Director Rian Johnson: Apple Doesn't Let Bad Guys Use iPhones on Camera - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69GjaVWeGQM <comment><AUTHOR> The relevant passage starts at 2:50 into the video

"Also another funny thing, I don't know if I should say this or not... Not cause it's like lascivious or something, but because it's going to screw me on the next mystery movie that I write, but forget it, I'll say it. It's very interesting.

Apple... they let you use iPhones in movies but -- and this is very pivotal if you're ever watching a mystery movie - bad guys cannot have iPhones on camera.

So oh nooooooo, every single filmmaker that has a bad guy in their movie that's supposed to be a secret wants to murder me right now."</comment>


Alejandro Agag Is the Elon Musk of Motorsports - <AUTHOR> https://focustechnica.com/index.php/2018/12/16/alejandro-agag-is-the-elon-musk-of-motorsports/ <comment><USER2> Qualifying and race highlights from race 1:

[https://www.youtube.com/user/FIAFormulaE/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/FIAFormulaE/videos)

The new Gen2 car is much better than the previous one.</comment>


Crowd Wisdom (Article on Ushahidi / Crowdmap from Index on Censorship) - <AUTHOR> http://hblog.org/writing/crowd-wisdom/

<comment><AUTHOR> just read this in index on censorship (the dead tree version). the link is to the author's site.

here is the software - <http://www.ushahidi.com/></comment>


Producer vs. Consumer - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/pbjk1/what_are_the_small_lifestyle_changes_youve_made/c3o3ejr <comment><USER2> I find that this pattern works really well for me, even if it's not at the start of my day. When I get home from work, I try to "produce" something, like writing a blog post, exercising, or spending an hour coding a side-project. As a result, I don't have the mental guilt about watching a movie, reading HN, or playing xbox later in the evening.

I find if I do things in the reverse order (come home from work, plop down and start checking Twitter/reddit) then it quickly becomes dinner time and my brain has "shut down" for the day. It's easy to lull myself into thinking "Well Matt, today is almost over so no sense in starting something, just work on $FOO tomorrow".

Another trick that I've found that is highly effective for me is to "link" a producing behavior to a consuming one. I'm a bit of a TV addict so I made a deal with myself - I can watch as much TV as I want, as long as I'm doing it on the treadmill. Maybe you really enjoy listening to podcasts or sports talk radio, allow yourself to consume but only while you are doing chores or running errands. Some would argue that this is not a good way to build habits (in the sense that you are doing a behavior for the wrong motivations - in my case I am exercising in order to watch TV not to become healthier) but its been working for me so far.

<comment><USER3> Hebb's Law: "Neurons that fire together wire together." This means you are probably setting yourself up for the following side effect: if you ever find yourself in a situation where you are sitting watching TV (at a friend's house, in a waiting room) you'll have the urge to get up and move.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I just finished reading "The Power of Less: The Fine Art of Limiting Yourself to the Essential...in Business and in Life" [[http://www.amazon.com/Power- Less-Limiting-Yourself-Essential...](http://www.amazon.com/Power-Less- Limiting-Yourself-Essential/dp/1401309704/)] and this advice is spot on.

In that book, Leo recommends your days 3 MITs (Most Important Tasks). These tasks are derived from your Goals, and Projects lists (He recommends that you start with only ONE goal for year, for e.g Learn Spanish, and break it down into 6-month goals, 1-month goals, and weekly goals). Furthermore, we all have projects on our plates, but he recommends that we

      1. Pick only 3 projects (of which one should be tied to your ONE goal)
      2. Finish ALL 3 projects before putting 3 more on the plate.

These projects (ideally those things that require more than 1 To-do item, otherwise they would be just a To-do item :D), along with your goals should drive your To-do list (We all have other items on a day to day basis, and these do show up on your things to do, but more about that in a minute).

With all that in place, you should, on a day-to-day basis establish the 3 things you that will take you one step closer to your GOAL, or completion of a project - These MITs (decided on the night before, or first thing in the morning) are the first things you do everyday. That way, you know you have knocked out important items without having the day, or your manager, or your email throw you off.

He even recommends checking your email at 10 am (if possible, or later than the absolute first thing in the morning, because if you are like most people, your email usually has a few To-dos in it).

I have just incorporated his advice and am attempting to apply the same and I have to say that I feel so much less cluttered and far more focused. Knowing that I am doing what I need to do and then relegating myself to the not-so- important tasks later on the day seems to free up so much of the internal chatter in my head.

[Disclaimer - The link above is an a non-affiliate link, and I have no connection with the author other than having just read his book]

<comment><USER5> The problem with this kind of advice is that it is based on conscious goals and requires staying focused on one goal for an entire year. In my experience (and I believe research tends to support this) humans have a hard time giving conscious goals priority over unconscious needs.

As far as I can tell, the best way to work toward being the person you want to be is to trick yourself into making a habit of it before it becomes too onerous to the lizard brain. It's only things that you do without thinking that will be able to override the desire to sit on the couch and consume calories.

Not that I think reducing distraction and cutting out that which is not necessary is bad, but when putting it into practice involves making all these lists day after day it starts to sound like New Year's resolutions -- ready to be abandoned by February.

<comment><USER6> On the other hand, in the "Talent is Overrated" by Geoff Colvin it says, that any task thats gotten automated (on subconscious level) is not getting you better or even bringing you one step down.

Simply putting, if you are coding without stretching yourself, if you don't put much thought in it and do it almost subconsciously you are not learning anything.

He suggest to avoid acquiring habits for the things you want get better at. He supports his words with real life examples. I could relate it to myself, and found his techniques useful in my life. Overall it is a nice read.

<comment><USER5> I haven't read Colvin, and I don't know what he bases that assertion on -- it may be well supported, but on its face it sounds absurd. You can't get better at anything as long as you still have to think about the things on which it is based.

For example, when playing a stringed instrument, if every note you play gets bogged down in what you have to do to make that note happen (place the finger down quickly, with a pop, then relax it instantly, move the bow arm in the opposite direction, allowing the fingers to cushion the crunch that would otherwise occur -- and that's a ridiculously simplified version) you would be literally unable to play.

Likewise, if you're constantly having to be super conscious of syntax, or thinking hard about how to split a string, you'll have a hard time writing code that does anything.

In fact, I think a lot of getting better at any complex task is the process of making the lower-level parts of the task subconscious, and being able to think at increasing levels of abstraction. The only way this can bog you down is if you refuse to revisit lower-level skills if their implementation is causing you problems.

From the standpoint of productivity, since that's what we're talking about here, if you have to list a bunch of long terms goals, and split them into tasks and whatnot in order to get yourself to start working, you've already lost. There's no way this will win out, in the long run, over the things that you do and want without thinking. Working has to be something that you _just do_. Once you've started then you can be conscious of what you're doing.

<comment><USER6> Thank you for sharing your opinion. I do agree with you, and maybe what I was trying to say and what you are saying are different things.

I couldn't find the exact citation from the book, but I will try to write down what I remember.

Colvin explains that with an example of Tiger Woods. He says that Tiger never subconsciously hit the ball. When he starts the movement of the arm to hit the ball and someone from the background screams, he can stop his arm halfway, and then after he is no longer distracted, he hits again.

Normally, when a mediocre player starts moving his arm in order to hit the ball, he no longer able to stop halfway through the action of arm swinging. And usually he would miss, because of concentration loss. He addresses that kind of behavior due to automation of some actions. He says that after some action has gotten automated, person performing it has almost no control over it. He also gives example of the professional car drivers and average drivers. Average driver will not be able to control the dangerous situation on the road due to the fact that his actions are almost automated. While professional drivers are able to see the situation much earlier, and steer and break more efficiently, because they are in better control of situation due to less automation of driving action (Less habit more conscious control).

I hope I could convey his words clearly, because I am not a native English speaker

Edit: Regarding programming, I noticed, the more code I write subconsciously, the more stupid bugs I get. Sometimes I write mysql_real_escape_string() instead of mysql_fetch_array() and then wonder whats gone wrong. I even look at the line with this bug for several minutes, until I stop, look away for a bit, and try to switch from autopilot to manual mode. After I fire up my real brain, I spot the bug in seconds, and have a stupid smile for a half second or so :)

<comment><USER7> I am reminded of a basketball player to was practicing before an away game. He missed the first few shot's, paused made an adjustment and then made the next several shots. A reporter asked what he changed and he said "I noticed the basket was 2 inches to low." It's not that he is constantly aware of all the individual stages of every shot, it's just that he can make conscious adjustments to those subconscious processes.

The secret is not being aware of all the minor details, it's the ability to pay attention at the correct level of abstraction when there is a problem. I once had a horrible bug that after several rounds of testing seemed vary odd, until I got the ram swapped out on the test box and everything worked just fine. I don't assume RAM is faulty every day, but it's something to consider when no other option seems reasonable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a paradox. People create/produce because they want:

1\. to be powerful. Being powerful makes them able to consume more, hence being more happy. People do everything to be more comfortable.

2\. to solve peoples problems, make the world better place = to feed their internal ego, prove the world that he/she can be helpful. This is a subliminal instinct of humanbeing having the main goal is being powerful among other species. Being powerful - see point 1.

3\. to make money. Having more money makes people able to consume more, without any problems.

Aren't there any producer without a goal gaining power to consume more? I don't know, maybe. Don't we always say that if we want people use our products first we should ask ourselves would I use it? If yes, this means you are a producer, because you made a problem-solving product. But this also means you are a consumer, because you would like to use it. Mark uses facebook. Is he a producer or consumer?

Do you know any producer that don't consume 100 times more than avarage consumers?!

<comment><USER9> Lots of producers dont consume much.

And surely not 100x more than the average consumer.

You think Linus goes on reading blogs and watching movies all day?

Steve Jobs was quite a miimalist in how he lived. He even debated for months what furniture to buy -- and he lived for a while in an unfurnished apartment.

A huge lot of musicians when asked in interviews say the don't listen to much music besides what they work on.

Etc...

<comment><USER8> Sorry but I think you have no idea about Steve's personal life. Or you didn't understand what is being a consumer.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Gates fan, I love Apple, I have 9 apple computers at home.

Before 90s he was a cool geek, famous millionaire guy, consuming too much clothes. He had always trendy fashion look. He bought one of most expensive cars when he was in his 20s. A Porsche then Mercedes. In his dashing days at Apple and NeXT, he weared the most expensive Brioni suits. He had a Plane. A super expensive plane. Do you know why? He said: "What I really need is a plane where I can take my family to Hawaii on vacation, go to the East Coast." He loved to stay in expensive resort hotels. Consumed too much there. Sorry but for me staying in a resort hotel doing nothing but looking to the sea 20 days is one of last things what would I do before I die.

<comment><USER10> _Before 90s he was a cool geek, famous millionaire guy, consuming too much clothes. He had always trendy fashion look. He bought one of most expensive cars when he was in his 20s. A Porsche then Mercedes. In his dashing days at Apple and NeXT, he weared the most expensive Brioni suits. He had a Plane. A super expensive plane. Do you know why? He said: "What I really need is a plane where I can take my family to Hawaii on vacation, go to the East Coast." He loved to stay in expensive resort hotels. Consumed too much there. Sorry but for me staying in a resort hotel doing nothing but looking to the sea 20 days is one of last things what would I do before I die._

What are you aiming for here? Has Steve been happier in this part of his life? Why has he changed his life style? To get unhappier?

<comment><USER11> He is saying that the statement...

>Steve Jobs was quite a miimalist in how he lived. He even debated for months what furniture to buy -- and he lived for a while in an unfurnished apartment.

...is factually incorrect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I agree with this 110%. Starting the day out with productive work was a key element for me moving from a chronic procrastinator to a productive individual.

I took it one step further though. I knew how weak I was from years of habitual web surfing, so I forced a productive routine on myself by using the open-source app "SelfControl" to actually restrict me from accessing sites I knew were a time sink.

I also knew that I was unlikely to actually start the app at the beginning of the day, so I scripted it in my calendar to start the app an hour before I get up, that way I have no choice but to work. At the end of my workday, the app quits and I can then surf to my heart's desire.

So far, I've found this to be an ideal solution.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm curious: why exactly is being a "consumer" such a bad thing? I'm not necessarily saying I disagree, but I'm having trouble coming up with an explanation, and it seems like everyone is simply assuming that consumption is a bad thing.

<comment><USER3> Nice question; I'll take a stab at an answer.

Since consumers need producers and producers need consumers, you really can't argue that either one is inherently bad.

However, I would argue that our intent should be biased toward producing, since producing helps us grow. Consuming in this context has connotations of passivity, and while rest is important, too much rest will make us weak. Also, when you are consuming you can be mindless. When you are producing, you stretch your mind. Not only do you have to think about how to meet your goal, you have to think about what you are producing in context of value and other people. It's mind-expanding.

Also, it is natural for us to want to grow, so if we spend most of our time in passive consumption it will negatively affect our mood and sense of well-being in the world.

<comment><USER13> Good points. I think a lot of it depends on the definition of "consumption." Most people use it pejoratively to mean "mindless consumption," but personally I don't think I engage in that much "mindless consumption." Sure, I surf reddit and hn, but most of my time online is spent either having conversations like this one, laughing at funny stuff (surely entertainment and comedy can't be all bad), or actively educating myself (e.g. reading programming articles, current events). Actually, I think even "mindlessness" can have benefits: everyone knows the value of relaxation or even meditation.

<comment><USER14> Doesn't matter whether it's mindless or not. Consumption is consumption. Educating yourself by reading programming articles could be considered an _investment_ , which is the distinction you want to make here, but if it's not an investment towards future _production_ , then it's still just consumption and not much different from playing Farmville.

<comment><USER13> I still don't agree. I don't think knowledge for the sake of knowledge is such a bad thing. I feel happier when I learn things, even if the things are unlikely to help me be productive in any measurable capacity. I will go on Wikipedia binges on bizarre topics like fighter aircraft or quantum mechanics, and it makes me happy even though I certainly don't retain any real expertise of the subjects. I guess that makes it "entertainment" more than anything, but I think that's fine.

<comment><USER15> No one said consumption is "bad". All that's said is that consumption is dependent on "production", and "production" gets its value from "consumption" (even the producer ends up being the only consumer).

That wonderful book you read? It wasn't created by someone reading; it was created by someone writing. If everyone read Wikipedia and no one wrote Wikipedia, there wouldn't be anything to read.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This motivation trick used to work for me, it doesn't any more for some reason. I expressed it as "Action precedes motivation", since it's a recognition that once you have started working it's easy to keep going. I know some people who intentionally leave their source tree in a broken state before leaving for the day so that they have something simple to work on the next morning to start the action-ball rolling. (Or using the OP's language, make the first producing action easy to achieve.) Unfortunately it's not a guaranteed trick, it was nice while it lasted.

<comment><USER17> Well I'd like to hear more about how it has failed for you, then! I mean, this sounds like an interesting proposition to approach in its own right.

I find there's a certain paradox in the fact that we're probably all here on Hacker News and Reddit during our workdays, so we're mostly slacking. The question of why we slack and how to slack less (or whether we _should_ slack less) is deep, relevant, immediate, and not covered really by this advice.

The first problem with distraction I think we could call the Train Problem -- unrelated to the trolley problem in ethics. This is the problem that you need a higher-order reflective process to 'switch tracks', so that your brain is like a runaway train on the track of distraction even though you literally have every opportunity to un-distract yourself. Flipping a switch and jumping on a track to the right destination just requires a little bit of _oomph_ to do it, and the only reason why Wikipedia and webcomics and news sites are so distracting is because we forget to have this moment of "oomph" to pursue something better.

I've started to think of it this way: that the basic unit of will is Resolve. And resolve is as simple as choosing a future that you have somehow committed to moving forward. It's the moment that you say "I am getting married to her" but before you have set the date, or decided where, or proposed, or anything of that sort. You switch mental contexts to take something new for granted. In the philosophical sense, I suppose, we would say that you _choose to believe_ something new. But I prefer to think of it as a database-driven programmer: we're talking about your brain querying itself, independent of the world it models. A resolve occurs when you make your brain return new, different results.

There's a subtler aspect which philosopher John Searle calls "the continuous causal gap" -- the sense in which you can resolve to think of yourself as a French-learner, but there is another resolve needed to take your first lesson, and then more resolve is needed to continue the lessons, and then you have to resolve to visit France and immerse yourself, and so on. It's a continuous gap of times when you need to "shift tracks" when you could have chosen not to shift them. The initial resolve only functions to guide the future ones -- "I am the sort of person who is learning French" just makes it easier to say, "what should I do today? Go to my French lesson." So there are mini-resolves every day which we've got to also consider.

But while this gives a useful view of the problem, it doesn't answer it. What went wrong, in your experience, with the trick of "starting off pointed in the right direction"? What did you need in order to "break free" of distractions -- what sort of system is conducive to reminding us to have these higher-order reflective processes where we can say, "yeah, I should really switch tracks, right now, at this instant"?

(I'll give you an example of something which makes it much harder: tabbed browsing. Closing a tab to signify the end of one distraction brings up immediately another distraction which I said I "would get to." Another thing which makes distractions on Hacker News more tempting is the knowledge that they will _expire_ , so that if I do not read it now, I might never read it.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wonder how many people like myself read this and thought "hey, good point, I already knew it but this reaffirms that I am wasting valuable time that I should be using to seize the day" and then went looking for something else on hacker news to fill the void. Disclaimer: I am on my lunch break.

</comment><comment><USER19> While I agree with the premise that being a mindless consumer is probably not a good thing, I strongly believe that consuming is just as important as producing. Exposing one's self to as many different ideas as possible is incredibly important to being able to produce high quality work. If we go with the definition that a person is the aggregate of their experiences, then most of these experiences are things we consume from the external world and other people. Why not try and maximize these experiences?

I personally try and give myself at least an hour a day for just consuming whatever content I'm in the mood for. More times than not, I find use for this information sometime in my life. I think the hardest part is curating this content so it will be the most useful, which I think this post is getting at. Maybe the author doesn't find a benefit to reading their Twitter/Facebook stream which is fine, but this is not a producer vs. consumer problem, it's a signal to noise problem.

<comment><USER20> The majority of experiences may be consumption, but I would argue the more significant experiences are driven by production. I would also argue curation is in many ways more a facet of production than of consumption.

Also, I don't think it's so much about producer versus consumer (despite the title), but instead starting the day with easy productivity, to get into a mindset of getting things done. Consuming content is important, and can be very beneficial when curated well, but it's much easier to start consuming things than to start producing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> My heart says create, my body says consume

<comment><USER15> Hmm, my body's strongest urges are definitely pro creation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Happens to me all the time. Whenever I sit down and bs, with the intention of doing work later, work later never happens.

</comment><comment><USER23> So if you consume a lot of web content in a day u sometimes get into a funk which is seriously hard to break out of. Ie you dont really want to sleep even.. Just keep consumng... Its very weird ...Has anyone else had this problem?

Does anyone know why this happens and ggod ways to stop it from happening.

<comment><USER24> Get outside and away from computer for a few days. Then come back and go straight to work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think whether it's addiction of media, drugs, or even Facebook, most people are aware of what they're doing. This notion that we're unaware of our addictions, that "denial is the first mistake" is all bullshit. People are particularly rational (in their own respective idea of what rational is) when it comes to addictions. It's just a cost benefit analysis. The cost is time and the opportunity cost of what we could be doing versus the benefit of being connected, consuming information (even social), or the high. How each of us weighs those options is a deeply subjective thing, but to say that we're not aware or that "we have a choice" to be producers, with that pedantic tone, is just wrong.

</comment><comment><USER26> I personally find that even just 5 minute exercise in the morning before I take a shower gets me in the right mood.

Before I eat my breakfast or take a shower, I'll do a couple of pressups until I can't any more (usually about 40) and then some sit-ups(30 crunches and 30 normal ones). I'll then do so really light stretching (no idea what the names are: fetus position to stretching my back as I try to look at the ceiling etc...)

I'm currently living in Russia right now and trying to learn the language so my whole breakfast/exercise/shower I've got some Russian audio book playing in the background as well.

</comment><comment><USER27> Probably pushing the comparison a bit, but The Matrix is here. Only, we are not a source of direct energy but glazed eyeballs glued to television; to sticky content sites, checking news sources and aggregators to see if there's anything new in the last five minutes; succumbing to the urge to find the latest thing for Twitter or HN or Reddit to gain artificial scores; sitting through CoD intermission for the next round rather than quitting; getting worked up as the mainstream papers inflate another trivial issue to incite response.

</comment><comment><USER28> Either you run the day or the day runs you.

</comment><comment><USER29> I wonder, as a research scientist, how one reconciles the fact that your mostly a consumer of academic literature.

<comment><USER30> Try to peruse academic literature in light of your own research and interests.

Related is Richard Feynman's method, quoting <https://findings.com/joejanowski/document/18782>:

Richard Feynman was fond of giving the following advice on how to be a genius. You have to keep a dozen of your favorite problems constantly present in your mind, although by and large they will lay in a dormant state. Every time you hear or read a new trick or a new result, test it against each of your twelve problems to see whether it helps. Every once in a while there will be a hit, and people will say: "How did he do it? He must be a genius!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is still a great read. But I have to admit I was more excited when I thought from the title that a super interesting article on threading had made its way to Reddit.

</comment><comment><USER32> Kanye West on Creativity: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1163988>

</comment><comment><USER33> So simple, but so spot on.

</comment><comment><USER34> A good read also: <http://paulgraham.com/addiction.html>

<comment><USER35> The Youtube video linked in the footnotes of this essay appears to have been censored.

<comment><USER36> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbXgsMxOPtI> A quick google revealed this which seems to be the video in question (or relevant to "saying no to science" by invoking God, at least.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Like all good advice this one is repeated again and again.

I think I heard it for the first time 10 years ago from Brian Tracy : <http://amzn.to/zv02VR>

Although I am sure that others mentioned it before him.

* Gratuitous affiliate link included.</comment>


What happened to Mixpanel? - <AUTHOR> http://mixpanel.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Is it down for just me?</comment>


My Interpretation of the Helvetica Gap Logo Design - <AUTHOR> http://imjustcreative.com/my-interpretation-of-the-helvetica-gap-logo-design/2010/10/10/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+imjustcreative+%28ImJustCreative%29 <comment><USER2> Unfortunately no matter what anyone attempts in a treatment of the logo, people will complain and say that they could do better. The internet has turned everyone with a copy of Photoshop into a self-believed design expert, while Gap as a clothing chain rightfully cares more about keeping 130,000 employees and $800+ Million in sales operating.

As usual, a lot of noise on the internet, little-to-no reaction in the real world.

<comment><AUTHOR> If you took time to really read my post you will notice I state quite clearly that its always easier to redesign someone elses' work.

This is just a fun project for me, and by the way, I used Illustrator. :)</comment></comment>


Asking for a letter of recommendation - <AUTHOR> http://matt.might.net/articles/how-to-recommendation-letter/ <comment><USER2> Good advice. I particularly liked "[W]hat you should ask is, 'Would you be comfortable writing me a _strong_ letter of recommendation?'"

I picked up another trick when I applied for doctoral programs: as the requestor, prepare sample letter for the writer. You can highlight things she/he may have forgotten or only known cursorily. The writer is under no obligation to use the sample, but (as a writer of such letters for students) it makes the writing process go much faster. (Although, yes, undergraduate students are inclined to be a bit hyperbolic in their self-descriptions.)

<comment><USER3> _as the requestor, prepare sample letter for the writer_

A slightly less presumptuous version of this strategy is to provide a bullet list of things they may like to include in a letter. When I'm writing letters I usually ask students for such a list. I wouldn't really want them to draft the whole letter.

<comment><USER4> Some do, though. Not in my case, but some other professors in my old department asked one of my fellow students to provide a letter. They presumably edited it, but they definitely wanted it as a starting point.

I agree it can be an odd thing if the professor does not request it, so it's probably best to only do it on request.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great article, and very relevant to what I'm going through right now!

I'm a sophomore undergraduate currently looking to transfer, and I need two letter of recommendations. However, I feel uncomfortable approaching my professors since I don't have strong relationships with any of them. I find it hard since I only have a year under my belt, not allowing me much chance to get to know a professor. And since I have strong grades I haven't had the need to see professors during after-hours, limiting my interaction with them further.

Do you have any suggestions? Will professors understand my situation, and be willing to write a strong letter of recommendation based on my grades, class participation, and strong resume?

Again, thanks for writing this post! Wonderful blog :)

<comment><USER6> If you've had good class participation and you can provide your resume in condensed, bullet-point form, you should be able to get decent or good (but not great) recommendations.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for the quick response! I've got one more if you don't mind. This is a question that should definitely be asked on a school by school basis, but I'd be curious to know if it is a common occurrence as well (from your experience as a professor). I have a fair more amount of experience as a software engineer in industry than as a student; is it common for prospective students to ask schools the permission to substitute a letter of recommendation from a professor for a letter from a manager or boss?

<comment><USER6> It depends on what you're applying for.

For undergrad transfers or a terminal masters applicant, industry recs are generally OK.

For a Ph.D. student, not much more than one industry rec would be commonly permissible, unless they're from an industrial research lab.

For a Ph.D. student, a good industry rec will focus on character, strong work ethic and specific examples of problem-solving ability. Industrial assessment of research potential tends to be mentally damped by the reviewer unless the recommender has a Ph.D.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Excellent advice from Matt as usual.

The memories of stressing out over the grad school letters are still vivid after some 8 years. But I did my homework (research with two of the letter writers and TA-ship with the other), and it paid off.

I do remember one episode when a recommendation letter was due at midnight, and I've been emailing reminders to this professor up to the hour the submission was due. He eventually replied saying that his plane was late, and he wouldn't be able to submit until 1am.

It was for a national science foundation fellowship, which I got, so I suppose the late submission was accepted in the end. Fun times.

</comment><comment><USER8> This sort of advice always makes me sad. So to get a great letter, you need to, at least a year in advance, do independent publishable research with the professor? I try to imagine what sort of undergraduate, say, could do this - one who already earned his degree in the area, I guess... (Reminds me of the high school advice for getting into great colleges, which boil down to 'be a good college student before getting into, you know, an actual college, so you have awesome stuff to put on you resume'.)

<comment><USER6> The short answer is yes, you need to do this to get _great_ letters.

Strong and frequent participation, interaction and enthusiasm for the subject in class should get you a "good" letter--or at least more than the "She got an A in my compilers class" letter.

You need to do this because you are competing with other students that do this.

What I find upsetting is that so many students have no idea what their competition is up to. And, by the time they find out, it's way too late.

When I read grad school admissions packets, I'm blown away by what some undergraduates have done.

That's one of the reasons I wrote this blog post -- to take the blinders off. Hopefully it reaches some freshman, sophomores and juniors in college and a few high school students too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> In the working world, most "letters of recommendation" are produced under duress - as in "I will resign without you having to fire me (with the bad morale this will produce) if you write me a glowing letter of recommendation". An A-player will always be happy to arrange references since they are able to and rarely leave on bad terms.

For acedemia, what is wrong with a standard glowing reference?

<comment><USER10> This post seems geared toward applying to grad schools, many of which receive hundreds of applications. Having to contact hundreds to thousands of references would probably overwhelm most admissions committees. Remember, for grad school, admissions are typically handled by the department, which has fewer people to deal with this stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a magnificent site overall in terms of content.. even the other articles. Thank you for posting. Much appreciated.

<comment><USER6> Thanks for the kind words!

<comment><USER12> Matt, What would you suggest I do in this case:

I graduated in May 2009 and have been working in the industry for 2 years. I worked with a professor for my senior project. I recently emailed said professor asking for a letter of recommendation, and I received no response. It's very hard for me to know whether he ignored the email because he was not enthusiastic about writing the letter, or because he forgot / did not receive it / whatever. What do you think is the best course of action here? Wait for a week and then send another email? What if he doesn't reply again?

<comment><USER6> Resend after a week, with the first email below.

If that fails, try again a week later with a fresh email.

Lots of profs (myself included) have a crushing inbox overload. We expect to be re-emailed with critical stuff.

Never take radio silence as a sign of malice when it comes to email. Doubly so with profs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What about the situation when professor asks you to write the letter yourself and he will sign it later? Is it a common case in the academic world?

Another case: when it's been a several years after you last contacted your professor or adviser. I would feel somewhat uncomfortable to ask for a letter of recommendation.

<comment><USER6> Writing your own letter happens, but usually in academia, the prof will request a .txt file to modify/strip the adverbs.

If it's been a few years, update the prof on things you've done since then, how what you learned in their course helped in your job, etc.</comment></comment>


Longevity and Why I eat once a day - <AUTHOR> https://lifeforbusypeople.com/2016/07/23/longevity-why-i-eat-once-a-day/ <comment><USER2> "Frappacappa thing" made me laugh and reminded me of what usually is used to make drinks and shakes frothy, something called Vana-Cappa in the industry, which ultimately is not much different from "powdered wood".</comment>


The Secret World of Fast Fashion - <AUTHOR> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/business-economics/secret-world-slow-road-korea-los-angeles-behind-fast-fashion-73956/?Src=longreads <comment><USER2> Before we fully fire up our value judgement engines (labeling this fast fash phenomenon a race to the bottom, lacking in real progress, etc.) consider the possibility that this article describes the very dynamic of economic progress.

Some attributes of this dynamic: Acceleration of efficiency via new forms of risk-offsetting. Improvement of manufacturing process and distribution. Finding edge through creativity and understanding the needs of who's buying.

And the progress is clear: a more sophisticated cultural environment that can be enjoyed by more people than before.

Of course there are trade-offs; progress does not arrive on your doorstep without some nasty side-effects. In the case of fast fashion, apparently: IP theft. Environmental damage. Widening gap between the classes.

So why should this corner of the economy be judged any differently than the layers of hyper-competitive tech companies in SF and SV, reacting to trends, improving their manufacturing process, and pushing design new limits?

<comment><USER3> > _consider the possibility that this article describes the very dynamic of > economic progress._

I agree. I'd even say that this article describes the point where economic progress starts diverging from the reasons we want to have it.

> _Of course there are trade-offs; progress does not arrive on your doorstep > without some nasty side-effects._

There's a moment when we should stop and ask ourselves if the side effects are worth it, 'lest we humans get optimized out of the economy, which will continue to run by itself on automation, without us being present, or alive.

> _So why should this corner of the economy be judged any differently than the > layers of hyper-competitive tech companies in SF and SV, reacting to trends, > improving their manufacturing process, and pushing design new limits?_

I don't think it shouldn't; SV nowdays is a fashion-driven industry after all ;).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What I find interesting is the forces that enabled this explosion are potentially the same or similar forces that has enabled the development of fashion that isn't necessarily "fast fashion" in a F21 or Inditex sense.

The sense of aesthetic, style consciousness and 'agility' makes it much easier for startups like Frank & Oak or Everlane to exist. Arguably, you could consider these companies Fast Fashion too. And then you get a company like John Elliot + Co, a company that would be seen as a luxury line that says:

> "We can pull the trigger at a moment's notice and get the wheels turning so > that we can produce garments that are needed at a relatively quick > turnaround time. That gives us a tremendous advantage." [1]

Although garment manufacturing has by and large moved off shore, there's been a little bit of a trend to bring things back here. Even if it is a race to the bottom, there are still opportunities.

[1] [http://www.businessoffashion.com/2014/08/cult-menswear- brand...](http://www.businessoffashion.com/2014/08/cult-menswear-brand-john- elliott-co-growing-terms.html)

<comment><USER5> I've bought a few items from American Giant[1]. Their sizes are somewhere between skinny and vanity, so the fit is usually pretty good. They're made in the US, and the fabric is typically substantial (no thin cloth at inflated prices).

My only beef is that they offer limited-editions a few times a year and I receive the email notice too late to get one.

[1] [http://www.american-giant.com/](http://www.american-giant.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Fascinating, but the loss of the three month production cycle really isn't a sign of something good.

The TLDR here is that an explosion in low cost labour (Korean immigrant garment makers) destroyed the established system by providing higher quality goods for cheaper prices, but essentially in limited stock.

It's basically like Discount Flooring. I can buy Hardwood flooring for $6 a sqft and I'm guaranteed I can buy enough to floor my whole house, better yet I'm guaranteed I can come back in 6 months and get more. So I can buy enough for my main floor and come back later for my second floor. This is how clothing used to be. You could find a pair of jeans that fit you perfect and 6 months from now you could find the same pair.

Or I could go to a discount floorer, I get it at an amazing price $1.25 a sqft. That's fucking phenomenal... max 150 sqft because that's their entire stock. I can't floor my living room with 150 sqft. So to floor my entire house I'm going to have 8 different styles of hardwood? No. But that's what my damn dresser is. I've got jeans that are a dozen different styles and a dozen different fits.

I've sworn off retailers because I can't wear their jeans for certain activities. I've got a pair that I should have thrown out two years ago because they fit great, but whenever I go to crouch it feels like I'm going to hulk them because they're poorly tailored. So as long as I remain standing in them, I'm golden.

It's even worse in shirts. I have a long torso for my height, which means I can't let anyone buy me tshirts as gifts. My mum sent me a shirt for my birthday, it hits my bellybutton.

The new trend of fast fashion isn't an improvement, it's turned it into a race to the bottom. Gone are the days you could get quality clothing from any store at any time. Now it's bargain hunting in big box stores. You have to get lucky to even find anything worthy of paying that double discounted price.

<comment><USER7> The stuff is all lower quality, not higher quality. It's junk that disintegrates after three washes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I sense a great amount of negativity in most of the comments here, with some lamenting the demise of the 3 month production cycle, denouncing "cheap immigrant labor" etc. Personally, I think this is a VERY positive change. Not only does a fast production cycle mean lots of different designs, but lots of different designs in limited numbers. So, we don't have the whole country wearing the same shirt/jeans.

One thing I am concerned about is that the predominance of Koreans in the market will keep other nationalities/races out. But I think the article addresses this as well: the children of the immigrants, future leaders of that industry, are pretty 'Americanized' and perhaps won't be so cliquey.

<comment><AUTHOR> Though the article only briefly touches on it, the Koreans are far from having a stronghold in the industry. With razor thin margins, the vast majority of these businesses are in perpetually precarious situations. Many of these businesses went belly up in the early 2000s as the industry became a race to the bottom. This recent resurgence is the result of some of these family businesses being able to win back some margin via the second generation being able to acclimate themselves into American and overall high fashion society; they're no longer just a commodity businesses but also the trend setters. However, they're far from the only ones doing it. The chinese, in particular, are starting to even outpace the Korean families.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Exciting stuff.

It's the kind of thing ultra smart, automated meta data collectors would be looking at and predicting futures.

Will we see this sort of change across all industries and how will it effect global markets.

I think people really underestimate the complete networks the internet makes possible and how it will change global business.

How long before one month is too long.

</comment><comment><USER10> This isn't progress.

Increasingly, I'm seeing it as yet another form of market manipulation to try to squeeze ever so much more money out of citizen's wallets.

Used to be I could identify a brand or style of clothing, find items which fit, and return reliably to the same vendor repeatedly. This was my habit in my teens, it remains my preferred mode in my 40s. And while I'm rarely accused of being highly fashion conscious, I'm also not a slob (it really doesn't take much to have a sense of style).

The first time I encountered a wholesale change in fashion was when the Gap discontinued a line of jeans in the late 1980s. Being naturally gifted with large thighs, an aviator cut worked exceptionally well for me (and yes, I also miss parachute pants and Zoot Suits, thanks for asking).

After a bit of casting around, I turned up another store which carried a consistent cut of jeans and wore those through the 1990s and most of the 2000s. For casual office wear, I'd discovered a few department and men's clothing stores which carried reliable fits.

I had a line of black t-shirts with a nice cotton fabric and a subtly off- black color which became a fave. Much as Steve Jobs bought a lifetime supply of black mock-turtlenecks, I'd found my shirt for life (but failed to secure a lifetime supply of them at the time, an error in judgment).

Pretty much all of that came to a crashing end in 2010. Numerous vendors changed their sizes -- same brand and size which had previously fit (as evidenced by what was in my wardrobe) now didn't, and in ridiculous fashion. Virtually everything suddenly went "skinny", which is to say, less fabric, and fabrics became very noticeably cheaper.

I first discovered this on one of my grab-and-dash shopping visits: walk into store, pick up a few pair of jeans and shirts of proven reliable fit, pay, head home (I'm pretty much the antithesis of a recreational shopper, malls are torture palaces).

Pulling on the new duds for work the next morning I discovered I couldn't breath. _Everything_ felt 2-3 sizes too small. I double-checked sizes, they corresponded with what I'd bought in the past, pulled existing clothes out of the closet, and returned to the store with my purchases for a full refund _as they no longer produced items which fit me_.

It took over a dozen stops to find jeans and shirts which fit.

And given the "fast fashion" fad, I've got absolutely no assurance that I'll be able to rely on those vendors in future.

Oh, and for those of you suggesting online shopping: SRSLY? For clothes, which you wear next to your skin, for which fit, cut, finish, and feel are absolutely crucial? Thanks, but no. Worse, with present levels of quality control (and I suspect: highly variable producer sourcing), it's not even sufficient to find a style which fits and order a count of those: you've got to individually try on and examine every last damned item.

The result is I've gone from being a reliable customer happy to return to a store repeatedly to one who treats every encounter as a hostile and frustrating experience for which I'm not likely to achieve anything remotely resembling satisfaction.

I've considered custom tailoring, though I've not gone that route yet, for shirts and slacks. Though as I mostly wear t-shirts and jeans, the additional cost is tremendous. It's actually _not_ so bad for some tailors I've explored, though the one I'd earmarked for future items appears to have gone out of business, and of course, I'd have needed to first see what they'd produce (with ~6 weeks turnaround) rather than simply buying something off the rack and having it altered (which has worked in the past).

What I don't understand is why with all the supposed advances in personalization, there isn't an _affordable_ and _readily accessible, brick- and-mortar_ service by which people can specify the clothes they want, have measurements taken, and receive (with a satisfaction guarantee) clothes which actually fit. There've been some noises about this in past, and there are "made to measure" (which is _not_ the same as bespoke) "pop-up" tailors such as Indochino -- the one time I'd found them in real life it was an absolute zoo with ~60 minute wait simply to get into the storefront for measurement.

I'm not sure this is "ripe for disruption", but it's certainly rife with disappointment.

<comment><USER11> I guess I'm lucky that the shirts from Uniqlo, one of the fast fashion giants, fit me quite well (though I have to go to Japan to buy them since I've heard that the US sizes differ from the Japan sizes, naturally).

That being said, I had large thighs from my soccer days, so I get to experience the bad side of the situation as well. I still don't have a very good solution for jeans :(

<comment><USER12> I have a feeling that if you and I were to go to the same party we could end up being in the same clothes...

+1 for Uniqlo - they are in the UK too and you can go in there and get things you already own, as in shirts exactly like the ones in your wardrobe back home but not as faded.

However they did change their jeans sizes a couple of years ago so the waistline area is no longer quite right and the thighs are a bit tight.

Although there is this thing called fast fashion, it really is for women who want others to think 'what is she wearing?' on a daily basis. It is an entirely separate market to 'predictable'. 'Predictable' is well catered for in the UK, there is the likes of Uniqlo, and, for an even older generation, there is Marks and Spencer.

Maybe such a retailer needs to invest some effort into 'slow fashion', where fit and finish is guaranteed, you can get 'replacement parts' for your wardrobe and maybe even get emailed every year or two to be reminded that it is time to refurbish the sock collection etc. With everything done online and sizes determined by initial purchases the 'hell' of the High Street could be avoided.

<comment><USER11> >Maybe such a retailer needs to invest some effort into 'slow fashion', where fit and finish is guaranteed, you can get 'replacement parts' for your wardrobe and maybe even get emailed every year or two to be reminded that it is time to refurbish the sock collection etc. With everything done online and sizes determined by initial purchases the 'hell' of the High Street could be avoided.

What immediately came to mind was high end leather shoes, where you can replace the soles, maintain the leather, and have them last for 10+ years. It's the polar opposite of fast fashion.

<comment><USER13> I would love a fashion brand such as Patagonia is for the outdoor style... Very high quality, consistent, and they even still carry some of their styles from the 70's and 80's nearly unchanged.

Something that hasn't been said is that this fast fashion is absolutely unsustainable from an environmental and energy perspective. Low quality clothing that is designed to literally not last more than a couple wears; versus a Patagonia jacket that not only is made well enough to last a decade, but also carries a lifetime warranty and a recycling guarantee... I'll take the latter, please.

<comment><USER10> There were a few such stores I'd shopped at, but between multiple take-overs and fashion changes, they ultimately stopped carrying old styles and cuts.

There _is_ L.L. Bean and Lands' End, both of which have been _very_ consistent over time, though I've found quality and finish of their clothing to be somewhat variable in recent years as well. The fact that it's mail order/online also makes sizing an issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Fashion" is ironical in a geek blog. Nerds wear their uniforms of jeans and hoodies for years until they wear out. That may be ten generations of fast- fashion.</comment>


Ask HN: Can you be sued for linking to a site? - <AUTHOR> I just saw this on IMDb[1]<p>> Linking to IMDb.com: You are granted a limited, revocable, and nonexclusive right to create a hyperlink to IMDb.com so long as the link follows our linking guide and does not portray IMDb, its services in a false, misleading, derogatory, or otherwise offensive matter. You may not use any IMDb logo or other proprietary graphic or trademark as part of the link without express written permission except as outlined in our help section.<p>Is this serious?<p>[1] http://www.imdb.com/conditions <comment><USER2> "... and does not portray IMDb, its services in a false, misleading, derogatory, or otherwise offensive matter"

I'm missing why this is unreasonable. Note that if you DO have a legitimate reason to link to factually point out something derogatory, you are protected by fair use doctrine regardless.

They can prevent deep links altogether if they want to.

</comment><comment><USER3> You can be sued for anything.

Winning is a different story.</comment>


Theranos CEO Holmes Speech at ACC: Miniaturization of Laboratory Testing - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6JRG733ReQ <comment><AUTHOR> I found the design of the sample processing robot and the overall design concept of the automated process very interesting.

Some quotes from the Q&A:

\-- "We have a lot work to do .."

\-- ".. I had have started earlier in the context of building the scientific and medical board .."

\-- "We have shown today is the architecture [invention] of a platform that is capable to run multiple assay methods simultanously.."

No independent study of fingerprint sample tech in the form of primary data e.g. actual users, customers etc has been shown.

Slides can be found at: [https://www.aacc.org/~/media/files/annual- meeting/2016/thera...](https://www.aacc.org/~/media/files/annual- meeting/2016/theranosaaccpresentation.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER2> Feel like everyone was hoodwinked by this presentation. Nonetheless, is Theranos onto any plausible innovation here with the "new" invention or is this just smokes and mirrors again?</comment>


Isle of Tune: A music sequencer using roads - <AUTHOR> http://isleoftune.com/ <comment><USER2> It's interesting... On Safari if you put it into a background tab you can hear the music slow down as the thread gets less processing time.

</comment><comment><USER3> Someone left a comment when this was submitted 8 hours ago:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018404>

</comment><comment><USER4> The funny thing is, as a musician, I came at this the wrong way, with an idea in my head that I tried to express using the pieces. I ended up frustrated at the sequencing limitations.

Then I just tried playing around, making a little neighborhood while the cars cruised about, ringing the scenery. Since the notes follow a pre-defined scale, you can't really "mess up" the sound. Now I don't want to quit!

</comment><comment><USER5> My first thought was "lame." Then i clicked the demo island. Five mins later is was jamming with it.

Well done.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'd love to see this on a game console. I imagine it would be fun having 2 or more people with Wii controllers improvising together on the same island.

The look of Isle of Tune reminds me of the artwork for the last David Byrne/Brian Eno album. Coincidence?

</comment><comment><USER7> This is awesome but would be ten times cooler if it was (semi) turing complete: traffic lights which can change the direction of flow and portals to jump cars to another spot.

<comment><USER8> Too much freedom, and the beat becomes too irregular and therefore less appealing. Simplicity is beauty, as usual.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> At first I thought you misspelled rhodes but then I realized this is the coolest thing I've ever seen.

</comment><comment><USER10> Mod Tracker + SimCity, even I of no musical talent was able to make something amusing with it. Neat.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is great, I've been working on a related idea. Its really cool to see this.</comment>


Ask HN: Are you still using server-side templating or have you returned to it? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I tried both and I think in the future I'm going to going back to server-side templating.

One thing I found hard with client-side rendering is duplicated logic/model in client/server. Say I add a field to database, I added it to model on server. Nows I have to do it on the client.

Granted We can use code generation or tool like Protobuf etc but the fact remain that the rendering logic is somewhere else.

Plus I have to hack a lot for client side rendering if we don't want to use `#` trick.

So I feel I'm going backward but prolly I will started to do more with serverside templating

</comment><comment><USER3> Soon I will be returning to it (joining a company that extensively uses it) and really the argument i thought about making is why, but in reality I will be faced with a ..why not? I'm not sure i'm interested in fighting it either if it doesn't pose much a problem</comment>