What should you open source in your company - <AUTHOR> http://alpblog.heroku.com/what-should-you-open-source-in-your-company/

<comment><USER2> At Netflix, our general policy is that if it has to do with technology, open source it, and if it has to do with movies, then don't.

<comment><USER3> This to me is right mentality. If it is technology that is reusable in any/a lot of applications then it is a good candidate for being open-sourced. If it specific to what you are doing then it is probably not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This seems similar to Tom Preston-Werner's essay on the same subject, with the exception that this article fails to mention any moral obligation to open source general purpose code:

" _It's almost impossible to do anything these days without directly or indirectly executing huge amounts of open source code. If you use the internet, you're using open source. That code represents millions of man-hours of time that has been spent and then given away so that everyone may benefit. We all enjoy the benefits of open source software, and I believe we are all morally obligated to give back to that community. If software is an ocean, then open source is the rising tide that raises all ships._ "

[http://tom.preston-werner.com/2011/11/22/open-source- everyth...](http://tom.preston-werner.com/2011/11/22/open-source- everything.html)

<comment><USER5> I don't see where the moral obligation comes in.

It's great if somebody wants to give out their source code, but to turn around and say it creates a moral obligation towards them is disingenuous. It's a little nonsensical, even. If they expect something in return for the code then they should ask for it up front.

<comment><USER6> Without making judgement as to how valid that "obligation" is, this is pretty much the stance of RMS. If you release a program of some sort and don't release the source code to give everyone various freedoms, you are perpetrating a great wrong.

<comment><USER7> _Without making judgement as to how valid that "obligation" is, this is pretty much the stance of RMS._

No, it's not the stance of RMS that if you use open source code than you are obliged to produce open source. In fact, he considers it essential to software freedom that someone should be able to obtain a free software program, modify it, use the modification, and keep the modified program to themselves.

 _If you release a program of some sort and don't release the source code to give everyone various freedoms, you are perpetrating a great wrong._

 _This_ is the stance of RMS.

<comment><USER6> Ah, my bad. Misunderstood the parent comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I havn't read the post yet but I clicked on it because I assumed it was a blog post by heroku, it's interesting that it links to a redirect to another url, I'm sure this is just an honest mistake but I wonder if someone has tested if things like google.com (for google pages) heroku.com (heroku apps) and other premium domains fair better with HN because of the official nature.

I also wonder how that would be affected if HN started showing the subdomain of the url as well.

<comment><USER9> I have a feeling that if the url says "heroku" that you will get some drive by up votes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Here's our[1] take on it... Our entire company is built around F/OSS, including both code we've written from scratch, greenfield style[2]; code that we've written which is (based on|inspired by|links to) existing F/OSS packages; and code which is directly borrowed from other projects (in compliance with the license, of course).

So if our entire product suite is based around F/OSS, and given some public statements we've made[3], you might ask "is there anything you wouldn't open source"? And the answer, is "yes". There probably isn't a _lot_ we would keep proprietary, but where we did, it would be internal tooling or software related to internal processes which we believe constitute (some or all of) our competitive advantage.

That said, even on internal tools, we are open (no pun intended) to open sourcing more stuff. I wrote a Grails based app a while back for managing competitive intelligence. The tool itself isn't anything particularly _special_ but it's handy. The value we derive from it is the data we have loaded into our instance, not the tool itself. So there's a good chance we'll open source that eventually. In fact, it it weren't for lack of time to polish up the code a bit and otherwise do the "stuff" I'd like to do before releasing it, it would probably already be on GitHub.

Oh, and it needs a new name before we'd release it to the world. The (silly) internal name is FUCIT - Fogbeam Universal Competitive Intelligence Tool. :-) And we'll probably expand this to a more general "industry awareness" tool eventually, as opposed to being strictly about "competitive" intelligence as well.

From TFA:

 _The codebases of the most companies are made of business logic dominated repositories and tools/utilities built around them. Assuming that your company has a valuable business logic inventory, you should probably keep that code to yourself._

Yeah, that's about the size of it. A tool which embodies logic which is core to the business per-se, will stay proprietary. But generic tools, which confer no particular competitive advantage, are just as well open sourced.

[1]: <http://www.fogbeam.com>

[2]: <https://github.com/Fogbeam>

[3]: [http://www.fogbeam.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-google- question-...](http://www.fogbeam.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-google-question-is- hacker-ethic.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> Another category: SDKs, or any code you give your customers to embed within their own. Not only will this make them more comfortable (since they can inspect the code), you're likely to get free, quality work in the form of contributions.

I've been pleasantly surprised at how many people have contributed to the Rollbar (<http://rollbar.com>) libraries... we've had 10 different contributors to our Ruby gem and a handful to our other libraries. Would highly recommend this strategy to others.

</comment><comment><USER12> Can anyone comment on how much resources are spent on making something 'releasable'? Not just packaging and the initial commit/support, but spending the time to make it generic enough to be useful to other users.

<comment><USER10> It's hard to quantify, but it can be non-trivial. See my other comment about the one internal tool we might release. Part of the reason it hasn't been released yet is exactly because it needs work to make it "releasable". For a tool which is _strictly_ used internally, I might take some short-cuts or make some compromises that I wouldn't want seen in any code I release to the world. I know FUCIT has hard-coded file paths, hard-coded usernames, pages which are not "built" but render using Grails scaffolding (and look pretty hideous), and all manner of bugs that I don't care about, or aren't serious enough to justify fixing right now. I'd want to fix _all_ of that stuff before releasing that thing to the wild, just as a matter of professional pride. If I sat down and focused on it intently, I could probably get it into releasable form in a couple of weeks. But justifying that much work is hard to do right now.

Oh, and there's also no documentation, so that would need to be done.

Anyway, the point is, taking something internal and prepping it for widespread release can be a fairly substantial undertaking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "you will need them again; maybe at another team, maybe at your next company or next job."

Why does the author highlight this? So the motive for open sourcing is primarily to help yourself? The collaboration and chances to get better are more important IMHO.

<comment><USER14> Perhaps the author has changed jobs enough times to have experienced this first-hand, or chose to emphasize a very practical/selfish motivation in order to appeal to those who would not otherwise even give open source a second thought.

<comment><USER15> Unfortunately, that logic will go over like a lead weight with companies that prize 7+ year terms and loyalty. "You might leave!? No! We're keeping it"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > One thing you should remember is that for most of the time, it is not the > companies who are giving away source code, but it is the individual efforts > that make it happen. They come up with these ideas and bravely debate > against their managers and internal pressure to make a contribution to the > public domain.

This is why developers should be the boss, all too often I hear of great ideas and initiatives that are squashed for imagined fears of a suit. Hackers intimately understand change and are not afraid to push the envelope.

</comment><comment><USER17> We do this at 99designs. Anything that isn't a core piece of domain specific tech related to running a design contest—we'll open source it.

We don't just do it for goodwill either — it's a great design practice.

It's good to design systems that are built out of components that are small, single-purpose, well tested etc.

Making a component open source helps you define it's responsibilities and separate your concerns better.

</comment><comment><USER18> Since I moved out to the Bay Area, I've definitely become a fan of this style. So many utilities used inside companies have nothing to do with their business. The one challenge I see is that a project could become so popular that the devs leave the company to start their own based on the open tech.

<comment><USER19> Yes, that happened to the company I work for now... twice!

In both cases we've maintained good relations with those developers and the tools they've built are still useful to us.

I'm of the opinion that it's better to hire entrepreneurial types like that if you have the option, and then it's your job to make sure they get some kind of an outlet for that enthusiasm at your company while they work there.

Our existing code is built on a large open source project as well, which helps attract developers who are interested in working on open source...

If you're just shoving lines of code around for pay, it probably doesn't matter as much, but I'd rather spend 2-3 years working with people who could create their own company from scratch and just happened to be working at the same place. Those are the ones you learn a lot from and keep running into years later...

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> something that no one will use but still looks cool. something like this: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Djc8FPHs45o>

</comment><comment><USER21> What large software firm publishes their own open software? Is there ANY? Maybe Redhat... If you ignore the fact that they haven't released any new technology in quite a while unless you call adding a number for Fedora distro advancement. Buinesses make money, your business doesn't survive by products, moral fortitude, even customers, etc. It survives by making money.

That's why RedHat OS isn't so great, they don't build anything they just maintain it for their customers. They simply don't have the money to develop on new products then throw that investment away by casting it to the general internet community where it will be repacked and sold as an original piece of software, or forked and tangled.

If we ever see a large company make a significant contribution, it will probably come in the form of a platform for capturing the community work into proprietary system on private hardware. Open sourcing your company is one step away from throwing in the towel, in the current economy.

<comment><USER10> _That's why RedHat OS isn't so great, they don't build anything they just maintain it for their customers. They simply don't have the money to develop on new products then throw that investment away by casting it to the general internet community where it will be repacked and sold as an original piece of software, or forked and tangled._

Red Hat sell a lot more than Linux. They've open sourced a TON of stuff they either wrote or acquired. All (or at least most) of the JBoss stuff was developed _by_ JBoss and open-sourced, and Red Hat have acquired other companies (or bought products from other companies) and released their stuff as OSS (or kept it OSS if it already was). Cygwin and FuseSource come to mind, and they bought the old Netscape Certificate Server code from that weird Novell/Sun spinoff that had acquired that code at one time (can't remember the name right now, sorry).

 _If we ever see a large company make a significant contribution, it will probably come in the form of a platform for capturing the community work into proprietary system on private hardware._

We've already seen big companies contribute OSS code, sometimes significant amounts. IBM, believe it or not, have released a lot of code as OSS, Google have done so as well, Novell have, and Sun Microsystems released nearly all of their stuff as OSS before the Oracle acquisition. Now you could argue that Sun is a bad example since they failed, but you could also argue that they were failing long before choosing the OSS approach.

There are also contributions to the OSS world from Netflix, Oracle ( _gasp_ ), even Microsoft.

<comment><USER21> I don't recall arguing that there are _no_ OSS contributions, so I took the liberty of ignoring your comment.

<comment><USER10> Heh, no worries. We probably don't actually disagree that much. Things like "significant contribution" are subjective anyway.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple's New iPhone Software Will Crash a Lot of Apps, Software Tester Says - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/09/14/ios_7_crashes_apps_software_tester_says.html

<comment><USER2> I've been using ios 7 since beta 3 and most of the apps work just fine. I'm not saying that there were no issues, but not as many as the article states. Of course, this is limited to the list of apps I'm currently using on iPhone/iPad.</comment>


How Walmart plans to transform the way we buy groceries - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-walmart-plans-to-transform-the-way-we-buy-groceries/2016/10/05/ee4d9f60-7dbd-11e6-9070-5c4905bf40dc_story.html?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na <comment><USER2> Ok, I just skimmed the article, and saw the part about how Walmart's personal shoppers will check your produce and only pick good stuff to give to you, because they don't want a "trust fail" (people aren't going to use this for buying produce if they get rotten, overripe, etc. produce delivered to them or broken eggs). My question here is: why do in-store shoppers not get the same treatment? Why are they even offering crappy produce that their personal shoppers now have to pick through for non-bruised apples? Wouldn't it make more sense to have produce workers check out all the produce before putting it out and tossing the bad stuff, and then checking over it periodically and tossing out anything that's gone bad? Or would that cut into profits too much to not take advantage of shoppers who aren't as savvy about not buying bad produce?

Finally, maybe I'm just weird, but I actually like going grocery shopping to an extent. Since I buy so much stuff online now (due to both cost and convenience for many things: it's usually much cheaper, and also frequently much easier to find exactly what I want instead of having to call around and see who has something in stock), going shopping for groceries gives me a chance to get out of my bubble and be around other people besides my coworkers and see people in a public setting, and also get a little exercise and also get to browse things. You're not going to save any money buying groceries online (it doesn't save money the way it does for some other goods with a higher "value density"), and there's a huge variety of different foods out there, with new stuff coming out all the time. I guess someone with small kids probably sees things differently.

<comment><USER3> "Why are they even offering crappy produce that their personal shoppers now have to pick through for non-bruised apples?"

Produce follows a distribution along all characteristics, and that distribution changes over time. There's some you could discard a priori, but then there's the damage from customers manhandling it, the normal aging process, etc.

<comment><USER4> That's all true. But despite their other benefits, WalMart has by far the consistently worst produce of any store I've ever shopped in.</comment></comment></comment>


Happiness May Lie in Our Relationships - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/28/2050/what-technology-cant-change-about-happiness <comment><USER2> This leads to the question "How can we get rid of social anxiety?":

Other human beings are a subset of your environment. So you may ask "How can I improve my perception of my environment?". This is (only) 1 of the many benefits of the experience you live through when you ingest the substance LSD: Handled the right way, you can experience the most awe inspiring moment of your life, you can not just see beauty, but live it, be immersed by it and be a part of it. You're likely to ask yourself over and over "why was this hidden from me all those years?". You can literally _feel_ your entire environment in a very positive, magic and vibrant way (hint: find yourself an isolated place in nature that you like and listen to your favorite music). And part of this feeling is very likely to stay with you, after the experience. It may be subtle, but a very subtle positive change in the way you feel and perceive your environment can change your thoughts dramatically and therefor your general behavior. You can become very positive.

This is why it's completely wrong for humanity to keep this substance illegal. This substance can lead to a whole new appreciation for our Planet, the Universe and for the human beings around us.

(Of course, "follow the money" seems to apply here as well, when I think how this molecule seems to be able to replace heavy side-effect ridden anti- depressant therapies which are of course one gigantic cash cow for the pharma industry.)

Note: It is absolutely mandatory to educate oneself about the substance as much as possible beforehand and to prepare one's experience by respecting all the rules that apply (and: there are a couple of medical conditions which make the substance very risky for you, should you suffer from one of them knowingly or unknowingly).

<comment><USER3> I remember when I first took it. I got a profound feeling of "oh, I get it now" about the universe - that ultimately we are all connect, as one.

Afterwards, I couldn't work out what it was. For many years, 5 or so to be exact, I've worked backwards from there with much though, research into religion and spirituality, meditation and mindfulness. This also includes several other doses of LSD between then.

The last dose was profound and shared with my soulmate. We lay on our bed, with soothing, space-like/new age/dreamscape music in the background, this was a perfect soundtrack for the experience. The feeling of closeness was immense. Everything melted away, it was as if we had direct access to each other's minds and emotions as though there was no body to separate us. I remember crying genuine, gushing tears of joy at the overwhelming sense of love for her. I don't see anything metaphysical about it but that last experience offered insight into the realisation during my first time and is also an event I look back on positively.

From what I've worked out, I explain the realisation that we are all connected as one like this:

The universe is a beautiful, immense whole composed of vast celestial bodies and ourselves, as part of that. Everything we see on earth is the universe. What is most interestng and profound is the idea that we are a part of the universe than can observe itself in it's wonderful entirety. From this, you realise the folly of violence, wars and how our world currently works. By hurting others of allowing them to get hurt, we are hurting ourselves.

From my study of religions, I can fit this idea in quite well. This includes new thought, Buddhism and even Christianity. With Christianity in particular, seeing Jesus as someone who got this but had to explain it in terms of the framework of understanding of his day masked sense. It also shows how modern Christianity has moved far and away from this idea.

I don't really share this as it's an untestable and perhaps laughable idea but it has bed a profound spiritual journey for me that has provided a lot of inner value.

<comment><USER4> And what do you have to say to those of us who feel overwhelming love for our significant others, or who understand the basic nature of causality and how it relates to human life, _without_ taking drugs?

<comment><USER5> I've never taken LSD but have taken mushrooms several times. I've heard the _nature_ of the hallucinations are different.

A memorable moment: I'm walking on the beach (in real life) and the sand is bubbling up with skeletons (clear as day). Then I look at this huge cliff wall to my left (the cliff wall is real), and a huge totem pole head emerges from the cliff face (as part of the cliff, it is the cliff).

This totem pole head then proceeds to tell me that it's seen millennia of people walk along this beach and the universe is very old and etc. And I look up (and it was really sunset) to a crazy universe explosion of activity in the sky. This went on for another few hours. In the end, I'm left with this feeling of connectedness and awe that I can kind of hold on to.

Logically, I learned nothing new. I got a feeling based on... my self's inner interpretation of a unique drug enduced brain state? I'm not sure I _could_ get there without drugs, the brain is unable to produce the proper chemical composition and set of signals unaided.

Now to be fair, I didn't go home that night, sit down, and produce a treatise on the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. But I certainly don't regret it either.

<comment><USER6> > I'm not sure I could get there without drugs

This is the biggest issue, to me.

I've heard some fantastic claims about meditation, but it seems to require a lot of work (and even then doesn't 'work' for everyone)-- also, it's never going to be _exactly_ like the experience of ecstasy, shrooms, LSD, various herbs, etcetera.

Each of the more mind-altering substances has a unique way of interacting with the brain, and I wouldn't trade my experiences with them for anything. They're one of the greatest things I value in life, honestly, as I'm not entirely sure I understood what being fully alive even really meant until after they crossed my path.

<comment><USER7> > I'm not entirely sure I understood what being fully alive even really meant > until after they crossed my path

I don't want to pry, but what makes you say this?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Question:

Do you guys know of any effective methods for getting out of hormone related mood funks?

I find that a few days a month I just feel really sad. Every little mistake I make feels like the end of the world. I feel like a failure.(I imagine this is similar to what clinic depression feels like.)

The other 95% of the month, I feel great. Happy just to bask in the glow of the sunshine.

During my down days, I've tried everything from doing activities that make me really happy, letting myself indulge in foods I like, etc. but nothing helps. So far, I just tough it out but it sucks feeling like this, even if only for a few days.

Any advice?

<comment><USER9> Exercise hard.

Imagine your 'mood funk' as sulfur buildup in a water heater. Your water's going to smell awful until you burn out all that sulfur. The same applies with mood and exercise. This is an abstract illustration—however there are physiological / chemical benefits to exercising that affect mood directly.

Proper sleep.

Once you get into a sleep deficit, you're a walking shell of your true self. Adjust your schedule so that you get to bed early and wake up without an alarm. This makes a world of difference for me, and it's necessary for your exercise to deliver its best benefits (feeling energized and de-stressed).

As a side note, I think a healthy mental approach is important. Many people become fixated on some end goal, be it money, love, fame, etc. Focus instead on the process and the enjoyment you get from improvement or making progress. When friends ask for input, I tell them to only focus on the next 2%, regardless of what they're working on. I've found that mental framing to help people better prioritize and—more important—to drop the stuff that doesn't actually matter.

<comment><USER8> Thanks for the tips!

I do pushups + cardio - it doesn't quite help when I'm really down but it does give me a burst of energy the other days.

I get 7-8 hrs of sleep every night so this isn't an issue for me. Overall, I lead a healthy lifestyle so my body isn't really an issue.

One of the tricks that kind of alleviates my occasional depression symptoms is just reminding myself that I don't have to believe whatever thoughts or feelings is passing through at this moment.

Just because my brain is screaming right now "Why did you just do that? Idiot!", it doesn't mean it's true. Or that I have to listen to it.

I try to drown it out with the facts:

a) I know I feel depressed a few days of the month - I shouldn't trust any of my negative thoughts during this time

b) Most humans have a negative bias. It's important to experience the full extent of any negative emotions when something bad happens so you remember deeply not to repeat the same mistake again (if you're at fault).

But it's also very important to let it go so you can have a clear head going forward to make good decisions. And not turn a "don't do that again" reminder into a fear of going anywhere close to a similar situation again.

<comment><USER9> I encourage you to lift weights. It's a different type of stress that your body is more inclined to deal with in a positive fashion; this translates to your mood positively.

Test getting more sleep to see what happens—doesn't hurt to test! I have a friend who requires 9 hours a day to feel fully rested.

I neglected to mention diet previously, but make sure you regulate your calories and macro-nutrients, and take a multi-vitamin (I take Optimum Nutrition's Opti-Men) and a fish oil (I take Minami's MorEPA).

With supplements, you get what you pay for; if your multi-vitamin serving is only one pill, it's probably not a very high quality. You don't have to go on a "diet" really, but keep track of what goes into your body and over time you'll get a bearing for what makes you feel best—added bonus is that the act of tracking nutrition typically causes people to eat a bit healthier. Sounds like your diet isn't bad though.

Mentally, I approach a "bad day" by taking a step back (sometimes literally) and telling myself the chemicals in my body are a bit off. A vast majority of the time, this is enough to calm down the dissonance in my head that can lead to lethargic or aggressive behaviors. Sometimes it's because I need to eat or hydrate; other times a 15-30 minute walk 'resets' me mentally.

Worth noting: a poor night's sleep can affect me personally for 2-3 days afterward. Sometimes I feel perfect the day after, only to feel a massive drop in energy the next.

It's amazing how powerful acknowledging cognitive dissonance is for eliminating said dissonance.

Finally, there's also the possibility you are carrying a disease or disorder you're unaware of. I personally have an auto-immune disease which caused me to feel very lethargic in spite of being athletic and having a clean diet and sleep schedule. As soon as I got my thyroid in check (hypothyroidism, or 'Hashimoto's Thyroiditis'), the lethargic spurts dissipated.

<comment><USER10> Fish oil yay, multi-vitamin meh.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Personally, there's no "may" in it. It's all about the people, and what you can do for them. Technology like the internet is just a distribution channel, a few to reach people who aren't nearby.

</comment><comment><USER12> What a nicely ambiguous title. You can read it as meaning happiness is not the truth in good relationships, and also as meaning happiness is about relationships.

<comment><USER13> For a native speaker the first meaning may be a bit of a stretch (if I was trying to communicate that I'd word it differently), but technically, yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Watched Wild Strawberries on youtube on a whim, made me realize how important relationships are to our happiness.

</comment><comment><USER15> >These "mood bots," once ingested, will travel directly to specific areas of the brain, flip on genes, and manually turn up or down our happiness set point, coloring the way we experience circumstances around us.

One thinks of Brave New World.

</comment><comment><USER16> No comments on the article itself but the title here is interesting that it seems so surprised with the outcome.

<comment><USER17> It's not something new, but most of the public policies don't take it in account, which is unfortunate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> My happiness lies in going to webpages that don't block all the content with a "subscribe to my page" ad. Why do people keep supporting these sites?

</comment><comment><USER19> Initially seen only peripherally, I thought that middle picture was a photo next to a surrealist version of the same photo. I wonder if that was intentional.

</comment><comment> Altay- In other news, fire is hot...

</comment><comment><USER20> I honestly feel nauseous when scientists, especially Psychiatrits start up the the neurotransmitter theories. I'm still recovering from the 90's where all you wonder boys made these great definitive claims about serotonin, dopamine, and all the rest? Yes, it keeps the money coming in, but personally; I am sick of articles like this?

Articles, that speculate on a bit of everything, and just might not have one true statement in the entire article? I guess it benefits Nautilus.something? A website I'm seeing too much here?

Why do I feel 90%, of just HN readers, have been duped/doped by these scientists/Psychiatrists hoping to find a cure to their misery? Yea, maybe I'm throwing the baby out with the bath water--just warn me a little before I dive into your speculations? Maybe like the the first sentence should be, "Reader, most of what you are about to read is basically speculation. Read it at your own peril? And please don't quote this material as fact."

As someone who has looked for happiness through at least 10 drugs, and hours of various Therapy; I sometimes wonder if I wasen't constantly told by media/scientists--including Psychiatrists, just how miserable my life is-- maybe my life would have been lived differently, and I wouldn't have been aware of my own melancholy?

As a middle aged male, if I could do it over again; I would never read/take one of these articles/studies/therapy sessions/drugs on happiness/anxiety again. I just think they made things worse?

The more I push myself away from mental health professionals; the better I feel? Yes, the better I feel. It's a liberating experience. Now, if I could just ween myself off my addictive prescription drugs without dying, or becomming homeless? With my cocktail--belive me, the risks are real. Oh yea, a lot of Professionals will say differently, but they don't know my health status, and it seems like professional deniability is at an all time high? (My point is I don't want to put my body through a detox, but if I was to do it over, I don't think I ever would have refilled a prescription?) I don't blame my Doctors for any of my ailments. My doctors are well vetted. I picked the right guys! Taking the drugs for as long as I have was my fault completely. I just felt I needed them. I definetly think I need them after all these years!

Did you ever think they have a conscious/subconcious addenda in the world of Psychology? Tell them they are unhappy, or insinuate they are unhappy, and poof--they are buying my Product--whatever that product may be?

(Sorry about my grammer--it's late, and I woke up at 3 a.m. I was told it was a symptom of clinical depression by someone, somewhere? Maybe I just don't sleep like I used to? Who knows?)

Oh yea, the bit about Facebook,

"Facebook, he argues, is fundamentally changing the nature of relationships in ways that have been lost since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, when people began leaving their native villages behind to head to cities for new opportunities, and lost contact with the people they grew up with. "Thanks to social media, those types of relationships are persistent," he says. "Now we may be connecting with people over the course of life that we didn't before."

Personally, I use a pseudonym on Facebook. I try to avoid it because it makes me depressed. I look at all the people I used to know, and it's just kinda depressing? It seems like everyone is being so fake? When I do go to the site, I go to my only group--an Amish group. I eagerly read the posts. I sometimes wonder if I would have been better off in an Amish society?

<comment><USER21> If you don't mind me asking, what cocktail of drugs are you on? Also, why are you so against them? I ask this because I've tried and pretty much exhausted every thing I can think of to be happy, and I'm probably going to go on anti- depressants soon. I'm thinking I will go for an SNRI, but I will see what the doctor recommends. Any advice you can provide would be much appreciated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I can see the headline now: "Chocolate one of the three 'staples of happiness' say scientists"</comment>


Elementary OS - <AUTHOR> http://elementaryos.org/developer/tech

<comment><AUTHOR> There isn't really an about page but this tech overview gives a good impression about its design goals.

Some earlier discussions:

* <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2091736>

* <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2781891>

* <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4784070></comment>


Review my startup - GoBuzz.com - <AUTHOR>

My startup recently launched a new online application called GoBuzz. GoBuzz is a news monitoring and email alert service. GoBuzz can monitor news in an Industry or relating to a Topic (for example, "Acquisitions in the Biomedical Industry"). Whenever we see news about this topic we will email you.
Additionally, GoBuzz will monitor a large list of contacts and companies in the news.
The Industry and Topic alerts are great for finding new prospects in your industry. GoBuzz will attempt to identify names and companies in an article which can be quickly added to your contact list for further monitoring and prospecting. We may also be able to identify a social network profile for them.
Unlike Google Alerts (the first question on everyone's mind), GoBuzz...

    * Allows you to search for high level concepts such as an Industry or Topic, rather than low-level keyword search queries
    * Makes search very person-oriented. The name, company, and location of your contact influences what we send to you. You can add keywords as you see fit to differentiate between John Smith the felon and your John Smith, the highly regarded client.
    * Makes monitoring a huge list of contacts very easy (just upload it). Ever try setting up more than 30 Google Alerts?
    * Can identify names and companies in new articles, along with social network profiles which can help your contact list grow.
 You can create a free Industry and Topic alert.  Monitoring contacts costs $24.95/mo.
We are based in Madison, WI and have been in business for a year and a half. I've been a HN user for a little over two years now and look forward to your insight and feedback. Thanks for your help! <comment><USER2> So are you using Google Alerts under the hood or your own custom crawler? Are you basically a management tool for Google Alert Power users?

<comment><AUTHOR> We use our own crawler and search systems. We are not targeting Google Alerts power users specifically. Our target user is a busy professional who wants alerts for high level concepts but does not understand or does not have the time to create meaningful search queries.

Additionally we offer contact monitoring on a scale that is not feasible with Google Alerts (think about using Google Alerts for more than 30 people, it's a tedious task and the emails are just noise).

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> <http://gobuzz.com/></comment>


Where Next For Interactive Stories? - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2019-01-interactive-drama-stories-branching-narrative <comment><USER2> > 3\. Consider your platform. Licensing existing software to author and > publish interactive video saves the time and money compared with building a > bespoke platform from scratch, but you will have to work within its > capabilities. Do your homework by analysing the costs and benefits before > committing to your tech solution.

What platforms would an organisation like the BBC consider for their interactive story content?

<comment><USER3> The Web, the iPlayer app.</comment></comment>


German intelligence claims to be able to decrypt PGP - <AUTHOR> http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.golem.de%2Fnews%2Fbundesregierung-deutsche-geheimdienste-koennen-pgp-entschluesseln-1205-92031.html&act=url

<comment><USER2> The translation is not amazing. The original German reveals responses that are rather dodging the question, but which very flatly state that they are able to 'generally decrypt, at least partially, communications via SSH or PGP'.

It's not clear if they mean 'parts of all communications' or 'a part of all communications', and specific attack vectors are not even touched on.

</comment><comment><USER3> > "Yes, the technology used is basically able to do so, depending on the type > and quality of the encryption."

From that, I'd _guess_ that they are just breaking weak keys or known buggy implementations. I'd be very surprised if they have totally broken PGP.</comment>


Developers, what are you thankful for - <AUTHOR> http://blog.opperator.com/post/13205292704/developers-what-are-you-thankful-for <comment><USER2> That software is in high demand and I get paid well for doing something that I love. Also that the internet is mostly open and without govt. interference (at least in the US) for the time being. Let's make sure to keep that way!

</comment><comment><USER3> Waking up and doing what I'd be doing for free if I wasn't getting paid to do it.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'd have to say Ruby, GIT, Heroku and Postmark.</comment>


Mac users exposed by zero-day vulnerability - <AUTHOR> http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/576772/mac-users-exposed-by-zero-day-vulnerability/

<comment><USER2> This exploit seems pretty insignificant since it supposes the attacker already has root; it gives the attacker persistent root. They already own your machine.

 _Microsoft built a great ecosystem around their products and technologies. They invested heavily in education for engineers. Apple, not so much. We are partners with both Apple and Microsoft and these companies behave in different ways. You do not need to knock on Microsoft's doors, they are open. Apple is different, you have to knock, take a number, join the queue and wait. That's why there are many more Windows engineers than Mac engineers._

What's with the unsubstantiated bias against Apple? Even if I believe Windows is more secure and than Mac OS X (which I don't) how is this relevant to the story?</comment>