Study: people who eat and exercise the same as people 20 years ago are fatter - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/why-it-was-easier-to-be-skinny-in-the-1980s/407974/?single_page=true <comment><USER4> > _A given person, in 2006, eating the same amount of calories, taking in the > same quantities of macronutrients like protein and fat, and exercising the > same amount as a person of the same age did in 1988 would have a BMI that > was about 2.3 points higher._

I think the recent obsession with macronutrients is a big part of the problem. I'm not sure if the macronutrient ratio I eat has changed much from when I was growing up with my grandmother's cooking, with the exception of three failed experiments with low carb diets and a couple of other small experiments.

The thing is that in the 80s, as a kid, I was more likely to be eating traditional American staples, like corn flakes or oatmeal and a banana for breakfast, and a typical meal would include meat, potatoes and a green vegetable. I drank some soda, but also about a quart of milk a day.

Now I tend to eat out 9 times a week instead of 2 and I eat a lot more processed food unless I make a concerted effort not to. I avoid soda for the most part, but on the whole there's a lot more stuff in my diet that my great- grandparents wouldn't have recognized as food. I don't remember the last time I drank milk.

Surely eating home baked bread or a piece of fruit isn't the same as eating a snack bar, eating meat isn't the same as drinking muscle milk, and fatty fish doesn't equate to pork rinds, etc. Macronutrient ratios just don't tell the whole story or even most of it.

<comment><USER5> I agree, the macros look sort of the same, but the source of those calories is much different.

Just the types of cooking oil we use has changed a lot.

Look at what goes into cookies now. It used to be butter, now I've seen recipes with canola oil. (if anyone tells you to use canola oil in your baked goods, ignore them and use butter!)

There is evidence that gut bacteria is passed down from generation to generation, we could very well be seeing a delayed effect from public policy and health decisions made around the time the previous generation was growing up. oops.

I am sort of on the fence about processed foods. A lot of canned food was eaten previously, fresh vegetables were not available year round, but a lot of the canning was done at home in glass jars. I am not one to be paranoid, but now all our canned food comes in coated aluminum cans.

We have a few decades of aluminum cans being coated on the inside with BPA. It is know known that BPA can have harmful effects that take a long time to manifest.

The point is, there are a lot of potential culprits, and it is going to take a long time to figure out what state unbridled capitalism has left public health in.

<comment><USER6> I think this is spot on, and came to comment likewise... I think the types of product we are using for our macros is way off base from even a few decades ago. I only had a little glimpse of how much so because I know someone very allergic to soy, and it's in almost everything these days.

I don't think that most things in particular are necessarily bad for you, but it might be worth taking a few steps back and switch to less processed foods... I don't think organic makes much of a difference for most foods (aside from berries)... But using oils that have to be heavily refined, perfumed and dyed to make them palatable doesn't make so much sense.

There's also recent studies on the affects of artificial sweeteners on digestion, trans fats and a bunch of other stuff. I think the push towards vegetarianism, low-fat, low-carb, etc as fads combined with industrialization of food has done a lot of harm to the public.

If you're young and relatively healthy, avoid processed/refined foods as much as possible, eat a variety of things and don't consume too many calories on a weekly average, and you should be okay. I'm 40, diabetic, insulin resistant, and wish I'd received that advice when I was younger.

I just think it sucks how much it really costs to actually cook for yourself... over the weekend I made 3 different pots of soup to have this week. I had some chuck roast that I braised in beef broth (store bought), used the roast in a menudo inspired soup (I don't like tripe), the braising liquid was combined with mushrooms and onions for another soup... I used the left over carcase from a roasted chicken to make another broth that I then used to make vichyssoise (sub some potato with cauliflower and parsnips). All told it cost about $160 for everything with about a gallon each of three soups... breakdown to 2-cup servings comes out to just under $7 a serving for a low-gl diet with a variety of veggies... That doesn't count adding other protein in my diet too.

Now make it a family of 4-5 and that budget is too high for families making under 40-60K/year. It's no wonder that boxed mac & cheese, hamburger helper and the like rule the roost at home along with the dollar menu at fast food places. With all the heavily refined, packaged, canned, frozen and just plain overly processed food that we all consume too much of, is it any wonder why we as a society are experiencing the problems we are?

I don't know how well supported it would be, but would really love to see food/nutrition/cooking as a core material in elementary schools... Actually bringing cooking into school lunches with a required prep rotation for all students would go a long way. It would cost more than those programs do today, but is using subsidy trades to turn chickens into chicken nuggets for school lunches really a good thing?

<comment><USER7> > I think the push towards vegetarianism, low-fat, low-carb, etc as fads > combined with industrialization of food has done a lot of harm to the > public.

What's wrong with vegetarianism? I would think it has lots of benefits. It's better for the environment, you don't risk eating very processed meat filled with hormones and additives, from animals often kept in horrible conditions. The meat industry is a textbook example of industrialization, which you consider very harmful. So what's the beef with vegetarianism?

<comment><USER8> I've just watched this and assuming it's unbiased which it seems to be, it makes a number of very compelling arguments to go vegetarian/vegan. Not least the huge water, grain and land requirements and the resultant methane emissions of eating meat which are globally unsustainable: [http://cowspiracy.vhx.tv/](http://cowspiracy.vhx.tv/)

<comment><USER9> Why does it have to be vegetarian all the way? There are some nutrients (vitamin B12, probably others) available only in animal-source protein.

It used to be that meat was luxury and eaten infrequently (once a week). Going back to a similar schedule would save water/energy without depriving people of necessary nutrients.

Everything in moderation.

<comment><USER4> Some people don't want to kill animals that don't want to be killed. You may have different ethics but that doesn't imply anything bad about vegetarians.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The article mentions prescription drugs but doesn't mention a widely used over the counter one: nicotine.

US smoking rates are down about 50% over the last 20 years. (That's overall, I couldn't find any details by cohort.)

<comment><USER11> Is the suggestion that people are channelling addictive behaviors from smoking to eating?

<comment><USER12> Smoking reduces your appetite, leading to less eating and less weight.

[http://www.npr.org/2011/06/09/137085989/the-skinny-on- smokin...](http://www.npr.org/2011/06/09/137085989/the-skinny-on-smoking-why- nicotine-curbs-appetite)

<comment><USER13> Nicotine (without smoking) also has that effect, even in low doses.

Actually there are two parts: it reduces appetite, and also raises the resting metabolic rate, cf. e.g. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2773833](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2773833)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have no particular expertise in this area, but I've been making the "we don't know why people are fat" argument to whoever will listen for a while. Doctors (socially, not at an appointment FWIW), academics… I'm actually quite surprised how often they've been thinking along the same lines and/or they are convinced by the general idea.

basically:

People have been getting fatter, to pathological levels for quite a while. The phenomenon is global. The conventional explanation is too much for and not enough exercise, caloric surplus.

This is not nonsensical. We know that caloric restriction leads to weigh loss. We can also see that various other approaches can result in weight loss. Carbohydrate restriction, for example. But, this doesn't give us a complete (or possibly even relevant) answer.

This requires another 'why' and a 'why now.' All it takes is a small sustained caloric surplus over long periods to reach obesity. People have had access to these calories, in large populations or in pockets for a long time. There have been periods of regional caloric wealth and certainly periods of caloric wealth within subcultures/classes. If caloric surplus is the key idea, why do we have these caloric surpluses today.

There were sedentary workers even in ancient times, certainly in the 20th century. Today's sedentary worker is fatter than yesteryear's. Today's carpenter is fatter than a carpenter in 1972. Why? A carpenter in 1972 had plenty of access to calories, similar physical lifestyle.

IMO, this is an epidemic and we need an explanation that works at epidemic levels. We need to explain the change in populations weight, not differences in individual's weight. The answer to the first is probably different to the second.

"Gut biome" may be an answer. Antibiotics. Parasites are another interesting possibility.

In any case, I don't think it's coincidence that fad diet books and other pop science is so successful. We do not have an answer from science. I don't eves think the right question is usually asked.

Why did we all get so fat?

<comment><USER15> I've tried to do some reading about all of this... the main argument that makes sense to me is that it has to do with increased consumption of sugar. To oversimplify, sugar triggers an increase in insulin, and something about insulin (I can't remember the precise details) changes the way the body processes food– it stores more of it as fat.

The bulk of these ideas come from Gary Taubes' Why We Get Fat. Here's a summary of the process: [http://www.columnfivemedia.com/work- items/infographic-carbs-...](http://www.columnfivemedia.com/work- items/infographic-carbs-are-killing-you-eating-fat-doesnt-make-you-fat)

The scary part is that you start secreting insulin just by THINKING about carbs, sugar and so on. I haven't heard people discuss this... but if it's true that insulin is secreted, ADVERTISING could be contributing to obesity. Which is disturbing. I hope I'm wrong.

I'm not super well-informed on this subject, but I would like to be and welcome any thoughts and suggestions and corrections and so on.

<comment><USER16> Advertising could be contributing more directly, food companies are large enough that they serve the entire market, so one of the few ways they can grow is to get people to eat more.

You are describing prediabetes and insulin resistance. Excess sugar is probably a contributor, but also probably not the only one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This study relies on the NHANES data which is self-reported: Respondents have to recall what they ate. So an alternative and more likely explanation is that people are far better at deluding themselves than they used to be.

<comment> white-flame I would also assume that there's less structured eating schedules in homes now than there used to be, which would make it more difficult to catalog exactly what was ingested.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The original article is behind a paywall: [http://www.obesityresearchclinicalpractice.com/article/S1871...](http://www.obesityresearchclinicalpractice.com/article/S1871-403X\(15\)00121-0/abstract). Summary:

 _Background_

To determine whether the relationship between caloric intake, macronutrient intake, and physical activity with obesity has changed over time.

 _Methods_

Dietary data from 36,377 U.S. adults from the National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) between 1971 and 2008 was used. Physical activity frequency data was only available in 14,419 adults between 1988 and 2006. Generalised linear models were used to examine if the association between total caloric intake, percent dietary macronutrient intake and physical activity with body mass index (BMI) was different over time.

 _Results_

Between 1971 and 2008, BMI, total caloric intake and carbohydrate intake increased 10–14%, and fat and protein intake decreased 5–9%. Between 1988 and 2006, frequency of leisure time physical activity increased 47–120%. However, for a given amount of caloric intake, macronutrient intake or leisure time physical activity, the predicted BMI was up to 2.3 kg/m2 higher in 2006 that in 1988 in the mutually adjusted model (P < 0.05).

 _Conclusions_

Factors other than diet and physical activity may be contributing to the increase in BMI over time. Further research is necessary to identify these factors and to determine the mechanisms through which they affect body weight.

</comment><comment><USER19> I do not have access to the fulltext but from the abstract, it seems they may only have included structured leisure time physical activity like playing football one hour every Monday (what could "Physical activity frequency data ... in 14,419 adults between 1988 and 2006" plausably include?)

I would think there is less _unstructured_ physical activity nowadays. Both at home and at work.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've noticed the same thing geographically. Twice now, I've taken a "sabbatical" and moved to Quito, Ecuador for a year to be near family. Both times, I lost weight when I arrived, stabilized at a leaner equilibrium, then gained the weight back when I returned to North America.

Could be nutritional, could be bacterial, could social. Whatever it is, the effect is dramatic.

<comment><USER21> Noticed the same exact thing when I go to Europe, vs. America

I think the article mostly applies to America. American food is just fattening

<comment><USER22> The study factored in the nutritional value of the food, so your comment seems counter to their findings.

"...eating the same amount of calories, taking in the same quantities of macronutrients like protein and fat, and exercising the same amount as a person of the same age did in 1988 would have a BMI that was about 2.3 points higher."

<comment><USER23> Except the calories are obsolete (meaningless) A lot of the food now is higly processed, ground to microns, resulting in way higher "usable engergy" that can be extracted. Especially the "cheap" food - full of awful sugars, stabilised fats or other junk, gelatine, mechanically abused.

<comment><USER24> Your answer may look unscientific (hand-wavy, with the word "meaningless" being too strong, that's how I explain the downvotes), but I guess if eating is (partially) feeding gut bacteria, then the micro structure of the food could well matter a lot with regards of which kinds of bacteria it promotes and which it weakens, and hence change the composition of the biome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It was bizarre that the article did not mention trends in other behaviours that effect weight, like sleep and stress level. Millenials are arguably more stressed out than people the same age a generation ago, due to increased student loan debt, unstable job market and poor job security. This constant stress of course contributes to how well your body can maintain a healthy weight. There should be a rigorous study comparing relative stress levels over generations, but it is not hard to imagine that this is broadly true.

<comment><USER26> This is very true. And commute distances. I've found my time allocated to exercise goes down with increased commute time. I've also found my commute distances go up with home prices, as i need to go further out to afford the same amount of space.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> You can't eat the same foods people ate 20 years ago. The cows aren't the same. The chickens aren't same. Cows and chickens today are more obese and eat more antibiotics than they used to be.

<comment><USER28> It's due to what we feed them, as well. We even feed corn to farmed Salmon, which makes their Omega 3&6 ratios the opposite of what they naturally are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> There's a bunch of stuff that might be going on here.

People mostly don't know what they're eating. They don't know the calorie content; they don't know the macro / micro nutrient content. They don't know how much they're eating, nor how much they should be eating. Food (and I have nothing to base this on) feels more engineered and feels like it's deceptively marketed (gummy bears being sold as "FAT FREE FOOD!" is a scumbag tactic). We're seeing similar levels of broscience ("Avoid all sugar!") as we saw in the 80s ("Avoid all fat!") and it's probably not helpful.

I'm also interested in what they corrected for. Did they correct for increased prescribing of psychiatric meds? The US has a lot of "off label" prescribing of such meds; prescribing of these meds has increased dramatically since the 1990s; many of them list increased appetite and weight gain as side effects. (And the weight gain is not just a function of increased appetite).

</comment><comment><USER30> Humans aren't the only ones gaining weight, animals are too:

Fluffy article: [http://news.discovery.com/animals/fat-pets-obesity- weight.ht...](http://news.discovery.com/animals/fat-pets-obesity-weight.htm)

Nature article: [http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101124/full/news.2010.628.ht...](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101124/full/news.2010.628.html)

Paper focusing on both lab animals (where diet is strictly controlled), pets, and feral rats living among humans: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081766/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081766/)

</comment><comment><USER31> I don't have access to the study, but I suspect it doesn't say what The Atlantic is saying it's saying.

I lost weight: I went from 340 pounds to 214 pounds in exactly a year, and then bottomed out at 184 eventually (I've been purposely trying to gain muscle lately, which has been causing my weight to meander in the 190s since then).

My caloric intake hasn't changed in a way that can explain such a weight loss. I went from eating 1500-2000 calories a day to 1500-2000 calories a day (as in, no useful change, nothing that can explain 126 pounds in a year, disproportionately more of it towards the start than the end).

Now, what I _did_ change was drop all grains (grains, cereals, pastas, soy, rice), drop refined sugars (I still use coconut and true raw cane sugars (Muscovado, Barbados, or Turbinado) or straight up raw honey; all _very_ sparingly, and corn syrup is banned in my house), dropped seed oils (no more "vegetable", soy, corn, or canola oils; replaced with coconut and olive oil, or leftover bacon fat when I have it), and legumes (I'm allergic to peanuts, and don't care for beans, so the only thing I lost there is peas; soy is a legume, but I include it in with grains due to how it is typically treated culinarily, and thus already banned in my house).

So, given my experience, people are fatter because of reasons that cannot be explained by calories, such as chemicals in the things I quit eating causing unusual weight gain and halting the natural process of us burning endogenous fat. And it isn't like I'm the only person who did this, it is estimated over a million people have tried Paleo or some variant thereof and have significantly lost weight if they were overweight as long as they stuck with the lifestyle.

Side note: I went from 340 to 214 with chronically under-exercising. I still chronically under-exercise to a point, even though I now lift weights and try to go on daily walks. I still don't get the high other people seem to get from exercising. So, you can't use "increased caloric burn" as why I lost so much weight, it just wasn't there.

<comment><USER32> How carefully were you tracking calorie intake? It's notoriously difficult and I simply don't believe you ate 1500-2000 calories at 340lbs and didn't lose weight (not that you need to convince me).

In any case, congrats on the achievement!

<comment><USER31> It is very difficult to track calories if you don't eat exact portion sizes listed on boxes. I calculated what I used to eat, and what I eat now, based on things I regularly ate. I figured I'd have to be off somewhere around 1000+ calories in my calculations to have lost as much weight as I did during the start of that year.

I have had this conversation with people before, and the only thing that would have probably helped here is measuring calories being flushed down the toiled, something that is difficult, expensive, and not really worth it outside of actual scientific studies.

Also, I went from being habitually tired, not sleeping well, and also diagnosed with pre-diabetus, to being full of energy, having a much better mood, sleeping well, and having a sharper mind. Weight loss alone doesn't explain this, my change in diet alone doesn't explain this, but both together increasing and stabilizing my energy levels seems to explain this.

<comment> david-given Don't underestimate the psychologic effects. A few years back I lost about 20kg in six to nine months --- by eating less and better, mostly --- and plotting my weight on the graph and watching the slow but steady downward trend was always a big mood-lifter.

And feeling better leads to a positive reinforcement loop; feeling good about yourself leads you (well, it works on me, at least) to do more things that make you feel better about yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Health studies, especially when reported by some article in som publication without an original source are a mess.

I personally am extremely skeptical of what the Atlantis says the findings of the paper are. I lost 50 lbs while eating a box of pop tarts per day while counting macros. It's anecdotal but that's the basis for my beliefs, and a lot of science supports it.

One issue with health studies is how data is collected. Numerous studies have shown that a huge number of people are incapable of accurately tracking the number of calories they consume per day, and consistently under report their numbers. I believe it, it's hard in today's eat out culture. So...how sure are we that people were consuming the same number of calories?

This is just one issue. There are tons more. If you happen to be in this thread and you are looking for health advice, my recommendation is to head to /r/fitness and read the FAQ.

</comment><comment><USER34> Does this study factor in the huge life style changes over 20 years? Far more access to cars, and far more spending entire days sitting down (computer jobs, Netflix binge watching, etc). A lot of how we live has changed in 20 years, I'm inclined to think the problem lies there, not in environmental factors.

<comment><USER35> We had cars and tv/video games/films 20 years ago. I know, I was there.

<comment><USER34> I'm aware of that. You didn't however have such a reliance on cars, nor the convenience afforded to having a car (e.g., the popularity of drive-thrus now, which were only getting started in 1980). There is such easy access to things like Netflix and Steam - it is very easy these days to waste entire days away without even noticing.

<comment><USER36> 1980 was thirty-five years ago, not twenty.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Compare sugar intake now and 20 years ago, sugar metabolizes to fat in the body. So that food is fat free, but high in sugar leads to the same thing in the body anyway.

Also look at the sizes of portions, soda and food packages they have all increased too.

Fast food consumption which is high in sugar and fat has also increased.

Lab rats has shown to be as addicted as cocaine on sugar [http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research- shows-cocaine-and-heroin-are-less-addictive-than-oreos/)

<comment><USER38> I've just read "In defence of food". It's a little sensationalist, but the author makes a good point that we've been blaming this or that nutrient and in the process we've become more and more unhealthy.

Amongst others we blamed cholesterol, we blamed fats, then saturated fats, now we're starting to blame carbohydrates. The problem starts from the reductionist science being applied, coupled with the constant lobbying of the food industry of course. What happens is that nutrition is an incredibly complex subject and nutritionists can only blame what they can currently measure. The result is a whole industry of processed foods that have lost their nutritional value. And for the food industry, that's OK because processed foods are more profitable.

The problem is not naturally occurring sugar. The problem is high fructose corn syrup and (to a lesser extent) sucrose and the current practice of injecting these substances in processed foods, because these sugars are fooling our senses and create addiction. But we are talking about refined carbohydrates. The sugar in fruits is totally fine and in fact there are signs that we don't eat enough fruits. But why stop at sugars? Margarine was certainly a bad idea, as was every other idea that the nutritionists' community ever had.

So really, if you want an enemy, that's certainly processed foods and the weakest cult-like science that human kind ever practised. To this day doctors are still advising patients to avoid saturated fats, even though there's zero evidence of saturated fats provoking cancer or heart disease or obesity. To this day you can see low-fat products, like low-fat milk that's artificially coloured and enriched with powdered milk, being sold because of health claims. Expect to see Omega-3 in bananas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I suspect the answer has to do with the microbiome and its cumulative response over decades to antibiotics and tiny changes introduced in food (shifts in cooking oils, dairy product additives, even animal feed that then indirectly impacts our own microbiome when we eat meat or eggs or dairy, etc.). The problem is that studies on the microbiome tend to be limited and recent. Long- term studies are especially lacking. What we do have indicates the microbiome may be vital to not just digestion but also our immune system function, emotional well-being and weight.

Probiotics might be helpful here, but in no way are we close to an exact science on the microbiome.

</comment><comment><USER40> I seem to gain weight when I eat wheat. When I eliminate wheat, my weight is stable.

I found a study about how wheat interferes with leptin (the hormone that makes us feel full): [http://www.biochemj.org/content/410/3/595](http://www.biochemj.org/content/410/3/595)

I think I've read several places that the wheat we eat today is significantly different from the wheat people ate in the old days. If I remember correctly, our wheat contains much more gluten, since high-gluten wheat makes bread fluffier etc.

<comment><USER8> I was curious about this, as a relation has gluten intolerance. This reckons that the gluten content of wheat hasn't really changed: [http://nogluten- noproblem.com/2014/03/has-the-gluten-content...](http://nogluten- noproblem.com/2014/03/has-the-gluten-content-of-wheat-increased-over- time.html)

And entertainingly this reckons increasingly industrialy generated wheat is now so devoid of any nutrients, even pigs won't eat it? [http://www.grainstorm.com/pages/modern- wheat](http://www.grainstorm.com/pages/modern-wheat)

Is it just me or is it becoming increasingly more difficult to get the truth on any matter, because you're wading through so many layers of human generated FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt)?

<comment><USER41> I have the same issue. So much FUD articles around on nutrition. Sticking to scientific studies works but it's a lot more effort.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I hope that they controlled for factors like smoking cigarettes.

<comment><USER43> They have [0][1].

[0] [http://i.imgur.com/mQZ1ST9.png](http://i.imgur.com/mQZ1ST9.png)

[1] [http://i.imgur.com/Hi1x4Ab.png](http://i.imgur.com/Hi1x4Ab.png)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I'm kind of tired of these studies. They don't know why we are fatter. Personally, I think it's a lot of factors, and maybe even a virus?

That aside, moderate exercise has so many positive benefits, why not do a little. I have no idea if it helps lose weight, but working up a slight sweat daily, has helped me greatly over the years. Not so much with weight, but psychologically. Yes--it's been my major drug since 8th grade. (It seems like 8th grade is when society injects those needles of stress, on so many levels?) I do other drugs, but exercise has been my major addiction for years. I don't tell people. I'm actually embarrassed by it.

I've been fat and skinny. When I was fat, I didn't need to exercise as much in order to get the psychological benefits from exercise--in my case, it's always been some kind of cardio.

My point is if you don't feel well, and you don't have any physical reason not to exercise; give it a shot. You don't need to do marathons; just walk(fast, or slow, or run small distances--then walk). Exercise until you work up a good sweat.(I need at least 45 minutes now, but when I was heavier I just needed 20 minutes/daily. That was a hidden benefit from being overweight?) I guarantee after a little while, you will feel better. You might lose weight. You might improve your blood numbers. I can guarantee you will feal better, and will get to like the slight muscle pain the next day. In my case I need to exercise daily. Some people get the psychological boost from just exercising occasionally. I think your occupation plays a role? My father worked construction and was always sweaty. I would never tell him to exercise. You will come to like the slight muscle pain the next day. I've been around people who don't have any pain the next day, but not me. I ache when I arise. Yes, your legs/body will hurt when you wake up the next day. I've never had anyone tell me to be be prepared to hurt the next day, but the hurt becomes a good hurt with time.

I've always hated getting up in the mornings, and don't know if my exercise régime is to blame, but once I get going; I'm glad I worked up a sweat the previous day. (I sugesseted sweating because, in my experience, if I don't sweat profusely; I don't get the same psychological bump. Maybe it's psychosomatic--I am a bit of a Nut?

<comment> saiya-jin nonono. no. you don't get it. we need to find something, someone else evil to blame. it's not us, cannot be us, we're perfect, and we won't change just because it makes sense.

It's like junk food is a complete mystery for last 20 years, and we don't have a free will and we are not actually choosing what we buy or eat. the fact that sweet stuff is not healthy was known to me as a kid 25 years ago, without all the science. Everybody knew it.

I'll say something many won't like - people got weak, not only physically, but mentally. We cannot handle pain that was common before, we frown upon hard physical work, because its well... hard. We seek professional challenges, but other, more important ones, are often sidelined.

Also, completely agree with you. Doing sports, anything that makes your heart pumping and your body sweating like pig is by far the best thing one can do for his/her health. Regularly/often is the key, the only true key. Unless one is paraplegic, there is no excuse good enough to be valid. But guess what - it's hard :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Does this study take into account the exponential growth of portion size? Food portions in the USA are out of control, four times larger than the 1950's. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/portion-sizes- infog...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/portion-sizes- infographic_n_1539804.html)

<comment><USER46> _" They found a very surprising correlation: A given person, in 2006, eating the same amount of calories, taking in the same quantities of macronutrients like protein and fat, and exercising the same amount as a person of the same age did in 1988 would have a BMI that was about 2.3 points higher. In other words, people today are about 10 percent heavier than people were in the 1980s, even if they follow the exact same diet and exercise plans."_

^ The 3rd paragraph of the article.

<comment><USER16> It can still be explained by people eating more.

Take a 1980 individual that had been eating a bmi23 diet and start feeding them a bmi26 level of calories and they will probably gain weight.

Take a 2015 individual's diet from bmi26 to bmi23 and they will probably lose weight.

<comment><USER47> It says the same number of Calories in the post directly above.

<comment><USER16> Sure, but it isn't the same person. If my bmi23 diet is 2000 calories and I eat 2000 calories, I will probably have a bmi of 23. If my bmi23 diet is 1800 calories and I eat 2000 calories, I will probably have a higher bmi.

I guess a clearer way to say what I am getting at is that bmi is descriptive, not predictive, so a shift in the bmi maintained by a given calorie intake could be explained by a shift in the habits of the population, so that the modern group achieves a given bmi at higher calorie intakes.

<comment><USER46> _" The authors examined the dietary data of 36,400 Americans between 1971 and 2008 and the physical activity data of 14,419 people between 1988 and 2006. They grouped the data sets together by the amount of food and activity, age, and BMI."_

^ The previous paragraph to the one I quoted above.

 _Methods_

 _Dietary data from 36,377 U.S. adults from the National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) between 1971 and 2008 was used. Physical activity frequency data was only available in 14,419 adults between 1988 and 2006. Generalised linear models were used to examine if the association between total caloric intake, percent dietary macronutrient intake and physical activity with body mass index (BMI) was different over time._

 _Results_

 _Between 1971 and 2008, BMI, total caloric intake and carbohydrate intake increased 10–14%, and fat and protein intake decreased 5–9%. Between 1988 and 2006, frequency of leisure time physical activity increased 47–120%. However, for a given amount of caloric intake, macronutrient intake or leisure time physical activity, the predicted BMI was up to 2.3 kg /m2 higher in 2006 that in 1988 in the mutually adjusted model (P < 0.05)._

 _Conclusions_

 _Factors other than diet and physical activity may be contributing to the increase in BMI over time. Further research is necessary to identify these factors and to determine the mechanisms through which they affect body weight._

^ Copypasta from the referenced medical study: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871403X15...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871403X15001210)

What I think I'm seeing is a confusion with the conclusions. What they found was:

      1988: Daily calories = x, leisure play = y, observed BMI = z
      2006: Daily calories = x, leisure play = (1.47 to 2.2)*y, observed BMI = 2.3 + z

The same amount of calories today results in greater BMI.

Either the average person's body composition today has a greater percentage of muscle and that's throwing things off, or something else is up with how we live that's making us heavier.

But, we see other studies out in the wild that suggest average fitness is lower, which leads me to think the former solution might not be the case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> One potential explanation is that nutritional information is being manipulated more effectively by food manufacturers.

</comment><comment><USER49> It's due to sugar in the vast majority of cases. Some starting point: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM)

<comment><USER49> I'd like some explanations for the downvotes. What I wrote is documented and I provide a link to a good source of explanations.

<comment><USER50> The explanation is that facts don't matter for some people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> The actual conclusion is hidden in the middle of the text:

 _eat less meat_

First of all b/c its contribution to health is doubtable in general and at current times in particular.

<comment><USER52> That's not what I got out out if; they mentioned: avoid chemicals in food or packaging (i.e. eat organic - no antibiotic/hormone laden meat) - <USER2> artificial sweeteners - avoid antidepressant and unnecessary medication.

Meat is fine, as long as you don't eat something too industrial.

<comment><USER51> no - (red) meat is not fine:

[http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22red+meat%22+site%3Anature.com](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22red+meat%22+site%3Anature.com)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> It's simple: Eat more fat.

The bacteria that processes fat (bacterocides) obviously needs fat to survive. By not eating fat you effectively kill your ability to process fat.

The rise in low fat products, coincides with the rise in obesity. One is not the cure for the other -it's the cause of the other.

</comment><comment><USER54> The air is fatter in the 21st century.

</comment><comment><USER55> Well sure, but we're twenty years older, too.

<comment><USER55> No joking on HN!

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Weight gain is simple: calorie intake - calorie expenditure.

The amount of calories in our food tends to go up over 20 years. Doing the same activities consumes the same amount of calories after 20 years.

Thus we would have more caloric surplus, and likely gain more weight than people 20 years ago with less caloric food.

Pretty simple imo.

<comment><USER57> From the article you're writing a comment to:

> A given person, in 2006, eating the same amount of calories, taking in the > same quantities of macronutrients like protein and fat, and exercising the > same amount as a person of the same age did in 1988 would have a BMI that > was about 2.3 points higher.

<comment><USER58> Its strange really. I'm on a ketogenic diet, and hear people preach the caloric balance constantly, that it doesn't matter what my macros are as long as I consume less calories than I burn daily. Yet, I consume close to my previous garbage diet calories and I lose about 2-3lbs/week due to my high fat/moderate protein/very low carb (<15g/day of carbs) diet.

Go figure, it appears that caloric energy balance isn't the only factor.

<comment><USER5> From someone who's been doing keto for several years now.

A: Pre-Keto, odds are you we underestimating how many calories you were eating. Unless you were tracking every single thing you ate, there is a high probability you just didn't realize how many calories you were consuming.

B: It is super hard to over eat on Keto. It is possible, take lots of liquid calories in (heavy cream can do this easily!), and there are some other real screw ups, but eating 3000 calories of steak is pretty damn hard.

C: What you are reporting is common for people who have a lot of weight to lose. At some point it becomes a lot harder, at first you just have to sort of watch things, then you eventually do have to count calories. (Especially if you want a six pack, holy crap do you have to count calories!)

<comment><USER58> Thanks for that info! Did you ever experience symptoms similar to eye fatigue? I think I might be not consuming enough sodium and/or potassium; I'm going to up my doses of both to test my theory.

<comment><USER59> Everyone seems to warn about sodium and potassium while on keto - <USER3> too. Apparently the suggested intakes are quite high and supplementing is the only way to get there. It might have just been placebo or drinking a hot cup of broth (with potassium salt in) but it made me feel better some days.

I'd also second that it's really hard to eat a massive amount of calories on keto. Water loss and perhaps some changes might make you leaner but most likely, over time, you're simply getting a lot less than, I dunno 3000 that isn't hard to do on a sugary diet.

<comment><USER5> Magnesium is good. Potassium, I eat leafy greens or Ostrim ([http://www.protos-inc.com/](http://www.protos-inc.com/)), which is low fat but has no carbs and lots of potassium. They also taste good, they are one of my after gym gotos.

Gaining muscle on keto /is/ hard. You can do it (/r/ketogains can help!) but wow you have to stuff yourself, which is sort of odd for Keto!

<comment><USER59> A quick search says the recommendation amount of potassium a day is 4.7G for adults. While spinach and those Ostrim things are high (Ostrim says 330mg of potassium), you still have to eat a LOT to get close to the recommendation. I found it easier to throw that potassium salt into chicken bouillon (getting sodium + potassium).

Also it's funny how the supplments folks are allowed to sell potassium. There's regulatory issues of having more than 99mg per pill (could damage stomachs or something). So these companies market compounds with potassium that aren't in bio-available forms.[1] "550mg!" people see, making them think they're all set (and hah, pulled one over on terrible government regulators). Nope. Same happens with magnesium. Seems rather misleading, even though they are printing the truth.

1: [http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Made-Potassium-Gluconate- Tablet...](http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Made-Potassium-Gluconate- Tablets/dp/B0029O0BWW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1443700821&sr=8-2&keywords=potassium)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Oh, so the laws of physics changed? Wow!

No but seriously, this is a terrible article.

As soon as you read »…a professor of _kinesiology_ and health science…« you know the statements are coming from people who believe in esoteric pseudoscience.

If your burn more energy than you take in, you lose weight.

Everything else doesn't make sense.

You can get fat by eating 5000 calories worth of paprika every day.

Statements like these only help people who have weight-problems to have an excuse not to do anything about it.

<comment><USER60> I don't especially want to defend the article but this whole first-law-of- thermodynamics approach to explaining weight gain is definitely the most useless idea that somehow always rears its head around here. It's not only useless on its face since how much we eat is moderated by satiety mechanisms rather than weights and measures, but it also ignores the complexity of nutrition and metabolism and the fact that weight has only a loose correlation to overall health.

As much as you're not going to fix your health by reading superficial linkbait articles, you also will not do it by taking a smug reductionist view that allows you to dismiss the subtleties of nutrition which still remain frustratingly beyond the reach of conclusive hard science.

<comment><USER50> > how much we eat is moderated by satiety mechanisms

No, it's moderated by our fork. It also means being hungry a lot and keeping exact track of your calories, just like poor people need to track their expenses.

(Been there done that with both money and weight)

The »subtleties of nutrition« don't matter if you are huge (BMI > 30) and want to get down to a healthy level. Once you are there you still can optimize and find out what works best for you.

<comment><USER60> I see, so fat people just need to knuckle down and starve themselves until they are reasonable weight and only _then_ start to pay attention to the overall function of the human organism and their particular incarnation of it? That seems utterly backwards if not willfully ignorant.

<comment><USER50> Keeping a calorie deficit doesn't mean starving yourself. You need 3000 calories a day? Eat 2000, you'll lose about 1 kg in a week. At least it works for me and lots of other people I know. Sure it's hard to keep 2000 when you usually eat 3000-5000, but health is worth it.

If your overweight is life-threatening you'll want to lose body-fat asap, which you will not achieve if you first try to understand every detail of digestion and nutrition. See it as kind of first-aid.

I know that losing weight is very hard and that the behavioral change is the key, not the unknown details of nutrition. I just wish people (especially my doctors and family) pushed me much earlier to the right behavior.

<comment><USER60> You don't need to know ever detail, but the metabolic effects are super important. If you eat the same amount of calories of Snackwells (or some other supposedly "healthy" processed snack food option) compared a steak, you are going to need an insane amount of willpower to avoid overeating when you come down from the glycemic rollercoaster.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Using Binary Diffing to Discover Windows Kernel Memory Disclosure Bugs - <AUTHOR> https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2017/10/using-binary-diffing-to-discover.html <comment><USER2> I see that the two they fixed disclosed more memory than expected - but is that enough reason to fix it? It seems like you'd probably want a complete POC before fixing them. Or are there common POCs that these obviously fall into?

<comment><USER3> I'm still trying to work out when they fixed this:

[https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62764](https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62764)

They got memory dumps from me, but never got back to me about it. It was incredibly poor form, I literally rebuilt systems from scratch to get them the memory dumps, and they never even told me if it helped.

Pretty shitty really. I found a nasty issue, and all I wanted was to know if they were going to fix it. Hell, I didn't even want credit - just knowing it was fixed would have been great.

<comment><USER4> They probably didn't even realize they were fixing it. That happens sometimes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I know some Windows 7 holdouts, who either prefer the interface or they're against telemetry. That was a defensible position as long as 7 was still under security support, but these findings put an end to that. Time to switch, and -1 trust in Microsoft's lifecycle statements.

<comment><USER6> We need a cultural shift in this industry away from thinking it's OK to run outdated and vulnerable software. "Why should we upgrade? $OLD_VERSION works fine!" Yeah, and driving a car with no seatbelts or airbags works fine too... until it doesn't.

<comment><USER7> It seems like Microsoft has "learnt" from Chrome and the whole web-apps ecosystem where the users are conscripted into accepting continuous updates. I don't doubt that the average user is better off, but they should be making escape-hatches available for the technical folks who wish to exert a greater level of control over machines they administer.

<comment><USER8> Except that the average user has moved on to phones and tablets. Desktops stick around for office workers, gamers, and content creators. The last two are the kind of people who want control over their computer to improve their experience/workflow, and the first one is supported by IT that wants control over their users' computers to improve their users' experience/workflow.

Microsoft has done nothing good for their customers with the bullshit path they've taken since Windows 8.

<comment><USER7> I am happy with Windows 10, as of now. They have done good, in my opinion. But then again, I usually switch OSs once MS has released a service pack or two, so I can't say if it was as big of a shitshow as people claimed it was in the begining.

<comment><USER8> It's still a shitshow, believe me. If you can't see it it is only because you don't work with it as often as others.

Google "Windows 10 start button stopped working" and spend a good 20 minutes reading forum posts about the problem. What you'll find is typical of Windows 10: there are no good answers for why it happens, the only consistent solution is to reinstall the OS, and it has been a problem for years and still hasn't been fixed. Meanwhile, they did take the time to remove "Control Panel" as an option when right-clicking the start button, and add a feature that begs you to try Edge when you set another browser as default.

<comment><USER7> I get months of uptime without any issues, and I use it every single day.

<comment><USER9> You can't get months of uptime on Windows 10 because it restarts for updates all the time.

<comment><USER10> Which you can turn off on most versions. (Most people don't need multi-month uptimes either, but the forced reboot thing is bad enough that scheduling the updates manually is the most sane thing to do. I'm not sure what the best UX to get people to keep their systems up-to-date is, but Win10s current one isn't it)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


As wonderful as insane the Apple's logo design  - <AUTHOR> http://gold3nratio.tumblr.com/post/6627609607/as-wonderful-as-insane-the-apples-logo-design-3

<comment><AUTHOR> The Apple logo, designed by Rob Janoff in 1977, is based on the Fibonacci series. As interpreted by @barcelosthiago</comment>


He's fired. Who's next? - <AUTHOR> http://www.macleans.ca/work/jobs/hes-fired-whos-next/ <comment><USER2> > But critics accused the company of abandoning an employee who had stood for > what's right,

Adria Richards was the one who tried to start a witch hunt by talking photos of the two individuals who were just minding their own business joking around.

Just imagine this. Think of all the jokes you share with your close ones in your private time, off the record. Say one day, a random person suddenly takes photo of you and declare you a racist, sexist, rapist etc for overhearing what's supposed offensive to them. No matter how harmless the joke is, the damage is done. You'll be branded as whatever the person says you are.

Is this the type of behavior we want to promote by saying this is just action? Think really carefully before you defend such action. It can really ruin lives.

<comment><USER3> > Adria Richards was the one who tried to start a witch hunt by talking photos > of the two individuals who were just minding their own business joking > around.

Adria was complaining on twitter about some sexist jerks. Those jerks are back to work and fine, and Adria is still unhireable for daring to complain about shitty behaviour.

<comment><USER4> > sexist jerks

As I recall it was a joke between two men about "forking" a male speaker's repo and the size of said speaker's "dongle." I'm not sure how that's sexist. Crass, yes. Sexist? Please inform me.

> Adria is still unhireable for daring to complain about shitty behaviour

Her job was basically a public relations role ("developer evangelist"), such an incident does a couple of things:

\- Destroys any goodwill she had in the developer community.

\- Shows that she's ineffective in dealing with public relations.

Also, in the middle of the incident she started using her employer's name to back her actions (e.g. she said that SendGrid "stands behind her)" and I'm pretty sure no one at the company gave her any approval to make such statements. That's another public relations no-no.

Also,

> Adria was complaining on twitter

This isn't exactly true.

1\. One of the big reasons it blew up is that she turned it into a blog post on her personal blog.

2\. She signed her blog post with "Yesterday the future of programming was on the line and I made myself heard" (though she later removed this from the post). (This Ars Technica article quotes the line[1]).

3\. Several times she likened herself to Joan of Arc for making the Twitter post.

I'm not saying that she deserved to have her life ruined, but she had an active role in the initial push that gave this incident greater publicity.

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/how-dongle- jokes-...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/how-dongle-jokes-got- two-people-fired-and-led-to-ddos-attacks/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> ISTM Shauna Hunt, the reporter, handled the situation very well. Unlike other aggrieved parties who have responded to perceived insult with innuendo, passive aggression, etc., she just asked the dude what was up, and let him hang himself. Had she done otherwise, the story we'd be hearing would be about the "backlash" against her, but even internet morons can't fault her behavior here.

Friends don't let friends drink and talk to reporters.

</comment><comment><USER6> > But critics accused the company of abandoning an employee who had stood for > what's right, and the case has come to symbolize the conu

That is some disingenuous and biased reporting. Many would say that Adria Richards wasn't fired because she stood up for what's right, but rather because she was defending what was wrong - her interpretation of the guys' joke, that is. (Not to mention the creepshot she took of the developers behind her and the public shaming she engaged in.)

<comment><USER7> Here's the HN thread on the subject:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5391667](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5391667)

I think the thing that made people side with mr-hank over Adria Richards was that he came across as someone who would have responded well if she'd turned around and said "hey, can you guys tone down the innuendo?" whereas she came across as defending a mentality of rapid escalation. As one comment said, _" It really is unfortunate that Adria didn't just reach out to you... you didn't intend harm; alas, it seems she did"_ (marden928)

There were also minor things -- Adria Richards had previously made a twitter joke about freaking out TSA agents by stuffing socks down one's pants, her playing Cards Against Humanity at the same event, her defending her decision [0] "based on the PyCon code of conduct" when PyCon's code of conduct would have had her privately approach PyCon officials and let them try to resolve the issue, and not publicly post a picture of the individuals in question. [EDIT] Not to mention her trying to use back channels to remove mr-hank's comment that he'd been fired. [/EDIT]

mr-hank being fired for being overheard saying something privately would be a great example for this article. Adria Richards' firing is an anti-example [1]. She sought the attention and continued to defend her overreactions, including a non-apology-apology -- and, furthermore, she was in a very public-facing position ("developer evangelist"). mr-hank was a run-of-the-mill employee saying something off the record that got back to the employer; Adria Richards was the opposite.

[0] subthread at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047)

[1] SendGrid's explanation: [http://sendgrid.com/blog/a-difficult- situation/](http://sendgrid.com/blog/a-difficult-situation/)

<comment><USER4> Adria Richards as a character seems like she had a rough past and that has painted the adult she has become[1]:

      > Have you ever had an altercation at school and you could feel the hairs rise
      > up on your back?" she asked me.

      > "You felt fear?" I asked.

      > "Danger," she said. "Clearly my body was telling me, 'You are unsafe.'"

      > Which was why, she said, she "slowly stood up, rotated from my hips, and took
      > three photos." She tweeted one, "with a very brief summary of what they said.
      > Then I sent another tweet describing my location. Right? And then the third
      > tweet was the [conference's] code of conduct."

      > "You talked about danger," I said. "What were you imagining might...?"

      > "Have you ever heard that thing, men are afraid that women will laugh at them
      > and women are afraid that men will kill them?" she said.

      > I told Adria that people might consider that an overblown thing to say. She
      > had, after all, been in the middle of a tech conference with 800 bystanders.

      > "Sure," Adria replied. "And those people would probably be white and they
      > would probably be male."

While she might think that it's reasonable to feel that her life is in danger because she overheard a crass/sexist joke (not directed at her) in a room filled with 800 people that happened to mostly be white/male, I think that most people don't feel that way.

[1] [http://www.esquire.co.uk/culture/books/7933/exclusive- extrac...](http://www.esquire.co.uk/culture/books/7933/exclusive-extract-from- jon-ronson-book-so-youve-been-publicly-shamed/)

<comment><USER8>
      > "Sure," Adria replied. "And those people would probably be white and they
      > would probably be male."

I'd like to point out how hypocritically racist and sexist she's being here, as well as the hypocrisy of the hyper-politically-correct society in the US. Imagine if she had said black males. Oh, the outrage that would ensue. White men are people too.

<comment><USER4> The class "in power" can't make denigrating comments of the class not "in power." A good example of this would be a rich person making fun of poor people vs. a poor person making fun of rich people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is sad in many ways.

It's sad that people think being vulgar is funny.

It's sad that people get carried away with what's funny and feel they need to be cool.

It's sad that people are rearing to jump on anyone who is but a symbol of something the masses disprove of, again, mainly not out of being a good citizen, but out of trying to be cool. The defender of the faith.

It's sad that people's alcohol fueled idiocy -not crime,but idiocy, becomes public and has repercussions in real life.

It's sad these vigilantes one day will also make fools of themselves, this is inevitable, one can hope the pitchforks will not come out for them, but they probably will.

It's sad people and companies don't have the wherewithal to separate private from public lives. If I were to become an employer one day, what you say on your time is your province, not mine. When you're representing the company, that's different.

<comment><USER10> > It's sad that people's alcohol fueled idiocy -not crime,but idiocy, becomes > public and has repercussions in real life.

Maybe not a "crime" by the definition of the law, but a lot of things that aren't crimes, such as sexual harassment, are grounds for losing your job. If you display such behavior in public, you should be willing to face the consequences, especially if you work as a government (publicly-funded) employee.

> It's sad these vigilantes one day will also make fools of themselves, this > is inevitable, one can hope the pitchforks will not come out for them, but > they probably will.

I've heard this argument before. Despite what some people think, not everyone harbors racist, sexist, or otherwise wholly objectionable thoughts in the recesses of their mind and of those who do, certainly most of them know better than to spout such things to a public audience.

<comment><USER11> So my brother sent me a youtube link yesterday. It was a show by Luis CK, containing gems like

       I'm waiting to see their kid. They're so beautiful, maybe I want to fuck their kid, I don't know. I'm not saying I would kill a kid and fuck him, … (continued for another moment or two)

Now.. That's a stand-up comedian of course. The setting is clear. We obviously KNOW that he's trying to provoke and that he isn't serious. This isn't exactly my type of humor, but let's pretend I'd say something like that to a friend and someone overhears that. Or just quote it.

Why would that change anything? I assume these things would fall below the 'objectionable thoughts' umbrella in your list. Would I deserve to be attacked for that? Fired for that?

followed by

       I wouldn't fuck a kid. I wouldn't do that. Maybe a dead kid. Who are you hurting? He's _dead_. Who are you hurting?

<comment><USER10> That's not really a comparable scenario. Being overheard in a private conversation is not what's being discussed in the FHRITP case.

What if you said a similar type comment, but on camera to a television reporter who decided to ask you a question to clarify the "joke" (remember that the general public does not consider this a joke, nor does it consider it funny), and you involved the reporter or their child in the joke (e.g. similar to the "vibrator" comment)?

<comment><USER11> Agreed. If we're talking about the drunken guys in front of the camera and the FHRITP thing (I .. didn't even know about that), that's plain insulting. That's the point, I guess: Insult/provoke in a direct manner.

But this thread and the article talk about other cases as well and I'd argue that the PyCon case was merely a private conversation that someone overheard. I'd expect to be able to say the lines above to a friend and bystanders have nothing to do with it.

<comment><USER10> Yes, the Pycon and FHRITP scenarios are on completely different planets as far as I'm concerned. I guess I'm focusing more on the latter because of recency bias and because it's in my backyard, geographically.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "To short-circuit those scenarios, she notes, many major institutions and companies have introduced annual code-of-conduct courses—mandatory refreshers that include explicit warnings that employees represent the company at all times, and that failure to abide could result in dismissal. A few firms try to head off trouble by performing social media background checks on prospective employees."

This is the scary part. Basically Big Brother is your source of income. Most employees are not compensated to be on-guard 24x7 and video edits, twitter size limits, and misreporting make matters worse.

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." \- source disputed but very true these days.

<comment><USER13> Or maybe the scary part is that so many people lack even the most basic ideas of civility, creating the need for those classes.

<comment><USER12> and I'm sure if someone monitored you 24x7 they could find a clip or snippet of your life to turn into the next "that person" moment.

<comment><USER14> And with some of the dynamic entry of 3d pictures, I could add you in to an arbitrary scene with your voice saying vulgar things.

Is the Twitter hate army going to fact check it? Hardly!

So again, I ask, how do you defend against these kinds of attacks?

<comment><USER12> You don't. Its pretty much that simple. Even if you have the best defense in the world, no one will hear the follow-up because people have moved on and google will always stain your name. Hell, people don't even wait to hear your side these days. Its all "getting my comment in while the plane lands on the Hudson River" time scales. Its not confined to the internet either. Look at all the stories that aren't true and had to be "clarified" on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NYT, etc. Didn't fix some of them before the riots broke out. Its all reality tv and your pain is worth a couple of bucks in soda ads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> In many cases, it's not even about the content of their messages. It's about a total lack of awareness, especially concerning their medium of speech. To me that's far more damning than an off-kilter joke or a moment of drunken stupidity.

Why would you say something really stupid like "FHRITP" to a reporter with a microphone? Or defend someone else saying that? Especially to a NEWS reporter?

Sure, blah blah blah, alcohol. If you're out of college and can't be drunk without saying some really monumentally stupid shit in a very public manner, that's worrisome. Are you going to act that way in front of a client or business partner if you go out drinking with them one night? Are you also going to say stupid shit like that at the company holiday party?

Admittedly some of these are out-of-context tweets or photos. That sucks to have your inside jokes taken out of context, for sure. At first, I think many of us internalize things like Twitter as "public-but-not-really", until things like this happen that remind us: If you don't intentionally make it private, social media like Twitter is VERY public. You probably wouldn't make that joke while giving a public speech - probably shouldn't make it on Twitter, unless you're extremely careful about the context.

<comment><USER16> _Why would you say something really stupid like "FHRITP" to a reporter with a microphone? Or defend someone else saying that? Especially to a NEWS reporter?_

For the same reason people yell or minimize the yelling of "baba booey baba booey howard stern's penis."

It injects vulgar childish nonsense into a framework that presents itself as straitlaced uptight and self-serious. The primary offense dealt is not sexist, it's narcissistic injury.

<comment><USER15> Idk, that seems kinda specious to me (though I realize you're not necessarily defending the reasoning). If I yelled something racist into the microphone instead of "baba booey", very few people would shrug it off as "oh hah hah he's just being fun with the uptight reporter."

Which I guess proves my point even further - if you can't see the difference between the two and then decide to go on and vocalize this ignorance in front of a television reporter (rather than just keeping it contained to your social circle), maybe you shouldn't be in charge of anything important.

<comment><USER16> _If I yelled something racist into the microphone instead of "baba booey", very few people would shrug it off as "oh hah hah he's just being fun with the uptight reporter"_

Well, that depends. There is a chance it could get laughed off (are you black and joking about athleticism, or did you roll up wearing a hood?). It rests on if the audience chooses to see what was said as racial or racist? Just like my previous post was largely about who interpreted FHRITP as sexist, vs just sexual.

 _if you can 't see the difference between the two [...]_

Of course you don't want someone that disagrees with you over X making decisions on Y and Z. They don't share your value system and perspective.

Everyone is going to draw their interpretations from different value systems, and place their boundaries on sexist/sexual and acceptable/unacceptable boundaries at different points. The conversations that result over these topics are largely rote and boring. Where someone finds their personal lines is going to correlated to the set of cable networks they watch.

<comment><USER15> > Well, that depends.

I don't know if it really does in this case, because...

> are you black and joking about athleticism

To extend our metaphor, the guy in the article is not black. He's very white and making a joke about segregation. To a public audience. While drunk. Then he decides to slip in a little slavery joke (i.e. the "you're lucky he didn't put a vibrator in your ear" part).

Again, if an adult is unable to see why it's a dumb decision to make that joke to a public, anonymous audience, then that person probably shouldn't be allowed to make any important decisions. They're clearly severely lacking in situational awareness.

> Of course you don't want someone that disagrees with you over X making > decisions on Y and Z... Everyone is going to draw their interpretations from > different value systems...

Ah, the old moral relativism argument. I think we're done here if that's what it's coming down to. You're right: That is a boring conversation to have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Could Gillis, the author of the article, be afraid of the outrage mob himself?

Simoes was fired for acting rudely on his personal time in a venue where such behavior is common.

Richards was fired for launching an unprovoked public attack against software developers. SendGrid was paying her to be there representing the company.

Both of the did act like assholes. He apologized, she refuses to do so.

Yet Gillis makes Richards out to be the victim.

</comment><comment><USER18> Incidentally, whoever is doing PR for Jon Ronson's book is a fucking wizard at their job. I don't think I've ever seen a book promoted so ubiquitously, through so many different channels, hitting so many different audiences over such a sustained period of time.

Reading all the different articles, it's possible to see hints of how orchestrated the entire process was and how the same stories get pushed into different contexts to provide relevancy to different audiences.

Execution wise, all this took a fuckton of work by absolute professionals and I'd love to read a behind the scenes post-mortem of the work once it's completed. There's sure to be lessons from this campaign that would be valuable to anyone working in or needing PR.

PS: Please don't post a link to Paul Graham's submarine piece yet again. It's not a bad piece of writing but it's become the de facto piece on understanding PR which is all kinds of tragic. If the submarine piece is the best piece of writing you know of on PR, then it's likely you know almost nothing about the field and should refrain from commenting as if you do.

</comment><comment><USER10> The lesson: don't be an idiot.

<comment><USER19> No, the lesson is to never say anything on the Internet.

Justine Sacco wrote a remark criticizing racism, and got fired for appearing to be a racist.

As Cardinal Richelieu said: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."

<comment><USER10> The majority of the cases cited in the article are not possibly intelligent thoughts being misinterpreted, they're mostly just bad attempts to be funny that end up being offensive and dumb. I don't think Justine Sacco would appreciate being grouped with these people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Seriously what kind of place do people work at that you can't have jokes about fork'ing and dongles?

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm not on Facebook and Twitter. Privacy is a precious property I don't want to sell off.

</comment><comment><USER22> Engaging the Internet for the two minutes' hate will solve everything.

</comment><comment><USER23> The tagline for the article is ridiculous.

"Sexist buffoonery cost Shawn Simoes his job. But you could lose yours for a lot less. Welcome to the creeping corporate takeover of our private lives."

It's not corporate takeover of our private lives. It's people choosing to make public what should never be public. That woman, Justine Saccos, said something stupid that might have been considered funny amongst a small group of friends. But to the whole world it made her look like a buffoon. (subsequent interviews she comes across as a reasonable person)

(the article is all over the place)

When I've tried to hire people I've been given summaries of their social media and I think it's a completely valid part of the hiring process. In my experience using things like facebook, twitter, (g+, orkut, friendster, etc), has more potential negatives than positives. People are always looking for negative things about other people on social media, whether it's stalking, hiring, or dating.

That said, I have used Facebook in the past as a corporate promotional tool, having interns take care of my personal Facebook page and the company's. I've never actually used Facebook myself though.

<comment><USER24> > That woman, Shawn Simoes, said something stupid [...] it made her look like > a buffoon

"That man" and "him".

<comment><USER23> Fixed it - I actually meant Justine Sacco. The AIDS woman.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Maybe just don't be a sexist asshole and catcall women at all, and there's no problem

<comment><USER25> There's always one who doesn't read the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I have little against wicked humour, but the audience should be carefully chosen. If some people are stupid enough to make it public on social media -- well, they deserve their fates.

<comment><USER26> > I have little against wicked humour, but the audience should be carefully > chosen.

Agreed entirely

> If some people are stupid enough to make it public on social media -- well, > they deserve their fates.

I disagree. I think we'd save a lot of collective energy if we stepped back for a second and asked if the stupidity displayed contained any actual hate. If the answer is "no" it's time slap a wrist, and move along.</comment></comment>


How to protect your site against clickjacking attacks with proper frame busting - <AUTHOR> http://seclab.stanford.edu/websec/framebusting/

<comment><AUTHOR> More on Clickjacking:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickjacking>

For a real world example, there was a clickjacking worm spreading through Facebook earlier today:

<http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00001955.html></comment>


The sins of the group of posers behind the so called "Bitcoin Foundation" - <AUTHOR> http://trilema.com/2014/the-sins-of-the-group-of-posers-behind-the-so-called-bitcoin-foundation/

<comment><USER2> This should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Firstly, its author, Mircea Popescu, has a long history of not being the most trustworthy character, and often deliberately incites flamewars. I say this not to discredit the arguments in the post by discrediting their author (that would be fallacious), but to warn readers against taking his words at face value.

Now, on to the points in the post.

> _As best as anyone can currently discern, Bitcoin does not have a core group > of developers._

There is, in fact, a group of developers which contribute the bulk of the new code to the Bitcoin-Qt client. This includes essential security updates and new features. They also have a certain degree of leadership in the Bitcoin community, and their word was enough to get a majority of miners to switch to one client version during the hardfork (more on that later).

> _The "Bitcoin Foundation" / "Core Devs" group of scammers have quite > publicly, and repeatedly, promoted and vouched for Butterfly Labs, aka BFL_

I am not a fan of BFL. Whether they are malicious or incompetent does not matter with respect to the financial damage they have done. More importantly, they did not provide adequate compensation for their unrealized promises after the damage was done. However, I will need to see evidence of the Bitcoin Foundation endorsing BFL before I believe it. Additionally, while one or more developers may have endorsed BFL, this does not mean all developers which contribute frequently are in a cabal together.

> _The "Bitcoin Foundation" / "Core Devs" group of scammers have quite > publicly, and repeatedly, promoted and vouched for MtGox_

Please see my above response and substitute "MtGox" for "BFL".

> _Systematically attempted to block, slow and hinder protocol specification > and development_

Such an accusation requires evidence.

> _Deliberately and quite maliciously created a blockchain hardfork in March > 2013_

Without evidence, we should assume it was accidental, not deliberate. In fact, I would assert that the evidence we have strongly implies that the fork was accidental. The hardfork only occurred because of a specific block that was "too big" (simplification). Additionally, the bug which caused it existed for a while before the fork occurred. Then, many of the core devs worked with miners to resolve the fork in such a way that every client managed to reunite on one chain.

> _which allowed our enemies - whoever they may be - to effectually stress- > test the entire project_

This is a nonsensical statement. The fork revealed no new "weakness".

> _Deliberately and quite maliciously tried to meld the BleedingHeart openssl > vulnerability into the Bitcoin code._

Again, we should assume they did not know of the vulnerability. If they did, then this point should be expanded upon and not blended with the rest of this post.

The post ends with vaguely threatening text which I will not quote here.</comment>


No Comply: Mozilla WebGL demo - <AUTHOR> https://mozillademos.org/demos/nocomply/demo.html <comment><AUTHOR> Here is some background information:

<http://hacks.mozilla.org/2011/03/nocomply/>

And here are sources:

<https://github.com/cjcliffe/NoComply></comment>


Show HN: Jane Austen's books for free as beautiful online editions and PDFs - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/textvs/Austen-Works <comment><AUTHOR> Today, 18 July 2017, is Jane Austen's bicentenary.

Just the perfect day to showcase our product: Textus, a typesetting engine in the cloud.

Generating all of Jane Austen's Collected Works from scratch (i.e. plain text markdown) into beautiful online ebooks and PDFs is a matter of seconds, instead of weeks…

</comment><comment><USER2> looking forward to examining your tool and its output, rhythmus!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Liked your Open-Publisher, too!

Did you subscribe to our waiting list (Textus.io)? If so, I could give you beta access right away.</comment></comment>


How we learn - b-man http://squeakland.immuexa.com/resources/articles/article.jsp?id=1010

<comment><AUTHOR> Very thought provoking and somewhat heart breaking. Two key paragraphs and devastating conclusion:

 _When we talk about learning, we really mean two quite different things, the process of discovery and of mastering what one discovers. All children are naturally driven to create an accurate picture of the world and, with the help of adults to use that picture to make predictions, formulate explanations, imagine alternatives and design plans. Call it "guided discovery."_

 _In guided discovery - figuring out how the world works or unraveling the structure of making tortillas - children learn to solve new problems. But what is expected in school, at least in part, involves a very different process: call it "routinized learning." Something already learned is made to be second nature, so as to perform a skill effortlessly and quickly._

 _Schools don't teach the way children learn._

<comment><USER2> I whole-heartedly agree with the last phrase - "Schools don't teach the way children learn." It's amazing how much more learning happens outside of the classroom than in it, especially when you look at how much time you had to spend in the classroom to begin with. Hopefully some educators will take the practical advice in the article, and if the education leaders don't heed it, they might be watching some of this research.

With people exploring different ways to improve education, there are some interesting tidbits in an article published in Science last week that talked about how scientists are creating a new foundation for education by understanding learning's three principles, "learning is computational, social, and supported by brain circuits linking perception and action that connect people to one another."

One of the things they found - "Apparently babies need other people to learn. They take in more information by looking at another person face to face than by looking at that person on a big plasma TV screen."

The Press Release on ScienceDaily.com: [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716141134.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716141134.htm)

<comment><USER3> The Science Daily article is extremely inaccurate. Not only are the studies they describe not new, they don't even summarize them correctly.

<comment><USER2> Care to elaborate? They didn't cite a bunch of studies in Science Daily (but I'd assume in the article published in Science they would), and the article is taken directly from the University of Washington's press release.

<http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=50883>

<comment><USER3> First, research about the 'video deficit' isn't new, this science has been around for at least ten years, probably much longer.

Second, while there is evidence that eye contact is necessary for children under one to recognize phonemes, and that eye contact has an effect on extroversion and other elements of temperament, there is (AFAIK) no evidence that it has any affect on children's ability to acquire academic skills of the sort taught in school.

<comment><USER4> I believe that in language there is evidence that children that learn by having their teachers do sign-language as they speak teach them languages faster.

Furthermore academic skills is not really what the article seem to be after.

<comment><USER3> I was responding to the "schools don't teach the way students learn" quote. That implies this research has vast implications for school-age children, but there is no evidence to suggest this and really no reason at all to even casually believe it's true.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Bild – A collection of image processing functions in Go - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/anthonynsimon/bild <comment><USER2> FYI, the verb for "convolution" is "convolve", not "convolute".

English is a weird arse language

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the correction, fixed it :)</comment></comment>


Mathematics, Mathematica and Certainty (including details on Mathematica's internals) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wolfram.com/2007/12/mathematics_mathematica_and_ce.html

<comment><USER2> _Let's say we do a computation---say with Mathematica---and we find a mathematical result. How can we be sure it's correct?_

Can't pass up _even one_ opportunity to promote himself or his product.

<comment><USER3> Makes me want to invent a Mathematica drinking game. Playing it while reading this would get you quite merry.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's going on with the Apple Genius bar? - <AUTHOR> I've been trying for a week to get a reservation with the Apple Genius bar in London but there are no slots. I can't be the only one? <comment><USER2> I can't say much since I don't work at Apple, but I've noticed this past year that any time I need an appointment they are booked at least 4 days in advance. This is in the US, not London.

<comment><USER3> At least a week in advance in Cambridge, U.K.

But it depends on the time of year. Book now for January;)</comment></comment>


Post-mortem analysis on Google App Engine outage - <AUTHOR> http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/msg/ba95ded980c8c179

<comment><USER2> I think the duration of this outage was basically about waiting for the GFS team to roll in. They knew at 6:44am that they had a crashing GFS Master on their hands, but they didn't decide to try upgrading until 8am, and only escalated to the GFS team _after_ the upgrade failed to help, at 9am. That's the story of this outage, to me:

6:44 AM --- A GFS Site Reliability Engineer (SRE) reports that the GFS Master in App Engine's primary data center is failing and continuously restarting.

8:00 AM --- The cause of the GFS Master failures has not yet been identified. [...] the GFS SRE decides to commence the upgrade immediately in an attempt to alleviate the problem.

9:00 AM --- The GFS upgrade [...] finishes, but the Master is still failing. The GFS SRE escalates directly to the GFS engineering team, and [they begin] live debugging of the failing software[...].

10:00 AM --- GFS SRE advises that the GFS engineering team has identified the cause [...] GFS Master is no longer failing and GFS Chunkservers, which hold the actual needed data, are starting to come back up by 10:30 AM.

</comment><comment><USER3> These sort of public post-mortems are a fascinating look inside an otherwise opaque system.

<comment><USER4> Seriously - I don't have anything currently running on GAE, and I found it incredibly interesting reading.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> > the primary engineer discovered that the isolated servers supporting the > Status Site were running in the same data center as the primary App Engine > serving cluster.

Hilarious - they were running the status site for App Engine on the App Engine infrastructure so when it went down they couldn't post it's status as being down. I'm sure people will be quite philosophical about this outage and how difficult distributed systems are to manage, but this seems kind of an obvious mistake to make...

<comment><USER6> Yes, that was an obvious mistake. A brown-paper-bag bug so to say.

The difference between google and many other companies is: They are not afraid to admit it and I'm sure that will be fixed before the next outage.

Most other hosting providers I've dealt with would not even tell me the exact cause for an outage. Or at most in blurry terms, preferably handing off the blame to someone else. You wouldn't believe how often these pesky core routers at my datacenters supposedly had a problem!

I also don't know many other providers with a status page as detailed as google's in first place.

So, yes, this was a funny screw-up. But on a very high niveau. This is a bit like mocking someone who drove his Ferrari into a wall - at least he _had_ a Ferrari to drive into a wall... ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Am I reading this right? I hope not.

 _Another user of GFS in the same primary datacenter as App Engine is issuing a request to the GFS servers that reliably causes a crash._

A google employee had a bug in their GFS-using code which ended up crashing GFS for themselves and all GAE users?

 _The failover procedure [...] was not designed to handle failover during full unavailability for a long period (greater than three hours)._

Wouldn't something like a fire or a significant code bug in GFS cause full unavailability for hours?

<comment><USER8> Yes, this is a bit curious. GFS cells are generally restricted to particular eng groups depending on the need, so I assume this particular GFS cell was fairly restricted, but it's still somewhat worrisome that unrelated, non- production code could lead to an outage of this scale. I expect whoever wrote the offending code is very aware of the repercussions of their work this week :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> this is a puzzling bit:

"8:00 AM --- The cause of the GFS Master failures has not yet been identified. However, a similar-looking issue that had been seen in a different data center the week prior had been resolved by an upgrade to a newer version of the GFS software. This upgrade was already planned for the App Engine primary data center later in the week, so the GFS SRE decides to commence the upgrade immediately in an attempt to alleviate the problem."

So, they let their old version of the GFS continue to run in spite of knowing that there was a critical bug, and then only when it crashed they decided to TRY the upgrade to see if it would cure the problem ?

If that upgrade would have been done earlier they could have shaved off an hour of their outage. I'm sure it's easy to second-guess from the sidelines but this really does puzzle me.

Also in the 'what did we do wrong' section they completely gloss over this point.

<comment><USER10> All upgrades should be rolled out gradually so that if the the upgrade triggers a bug or in general have some issues, all data centers are not affected at the same time.

<comment><USER11> Plus the update was already planned on being installed later in the week, so it was not like they were ignoring it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Am I the only person who finds this slightly amusing? I just read on HN about a week ago about Google bragging about how since all their sites run on the same underlying architecture, one upgrade and all their sites get the upgrade (speed, scalability, etc.).

But it seems to have turned around in this case. One underlying bug brought down their whole system (or whole app engine system).

Haha.

<comment><USER6> I don't see what you're laughing at. Their systems seem to be sufficiently isolated that the bug at least didn't affect other products (search, mail, etc.).

That alone is already more than you could expect from many other sites.

Showstopper bugs happen in any system, google is no exception here. More important is their handling and communication of the issue. And that was _stellar_ , even despite the communication hole during the blackout.

This post mortem makes up for that faux-pas in my book. How often you get to read a detailed analysis like that from a company the size of google? With clear admission of their faults and detailed description of the steps they're going to take to resolve them?

This is the google I want to see and it gives me good faith that they'll fix their communication issues for the next downtime.

It also makes me wonder what there is to laugh about. As a customer I can not complain much about the way this was handled (I have seen much, much worse). As a competitor I'd piss my pants just again over the sheer self-confidence and professionalism google displays at this scale.

Does _your_ company have equal monitoring and procedures in place to detect, identify and resolve a low-level bug like this in a comparable timeframe?

So, no laughing here.

<comment><USER12> Of course I respect all that. I didn't mean I was sitting here laughing at all their problems saying "haha, gotcha suckers."

I'm just saying the fact it happened so close to when I read that is _slightly_ amusing. Its a serious thing that happened, definitely, I'm just taking a step back and enjoying a small part of it.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What has been your worst onboarding experience as a customer? - <AUTHOR> I'm having a pretty lousy experience at the moment trying to become a customer of British Gas (a utility company in the UK).
It's such a painful experience that I'm going to pay extra to join a different company.
And it made me wonder: what bad experiences have you had when trying to join a company? What made them bad experiences? What should the company have done? <comment><USER2> I bought off-marketplace health insurance one year. There's no provision for online subscription. You have to call in, and they have to read and acknowledge all the disclosures, so it takes like 45 minutes of droning over a phone.

Considering the plan was basically equivalent to a marketplace plan, I don't understand why they couldn't just list it on there where enrollment takes like 10 minutes all-online.</comment>