Ask HN: What is wrong with me? - <AUTHOR> I am getting confirmation day by day that people dont want to spend with me. Usually I do small talk, initiate conversation but it seems many people I come across do talk only because I initiated conversation.
I also feel resistance when I ask someone to go out on outings, trip or to bar/club.
Without saying it goes that I still don't have GF or wife. I  am 29 and getting near 30 is a bit scary.
What is wrong with me, seriously ? <comment><USER4> I'm younger than you, but I used to have similar issues. I think you have to realize that you're a worthy human being and don't need to seek approval in _back-up friends_. People "smell" neediness and low-self esteem: do something that makes _you_ proud of yourself and stop listening to social pressures of any kind. You don't have to become a jerk, but seek balance.

Insecure men also struggle with their _manliness_. This is usually a taboo topic, but you need to address it and be sincere about it: do you feel emasculated? _" Without saying it goes that I still don't have GF or wife. I am 29 and getting near 30 is a bit scary."_ There are more people than you realize in your same situation; worse, there are people who married early and are now stuck in a loveless, bleak marriage. one of my mentors – I respect him so much! – found the love of his life in his late 40s, after an awful, awful marriage.

You're a free, young man in his quest for manhood and respect. Just like everyone else. :)

Lastly, let me link you to a post where I addressed my insecurities: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8745651](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8745651)

If you need an e-mail pal, reply to this post and I'll give you my contact information. :)

<comment><USER5> On the subject of manliness, get to the gym. Lift some heavy weights. It will do wonders for your testosterone levels which will in turn boost your confidence and esteem. As a bonus you will also look better and feel better.

<comment><USER6> This is true, if you can get over the fact that results will come very slowly, and that, in the gyms I've visited at least, most of the people there are already ripped and can make you feel somewhat inadequate.

<comment><USER5> Results come a lot quicker for beginners. If you are feeling intimidated about going to the gym at first, it would be worth getting a personal trainer who can show you the ropes and get you started on a program. It gets rid of the fear of being that beginner who has no idea what they are doing.

<comment><USER7> True story... In 6 months hitting the gym 3/4 times a week any gym newbie see a huge change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is in fact normal and nothing is wrong.

If you are throwing a party and invite 100 guests, only 10 will show up. 9 out of 10 will flake out. This is normal and that's how people work.

People don't initiate conversations. It's very rare to meet somebody who will initiate conversation, and keep it going. If you want to have good time, that's on you (to keep finding topics and jumping from theme to theme, have a lively back-and-forth going). It's a skill you can learn and is incredibly easy when you get in the groove.

People don't jump on it, when you invite them to something. For 10 attempts to do something, only 1 will succeed. The key is to keep going and simply have 100s of ideas and keep inviting people. If you are not inviting, nobody is and NOTHING ever will happen. People just keep waiting around, standing around and are incredibly passive in general.

And it's not like everybody is going to parties and you alone are not invited. Nope. It's a desert. In fact, if you yourself don't think of some activity, nothing is happening ever. And most people seem OK with this kind of quiet existence.

The only thing wrong with you is that you have higher expectations (and desires) than the baseline. The solution is - go and make what you want happen. The way to do it: keep having ideas and inviting people. 9 times out of 10 they will decline. That's completely OK, just keep having ideas. 9 out of 10 times when you actually go out and do something, it will not be very exciting. That's the reality and it's completely fine. But then during 1 out of 10 times magic happens.

<comment><USER9> I can confirm the 1 in 10 rule. It really is like this. Then you loosen up and don't care any more. Then things happen.

<comment><USER10> And then there is like 15-20% "cancel two hours before" reduction on those :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Absent more information, it's difficult to tell. There are a bajillion possible reasons people aren't hanging out with you. Off the top of my head, some of the reasons I don't like to hang out with certain people include them being overly argumentative, saying racist things, leaning in too closely to me while talking, not taking things seriously, taking things too seriously, and body odor. It's also possible that you're over-analyzing your current situation.

You really should just try asking a close friend, family member, co-worker, classmate, or anyone you spend (or used to spend) a lot of time with (in a friendly capacity or otherwise). That said, the fact that you're asking HN rather than a close friend, family member, etc. suggests that doesn't work for you, for whatever reason.

So try this: go to a random meetup, chat with a stranger for 15-30 minutes, and then ask them if there's anything about you that seems off-putting. If you feel uncomfortable asking that kind of question or if you're concerned that you won't get an honest response, tell them you're gathering data for a study or something.

And if that doesn't work, you can always schedule an appointment with a professional therapist.

<comment><USER12> "If you feel uncomfortable asking that kind of question or if you're concerned that you won't get an honest response, tell them you're gathering data for a study or something."

Tell them you're a student actor trying out some character traits. The character you're playing is supposed to be a bit annoying or unlikeable. Ask them how you went in portraying those traits.

<comment><USER13> I wouldn't lead the question by telling them that you were supposed to be annoying, because then they will look for things that annoyed them about you that they may have not noticed otherwise. I would tell them to be brutally honest, and, to be honest, if you're wearing the 'suit' of someone else, you could just ask them if you seemed like the kind of guy they would hang out with. Then note their response down in a survey like manner.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Most people suck. I suck, you suck, we all suck. Modern western society does not improve matters, where many of us are uprooted from more local, traditional societies where there are strong community traditions that provide easy social defaults and a fairly limited, consistent group of other people to interact with.

Most social groupings are formed out of blood or forced closeness - <USER2> towns, religious groups, schools, the workplace, housemates, etc. These are people you spend a large percentage of your time with, and they tend to be non-transient factors in your life - i.e. continued social interaction with them is likely over a non-trivial timespan. You can count on these people being around in the future, so the investment of effort in cultivating relationships with them has a high expected payoff.

Compare this with the modern, post-collegiate experience for most 20-somethings. Seeking gainful employment often means leaving behind the familiar contexts one was born and raised in, abandoning familiar social nets, to move to more economically dynamic areas, with larger and more diverse populations. Turnover in employers and fellow employees is vastly higher than it was a generation ago. Tied with this, long-term home ownership is less of a realistic proposition, so the community of locality that comes with living with and getting to know one's neighbors is diminished. Other people are more transient and disposable in this world, and the general uncertainty makes it more difficult to focus the effort on building relationships, particularly when you are trying so hard just to get by, day to day, week to week.

I don't really have a solution, but this seems to me to be the problem.

<comment><USER15> While this may not be the full cause, it's an interesting insight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Two hypotheses:

1\. Maybe nothing is wrong with you and the people that aren't reciprocating aren't the right people for you. In this case, consider ways to find new people, activities, etc., or try to be more comfortable with the fact that you're special and it may take some time to find the right people (but do as much as you can to increase your odds such as hobbies you love, etc.).

2\. Maybe something is wrong with you in the sense that your brain is creating emotional pain in the same way that your body alerts you to physical pain. In this case, first be happy that your brain is trying to help you (even if the emotional pain is... well, painful). Next, consider exploring your emotional pains through philosophy, psychotherapy, positive psychology, exploring your childhood and close relationships, etc.

Each of these hypotheses branches out to many other hypotheses, most of which can be "tested." If one of them isn't yielding a good theory, move on to the next, and you may ultimately find something. Keep trying!

</comment><comment><USER17> 'Desperation is a stinky cologne' \- people pick up on your need for companionship, assume there must be some reason you don't have any, and so it ends up as a self-fulfilling prophecy. there's a good chance that nobody you know could articulate this and are just picking up on your anxiety subconsciously.

So, what you need is self-sufficiency. Once you get more comfortable being in your own company and doing stuff on your own then people will get more interested in you. Pick up some intellectual interest or activity outside of your work and preferably not related to it. Consider getting a dog - <USER3> It's surprisingly emotionally rewarding plus you get automatic entry to this whole secret society of dog owners and an automatic icebreaker/topic of positive small talk. I wasn't into dogs at all until I rescued one, but it turned out to be a big positive and well worth the required lifestyle adjustments. Also, women will size a guy up by how he relates to his dog. If your dog is chill and happy, then people will come over to tell you how cute it is, and this will reflect onto you.

</comment><comment><USER18> Here is the secret to making friends:

People make friends with friendly people. Friendly people enjoy the act "giving" friendship.

They give you fresh baked cookies just to you to see you smile - not because they expect you to do something in return.

They ask about how you are feeling ("How is your back these days?") because they actually care - not because they want your help moving.

Making friends becomes a by-product of being generous with your friendship.

</comment><comment><USER19> As you get into your late 20s and early 30s most people are looking to get married if they haven't already. At that point social life is going to mostly turn into family, wife, kids and work related friends. I'm 32 and recently married and I find it very hard to justify spending much of my time socializing outside of those above contexts. It's often nothing personal and from my own perspective I would actually like to have more friends but after going through a lot of friends over the years it's proven to be rarely worth the long term investment. I'm not going to chase down others to get together and they likewise. There probably isn't a whole lot wrong with you and judging by the desperation at which people try to gain attention on social networks it seems like far more people are lonely then they openly admit - in other words you aren't alone. If you really want to give it a go to gain more friends I would suggest looking for social groups with shared interests, such as recreational sports teams, programming meetups, or whatever you personally like. Attend events that you have interests in, travel by yourself (I used to all the time in my early 20s) and in general just try to make yourself a bit more interesting. Learn to pick up on social cues better, focus on listening rather than talking and go out of your way to help people that you aren't even that close with in simple ways. Online dating is also a good way to meet new people and practice social skills without much risk (you can cut off contact at any point).

<comment><USER10> >s you get into your late 20s and early 30s most people are looking to get married if they haven't already. At that point social life is going to mostly turn into family, wife, kids and work related friends. I'm 32 and recently married and I find it very hard to justify spending much of my time socializing outside of those above contexts.

But why can't those be combined? I find this either family or friends mindset a lot of people have quite strange

<comment><USER19> Because you only have so much time and you are better off spending time with people that are more likely to still be in your life in 10 years? I'm not sure I understand what you mean if that's not what you were getting at.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> What you've written above comes across as the nightmare requirements spec from a client. You're being too vague. You need to deconstruct yourself and your life. Your personality, your habits, where you live and how you live. What you want out of life.

Consider NLP, consider getting involved in things that you find uncomfortable (e.g. amateur dramatics). Join meetup.com and locate groups in your area doing stuff and pop along. Talking to people is hard.

Smarten yourself up. Make yourself look great ALWAYS. Change the way you get to work. Consider cycling/walking. Exercise. Run a half marathon. Follow a passion. Get into local campaigning. Be involved in society. Join a debating society. Avoid MMORPGs as a social outlet ;)

Love yourself (but not in an arrogant way).

AND when you are ready, do something crazy.

You're almost 30. It's time you circumvented the world by train and boat. Consider backpacking around India. Go climb a mountain. Tour across America on a bicycle.

You're single. You have no dependents. You can go anywhere and be anyone. Telecommute from Vietnam.

I would say your statement about going to clubs indicates a way of thinking about getting 'hooked up' that probably does not suit you.

Also hanging out with work colleagues is not good. Going for a drink is fine. People have their own social lives and doing drunk stuff in front of work colleagues can be a very bad thing. People connect with people at work because of the interests they have outside of work, not because they share the same workplace.

Maybe suggest moving into a house with a group of people.

I would also say that from the way you state people don't talk to you is that you have a personality trait some people find uncomfortable.

<comment><USER21> > Change the way you get to work.

There's something to this. Change your smaller habits (ie, where you eat, walk, who you'd normally talk to, etc). Also, get other people talking, ask questions. People like people who listen to them.

On the other hand, don't only ask questions/listen. As someone who lives abroad, I can't tell you how many times I have to repeat my story (how long I've been here, how I learned the language, etc) and strangely people have the habit of keeping me talking with many successive questions (I'm not entirely comfortable with this). I've come to see this as possibly a nerves thing, where they find it easier to ask questions/listen than to be the one talking. What I'm saying is, develop both sides and you'll be able to handle the situation, whatever it is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Hang in there buddy. As others have said it all starts with being content with yourself first. Focus on your hobbies, especially those that come with an "instant community". Get out and do new things and enjoy life. Everything you do gives you some new perspective and interesting new things to talk about with people. Try joining some new MeetUp groups and see if you click with anybody.

Also, make sure you have the basics all covered. I'm not saying any of these apply to you specifically as obviously I don't know, but the basics would include proper hygiene, good breath/dental care, dress in neat, clean clothes, etc.

Finally, you also might want to try reading some books on the subject of interpersonal skills. There are a lot of quick practical tips in the areas of body language and ways to communicate that make other people feel good about themselves when they are around you.

</comment><comment><USER23> Without knowing you personally it's really hard to say.

My personal experience with friendships/relationships is that it is a chicken and egg problem. It's a lot lot _lot_ easier to make new friends when you already have many (same goes with romantic/sexual relationships). It probably has to do with social proof dynamics and the fact that you might be unintentionally signalling insecurity through body language and appear to be desperate. It's possible that a lot of the people you talk to think something like "there must be a reason this 29 year old guy doesn't appear to have any friends".

One drastic solution would be to move to a new city or country which would make it more socially acceptable for you to openly seek out new friends without appearing to be desperate. Another option would be to join a local sports team or other group activity where socialising isn't the central goal (poker, working out, hackatons, hiking, etc.).

Finally, HN is probably the wrong crowd to ask for this kind of advice. [http://forum.bodybuilding.com/](http://forum.bodybuilding.com/), [http://boards.askmen.com/](http://boards.askmen.com/) and other similar "lifestyle" communities would probably yield more interesting results as a lot of the people on those forums are there specifically because they have gone through similar situations.

</comment><comment><USER24> Just by using smalltalk as argument it's rather difficult to say what's wrong. Maybe (instead of listening to strangers on the internet) you should see a therapist. There might be things in your life, that _you_ think are completely normal though they aren't. What I've experienced from friends who went to see a therapist, was: "Wow, are you telling it's not normal to wake up and hate youself?".

<comment><USER25> In that vein, sometimes one can over-interpret normal behaviors as more negative than they actually are. The book "Feeling Good" [1] covers this, and ways to deal with it in a very accessible and straightforward way.

[1][http://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-New-Mood- Therapy/dp/03808...](http://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-New-Mood- Therapy/dp/0380810336/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> it's hard to say without knowing a lot more. who are you? how would you describe yourself? who are you trying to talk with? are they coworkers? are they people with similar backgrounds? how do you engage people? how sure are you people are interested in talking about what you want to talk about? how much do you care about other people? how much do you care about what other people have to say? do you think you're showing people you care (assuming you do)?

...

</comment><comment><USER27> Assuming that you've checked that you're not actually repulsive (halitosis, habitual drooling or unchecked running nose, pants hiked up to your rib cage and smelly, unwashed shirts), then it's most likely that you're just not finding the kind of people with whom you have chemistry.

I felt rather similarly in my early and mid twenties. I didn't click with people, and it always felt like too much effort to socialize. Then I moved to the Bay Area and my life changed over the course of two months. I finally met people with interests and goals I could relate to.

For what it's worth, if I were doing it again now, I'd move to a great city and exploit things like Meetup.com, get out, and take up every class and activity that so much as caught my eye.

Remember: to be interesting, you have to be interested.

</comment><comment><USER28> You are not alone. I am 30 and have experienced the same thing my entire life. Several years ago I questioned it too and was told that it was MY fault for not initiating conversations with people all the time, even though nobody ever has put the effort into initiating a conversation with me, I always just get ignored, somehow I have to put in all the effort and everyone else gets a free pass. But even when I put in a lot of effort nobody gives a shit and eventually flakes out because we haven't been friends since kindergarten like the rest of their friends have been. Well, I finally had enough of this bullshit life and flakey bullshit people; I got rid of all my belongings and moved to South East Asia.

</comment><comment><USER29> Who knows?

Perhaps appearance issues - from being overweight to having sweat stains to not smelling nice to having too long fingernails. Perhaps interaction issues - not making any eye contact, making too much of it, taking down to people, sucking up to them, etc. Perhaps personality issues - odd sense of humor, lack of overall confidence, over-confidence, pushy / boring / quirky personality, etc. It can be anything or a combination of thereof :-|

# That all said, I'd say the first impression you make and the overall confidence are the two most important things to pay attention to if you are looking to change things.

</comment><comment><USER30> This is the wrong place to ask "what is wrong with me?" because we don't know you. Trying to answer without more information is going to be mostly speculation and projection.

That said, it's a good question to ask. I think most people who have trouble socially don't ask, and end up unhappy without realising why. I'm going to try to answer the related question: "how do I find out what is wrong with me?"

There are two people I think you should talk to:

Firstly, someone who would have been affected by your problem (if there really is one). You just need to ask them nicely and in a way that doesn't make it seem personal. If someone I knew said "Hey, I'm trying to improve myself. Could you tell me honestly if there is anything I'm doing that makes people uncomfortable?" I would do my best to help them.

Secondly, a therapist. They can listen to how you feel about social situations and help you figure out how to deal with it. Keep in mind that social anxiety is one of the most commonly reported mental health issues. There may be nothing wrong with you in social situations except the way you think about them. I can't say for sure because I'm not a therapist, but this kind of problem is exactly what they do.

Good luck and I hope you find your answers.

</comment><comment><USER31> Don't worry about what others might think of you. But do worry about what you think about yourself. Aside from the facts that you mentioned what do you think about yourself right now? Are you happy with your body? are you happy with your career? are you happy with your hobbies? Do you eat well? Do you exercise regularly? Do you take care of yourself well? ...

Bottom line: Be someone YOU respect and like. The rest will take care of itself.

If you don't like yourself, nobody else will.

<comment><USER9> I agree; but don't sweat on it too much. If you constantly question yourself if you're doing the right thing, then you're not.

(Oh - there's nothing wrong with you. Really)

<comment><USER31> Yeah I know. I'm weird like that.

I'm constantly looking for things I can improve, and running out of free time to do that.

I don't find it makes me insecure in social situations though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> There was a post on HN just today by an anonymous guy for his book 'Hacking Sex' [1]. I actually went ahead and checked it out, since it had a lot of positive comments from women on Amazon. I was intrigued that the author stated that luck with women has nothing to do with genetics, but my surprise/interest diminished when I skipped through the pages and found all sorts of sections on buying clothes and being in good shape. I was really turned off when he gave advice about actually making love, really starting to think this guy is full of himself. I'm a little bit disgusted by his attitude about needing to have sex with as many women as possible, but I also understand how it could be beneficial. I'm sure that his advice does indeed vibe with what women desire, and it would probably do me some good to be open to it (when I have the time/money to do so).

More on my opinion and less on this book (which as I said I have only skimmed for now so can't really judge), I believe in the LAMPS theory: girls tend to be interested in Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power, and Status. I think you can gain a lot of the last 3 just by working hard on improving your own life. That book says you can be yourself and that girls will like you even more for that, but maybe that's just signaling Power/Status, or maybe LAMPS is just not a good theory. Ultimately though, in today's society you really just need to look good/healthy, have a fulfilling well paid occupation, and give the ladies (or other people) exactly what THEY want; you can't be selfish. It's not about YOU becoming less lonely, it's about being interesting to other people.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9005096](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9005096)

<comment><USER33> "my surprise/interest diminished when I skipped through the pages and found all sorts of sections on buying clothes and being in good shape."

Well, it does matter, as much as some people like to think it doesn't or shouldn't. It's certainly not everything, not even by half, but people like attractive people. It gets you through the door so to speak. That, in turn, gives you more opportunities to meet people.

If you have a crap personality most women won't stay long anyway, but if you're overweight and dress like a kid in high school then don't be surprised that women aren't falling over themselves to talk to you (and no, that doesn't make them superficial; it's how the vast majority of us are wired, and how you present yourself says something about you).

<comment><USER32> Yeah, and as I say it didn't surprise me that any of that mattered. I've always known what I have to do (have more money for clothes/fashion, spend time at the gym). I think I have a pretty interesting personality, I do make friends with a lot of people once they get to know me. I just have trouble even saying a single word to females I find attractive. But I've got bigger problems in my life to solve.

Here's the quote from the author's website that intrigued me:

"A five-point guide on how to be more attractive (Hint: your genetics don't matter)"

I thought he might go into more of a strategy about how to open up and talk with women (again, I haven't really read it yet), since it's not looks that matter. But it turned out, as you and I both understand, appearance really does matter, and therefore genetics DO matter, because they are a huge factor in your appearance and even in how healthy you can appear.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I tend to be the planner in my social circle and I've learned a few things in my many years of planning/organizing (I'm 33)

\- If it's something casual, don't be too pushy. Like we learned in D.A.R.E, leave the door open. So if I ask someone if they'd like to come out to get drinks and they're not sure, I just say "No problem, text me if you want to come, we'll be there." For more formal events that require reservations, get a commitment well in advance.

\- I find that if I'm doing something that the person I'm trying to invite hasn't done before they're more interested in coming. I do my best to make it easy on everyone so I lay out an exact itinerary, offer to do the group purchasing, and make sure everyone has a way to get to the event.

\- I find that posting some post-event photos on Facebook help a lot as people see the fun they're missing out on.

\- Don't be afraid to have fun by yourself. I enjoy rambling around new places by myself and the more I put myself in new situations, new places, the more often I find myself meeting new people.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm not sure about your specific situation, but it helps if you focus the conversations on them instead of you.

Be genuinely interested in other people and they will like you. Respect their opinions even if you disagree.

[http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence- People/dp/06...](http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence- People/dp/0671027034/)

</comment><comment><USER35> A few examples would help us understand the problem better. Based on just this description, it could be _anything_.

</comment><comment><USER36> There could be many reasons why people avoid you. I don't know you and it would be hard to find the real reason here but I give you _this_ one advice:

 _Don 't go out and look for friends—never do this._

The problem is that people will smell it from the first moment you are around them. They will know when they see you looking at them, how you approach them and how you talk and how long you talk with them. You signal—it's basically written on your forehead: 'I need friends. I want friends. I am lonely, I am needy and full of despair, please f __*ing talk to me. ' And this neediness makes you as a person very unattractive. It's not your looks.

I went through a similar stage for a long time but could get out, now I have again tons of friends, a lovely girl-friend and life is good. Let me know if you need more advice.

</comment><comment><USER37> A lot of people are late bloomers.

Then again, some people are just incapable of socializing. I know at least one person like that who is older than you, single, and gets looked over for a lot of activities at the community group we both frequent because people feel that he's incapable of holding a conversation.

Yet he's harmless and tries to be social but it just comes out wrong and in all his years he has never learned.

Then on the other hand I'm 30 and I just recently in the last 4-5 years started blossoming. I'm not saying I'm extrovert yet but I've realized a detail about being introvert and that is that we thrive in social situations as long as we can rest after and recuperate. Resting requires silence and alone time, or time with very close friends and spouses.

</comment><comment><USER38> I don't know you but people skills are indeed a skill you can learn. Try reading How to Win Friends and Influence people and doing some of the stuff

review

[http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People- ebook...](http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People- ebook/product-reviews/B003WEAI4E)

pdf

[http://www.yourcoach.be/blog/wp- content/uploads/2014/02/Dale...](http://www.yourcoach.be/blog/wp- content/uploads/2014/02/Dale-Carnegie-How-to-win-friends-and-influence- people.pdf)

Also toastmasters, meetups good. PUA types can be helpful but also can be rubbish. I think a lot of social types spend years on the social stuff in school uni etc so geek types can sometimes have some catching up to do.

</comment><comment><USER39> Why do you approach them in the first place? Are you genuinely curious about them as people, or do you want them to fill some need / ache / void in you?

If you think it may be leaning towards the latter, try to look deep within yourself and understand what it is you need. The next step would be to meet this need by yourself. Trying to use other people seldom works well, in my experience.

On the other hand, if it's the former, does it come across to them that you are genuinely interested? Do you keep eye contact most of the time? Do you pay attention when they are talking, and do you listen to what they are saying without thinking about what you should be saying next? Are you listening more than you are talking?

</comment><comment><USER40> I guess a lot of programmers can at least partially identify with this:

"You see your report here says that you are an extremely dull person. You see, our experts describe you as an appallingly dull fellow, unimaginative, timid, lacking in initiative, spineless, easily dominated, no sense of humour, tedious company and irrepressibly drab and awful."

"And whereas in most professions these would be considerable drawbacks," in your profession "they are a positive boon." (You work in front of the screen the whole day anyway).

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azkFz1ZbXyU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azkFz1ZbXyU)

</comment><comment> Jean-Philipe I am probably one of those people that keep cancelling appointments with friends. Nothing personal. I'm just busy (work, kids) or probably not organised well enough. Some of my friends understand, some are worse than me, but some take it personally. Interestingly, there's no relation between the time I spend with a friend and how mad they are with me.

Nobody should be hurt. It's my life, that's what it is, the day has only that many hours, things happen, and things will change one day. Right now, I don't even have time for myself.

</comment><comment><USER36> I have another advice:

Since many and me wrote that you should NOT go out and look for friends since it makes you needy and people smell the neediness it's is important to note that having a few good friends is the key to happiness. Just one or two is enough. People you can call anytime.

Now I said that you shouldn't actively look out for those but I am saying at the same time that they are the key for happiness. Without friends depression comes quick.

Let's dive into 'friendship', what are friends? Is there an abstract concept for it? Or what is more interesting here—how does friendship evolve? It's quite simple and we start with an anti example: imagine you met a guy some night you went out. He has some similarities like same interests und you guys both recognize that you need friends and decide to meet more often to do stuff together. You go a few times out and then you guys realize that you have nothing to talk anymore. So you decide to do some active stuff, you guys play tennis, it's fun but you guys are still not friends, after the match you head to your places without talking too much. You go out more often, chase girls together. Fun but you still no friends, rather competitors. So why did no friendship evolve here? You guys had the same interest, did many activities together and still feel awkward together and have nothing of significance to tell?

The answer in my experience is that the relationship I describes before is based on a voluntary setup that means that nobody forced you guys to be together. Every time you met you had to _act_ to see each other, no external force brought you together.

A beneficial setup for evolving friendship is a forced community with a hostile participant or just somebody with more power. Friendship easily evolves there where people have a common enemy and the need to form alliances. School is the perfect example with the teacher as the enemy. The older the people get there are less forced communities. You office is also a forced community with managers as 'enemies' but since there is a lot of change and office politics involved friendships there are very prone to fall quickly apart.

The bigger/stronger/tyrannic the enemy is the stronger your friendship will be and once the enemy is away you friendship will slowly fade.

</comment><comment><USER41> Disregard all definitive answers in this thread. You have provided so little information, it is impossible to answer your question with any reasonable degree accuracy.

The best way for you to receive an answer that is close to reality is to visit several psychotherapists and talk to professionals qualified to talk about your personal issues while maintaining your privacy. It would be also beneficial to learn more about meditation, self-awareness and psychology in general.

<comment><USER42> > Disregard all definitive answers in this thread

> The best way for you

Well done...

Not that it's bad advice, but still.

<comment><USER41> The synonyms for definitive are conclusive, final, ultimate. My advice is not an ultimate one, it is a intermediate strategy (a best one from my point of view) to achieve a definitive answer. So I'll stand by my wording :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> It's easier to connect when you have something in common.

So my suggestion is that you join some group doing things you like - be it art, music sport or anything else that you like and will introduce you to different people (suggestion: _not_ some technical group).

My personal change came when I joined a sports group (triathlon in my case). I was never a good athlete but I did get a change to meet a lot of new people. Indirectly I have found my wife through that group.

</comment><comment><USER44> I'd suggest that you take some time off from your current life and go out travelling and see the world. You will definitely get some perspective on things.

</comment><comment><USER12> If you get social offers, say yes as often as possible. Someone wants to go out but you're feeling a bit tired and sitting on the couch? Get off your butt. Short of money? "Watching my alcohol intake this month - will have a couple and then stick to waters if that's OK with you."

</comment><comment><USER21> Someone I know recently asked people via social networks what they thought of her (her good qualities and bad). She did it via a Google spreadsheet ('backend') while what people saw upon clicking the link was a form (preventing anyone from seeing other people's responses). Try this.

</comment><comment><USER45> Read the book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" from Dale Carnegie.

<comment><USER46> I'd say the same. Its not as shallow as the title insinuates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Your negative attitude and belief that you're not worth anything.

There are lots of books on self-esteem and social improvement. I suggest you read a few.

</comment><comment><USER48> Pivot. Tech has a way of turning viable men into old creepers. You will be 40 in 2-3 jobs.

</comment><comment><USER49> Do you smell?

</comment><comment><USER50> learn NPL, your social skills will improve ; >

i.e. [http://www.nlp-secrets.com/nlp-seduction/how-to-talk-to- girl...](http://www.nlp-secrets.com/nlp-seduction/how-to-talk-to-girls.php)</comment>


Larry Ellison Challenges Amazon, Salesforce and Workday on the Future of the Cloud - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobevans1/2017/12/12/oracles-larry-ellison-challenges-amazon-salesforce-and-workday-on-the-future-of-the-cloud/#7ebdde6f3522 <comment><USER2> Larry Ellison is the owner of Oracle. He is challenges of Amazon,Salesforce and Workday for future of the Cloud CRM. He says oracle will provides best CRM cloud soutions & increase revenue from these companies.</comment>


Do we really need to run a power station just for Bitcoin? - <AUTHOR> http://www.oditorium.com/ou/2013/11/do-we-really-need-to-run-a-power-station-just-for-bitcoin/ <comment><USER2> Based on an electricity price of $125/mWh and power consumption of 650W/gigahash, Bitcoin costs $9m a day, or about $3.3b a year to run. The total value of Bitcoin is about $7.5b. Incidentally, the US mint and federal reserve combined 2013 budget was $8.1b for 2013 and the total value of US currency in circulation is about $800b.

This raises a few interesting questions: will the logistical cost of running Bitcoin rise linearly with its total value? If so, are Bitcoin's running costs too great to make it a viable global currency?

Sources: [http://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/budget- review/fil...](http://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/budget- review/files/2013-budget-review.pdf)

[http://www.treasury.gov/about/budget- performance/Documents/2...](http://www.treasury.gov/about/budget- performance/Documents/20%20-%20FY%202013%20US%20Mint%20CJ.pdf)

[http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg60ztgSzm1g10zm2g2...](http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg60ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv)

<comment><USER3> The fundamental problem with bit-coin is anyone willing to pay for twice the current mining costs can double spend and destroy the currency. As such there is no way even 100 billion in mining can protect 10 trillion in value. QED: the long term viability of bit-coin as a _cheap_ world wide currency is impossible.

Anyway, the secret service and possibly the FBI one run anti counterfeiting operations so it's slightly higher than that. Beyond that, I think there is a fair amount of diplomatic operations that support the USD but it's still far far cheaper to run relative to value than bit-coin right now.

<comment><USER4> A 51% attack only gives you the ability to double-spend coins you already control. It doesn't give you the ability to crack the private keys of others. So there is no straightforward economic incentive for a 51% attack unless you own a huge amount of Bitcoin, and thus would be hurting yourself.

<comment><USER3> You can double spend with wallets you own so 1BTC > 2BTC > 4BTC ... any number you want fairly quickly.

<comment><USER5> I think this is false. Double spending doesn't create coins, it screws someone who accepted a coin. My understanding of the 51% attack is that you can basically reliably snip the end from the block chain. That doesn't let you put arbitrary things into it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >so why not go for a nice central-custodian system like that run by VISA, Mastercard, or your friendly neighbourhood bank which is protected by the state, rather than for one that relies on the fact that protecting it wastes so much money that every attack will be very costly (if this was not clear, I have explained this in detail here)

This article brings up a good point about consumption, but this introductory question is dumb. The short answer is "because that's the entire point".

<comment><USER5> That's the entire point for (most? all?) the people involved in creating bitcoin. It's the central point for many of the people involved in bitcoin today. But there's a large number of people who just want a cheap and easy means of electronic payment.

<comment><USER7> They have that, it's called VISA, Mastercard, etc.

<comment><USER5> Bitcoin promises to be cheaper, and to not require blessing of payer or payee.

<comment><USER7> Yes, and one of the reasons BTC is cheaper is because it's a market, and not "a nice central-custodian system like that run by VISA, Mastercard" or any other monopolist.

<comment><USER5> Yes, but from the point of view of the people I am describing that is an implementation detail, not "the entire point."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So the biggest problem with this post is that blockchain.info specifically says that they assume 650W per GigaHash. This is just out of date.

Modern ASIC miners (which are doing the majority of the mining) are doing more like 10W per GigaHash.[1]

So we only need 1/65th of what is being estimated.

1) [http://millybitcoin.com/does-bitcoin-mining-use-a-large- amou...](http://millybitcoin.com/does-bitcoin-mining-use-a-large-amount-of- electricity/)

<comment><USER9> What's the source of that - that the majority of Bitcoin miners are using ASICs? From everything I've read they're new, in scarce supply with lead times of up to a year, and expensive.

<comment><USER5> "The majority of Bitcoin miners are using ASICs" and "the majority of the mining is being done by ASIC miners" are two distinct claims.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting numbers. Still, it's pretty benign compared to the costs and environmental horrors of gold mining.

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

</comment><comment><USER11> What about the costs of market distortions and mis-allocation of resources when a fiat currency can be inflated with almost no cost?

How much energy (and other resources) were expended in the dot-com boom, and the housing boom? Think of all the houses that were built to replace houses that were perfectly usable, and are now empty? And all the IT equipment built for dot-coms that died after 6 or 12 months?

Probably need to include at least some of the costs of wars and military forces, as those are necessary to maintain the "full faith and credit of the XYZ government" that _is_ the fiat currency.

And definitely need to factor in all of the energy and materials put into huge volumes of cheaply imported products (including oil), that is only possible because fiat currencies enable huge trade imbalances. And all of the energy and materials put into re-creating the manufacturing industry in other countries, as those products become "cheaper", enabled by fiat currencies. And all of the energy used by those products, as their "low" prices make them more pervasive than they would normally be.

You don't have to continue this train of thought too far to realize that the costs of maintaining Bitcoin are minuscule when compared to the true costs of using and maintaining a fiat currency.

</comment><comment><USER12> Do we really need to dig massive open pits, extract 3 ppm gold molecules, dump the rest, cast the gold into blocks and store them in locked vaults to have gold reserves?

</comment><comment><USER13> The Blockchain.info number he bases it on comes from:

* Electricity consumption is estimated based on power consumption of 650 Watts per gigahash and electricity price of 15 cent per kilowatt hour. In reality some miners will be more or less efficient.

ASICs (which I believe are the majority of the hashrate nowadays) are more on the order of 10 W/GH (Block Erupter claims 7.5 W/GH/s, the Butterfly Labs 5 GH/s ASIC looks like it's around 6.5 W/GH/s).

</comment><comment><USER14> First of all, thank you all for the insightful and civilised discussion of my recent post, and than you for pointing out that the number on blockchain.info is off by almost two orders of magnitude. I have updated my post to account for this.

My main argument was actually slightly tangential to this, in that I am arguing that Bitcoin still needs the protection of the state to survive. I have expanded on this topic in my post today [http://www.oditorium.com/ou/2013/11/what-does-it-take-to- att...](http://www.oditorium.com/ou/2013/11/what-does-it-take-to-attack- bitcoin-a-power-station/)

and back in April I have written a more general post on the various threats to Bitcoin [http://www.oditorium.com/ou/2013/04/fifty-ways-to-kill- bitco...](http://www.oditorium.com/ou/2013/04/fifty-ways-to-kill-bitcoin/)

So my central point is: those 50MW (or whatever they will be when the price/hashrate goes up) are simply the costs of maintaining the ledger. As I have noted in the comments to my post, I agree that this is lower than the energy expended handling cash. However, and this is crucial, it is probably about 50MW higher than the cost of maintaining the ledger in a trust-based system that relies on the courts to maintain the integrity of the ledger.

I am all for running an electronic currency, but IMO the hash-rate protection feature of bitcoin is redundant and wasteful.

PS. If anyone reading this know the guys at blockchain.info can you ask them to update their site? It is not helpful if the information on what is arguably the #1 source for bitcoin related data is off by a factor of 50x for the better part of the year now.

</comment><comment><USER15> I don't get the argument. The power requirement of running the entire world's monetary infrastructure is probably much bigger, no?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep that is true. The author discusses this here: [http://www.oditorium.com/ou/2013/04/krugman-bitcoin- resource...](http://www.oditorium.com/ou/2013/04/krugman-bitcoin-resources- waste/)

<comment><USER5> That's kind of a weird post - it conflates very different things. Mining burns power to protect against _a specific class of attack_ , not _any and all attacks._ Bitcoin isn't magically immune to heists, and physical protection may be slightly easier (in that you don't need physical access as frequently) but no less necessary for large wallets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The financial industry uses up 20+% of US population (albeit this is more than just the currency), but it gives you an idea of how many resources need to be diverted to the process of allocating capital. Many communism nations failed because (along with many many other reasons) there weren't a lot of people figuring out the best allocation of resources.

</comment><comment><USER17> The current cost of fraud from chargebacks and identity theft from traditional credit cards seems like it would dwarf any eventual power consumption of Bitcoin miners.

<comment><USER18> You realize that Bitcoin isn't immune to fraud, it just puts the fraud burden on the consumer rather than the merchant, right?

There have already been plenty of Bitcoin frauds; pyramid schemes, merchants disappearing, computers hacked and Bitcoins stolen, entire exchanges disappearing, etc.

<comment><USER17> Sure; there's a reason I specified chargebacks and identity theft.

These are two areas that are largely solved with a push payment system rather than a pull payment system.

I'm looking forward to seeing how other types of fraud are addressed in the future, but it's fairly predictable we'll see further scams and fraud along the way.

<comment><USER18> Why do you think that Bitcoin fraud would be handled differently that fiat currency fraud; that is, by offering credit, doing chargebacks, and so on, just like people do with fiat currency?

I mean, it's not like we don't have options like wire transfers for transmitting currency without the possibility of chargebacks; but as you notice, most people choose to use credit cards, which offer the buyer protection, rather than using wire transfers for purchasing goods online.

Bitcoin isn't a particularly good payment system, and I can't imagine that most people will wind up sending Bitcoins directly as payment for the vast majority of purchases. It's more of a replacement of bank transfers or wire transfers, which are used in particular specialized circumstances but not by the average consumer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Do we really need a power station just for [more popular and frivolous technology than Bitcoin]?

<comment><USER20> high frequency trading (e.g.) Why not just throttle the markets so that trades are resolved discretely, at a human interval, say at 5 second increments?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> How can I be the first one to notice how fucked this math is?

> Blockchain.info estimates the energy usage of Bitcoin miners to be 74,204.76 > megawatt hours for a period of 24 hours. Now 74.2 / 24 = 3.1, so this > corresponds to a power requirement of 3.1 GW.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm sure people have thought about this before, but is there no way for bitcoin mining to be performing useful computational work? Some algorithm that is CPU-intensive and verifiable, but _also_ beneficial to humanity?

<comment><USER23> Indeed they have [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Why_don.27t_we_use_calculatio...](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Why_don.27t_we_use_calculations_that_are_also_useful_for_some_other_purpose.3F)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> You don't need to run a power station if you don't want to. Like people are not forced to make lolcat videos for everyone's amusement. They do so voluntarily. What's the problem?

</comment><comment><USER25> Has anybody mentioned the power costs of all the different payment methods? I mean, datacenters, helpdesk-offices, sales and marketing. I think Bitcoin does a way better job.

<comment><USER26> How is that different for bitcoin? Accepting bitcoin payments for purchases still requires datacenters as well as support, sales, and marketing staff given that the products/services being sold don't automagically market, sell, and support themselves just because you accept bitcoin. It might even be worse as a transaction needs to be verified by the rest of the network, not just by a single authority.

<comment><USER25> Bitcoin would work perfectly well without datacenters. The client is all you need, you can run it on your computer.

I'm talking about the people from VISA that have to store and maintain accountholders data. None of this exists for Bitcoin.

<comment><USER26> Each bitcoin transaction needs to be verified by a majority of the network in order to mitigate the risk of a fraudulent transaction. Does the energy required to do this exceed Visa's per-transaction energy requirements?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It does seem a bit wasteful, but companies producing ASICs are fighting for lower power consumption. I would expect future power consumption per GH/s to go down.

<comment><USER5> Watts/(GH/s) will go down because of ASICs, but that will make mining more lucrative and they will have to up the difficulty which raises Watts/(GH/s).

<comment><USER28> While making GFlops/watt cheaper for all number crunching applications, no?

<comment><USER5> Not if it's just because we're building bitcoin-specific ASICs. It _might_ help push technology, but it'll also pull brain-power that would otherwise have been focused elsewhere. It's hard to know what the counterfactual would actually look like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ripple contains a Bitcoin-like cryptocurrency called XRP that only takes a few seconds to confirm transactions and does not require mining:

[https://ripple.com/](https://ripple.com/)

[https://ripple.com/wiki/Introduction_to_Ripple_for_Bitcoiner...](https://ripple.com/wiki/Introduction_to_Ripple_for_Bitcoiners)

It also allows accounting in any units.

<comment><USER24> Ripple moves IOUs based on trust, not hard gold-like asset.

<comment><USER4> XRP is trustless, like Bitcoin.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> How much effort is spent on the equivalent administrative tasks for other currencies such as the USD?

</comment><comment><USER30> "So currently mining Bitcoins requires power levels somewhere between the one produced by the Hoover Dam, and the world's larges coal fired power station."

Emphasis on "currently"

Disruptive technologies are almost always costly in some way or another until more widely adopted.

<comment><USER31> Show your work. Why do you expect the power consumption of the Bitcoin network to go down?

When specific costs of a technology decrease it's for reasons specific to that technology. Yes, cell phones have gotten smaller & less expensive (as one example), but that doesn't tell us anything about the power consumption of the Bitcoin network.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> what's the conversion rate on unicorns to leprechauns? i'm gonna need a perpetual motion machine to figure this one out...</comment>


Encoded Malware in DNA - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/malware-dna-hack/ <comment><USER2> In GEB there is a chapter about an audio reproducing system that is corrupted by the audio it reproduces.</comment>


Apply HN: lumiverse – the best place to discover educational videos - <AUTHOR> http://lumiverse.io<p>I want lumiverse to become the perfect place for people to publish, discover and discuss great educational videos. I want to build a friendly and intelligent community, make it easy for video creators to find an audience, and make it easy for viewers to discover awesome videos. <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable link - [http://lumiverse.io](http://lumiverse.io)

After I've deployed the beta(couple of weeks ago), lumiverse gained 239 users, and 105 subscribers to the mailing list of our best videos.

We already have some amazing video creators, 98k views, and people keep joining. Feedback is great.

I am planning to monetize by allowing people to sell video series, and by producing original content(starting with awesome educational videos about rationality).

</comment><comment><USER2> Good luck, sounds interesting :) .

I don't get who your audience will be - high schoolers? bored people? students researching for a project? people looking to brush up their skills?

The community part sounds like a way to set it apart from YouTube and others, how do you plan on developing that part? Won't you have "drive-by" viewership like YouTube?

On the technical part, I've found that streaming video is pretty expensive on bandwith, how do you plan to scale that? Will you need venture capital to grow?

If you were selected for the YC Fellowship, how would you use the money? Marketing? Technical challenges?</comment>


Why Hackers Must Welcome Social Justice Advocates - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@coralineada/why-hackers-must-welcome-social-justice-advocates-1f8d7e216b00#.jyd01hyyi <comment><USER2> The counterpoint: [http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918)

 _Edited_ : to clarify, the above link is the article to which Coraline is responding in her Medium piece. It's worth remembering also that Coraline - while _not_ a contributor to a particular OSS project, OpalRb - attempted to have someone ousted from the project (or at least censured), because he wrote something she didn't like.

<comment><USER3> If you'd have bothered to read the article linked to, you'd have seen that ESR's post was the Point that's being Counter'd.

<comment><USER2> Read and replied, actually, if you'd bothered to read the replies to Coraline's piece ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is this a duplicate of: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10639838](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10639838)

<comment><USER5> There have been a few submissions, but all only got a very small number of comments: [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Why%20Hackers%20Must%20Welcome...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Why%20Hackers%20Must%20Welcome%20Social%20Justice%20Advocates&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0)

Generally, a few double-submissions are ok, as long as none before has created a significant discussion, this situation is a bit weird...</comment></comment>


The Rise of the Architectural Cult - <AUTHOR> https://inference-review.com/article/the-rise-of-the-architectural-cult <comment><USER2> When someone seriously describes architectural styles with words like "an aberration, something alien to the history of humanity, something destructive aesthetically and spiritually, something ugly and unpleasant, something that was inhumane and abnormal", every one should have enough sense to treat the text with caution.

To complement the unreservedly approving review posted by OP, here is a more level headed one, by someone that does not happily accept "secret cult" as the full explanation for shifts in culture: [https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/modernism-and- the-m...](https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/modernism-and-the-making- of-dystopia_o)

Finally, for balance, here is a review by someone that clearly thinks "mental manipulation" is such a failure of explanation of a historical process that some liberty can be when reviewing the book: [https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/modernist- architecture-i...](https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/modernist-architecture- isnt-barbarous-but-the-blinkered-rejection-of-it-is/)

<comment><USER3> The first article seems a rather long winded way of saying:

"He's not entirely wrong, there are lots of extremely ugly modernist buildings, especially those which are done on a budget or are uninspired. The earlier style buildings are usually of consistently good quality or at least non-offensive even when cheaply or formulaically done since they incorporate many elements are are inherently pleasing to human nature. But I disagree with the author's premise that Modernism was forced on society by its creators and believe it is simply an unconventional style originating from a war stricken period that became wildly popular with people seeking a novel architecture."

I still think Curl's point stands that Modernist architecture is founded on rather unnatural patterns and images. I mean unnatural in its most literal sense, not of nature or not incorporating naturally occurring patterns. The pre-modern style gravitates towards the natural and takes inspiration from it. It's no surprise that applying those rules instantly humanizes a structure.

It's the difference between a parking lot and a park. The former is a blank, utilitarian space optimized for storing cars, the latter a landscaped environment optimized for human occupation. Sure you can make a beautifully executed parking lot but it will never be as comfortable a place to be on a sunny day as even the most lack lustre park with a few shade trees and a carpet of grass.

<comment><USER2> I can't find anything in the text to support the unchecked praise for all pre- modern buildings you claim to be there.

The best the text provides is the assertion that "the pre-modern architectural language could be easily learned" and so even those of modest talents could make good buildings. Hardly the claim of inherent pleasure in the pre-modern form you say is there!

The idea that there is anything straightforwardly natural about any building endowed with architecture is not very well thought throught.

That or the sympthom of astonishingly poor comprehension of geology and ecology.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The trappings of this cult have trickled all the way down to ugly "intersecting cubes" single family homes. They're ugly, badly colored, and lack a "home" feeling.

The opposite form of bad home architecture (McMansiondom) suffers many similar problems - no actual consideration of real livability and usefulness.

We repainted our house a pale pink with an aqua door and I feel happy every time I come down the street to see it. Bring some fun and whimsy to your home!

<comment><USER5> McMansions are actually quite livable for the primary target market: upper middle class suburbanites with small children who like to entertain occasionally. The major home builders literally employ sociologists who research how families actually live in their homes and use that to help their architects design new floorplans.

<comment><USER4> I grew up in one, my parents currently live in a different one.

Both had major livability issues: \- No privacy (too much open plan space) \- very expensive to heat and cool due to poor insulation \- poor construction (this is both a design issue and a quality issue) \- ugly (as the article contends, this is a quality-of-life issue)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> James Kunstler (despite being a bit of a kook), has been making this argument compellingly and entertainingly for like, 20 years.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz7oJjWg8_Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz7oJjWg8_Y)

<comment><USER7> He doesn't seem kooky besides how passionate he is about how bad the architectural landscape is and how powerful a remedy it would be for reinvigorating civic life. He has some good things to say and he really is articulate about how things are and their consequences.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Christopher Alexander original pattern book was motivated by this sad state of contemporary architecture. Unfortunately architecture now is possibly even crappier than it was then but at least we got some new ideas in software development (the GoF book).

<comment><USER9> Came here to reference Alexander as a reaction against modernist tyranny and say how it was his work that influenced software architects and designers today moreso than any of the modernists. Given buildings are necessarily expressions of economy, it is very difficult to discuss architecture without including moral and political questions.

The post-modernist discussions of architecture go far in one direction, barely even bothing to discuss building, (see Robert Venturi's "Leaving Las Vegas," [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Venturi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Venturi))

When you look at the time and values of the Bauhaus, the architecture was also an expression of values, a rejection of craft, religion, nobility, hierarchy. It was the imposition of form on the landscape, and with it, society. It was without awe, reverence, respect, or recognition of anything greater than material human needs.

Mies van Der Rohe's buildings at least have some nods to the origin of their materials, but today they seem quaint and sentimental for their naive and dated view of progress. Otherwise, both modernism and later brutalism were the expression of ideals we look back on today as abominations.

<comment><USER2> > Otherwise, both modernism and later brutalism were the expression of ideals > we look back on today as abominations.

Well, the resulting buildings are fairly or unfairly ( lots of things built much after the styles died out get mislabelled ) criticized for their looks, nobody really objects to their _design principles_. Hardly anyone on the brutalism hate-train even know what brutalism was about, and just object to any concrete facade, for example.

<comment><USER10> > nobody really objects to their design principles.

As a layman, I do not know, nor care, about the design principles involved. What I care about is how a building makes me feel and most modern everyday architecture seems to want me to feel bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I can't but agree - Mies Van der Rohe and Le Corbusier's archetecture in particular is just so unlovable. Where is the sense of warmth or sensuousness or childlike wonder? A lot of those buildings really seem like they could only be designed and seen as actually desirable and good by a very psychologically warped kind of person. So dominating and overpowering. No play or whimsy, no sense of the delicate or harmonious. Yuck

<comment><USER12> It's important to understand their context, where people like Mies are coming from. They're coming from a time when there were still very strong expectations regarding how things have to look or behave, independent from their actual utility and function, and they basically took a radical stance against that.

Then later cam people like Zaha Hadid who in turn rebelled against the mid century modernists and their ubiquity with a radically organic approach (avoiding sharp edges and corners).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I live in a house from 1860 with a 2013 remodel of one wall of one room designed by architects that were inspired by Le Corbusier. Respecting the soul of a place, while introducing fresh and exciting lines is delicate, but worth it.

I should also say that this remodel respects also our need to live with the room and the adjoining garden in all seasons.

I've used the word respect in two sentences there. Perhaps there's something to that....

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't know architecture, but is this the explanation for the increasingly ugly and soul-crushing building designs that have been getting built over the past decade or so? Particularly with apartment buildings.

They try to dress them up in wood and faded pastel colors, but none of that makes anything better. They're still huge, hideous boxes built right up to the edge of the sidewalks.

<comment><USER14> No, that's a separate thing: you're thinking of "one-plus-five" apartments, which came about because of fire code changes that allow for wood frames on top of concrete bases, and have a limited number of styling options available because wood and concrete have different thermal/rain expansion behavior.

Unfortunately, while they're bland, they're also much cheaper to build than previous apartment styles, and so they're an urgently-needed part of fixing the housing issues in dense cities. Lower housing costs take priority over aesthetic considerations.

<comment><USER10> Interesting, although none of these buildings are wood-framed. They're all concrete with a wood panel decoration hung on the outside, or with different blocks painted different faded pastel colors.

Edit: I'm talking about stuff like this: [http://lookfordesigns.com/modern- apartment-building-architec...](http://lookfordesigns.com/modern-apartment- building-architecture/modern-apartment-buildings-architecture-famous/)

> Lower housing costs take priority over aesthetic considerations.

I suppose this makes a certain amount of sense, but in my (and many other people's) view, these buildings are simply unlivable and reduce the livability of the area they exist in. So, in a sense, they're a kind of "negative housing" in that the more of them exist, the less areas are acceptable for at least some people to exist in.

I try to be optimistic about the future, but the rate at which these buildings are going up makes it hard for me, because it means that I can't actually trust that a given area is a place I can remain in the long term. Now I have to have an escape plan anywhere I decide to be.

I acknowledge that my whining about this may be an "old man yelling at clouds" thing, but it does cause me real distress.

<comment><USER15> These buildings distress me as well. I always called them panel style before I learned of one-plus-five. I often imagine finding the developer, and looking at the building with them saying - look at what you left here! Bad dog!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The article keeps mentioning that modern architecture is less likely to help with healing, which is a very odd terminology, I would have liked to see some explanation of what it means by that. At first read, it sounds very much like new-age mumbo-jumbo, but the rest of the article doesn't have that vibe, so I was left confused.

<comment><USER17> "Recent scientific advances have also provided support for the notion that architectural environments influence wellbeing" Has a reference, healing here isn't meant as literally healing the sick (necessarily) as making one "feel good" in its presence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Like many things, "culture" is a second level manifestation of economic and industrial realities. Old housing typologies and building methods are not viable in the age of concrete, steel, glass mass production. Same commodification + value engineering forces behind everything we manufacture as process matures. It doesn't help that because building are still (relatively) durable objects, changes in the building industry are extremely conservative. Sustainability became an consideration once energy prices and operating costs justified the pivot. Even then it takes decades to validate new methods and processes due to regulations.

There's boutique firms and programs who can still build traditional buildings at exorbitant prices, but they're luxury products, the kind necessarily not viable for mass consumption. What article states about architecture design schools is somewhat true, but building is an extremely complex process now, architects are trained as generalists that specialize in the field. It's akin to small indie game development studio where one person has to design, code, do regulatory and compliance work, some light engineering, while being versed in several software packages and have good presentation skills. It's a little excessive for a 3-4 year masters program, but the alternative is the old journeyman draftsmens system which degree treadmill culture has made non viable in many sought after industries.

</comment><comment><USER19> It seems odd to blame architects when their clients (often developers) have final say in what their buildings look like? Customers who want an old- fashioned look can certainly find an architect to design it.

<comment><USER15> Fashion is a key word here. Most customers - especially commercial developers - have a shockingly neutral sense of taste. Here is the budget, build the most fashionable thing you can. I think loads of modern buildings are essentially the same type of creative product as corporate video music. [https://youtu.be/AIxY_Y9TGWI](https://youtu.be/AIxY_Y9TGWI)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The article seems a little sensationalist to me, but some interesting points. (I am not an architect)

"The Bauhaus offered young people a complete and simplistic worldview with every detail filled in, and a sacred cause that provided emotional and spiritual fulfillment."

I would argue that rather than nefarious motives guiding cookie-cutter designs its a lot of economics and fear of making a bad decision. This isn't really unique to Architecture, but architecture is much more visible and permanent than say a Dell Laptop.

Also it doesn't really offer a solution...but awareness is always good

</comment><comment><USER21> See also Roger Scruton => [https://www.roger-scruton.com/articles/319-the- aesthetics-of...](https://www.roger-scruton.com/articles/319-the-aesthetics- of-architecture)

The question is: how long until 3D printing allows an architectural renaissance, as cost-prohibitive decorative bits (could) come back into cost scope?

<comment><USER2> I think decoration was largely removed or left out because it costs much to _maintain_ , not so much for the extra cost at the time you put up the building.

<comment><USER22> Decoration was removed because modernism was explicitly about rationalisation and abstraction.

You have to understand the movement in context. The preceding decades were dominated by the faux-organic elements in Art Nouveau - which wasn't any less stylised or artificial.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nouveau#/media/File:The_Pe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nouveau#/media/File:The_Peacock_Room.jpg)

Meanwhile the working poor were living in slums.

[https://i2-prod.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article1085739...](https://i2-prod.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article10857395.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/slum.jpg)

So one of the motivations for the Bauhaus was affordable humane mass housing. It wasn't entirely successful - a lot of blocks/projects turned into concrete slums themselves - but it was still better in practical ways than existing slum architecture, which didn't even have indoor bathrooms.

It's easy to point out the mistakes and get lost in nostalgia for some kind of architectural golden age. But that age never existed.

For all its many faults, the Bauhaus succeeded in raising the quality of basic housing, and in pioneering mass market affordable industrial furniture manufacture.

It also had a lingering influence on industrial consumer design of other goods - including computers.

At the corporate scale, critics tend to like this kind of thing:

[https://www.somersethouse.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/...](https://www.somersethouse.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/header_desktop/public/The%20Edmond%20J.%20Safra%20Fountain%20Court%2C%20Somerset%20House%2C%20Image%20by%20Kevin%20Meredith%20361_1.jpg)

It certainly has its charms compared to a glass wall skyscraper. But copying an 18th century style today would be strange. And it's also a very expensive way to build.

In fact, when modern architects try to aim for that style they get it hopelessly wrong.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundbury#/media/File:Queen_Mo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundbury#/media/File:Queen_Mother_SQUARE,_Poundbury,_Dorset.jpg)

One answer is to move on from 20th century modernism with new techniques, including computer-assisted generative and parametric design to create new ideas about form and decoration.

[https://media.wired.com/photos/5927176ff3e2356fd800b6f4/mast...](https://media.wired.com/photos/5927176ff3e2356fd800b6f4/master/w_2264,c_limit/01.-Heydar- Aliyev-Center-Baku_photo-by-Hufton-Crow.jpg)

It's still recognisably rooted in the Bauhaus aesthetic, but it's not slavishly copying the rectangles-and-glass-everywhere look.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Wrongheaded and unhelpful on so many levels

</comment><comment><USER24> Interesting perspective.

</comment><comment><USER25> Nassim Taleb also ranted regarding this:

> _The problem is architects building structures to impress other architects > --but plumbers don 't act on impressing other plumbers._

> _2- Ancestral architecture: no Euclidian geometry, high dimensionality. Even > pyramids when close show rich micro-patters (Met in NYC). Today 's > architecture is "smooth", Eucledian, & of low dimensionality._

[https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1073918706663768065](https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1073918706663768065)

<comment><USER26> I normally hate everything NNT has to say and especially the way he says it, but on this matter we are in agreement.</comment></comment>


The Huffington Post Slammed for Content Theft - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/12/huffpo-slammed.html

<comment><USER2> I think many of the success stories of the last few years were built on the backs of plausibly deniable theft. YouTube was violating copyright left and right. Google was scraping everyone's data to use for their own analysis without asking etc.

The different here is that the editorial policy of this company is to steal. That's what they do. That's how they make their cash. That's a problem.

<comment><USER3> They are the Roland Piquepaille of... something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't really see this as being a particularly big deal.

Editors overstepped the mark on very short single-paragraph articles by reproducing content in full rather than providing a short summary or blurb. The sites administration has now been made aware of it and have, rightfully, since fixed it. Their intentions seem honest as a link was provided to the original content. Hanlon's razor: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

<comment><USER5> It's not "fair use" to reproduce someone else's copyrighted content in its entirety, link or no link. You also can't take an entire U2 album and post it, along with a link to the iTunes store.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If a "publication" that steals content needs $25 million in venture funding to expand, we're in for a wild ride.

VC source: <http://is.gd/9I5M></comment>


MIT's 168-Core Chip Could Bring AI to Smartphones, IoT Devices - <AUTHOR> http://www.eweek.com/networking/mits-168-core-chip-could-bring-ai-to-smartphones-iot-devices.html <comment><USER2> Here's the referenced paper: [http://www.rle.mit.edu/eems/wp- content/uploads/2016/02/eyeri...](http://www.rle.mit.edu/eems/wp- content/uploads/2016/02/eyeriss_isscc_2016.pdf)

The GPU ecosystem is going to be tough to beat (IMHO). Even if not GPUs are optimal for convolutional nets (CNN), there's a lot of wood behind that ecosystem arrow.</comment>


Show HN: YouMatchUp – Robust real-time poll maker (no sign up required) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youmatchup.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> I posted this a few weeks ago but at the time you had to register to create a poll. After receiving some good feedback I decided to change the structure and let people create polls without registering. So, if you wanted to try out the poll maker before but didn't want to register, feel free to try it now and let me know what you think. Thanks!</comment>


CIA Adviser Warns of 'Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction' - <AUTHOR> http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/james-rickards-currency-wars/2013/01/25/id/473012

<comment><USER2> Except for actually naming a source ("James Rickards") this seems like a really cheesy PR hit for beltway bandits and "defence" contractors. Cyber- this-real-world-horror, cyber-that-real-world-horror, blah blah, does this kind of fear-mongering work on anyone who isn't already looking for an excuse to transfer US Federal dollars into some black-world corporate welfare?

<comment><USER3> Getting really sick of these expressions used clearly for mass-manipulation. "Cyber Pearl Harbor" , "cyber 9/11", "financial WMDs!". Give me a break.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There was a confidential paper a few years ago called "Red Flags of Market Manipulation Causing a Collapse of the U.S. Economy" that stated the possibilities of the 2008 being a product of financial terrorism, and there is also a public paper requested by the congress.</comment>


Ask HN: how to get into a data analysis / machine learning career? - <AUTHOR>

Hi all,
I'm currently a PhD student in materials science working on a polymer microfabrication-oriented project. Initially I was very interested in this project but my enthusiasm level plummeted rapidly. I've stuck it out a few years partly through wanting to finish what I started and partly, I'm ashamed to say, through inertia.
However, over the past year I've also been involved in a side project which has involved some pretty interesting data analysis (some complex image analysis and analysis of fluorescence time series), and it's like night and day. Science is fun and my work is exciting again.
And it's not just this side project: I'm learning R in my spare time, and reading through course material from Andrew Ng's Stanford machine learning course. I also did some analytical work as an undergrad which I really enjoyed, but I felt like I was commited to the microfab path. I'm really regretting that decision now.
I'd love to be able to push my current research more in an analytical direction but that's...unlikely, to say the least. And while leaving the program would be a really bitter pill to swallow, so would spending three more years on a project I don't like, and feeling even more committed to the work after I got a damn PhD in it.
My question is, does anyone have any suggestions for how I might do a course correction towards analytical work after a BS in Physics and years in a microfab PhD program? Should I be trying to take classes in statistics or CS? Are there "entry-level" jobs in this kind of thing I could qualify for?
Note: I realize this is not necessarily a HN kind of thing, but I see machine learning and data-oriented discussion here fairly often and it seemed like a good place to ask. Pointers towards more information or other communities are welcome. <comment><USER2> The company I work for is currently looking for people interested in machine learning & data analysis and I've interviewed a fair number of people that have a background/story similar to yours. The one piece of advice I have is to spend time learning how to take raw logs and munge/join/split them into a format that you can stick into R. Get good at a scripting language, understand what map-reduce is, play with PIG or Hive if you can. Are you considering leaving your PhD and going into industry (it sounds like you are).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the advice. Any advice on the best scripting languages to play with on this? I've got some experience with python and I'm working on getting better, but I don't know if there's a better choice in this domain.

Industry or a different academic program are both options in my head right now. I don't love the idea of leaving my PhD but I also don't love the idea of spending more years on something I find uninteresting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Unfortunately I don't have a solid recommendation for you. But I feel similarly and would be interested to hear what you come up with. This past January I completed a Ph.D. in physics in an interfacial science/polymer physics/biophysics group. During my time I found that one of the aspects that I really enjoyed was performing data analysis. A large part of my work involved writing custom scripts in Matlab to model experiments or to analyze experimental data. As I'm not particularly interested in continuing on in academia, I'm really beginning to consider the idea that rebranding or retraining myself in areas of data mining and analysis may be the way to go. I'm not sure how best to accomplish this either. I let the thought of doing a quick Masters enter my mind but that's not ideal for me. I think I can quickly come up to speed on theoretical considerations I might be lacking so another option may be to just convince a company to give me a shot.

</comment><comment><USER4> Bradford cross who does machine learning work at flightcaster addresses this question in the following post:

[http://measuringmeasures.com/blog/2010/3/12/learning- about-m...](http://measuringmeasures.com/blog/2010/3/12/learning-about- machine-learning-2nd-ed.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, that's an excellent list of resources! (And also a good blog for me to check out in general.)

But in addition to learning the topic I'm also looking for advice on handling this kind of course correction.</comment></comment>


Macros in Python: quasiquotes, case classes, LINQ and more - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/lihaoyi/macropy

<comment><USER2> Looks like a fun project on its own, with a lot of syntax tree hackery going on, but I see no real (pragmatic) use since many of the AST hacks and use cases presented are in my opinion completely unwarranted and can already be solved by the existing machinery (perhaps with quite heavy use of the metaclasses).

As an example, instead of hacking the AST via macros:

        @case
        Point(x, y): pass

one could just do a (this example implies, of course, that there is a CaseClassMeta somewhere attached to CaseClass):

        class Point(CaseClass):
            fields = 'x', 'y'

Not only this is nicer, you retain full control of the MRO on the metaclass level and can adjust its behaviour as needed and when needed.

Enums, complex enums and class body nesting examples -- can also be solved via metaclasses quite easily.

Quick lambdas example -- is somewhat close to "whatever" Python library, this is probably the one case which cannot be reproduced as is without AST hacks.

<comment><USER3> The "whatever" library looks really neat -- thanks for the reference:

[https://pypi.python.org/pypi/whatever](https://pypi.python.org/pypi/whatever)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Some of these things look really nice. I'm particularly impressed by the tracing macro:

        with trace:
            sum = 0
            for i in range(0, 5):
                sum = sum + 5

prints

        sum = 0
        for i in range(0, 5):
            sum = sum + 5
        range(0, 5) -> [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]
        sum = sum + 5
        sum + 5 -> 5
        sum = sum + 5
        sum + 5 -> 10
        sum = sum + 5
        sum + 5 -> 15
        sum = sum + 5
        sum + 5 -> 20
        sum = sum + 5
        sum + 5 -> 25

This would save a huge amount of boring typing `print(...)` when debugging, and since it's only for debugging you don't even need to have MacroPy as a dependency!

Unfortunately python 3.4 support is not quite ready [0], and attempting to install it with `pip3` just fails.

[0]: [https://github.com/lihaoyi/macropy/issues/32](https://github.com/lihaoyi/macropy/issues/32)

<comment><USER5> Can I recommend the wonderful `q`?

[https://pypi.python.org/pypi/q](https://pypi.python.org/pypi/q)

"import q; q(var1, var2)" forces printing to $TMPDIR/q (usually /tmp/q) very detailed output of what you are tracing and what it is.

The @q decorator does somewhat the same as the "with trace" context manager.

<comment><USER4> It seems nice, but not quite as powerful. I like the way the tracing macro automatically prints every intermediate value, but q doesn't seem to do that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> AST transformation is nice but you can also have magic macros using `coding` hack. It could add _arbitrary_ syntax to python

[https://github.com/syrusakbary/interpy](https://github.com/syrusakbary/interpy)

previously [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9340784](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9340784)

<comment><USER7> I'm a little confused where you are going with this. Could you elaborate a little? Its one thing for this to be possible using `coding`, but this is a macro builder available right now. Interpy just highlights the possibility of this, right? If there were a macro framework that used `coding` it would seem more relevant. Otherwise it looks like you're comparing apples and a knife. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER6> > If there were a macro framework that used `coding`

Does JSX-like template for Python count?

[https://github.com/dropbox/pyxl](https://github.com/dropbox/pyxl)

        # coding: pyxl
        print Hello {my_var}!

Combined with this, we can make Meteorjs-like applications in Python directly. Even AST transformation of backend DOM operations in Python directly rendered to Javascript to browser.

<comment><USER7> Ah! Sorry about that. As I said, I was confused. That is very interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A few years ago I wrote a similar thing: [https://github.com/mmikulicic/metacontext](https://github.com/mmikulicic/metacontext) (now unmaintained)

</comment><comment><USER9> It's a cool project, but I think it needs more examples on the front page. The class example might as well have been a namedtuple.

<comment><USER4> Their argument [0] against namedtuple is that the namedtuple implementation is basically a hackier macro anyway (format a string then eval it). But I agree that it's not the most impressive example of what you can do with macros (see my other post).

[0]: [https://github.com/lihaoyi/macropy#skeletons-in-the- closet](https://github.com/lihaoyi/macropy#skeletons-in-the-closet)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Forgive my ignorant question but why do their examples only work in REPL?

<comment><USER11> It works in or out of the REPL (in fact, they document "MacroPy also works in the REPL"). It's just standard-ish in Python documentation to give examples formatted the way the REPL would display them.</comment></comment>


Climate of Complete Certainty - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html <comment><AUTHOR> Some of what happened after the column was published:

[http://nypost.com/2017/04/28/times-columnist-blasted-by- nast...](http://nypost.com/2017/04/28/times-columnist-blasted-by-nasty-left- for-climate-change-piece/)</comment>


2013 Browser Security Comparative Analysis: Socially Engineered Malware - <AUTHOR> https://www.nsslabs.com/reports/2013-browser-security-comparative-analysis-socially-engineered-malware

<comment><USER2> NSS Labs is who Microsoft gets to do MS-sponsored research that always puts IE ahead of everything else.

</comment><comment><USER3> Looking at the paper it seems the only required step for Google to fix this issue is to enable download protection by default. With download protection Chrome and IE10 are essentially the same.

For me I will continue to only enable javascript on trusted domains.

</comment><comment><USER4> Scary, considering that chrome use is going up and IE use is dropping.

Odd that there doesn't seem to be any good tech website offering a succinct overview of the report.

</comment><comment><USER5> this is about how hard it is for users to download and run potentially malicious exe files with the browsers, ie has a whitelist of common non malware exes.</comment>