carbs quite often when actively losing weight (actually specifically reducing my waist measurement)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> No mention of CYP1A2 genotype which affects caffeine metabolism rate. From a different study (2006):

 _Intake of coffee was associated with an increased risk of nonfatal MI only among individuals with slow caffeine metabolism, suggesting that caffeine plays a role in this association. ... The purpose of this study was to determine whether CYP1A2 genotype modifies the association between intake of caffeinated coffee and risk of nonfatal MI._

[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/202502](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/202502)

A more recent (2015) report has this conclusion w/r/t CVD:

 _Consistent observational evidence indicates that moderate coffee consumption is associated with reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in healthy adults. In addition, consistent observational evidence indicates that regular consumption of coffee is associated with reduced risk of cancer of the liver and endometrium, and slightly inverse or null associations are observed for other cancer sites._

[https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific- report/...](https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific- report/14-appendix-e2/e2-39a.asp)

This NYT article summarizes and links to a bunch of studies:

[https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/for-coffee- drinker...](https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/for-coffee-drinkers-the- buzz-may-be-in-your-genes/)

BTW, if you've used 23andme, it should have your CYP1A2 genotype.

<comment><USER9> I have 23andme, but their results are not very clear. All they say is "You have two variants associated with consuming more caffeine." I'm unsure how to square that with the studies above. Do I have fast or slow metabolism? Do I have higher or lower risk of MI?

<comment><USER10> Figure out what is the name of the SNP of the CYP1A2 variant, download your SNP data from 23andme and look for it yourself.

<comment><USER10> Actually I can help you out some more. The SNP in question is rs762551.

Go to Tools -> Browse RAW data -> search for rs762551.

It should show something like this:

      Gene    SNP	    genomic loc  Variants   Your result
      CYP1A2  rs762551  75041917     A or C     ? / ?

If you have A/A you're "fast metabolizer". (good) If you have A/C or C/C, you're "slow metabolizer". (not so good)

From SNPedia:

"In terms of genotypes, only rs762551(A;A) individuals are considered fast metabolizers. Individuals who are rs762551(A;C) heterozygotes or rs762551(C;C) homozygotes are both considered slow metabolizers."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I find this result surprising. Caffeine restricts blood vessels, so you'd expect blood pressure to go up the more you consume, and likewise you'd expect long-term elevated blood-pressure to increase your risk of cardiovascular disease.

Likewise in a correlational study, you'd expect people who drink more coffee to have more hectic lives and get less sleep, which surely shouldn't reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease.

I'm at a loss for a possible mechanism behind this result. Protective effect of antioxidants in coffee? Hard to believe.

Nonetheless it seems a great excuse to reach for that second cup when I start flagging in the early afternoon.

<comment><USER12> It very well may be that income is a confounding variable. Being able to afford 3-5 cups/day means you're more likely to have a relatively high income, and thus a better health situation.

<comment><USER13> First time I was out of Italy I literally could not believe the price of coffee. And people could not believe me, when I told them how much cheaper it was in Italy. We're talking 40 cents vs $2 (recent example I remember both prices for the same year, circa 2011). So yeah - depends on the country, or whether you make it yourself, coffee can be extremely cheap. No correlation between consumption and wealth (esp. in countries like Italy where literallly everyone drinks it)

<comment><USER14> In Italy, the cost of the coffee as a service is much lower than in the rest of Europe and the USA. Espressos are made much faster and more frequently, the volume is lower which means they can be drunk quicker, and Italians generally spend less time in the cafe. Not to mention that in most of Europe, Italian coffee is served, which is more expensive there than in Italy. Even so, the cost of the actual coffee is only around 10 cents for quality beans.

<comment><USER15> You probably noticed that you pay more if you sit down. Drink at the bar and it's usually cheaper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I drink tea now, but I used to drink coffee. I'm a T1D (Type 1 Diabetic), so I get blood-work done quite regularly, BP measurements, etc. I was surprised to see my BP drop significantly with my switch to mostly black tea (118/78 -> 100/60). I also notice less fluctuations in fasting blood sugars; my A1C is always between 4.8 and 5.2 FWIW. I feel more hydrated, I'm significantly less tired and I'm calmer. I have a cup of coffee every now and then, and I'm amazed at its impact, it's a very intense drink. I believe tea is the healthier beverage, but that's just me. I drink a lot of tea to compensate for the caffeine loss (4-6) cups (8oz) a day.

</comment><comment><USER17> And of course the study that its good for you : [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016508514...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016508514012001)

I see it is already on the Cure or Kill app [http://kill-or- cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/c](http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/c)

<comment><USER18> OP's post is presenting correlation of moderate consumption with lower Cardiovascular disease and no correlation with higher consumption. Did you read the paper?

<comment><USER17> Hmm, I did read it but I missed the 'inverse' association. This is the second time in the last 10 days where I've read a paper that presented its conclusion by asserting a negative. Thanks for the cross check.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What about decaf?

<comment><USER20> I drink almost exclusively decaf these days and wonder if any potential health benefits shown in these studies are still being imparted. From what I have been able to tell, the answer is "probably".

<comment><USER19> I mix in a little caff coffee in case I miss the benefits

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> What about water consumption? Maybe these coffee drinkers are likely to be better hydrated than non-coffee drinkers and the effect is not due to coffee at all?

<comment><USER22> Coffee is known to be diuretic, that's unlikely to be the case.

<comment><USER23> Take that with a grain of salt. Coffee is a diuretic, but unless you're drinking very strong syrupy stuff, it should contain more water than it makes you pee.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm surprised I don't see Guayusa mentioned on HN at all.

<comment><USER25> I am interested! Quick research shows it's related to Mate, does it shares it's effects? I am interested in buying it, but lots of (local) stores that sell it don't have it in their inventory any more. To me it raises concerns over food security for the local populations of Ecuador and Peru. Quinoa comes to mind.

<comment><USER24> See Runa [0] :)

[0] [http://runa.org/](http://runa.org/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr. van Dam received a research grant from the Nestec Company. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported."

Guys, Nestec own the world's biggest coffee machine company, Nespresso.

<comment><USER15> You surely can't get a meaningful amount of caffination out of those tiny pods - even with the Nestles standard manoeuvre of loading them with robusta. Those steam toys are awful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> All good comments here, but I did want to point out that this study was originally published in 2013, according to that page. The subject line should be updated to reflect that.

<comment><USER28> Changed. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Received August 27, 2013. Revision received October 23, 2013. Accepted October 24, 2013.

Sounds like a trashjournal which would explain pretty much everything.

Correction: not a trash journal, still the review process was super fast

<comment><USER30> Circulation is not a trash journal, but one of the most important publications in Cardiology. It's surpassed in impact factor only by JACC: [http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=2705](http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=2705)

<comment><USER29> this comment included a mistake

<comment><USER30> I think you mixed up Circulation Journal ("Official Journal of the Japanese Circulation Society", [http://www.j-circ.or.jp/english/cj/](http://www.j-circ.or.jp/english/cj/)) with Circulation (Journal by the American Heart Association, [http://circ.ahajournals.org/](http://circ.ahajournals.org/)) The latter is the source of the coffee article.

<comment><USER29> thanks for pointing out, I corrected it

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> If you're in doubt just take an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enalapril](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enalapril) pill once a day

<comment><USER32> Always a good idea to get your medical advice from internet comments.</comment></comment>


MySpace sold for $35mm - <AUTHOR> http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/news-corp-sells-myspace-to-specific-media-for-35-million/

<comment><USER2> Since "many of MySpace's roughly 400 employees were dismissed on Wednesday", this wasn't a talent acquisition.</comment>


Scala 2.12 emits code that runs 20% slower as 2.11's. Scala Native to the rescue - <AUTHOR> http://www.scala-lang.org/blog/2016/07/08/trait-method-performance.html <comment><AUTHOR> Can you imagine Akka running at 0.8x speed, right after the upgrade to Scala 2.12?

<comment><USER2> Any benchmarks you might care to share?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The article does not mention Scala Native at all. The title is a bit misleading.</comment>


Ask HN: 5" phones - why this trend? - <AUTHOR>

Note: At this point this is Android specific. Current flagships from Apple and Blackberry are 4" and 4.2" respectively.
I'm a person who dislikes carrying a shovel of 5" in his pocket for a phone. Sadly, this is becoming a standard for top of the line devices. There's even a new term now - phablets - for phones over 5".
This trend puts people like me in a difficult situation. There's simply no compact alternative of similar capabilities. They're cut down in functionality, downgraded versions in the mid to low market. If you want a modern phone of 4" with LCD high-res display, 8MP camera, 4 cores, NFC, etc - it is virtually non-existent.
My question is why companies push for ever larger displays on smartphones? And what can we, compact phones aficionados, do about it?
Is this where we're going? :) http://i.imgur.com/SZ31YuL.jpg <comment><USER2> A lot of people use their phones far more for browsing, reading, playing games, etc. rather than actually making calls and a bigger screen makes these activities easier. However, I think that the popularity of full size tablets has caused phone manufacturers to go overboard with increased screen size.

I think 5" is on the verge of excessive and unwieldy but I'm sure many would disagree.</comment>


Is Verizon's network better, or is it simply untested? - <AUTHOR> http://clipperhouse.com/blog/post/Is-Verizons-network-better-or-is-it-simply-untested.aspx

<comment><USER2> Verizon's network is better than AT&T's for two fundamental reasons:

\- It operates mostly on the 850MHz band whereas AT&T operates on both 850Mhz and 1900Mhz band. Lower frequencies penetrate buildings better than higher frequencies. Lower frequencies also have less interference with other electrical devices.

\- Verizon uses CDMA technology which intrinsically makes more efficient use of the wireless spectrum than the GSM technology that AT&T uses.

Consequently, AT&T needs to expend more resources on constructing cell towers to achieve the same level of coverage as Verizon.

<comment><USER3> AT&T's 3G uses UMTS, which is based on CDMA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Verizon's network is larger.

I have an BlackBerry with AT&T and a Verizon Mifi that provides 3G internet to my laptop. When traveling, the BlackBerry is pretty much useless here in Texas because there seems to be a lot of holes in their network--but I can drive from Austin to Dallas connected to the web with the Verizon mifi the whole way.

</comment><comment><USER5> The other concern I have for Verizon is the lack of EV-DO Rev B handsets. Do they offer _any_ Rev B capable devices yet? I'm having trouble finding any on their website. The spec sheet for the Moto Droid handset also does not include Rev B support. Have they abandoned it for LTE? Either way it seems AT&T might have a future advantage with millions of 7.2Mbit HSDPA iPhone 3GS units ready for network upgrades while Verizon is stuck with EV-DO Rev 0 & A for the foreseeable future.

<comment><USER6> Verizon has decided upon LTE for its 4G network.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I just got a BlackBerry on Verizon and so far the reception has been very poor. Yesterday I was on Caltrain and wasn't able to use data at all and when I got a voice call the sound was horrible. I ended up pulling the battery and that seemed to help so maybe it's the BlackBerry and not the network but so far I'm unimpressed. BTW I work in Santa Clara and live in the city.

<comment><USER4> I'd put money on it being RIM's fault. Ever since they switched to the "bold" OS I've really lost my taste for the brand. I have a 9000 and have to constantly swap both the SIM and battery to make the thing dial. RIM = Fail. I'm switching to Android.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Distributed programming (computing) jobs? - <AUTHOR> I have experience in software engineering and I familiar with some distributed systems.
I started reading "Distributed Computing: Principles, Algorithms, and Systems" book and I find it interesting so far. Also I found Seif Haridi YouTube channel is very helpful. Overall it seems to be a very interesting topic in software engineering. However I'm sceptical about opportunities
in this field because I think it's very specific and based on my research there are a lot of companies that use
distributed systems in their products and only few of them develop distributed systems. Also, I noticed that companies often use 'distributed-computing' term for their jobs where you will use Akka, Kafka and etc.,
and that makes it harder to find companies that develop distributed systems and platforms.
So I'd like to ask a few questions:
1. Do you know any companies that develop distributed systems (for example PROTOCOL LABS) ?
2. Is it hard to find a job for a beginner distributed programming engineer ? 3. What is the minimum knowledge required to get a job ? 4. What is your personal experience of being a distributed programming engineer ?
What is the future of distributed computing in your opinion ?
Once again, I'm not interested in jobs where I will use any distributed systems to build other products,
I want to be an engineer that takes part in distributed systems development.
Any information would be appreciated. <comment><USER2> Amazon AWS is something that you should definitely look into. AWS is always hiring!

</comment><comment><USER3> Pretty much anything at scale is distributed...

Any of the big tech companies.

Anyone looking for kubernetes and micro service. Anyone advertising for HPC if that's your bag. Anyone looking for Hadoop/Spark/Flink/Storm/etc

</comment><comment><USER4> If you are building and running systems using Kafka or something like that it is still helpful (and sometimes essential) to understand the fundamentals of the subject.

</comment><comment><USER5> Most companies operating at scale are developing distributed systems, not everyone open sources them or offers them as a product though.

</comment><comment><USER6> Databrix develops Apache Spark. I've heard it's hard to get into though.</comment>


Starbucks Earnings result 3Q 2020 [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000829224/e0463422-2d4b-4434-bf9e-3852536184e9.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> • Global comparable store sales declined 40%, driven by a 51% decrease in comparable transactions, partially offset by a 23% increase in average ticket

• Consolidated net revenues of $4.2 billion declined 38% from the prior year primarily due to lost sales related to the COVID-19 outbreak</comment>


Lack of sleep linked to emotional imbalance, imaging study suggests - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/10/23/MN00SUBTV.DTL <comment><USER2> Emotional imbalance and lessened productivity. More startups should really let their hackers work odd hours occasionally, or from home sometimes.

As co's get bigger they tend to enforce stricter day schedules, killing any potential for late night hackfests and flexibility to run errands, etc.

<comment><USER3> It is not that simple.

I've found there's set of tasks, particullary administration of *nix boxes, that are too boring to be made in day hours, so I schedule them to the night.

On the other hand, I don't think that any startup can waste their founders' wake up hours. They're simply too effective to be spent on crappy things.

What's interesting, most of the time management techniques tend to overlook this aspect.</comment></comment>


No Comment, You Wimps - <AUTHOR> http://alsop-louie.com/management/no-comment-you-wimps/

<comment><USER2> _In the great heat and confusion of battle, you see men cower, become smaller, or retreat into some psychological refuge. Then you see the few who rise up out of the smoke and fire like an avenging spirit, usually with a mad gleam in their eyes and a slight determined smile, taking great pleasure in engaging a worthy enemy._

Without a named source, this sounds much more like Internet Tough Guy talk ("oh yeah, if some mugger pulled a gun on me I'd just give him a roundhouse kick in the hand, duh!") than genuine advice on how to deal with adversity.

I suspect that the author has never really had to deal with "the great heat and confusion of battle", either literally or metaphorically. I haven't either, mind you, but I imagine someone who had would write very differently about it.

<comment><USER3> I think he's just appealing to the fighter mindset that some of us do have. I don't think that's a general characteristic, or at all necessary to success, but some people (I count myself amongst them) get fired up by adversity... Like a "bring it on!" mentality where you get more and more motivated to win the more problems there are...

I don't think people who react differently are in any way inferior, though, which the OP does seem to think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This sounds like hearsay crap. Where are the clear cut examples of him acting like a "wimp"?

 _"He runs his own firm. He is the boss...When he needs to be strongest, he consumes himself with worry and purposeless actions."_

This is just Seth Godin speak that doesn't mean anything. What has he done specifically? The above paragraph is so vague it could literally be applied to any business owner.

 _"As his hedge fund has tanked, he has lost 20 pounds (skinny to start with), is taking Valium every night to sleep, has night sweats and heart palpitations."_

This isn't wimpy. It just means he gives a shit.

Is this a parody or something? What am I missing?

<comment><USER5> He gives too much of a shit. Hard as it may be, life goes on.

<comment><USER4> Wouldn't know from the post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _"In the great heat and confusion of battle, you see men cower, become smaller, or retreat into some psychological refuge. Then you see the few who rise up out of the smoke and fire like an avenging spirit, usually with a mad gleam in their eyes and a slight determined smile, taking great pleasure in engaging a worthy enemy."_

And then you see the many who just try to do their job and end up being shot to death for it (as long as we're in the metaphorical context of a "battle"). I wonder why you don't see that many stories - or blog posts - about them.

</comment><comment><USER7> Er, OK. I'll take coach Zorn's advice and "stay medium."

</comment><comment><USER8> Easier said than done.

</comment><comment><USER9> Though I understand why some commenters are interpreting this as made-up bravado, Stewart Alsop is a longtime journalist and investor from whom such a second-hand report is credible.

(That is, I have no doubt that he received such an email from a trustworthy friend, and that the email is accurately describing a real person.)

<comment><USER4> That's perfectly fine, but his source still should elaborate.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to keep young developers - <AUTHOR> I work as a team lead in San Francisco and I have a problem. My younger developers don't stick around. I work in a smaller Engineering department and have to compete against huge internet companies for hires. I cannot compete on salary or technology, Google pays way more and plenty of others have more interesting technology stacks and development tasks. My approach to this has been to try to give my developers a path to the future. I do regular career development one-on-ones to identify what sort of things my developers are interested in doing, setting career development goals, and ending up with tasks for myself to steer their tasks more to the things they are interested in and providing training resources. I have also pushed, in what I thought was a judicious manner, for them to have greater ownership over areas of our systems. Finally, I do my utmost to publicly recognize their accomplishments.<p>Sadly, I continue to lose young devs. To a person, they say it isn't anything personal, they were happy with my leadership, but they didn't want to deal with the stress of my workplace or they had another opportunity they wished to pursue. I'm at my wits end, is this a fruitless desire on my part? Is there some secret sauce I am missing that would inspire my young devs to stay? <comment><USER2> Unfortunately I don't have a direct answer for you on this. However, what does jump out at me from your description is that you describe a utopia environment where developers are guided on a path to their future, own their code, and are recognized for their achievements. Yet, in the next paragraph you state that one of the reasons they state for leaving is "stress of my workplace".

I don't know you, the company, or how you manage, but could the attention you are placing on "career development" and recognition of accomplishments be causing added stress or unwanted attention in the workplace? Maybe they want to come to work, do their job, and go home without this feeling that they are being forced into a specific career path or having to meet certain career development goals.

Anyway, just a thought. It was something that stood out from your description. On the other hand, unfortunately without being able offer competitive pay or technology, many developers may just use your company as a stepping stone. You could try talking to upper management or HR and throw the burden on them. It costs a company a lot more to continuously hire rather than just paying a competitive salary to begin with. Show management how competing more on salary could save on hiring costs.

</comment><comment><USER3> It sounds like you're part of a larger organization; maybe they just shouldn't have an office in SF if they can't compete in any meaningful way.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hire older devs? Why focus on young devs?

<comment><USER5> OP isn't focussing on young devs but on retention of devs.

OP also says they can't compete on price, so older devs (more experience, higher wages) may not be affordable.

<comment><USER6> More-experienced devs might actually be more cost-effective. If you can find an experienced dev who can do the work of 2 junior devs, you might be able to save enough money to pay them a more competitive salary that will keep them from leaving.

The money that's "saved" by hiring junior devs and underpaying them is quickly eaten up by the costs of employee turnover:

\- Lost productivity of new devs: nobody sticks around long enough to actually become productive with the domain and the tech stack. (And their mental focus is on finding a better-paying job, not doing better in their current job.)

\- Lost productivity of senior devs: they're constantly spending time interviewing and training new junior devs.

\- Recruiting costs, such as headhunter fees.

Also, two junior devs cost twice as much in benefits and overhead (health insurance, paid vacation/holiday/sick days, computer hardware, etc.) as one senior dev.</comment></comment></comment>


Popcorntime is dead - <AUTHOR> http://status.popcorntime.io/ <comment><USER2> I urge people to support the implementation of DHT feeds [1] in famous BitTorrent clients. The idea being that people can subscribe to specific DHT keys they trust, and publishers can publish at that key (by signing the content). This would virtually allow us to use the DHT platform, already in use for sharing IP addresses of peers downloading specific content, also for decentralized torrent "sites" that can't be shut down.

1\. [http://sourceforge.net/p/libtorrent/mailman/message/34356471...](http://sourceforge.net/p/libtorrent/mailman/message/34356471/)

<comment><USER3> "can't"

too big to fail, yes?

<comment> bro-stick Distributed is much more swat proof, and the clear way to go because it reduces the SPOF of a single domain or API taking everyone down.

Popcorn Time proved to be another Lavabit doomed to fail as expected... you need Popcorn Time beauty and ease of use with distributed "netflix meets TPB meet Wikipedia meets i2p" voting and metadata corrections to ensure the system is as reliable as the number of reachable users, not subject to some half- assed, un-swat proof central SPOF servers that don't have at least as good hosting and security as TPB.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I await a replacement eagerly. I just canceled my Netflix since I haven't used it in months. I always wanted to test popcorntime out, but never found the time.

<comment><USER5> butter

<comment><USER4> I saw that on the site:

>is basically your beloved Popcorn Time stipped down of the parts that made people wary.

Which parts will be stripped out? The parts that make popcorntime functional?

<comment><AUTHOR> They should fear it. Everything you wanted with no ads for free....

<comment><USER6> Who is 'they'? What do we want? What was stripped out? Who was made wary?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> bro-stick The iOS version of [http://popcorn-time.se](http://popcorn-time.se) appears to work still, even though it hasn't appeared to move much. Why not merge the codebases of popcorntime.io and continue on with that fork and fix underlying issue of relying on a single torrent feed api?

From outward appearances, the core issue of the meltdown was people not getting along, personal registration of shared resources (important passwords should halved and split among core devs and emails sent to a group account, not personal emails) and trusting unproven people too much. Don't keep "talented" a*holes because they'll just f%ck everyone over the first chance they get. "Hobby" or free is no substitute for unwise and lazy practices.

Future PopcornTime-inspired apps (as well as other privacy apps) must go fully distributed to survive, or starting something is dead on arrival. Also, folks might try sticking to something for a change, not just throwing away their time (lives) and work because they got afraid of attaining some success, because it probably won't happen twice.

</comment><comment><USER7> Sad, but inevitable.

<comment><USER6> Being unfamiliar with popcorntime, I don't know why this was inevitable.

Why does the status page say " _I cleaned all server before switch them down to keep all Developers safe_ "?

What happened? What was gandi.net's role?

<comment><USER8> Popcorn time is an open source piracy app with bittorrent streaming and a nice UI. There was a dustup among the developers, and no one seems to have access to the domain anymore.</comment></comment></comment>