Ballmer and Gates: Here's why we're not breaking up Microsoft. - <AUTHOR> http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2010/11/ballmer-and-gates-heres-why-were.html

<comment><USER2> Seems to me that Gates' picture is clearer than Ballmer's (just look at the language and structure of both gentlemen's replies)</comment>


Doctors in China Lead Race to Treat Cancer by Editing Genes - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/02/21/585336506/doctors-in-china-lead-race-to-treat-cancer-by-editing-genes <comment><USER2> It's fun to heap criticism on China's research. There's too many fraudulent results, as a culture they don't value out of the box thinking, ect. That kind of thinking hurts us, not China. But as a researcher in the US working with data collected from Human samples, I will attest that the bottleneck to progress are the regulations.

What we don't want are regulations that make it impossible to get the research started. What we want are regulations that ensure that new drugs and treatments sold on the markert actually work. This is exactly the opposite of the situation in the US today.

<comment><USER3> Can you give some examples of regulations that are counter-productive, where their suspension presents no ethical challenge?

<comment><USER4> The FDA and USDA come to mind as institutions with a lot of questionable health policies.

"To obtain permission to market a drug, the manufacturer must satisfy the FDA that the drug is both safe and effective. Additional testing often enhances safety and effectiveness, but requiring a lot of testing has at least two negative effects. First, it delays the arrival of superior drugs. During the delay, some people who would have lived end up dying. Second, additional testing requirements raise the costs of bringing a new drug to market; hence, many drugs that would have been developed are not, and all the people who would have been helped, even saved, are not.

In addition, because FDA approval is mandatory, industry and medicine must heed FDA standards regardless of their relevance, efficiency, and appropriateness. Not all testing is equally beneficial. The FDA apparatus mandates testing that, in some cases, is not useful or not appropriately designed. The case against the FDA is not that premarket testing is unnecessary but that the costs and benefits of premarket testing would be better evaluated and the trade-offs better navigated in a voluntary, competitive system of drug development.

Three bodies of evidence indicate that the costs of FDA requirements exceed the benefits. In other words, three bodies of evidence suggest that the FDA kills and harms, on net. First, we compare pre-1962 drug approval times and rates of drug introduction with post-1962 approval times and rates of introduction. Second, we compare drug availability and safety in the United States with the same in other countries. Third, we compare the relatively unregulated market of off-label drug uses in the United States with the on- label market. In the final section, before turning to reform options, we also discuss the evidence showing that the costs of FDA advertising restrictions exceed the benefits."

[http://www.fdareview.org/05_harm.php](http://www.fdareview.org/05_harm.php)

This may not be the most neutral source, but it at least raises some interesting points.

<comment><USER5> I doubt the FDA is a net killer of people. I'm sure many people die while waiting for the FDA to approve new drugs but many more people would also die, become sick, or have adverse effects if there were no standards. Furthermore the standards the FDA sets for things you put in your body creates the confidence that allows this market to exist in the first place. In a market without the FDA drugs would hit the market faster and be cheaper but still reach far fewer people because public weariness of these products would be too high, and there would be far too many products claiming to do the same thing making it difficult for consumers and doctors to find the most effective treatments. Are FDA regulations 100% optimized? No, I'm sure it's a bureaucratic nightmare. But at this point the best thing we can do is try and further optimize these regulations -- throwing them out completely isn't really an option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There are existing immunotherapies that already target PD-1 receptors, which is what the article's treatment of T cells is doing ex vivo.

Pembrolizumab, for example, is an FDA approved first line therapy for all cancers expressing high microsatellite instability or mismatch repair which is a highly conserved attribute among people who smoke and drink, one of the main reasons for why China has such an abnormal amount of cancer in their population in addition to additional extraneous factors like rampant pollution, due to their extreme carcinogenic effects.

This article seems to imply that the risk aversion taken by the FDA is resulting in lives not being saved, but is incorrect in it's assertions. Especially since the utilization of CRISPR is still at a stage of, what is in my opinion, the creation of an unnacceptable mutational burden, immunotherapies like pembrolizumab which work to inhibit receptors through the usage of monoclonal antibodies are the best forms of treatment. In no way do I doubt the potential of gene editing and the good it can do, however, when I say this. The point is though, is that when you rush things too quickly, it inevitably ends up hurting the patient.

</comment><comment><USER7> "A lab at a biotech company two hours away by bullet train extracts T cells from the blood."

Two hours away by bullet train... Something you don't hear in the US. A 21st century infrastructure paying dividends.

<comment><USER8> Yes, because the US doesn't have any infrastructure that could support the rapid transport of lab samples.

<comment><USER9> This. Related, China has a huge problem with volunteer donor organ transplants because they have no easy way to get it from the donor to donee in time (they would have to take on a train or fly it in economy with china's famous aircraft delays, no helicopters or air courier services). Part of the reason why predictable condemned prisoner donations were so important...

Now that they can't rely on condemned prisoners anymore (at least they've promised the ban is for real this time), bullet train infrastructure is quite useful.

<comment><USER10> More on this in case anyone was interested: [https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/resources/ethics/the- ethics...](https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/resources/ethics/the-ethics-of- organ-donation-from-condemned-prisoners/)

> prisoners be given the option of donating organs upon their death

> another suggests that condemned prisoners be offered the option of trading a > kidney or their bone marrow in exchange for a commuted sentence of life in > prison without parole

> Application of the death penalty is spasmodic and seemingly discriminatorily > applied, which would suggest that these types of proposals would be coercive > to particular classes of individuals--minorities and the poor.

There are so many things that would be sensible policy (i.e. using organs of dead people) were it not for the surrounding hazards they create: incentive to give death penalties, wealthy people abusing, greater chance of weak defenses, etc.

If we could solve the slippery slope problem, so may things would be possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> US has become too risk averse, so every accident leads to yet another regulation. There was a discussion on HN last year, which discussed how death rates on public construction projects have fallen to zero (unfortunately can't find a link to that).

On the one hand, thats a great news and I certainly don't want to be the person to lose my life due to lax regulations. But on the other hand, we should also consider the lost opportunity due to progress not made either due to regulatory obstacles (like biomedical research for cancer cure discussed here) or insufficient public funds (due to overspending on public works to minimize fatalities).

Ultimately, the question boils down to how much dollar value we as a society want to put on human life. A very high value will have obvious apparent benefits but lots of non-obvious costs.

<comment><USER12> It also depends heavily on whether you believe people who work in construction (i.e. blue collar workers) are an currency expendable on behalf of people who have cushy low risk jobs.

I'd be inclined to agree with you if we all had the same chance of risking our lives for the greater good and we could mutually agree on what the odds should be, but I feel like that's why we'be come to the conclusion that it's probably best if people didn't die on a construction site for the same of innovation. (Also, I'd bet negligence is probably a more proper cause.)

Clinical trials for cancer are less fraught with the ethical problems of the construction worker since presumably the patient is that desperate for a cure, but we have general standards for these things like IRBs, protocols, and physicians trained to "do no harm" just to make sure the final product is safe and won't guarantee a sooner death.

Also, while we may be at a disadvantage since we can't just throw money at the problem, we're still making remarkable progress: [https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/therapy/availability](https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/therapy/availability)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> My only thought is that there is more to advancing the science than just who starts the first trial.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm not a cellular biologist or a doctor of any kind, but I consider myself a reasonably smart person. Reading the book Tripping Over the Truth by Travis Christofferson and tracking the work of Thomas Seyfried and others, it makes me think that a lot of the discussion in the battle for curing cancer is chasing a false paradigm: that cancer is a disease of genetics and if we could understand and edit the genome, we could cure the disease. The case for the Metabolic theory of cancer as laid out by Seyfried is quite compelling and if true, the implications for treatment from a patient standpoint seem to me much more preferential than the current combination chemotherapies which are only getting more and more expensive and only marginally more efficacious. Work on this front is only in its infancy, but my hope is that more people become aware, more funding directed towards metabolic therapy trials, and one day it could at least be incorporated into the standard of care.

<comment><USER14> If you read the article you'd realize that it doesn't talk about modifying the patients DNA to cure the cancer, the are just editing T cells so they will attack the cancer. Metabolic therapy seems promising, but I don't think it will ever be as effective as other forms of therapy that we will come up with.

>The treatment Wu is testing involves taking a sample of blood from each patient. A lab at a biotech company two hours away by bullet train extracts T cells from the blood. Scientists then use CRISPR to knock out a gene in the T cells known as PD-1. This engineering feat modifies the T cells so that they zero in on and attack the cancer cells, once they're infused back into each patient.

<comment><USER13> I realize the article is discussing a form of immunotherapy, but I think immunotherapy is also in its infancy, and given the nature of cancer cells and the heterogeneity of its own genetic makeup, immunotherapy still seems like a very blunt weapon in the war on cancer. For a patient who has already been beaten down by rounds of chemo and radiation, it offers a last ditch hope for survival, but its still laden with risks and adverse outcomes.

On the contrast, metabolic treatment is tough from the standpoint that it requires strict discipline by the patient to adhere to the protocol, but the "side effects" may actually enhance overall health at the cellular level. It's a treatment that at the very least could be melded with the current standard of care to achieve better outcomes, and yet there's very little awareness of it, possibly because there's not a lot of money in it for hospital systems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It will be interesting to see how long it takes to cure this disease given the incentive of pharmacy companies making money on drugs.

<comment><USER16> I don't think that's really an obstacle. New biotech companies form all the time to try and bring new tech to market. They get zero money from any existing drugs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Cancer treatment should not be viewed as a race. The world needs to team up. We all win when someone finds a new cure.

<comment><USER18> Races can be healthy - non-aggressive in nature - like racing for prestige; you can race other people on your own team too! Sharing information of course is important in case important discoveries are kept quiet by a corporation with ulterior motive.

<comment><USER19> I would go even further and say that competition is vital to innovation. Without it, too few are willing to take risks and progress stagnates.

<comment><USER20> You don't think the prospect of treating _cancer_ is insufficient motivation, there needs to be some poxy "race" as well? You're selling both the motivations of researchers, and the practical rewards of that research short.

<comment><USER21> What is the problem with there being a race element as well?

Anyway, I don't see how it's avoidable. There'll be kudos, prestige, more grant money, etc for people who make advances, so there's going to be a race element to it as well.

<comment><USER22> > What is the problem with there being a race element as well?

What about competition makes it some universal good? The entire field of game theory exists because direct competition creates paradoxes and dilemmas, and _cooperation_ can result in greater rewards for everyone involved.

More specifically, doesn't anybody else remember the numerous scientific misconduct scandals that have plagued China? In their race to be first they've been willing to sacrifice research integrity to get there. When we see 40% of biomedical papers from China having problems ([http://retractionwatch.com/2017/05/18/four-10-biomedical- pap...](http://retractionwatch.com/2017/05/18/four-10-biomedical-papers- tainted-misconduct-chinese-scientists-say/)) I'm not entirely sure I'd trust their result claims.

<comment><USER21> > What about competition makes it some universal good?

You're criticising a strawman. Nobody said it was a universal good.

I said it was unavoidable (it is intrinsic to the research process), and I said (in various comments) that it's a good thing (i.e. a net positive), including that there's clear historical evidence of this.

<comment><USER22> > I said it was unavoidable (it is intrinsic to the research process)

No, it isn't. It's intrinsic to our research _culture_ and that's wildly different.

Look, competition gets us things like Microsoft Windows and iOS. Cooperation gets us things like BSD and Linux. Competition gets us the Google Play App store. Cooperation gets us the Debian repository.

> and I said (in various comments) that it's a good thing (i.e. a net > positive), including that there's clear historical evidence of this.

Except you don't cite anything.

What about the fact that essentially nobody does repeat experiments because they're all busy racing for original research? ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis)) What about the fact that people often select studies based on what will attraction attention, rather than what will actually best advance the field. Boring and uninteresting but extremely important research topics get ignored because they don't result in glory for the university or researcher. We're emphasizing the importance of breakthroughs over incremental research while simultaneously not reproducing those studies to confirm their findings!

 _That_ is how a culture of competition over cooperation in research and science harms our ability to solve problems and conduct research.

<comment><USER23> > Look, competition gets us things like Microsoft Windows and iOS. Cooperation > gets us things like BSD and Linux. Competition gets us the Google Play App > store. Cooperation gets us the Debian repository.

So first, which of those two competitors, BSD and Linux, was the wasted effort, then?

And, using Macs, Windows, and Linux all on a regular basis: based on that example I can't help but be fairly pro-competition. Windows is a far smoother experience to set up than Linux. Photoshop and Lightroom beat the hell out of Gimp/Darktable/Krita/whatever. Office similarly doesn't really have effective competitors. Those things all got good through competitive pressure, having to beat out the alternatives in order to be good enough for people to pay for.

We can't predict the future, what paths will be useful and what ones won't, well enough to scrap it.

Competition has its downsides and has to be corralled, but cooperation can lead to waste just as easily. Groupthink. Missed opportunities. Unexplored areas in the solution space because we guess wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Now with numbers and without comments from European anthropologists in Singapore: [https://qz.com/1185488/chinese-scientists-used-crispr- gene-e...](https://qz.com/1185488/chinese-scientists-used-crispr-gene-editing- on-86-human-patients/) .

Spoiler alert: I wouldn't want any other country to follow the example of China. Sometimes, human lives are more important than KPIs and being first...

Some interesting parts:

> The Chinese ministry of health has to approve all gene-therapy clinical > trials in China, but these regulations appear relatively relaxed. > __According to the WSJ, at Hangzhou Cancer Hospital, for example, a proposal > to test a cancer treatment that modifies patients' immune cells was approved > in a single afternoon. __One member of the hospital's approval committee > told the WSJ that she did not really understand the science laid out for her > in a 100-page document, but was told that the side effects were mild. This > was enough for her to give it the go-ahead.

...

> China is taking the lead in the global race to perfect gene therapies.

> Scientists have genetically engineered the cells of at least 86 cancer and > HIV patients in the country using Crispr-Cas9 technology since 2015, the > Wall Street Journal reports (paywall). Although no formal scientific papers > have been written about these experiments, doctors told journalists at the > WSJ that some patients have improved. There have also been least 15 deaths, > seven of which were in one trial.

86 (!!!) patients.</comment>


I'm not Zuckerberg - <AUTHOR> http://smitpatel.com/im-not-zuckerberg/

<comment><USER2> Excellent insight and to get there before you are 20 is impressive in its own right. My eldest daughter wanted to be "grown up" from the time she was like 4, now that she is commented "being grown up isn't as fun as I'd hoped, they make you pay bills and stuff." :-) You can say what you want about Mark Zuckerberg but the man is _passionate_ about what he wants Facebook to be, and has been for a long time. I attribute his success more to that passion, and executing on it, than any particular talent or skill.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I agree he's done some awesome stuff for his age.</comment></comment>


Eating more fruit and vegetables 'improves mental wellbeing' - open-source-ux https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/eating-more-fruit-and-veg-improves-mental-wellbeing/ <comment><AUTHOR> No, eating more fruit and vegetables is correlated with improved mental wellbeing. In fact, the study, even though it was longitudinal, did not dissect if increasing the amount of fruits and vegetables eaten across a lifespan causes increased happiness even though they could have! The headline, and TFA, are like saying having more TVs per capita causes fewer babies to die. They are both obviously correlative, and clearly not causational.

If the UK is anything like the US, there are some obvious confounding factors, with the most obvious being that poor people cannot afford to eat more fruit and vegetables, and that poor people are actively persecuted in our society. Hence you get studies that output the above headline.

This isn't really news people.

<comment><USER2> Fruits and veggies are among the cheapest items in any grocery store in the United States. And we provide food stamps to poor people for this very reason.

<comment> munk-a Home cooked fruits and veggies end up getting a lot more expensive when you factor in frequency of shopping needed to maintain a stock and time required to cook. I applaud everyone who manages to cook every day and I strive to do so, but both of the people in my relationship work full time and waste about three hours a day commuting, round it up to about twelve hours a day lost to work - cooking and then collapsing after that is un-affordable without getting lost in a spiral of depression.

We cook and eat well on the weekends, we try to reserve food for the week and I continue to be amazed by people worse off than us that are working as much as we are _and_ a part time job on top of it.

<comment><USER3> Frozen vegetables can help a lot with that, especially the miracle that is microwave "steam in bag" frozen vegetables.

<comment><USER4> This. Around 50% of my veg and fruit intake comes from frozen organic bags. They're cheaper, last longer, and quicker to make. My go-to lazy meals involve throwing frozen rice, broccoli or kale, and beans in a glass bowl and heating it up in the microwave.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Study seemed to take a lot into account, is it really that outrageous of a finding? Fruit and vegetables have a lot of known benefits.

We evolved from apes where most of our group are frugivores or herbivores. Hell, if our bread wasn't fortified with things like niacin and vitamin c most people would have scurvy and tons of other crap wrong with them. We probably should get more of our vitamins from the source!

<comment><USER6> The keto crowd seems almost like a cult sometimes, there is pride and defensiveness. Veganism isn't the only adopted diet people get attached to. Like that millionaire ex-Googler's blog post the other day, sinking most time into an "is it keto" app. It wouldn't have been out of place on The Onion.

<comment><USER7> Keto eats vegetables, nuts and also berries in limited amounts. Doing keto spinach, kale, broccoli, lettuce, cauliflower, brussel sprouts, avocados, squash and many other non starchy vegetables are core.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Shouldn't we classify fruits and vegetables separately ? Modern fruit is a huge deviation from the older times, they're almost as sweet as candy. Plus they're always available unlike the seasonal availability in the past.

<comment><USER9> This article is from a UK source, and the fruit here is mostly profoundly unripe, and about as sweet as wet newspaper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm surprised so many still categorize fruits and vegetables together in these studies and in general thinking, given all we know now about sugar.

Fruits in terms of calories are essentially sugar, and despite the fiber, more than 1-2 a day will start to impact insulin, fat storage etc. negatively for most people. Especially fructose-heavy fruit.

Non-starchy vegetables are not nearly as sugar or calorie dense, can be eaten in much higher volume with little effect, and as such should be thought of much differently than fruit.

(non-avocado) Fruit falls more in the dessert/candy category IMO.

<comment><USER11> The studies don't back this up one bit:

[https://nutritionfacts.org/2017/02/23/can-you-eat-too- much-f...](https://nutritionfacts.org/2017/02/23/can-you-eat-too-much-fruit/)

The fiber makes all the difference in the world when it comes to metabolism of sugars.

<comment><USER12> Anecdotal, but I have eaten 5-10 mangoes a day, among other fruits, for long periods of time and remained at 8-10% body fat. I pay close attention to what I eat and how it affects my body composition, and I stopped worrying about eating too much fruit long ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> >"If the results are true, this gives another reason to boost your fruit and veg intake. We already know eating these foods is good for physical health, and this study suggests they can improve your mental health, too."

I feel like this is nothing really groundbreaking news. I don't have any scientific sources or proofs so maybe I'm retarded, but it was always obvious to me that physical and mental health are largely interlinked. People who exercise regularly are more likely to have better mental health, perhaps even regardless of their diet (counting out extreme cases). People who make an effort to eat more fruit and veg to improve their physical health generally are also practicing the mental discipline needed to stick to a long-term plan/goal, which will mean better mental wellbeing as a result.

Will this study do any good to motivate people to eat more healthily? The cynic in me tells me no, because everyone already knows fruit and veg are good, yet many will still refuse to incorporate them into their diet and choose to eat convenient junk instead. The people who are already eating fruit and veg already know it is making a positive impact on their health, I guess this is another form of confirmation for them so they can continue?

</comment><comment><USER14> When ill I couldn't eat anything beside raw food. Anything with just too much sugar (one biscuit was enough) would make me faint.

So I ate raw lettuce; raw tomato etc etc

It changes your perception of eating. Less flashy but much more gentle and stimulating at the same time.

</comment><comment><USER15> On a recent Peter Attia podcast he made an offhanded comment that any deviation from SAD (Standard American Diet) seems to improve health. So probably related to that.

</comment><comment><USER16> Not eating food, aka fasting, improves mental wellbeing.

</comment><comment><USER17> Lots of people in here making excuses as to why they don't eat more fruits and vegetables.

Here's a write-up with sources: [https://nutritionfacts.org/2018/09/04/how- many-servings-of-f...](https://nutritionfacts.org/2018/09/04/how-many- servings-of-fruits-and-vegetables-to-improve-mood/)

<comment><USER18> they are too difficult to peel.

<comment><USER19> thats one of the most awesome aspects of them, they are self-packaged. Most of the benefits of plastic, with none of the downsides. The only additional downside it might have that plastic doesn't is it decays and smells bad if youdon't throw it away (but thats ok because its ok to throw it away!)

<comment><USER20> wait, does that mean we should package other things in fruit and vegitable skins? I guess a hamburger in a coconut shell would work just fine. Squeezing ketchup out of a lemon will probably take a bit more getting used to but ice cream wrapped in a melon skin sounds just fine.

Fruit shall be more popular than ever after we replace the content with meat.

<comment><USER19> Well, thats the future magic world of building things with proteins.

So, no you wouldn't put ketchup in a lemon, but you might have what appears to be a typical ketchup packet,appears to be made of plastic, but is actually some mix of properties of different organic skins.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Can I take supplements which give the same effect?

</comment><comment><USER22> Common sense

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm a bit alarmed. We have fruit, but not veg. Hopefully, vegetables are a good substitute for veg.

</comment><comment><USER24> Not if you believe Jordan and Mikaela Peterson...[https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/08/the- peter...](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/08/the-peterson- family-meat-cleanse/567613/)

<comment><USER25> It is pathetic that HN childishly downvotes you instead of engaging in a fruitful discussion.

For an unbiased review of foods, go here: [http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/foods/](http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/foods/)

<comment><USER26> Jordon Peterson claims drinking a glass of apple cider caused him to not be able to sleep for 25 days straight and his daughter claimed that putting pepper on a steak caused joint pain, acne and anxiety for three weeks. But she can drink voldka and bourbon.

That sort of batshit crazy magical thinking isn't worth discussing. Period.

The article the GP posted has the money quote:

>The idea that alcohol, one of the most well-documented toxic substances, is among the few things that Peterson's body will tolerate may be illuminating. It implies that when it comes to dieting, the inherent properties of the substances ingested can be less important than the eater's conceptualizations of them—as either tolerable or intolerable, good or bad. What's actually therapeutic may be the act of elimination itself.

<comment><USER27> It's not too crazy to think a mono-diet of meat might have some therapeutic effects. A lot of people claim it's helped them: [https://meatheals.com/](https://meatheals.com/)

<comment><USER28> Those people are also mentally ill. Their symptoms are mostly psychosomatic and the "therapeutic effects" of a meat diet are entirely sure to the placebo effect.

<comment><USER25> Are malicious comments like this -- calling one's fellow human beings reporting what worked to cure their health "mentally ill" or "batshit crazy" \-- actually allowed on HN?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> integrate-this Eating more fruit and vegetables. Spell the whole damn word. It takes less than a second to finish typing that. I saw 'thru' in an academic journal yesterday as well. Drives me insane.

<comment><USER29> "Veg" seems used more in British English. As an American, it never really sounds right to me, and I usually see/hear it from UK or Australian sources. Just an idiomatic difference, I think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I don't get fruits. As much as I love them, I don't see why you need somewhat reduced nutrition (compared to vegetables) and way more sugar.

Antioxidants have been a failure of nutritional science, in the same vein as the high-grain diet. That means vitamin C has been way overrated. In fact, it has better uses in skin care but that's a different story.

Can anyone comment?

As long as you get enough fiber, eat plenty of vegetables (and dry fruit like almonds, nuts, etc), and in general follow a low-carb diet, fruit intake is nothing more than a psychological boost, and makes you nutritionally worse off. Change my view.

<comment><USER11> There is so much misinformation out there about diet it's truly mindboggling. Antioxidants play a crucial role in maintaining health. They just don't work that well if you take them in purified form as a supplement. Consuming a diet high in natural antioxidants has tons of very well documented benefits. And fruits are one of the best sources of antioxidants, along with a lot of other valuable nutrient.

[https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/02/02/the-number-one- global-...](https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/02/02/the-number-one-global-diet- risk/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> No. Eating a balanced meal improves mental well being. A balance of meat, veg, fruit, etc.

These "studies" are so intentionally deceiving since they take lower income people who gorge themselves on processed junk and them claim "eating more fruit and veg" helps. You could also say "eating more meat" would be beneficial as opposed to processed junk.

I'm disappointed that so much of diet "science" is so corrupted by politics and business agenda. But that's been it's history since kellog's "eat cereal" nonsense and "an apple a day" PR stunt.

There is nothing inherently good about fruits or vegs. An "apple a day" isn't going to keep the doctor away. And vegetables aren't inherently "healthy food". If you only eat apples and vegetables, you will deteriorate physically and mentally and maybe even die.

<comment><USER32> You don't need to eat meat to be healthy (mentally or physically).

<comment><USER31> Yes you do. I supposed it is possible to be "healthy" on an all meat or all veg diet, but that's not optimal. Especially for veg diet since they need tons of supplements and/or have to track down all kinds of exotic veg, nuts, etc to stay sane and healthy.

It's like walking on all fours. Sure I can get from point A to point B on all fours, but it's not optimal. We were built to walk on our legs. The same goes for food. We were built to be omnivores.

The fact that no human society ( or pre human society ) existed on an all meat or all veg diet should be a dead giveaway.

Frankly, as a one time vegan myself, veganism should be labeled an eating disorder. Human beings should be eating a balanced diet.

<comment><USER33> Dunno why this is controversial. If you need to be taking supplements to get proper nutrition, then you're not eating correctly. Simple as that.

EDIT: I guess this only applies to Veganism.

<comment><USER34> The only required supplement for vegans is B12, and that's not because of lack of meat. B12 is produced by bacteria and most of us live in sanitized environments, so there is no reliable sources of B12 any longer. It's possible that even the animals you eat are low in B12 due to cobalt deficiency in the soil[1], so I encourage you to check your levels and supplement if necessary.

Also, your argument is a classic example of an appeal to nature[2].

1: [https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/livestock-biosecurity/cobalt- def...](https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/livestock-biosecurity/cobalt-deficiency- sheep-and-cattle)

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

<comment><USER32> Exactly. And a lot of foods you buy at grocery stores already include extra B-12 (e.g. soy/flax/oat milks, tofu, etc.)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Anti Homeless Spikes - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/Inartica/status/1209593346403921920 <comment><USER2> 99 Percent Invisible did an episode on such Hostile Architecture, architecture designed specifically to be hostile toward the homeless.

Some related sites:

[https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/unpleasant-design- hos...](https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/unpleasant-design-hostile- urban-architecture/)

[https://99percentinvisible.org/article/design-crimes- artist-...](https://99percentinvisible.org/article/design-crimes-artist- launches-campaign-highlight-hostile-architecture/)

<comment><USER3> On a related topic: [https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-containment- plan/](https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-containment-plan/)

<comment><USER2> Sounds like a plot from 'The Wire'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Honestly, it's getting so bad in the Bay Area, I'm having trouble seeing how this will end. Everywhere I walk in the East Bay (mostly Oakland), there are tents.

<comment><USER5> It's truly amazing that an incredibly rich city full of companies trying to "change the world" chooses over and over again to not solve its homelessness problem. It requires no new technological developments, no moonshots, just an ounce of empathy and maybe some raised taxes. But that seems to be too hard.

<comment><USER6> The amount of resources going towards the homeless are ridiculously large. The net result is that favorable weather and resource availability draws more people in from other places, and the problem is too large for any individual locality to solve.

e.g. The City of San Francisco is spending over $300M/year _directly_ on services towards easing homelessness. This does not count state expenditures focused in the area, private expenditures, expenditures by surrounding areas, and the wealth of indirect expenses. Versus a homeless population of 10,000, this is $30,000 per year per homeless person in the City of SF-- just direct expenses by City of SF.

Clearly an overall change in approach is needed-- not just additional resources spent the same way.

<comment><USER7> The key would be that _all_ US cities/towns/villages take care of their homeless instead of busing them to California. I can see the financial incentive - a bus ticket is like, what, couple hundred tops across the country? while the police, healthcare and other resources in a single year can easily reach five to six figures - but morally it is absolutely disgusting behavior.

Ideally federal agencies should take care of this and make sure that every US citizen in need is taken care of where he lives.

<comment><USER6> At the very least we need to strictly regulate programs that bus homeless other places.

Yes, there are circumstances where throwing someone on a bus to a locality where he has some family or other connections is the best move for all involved. But we need to make sure that is actually the case, not based on some tenuous connection and a desire to displace the costly individual somewhere else.

This isn't enough, though. Even without explicit governmental support to move, homeless people know that there are localities where it's "better" to be homeless and will move themselves.

<comment><USER7> > At the very least we need to strictly regulate programs that bus homeless > other places.

That is close to impossible, I'm afraid. And even if federal regulation prohibits the executive branch from such programs, I guarantee that it will be replaced by some "church", neighborhood watch, political action group or whatever...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Posted like 3 tweets down from this guy: [https://mobile.twitter.com/Inartica/status/12109709851149598...](https://mobile.twitter.com/Inartica/status/1210970985114959872/photo/1)

Aaaaaaa!

I believe anti-homeless architecture is appalling and Western culture of "the strong (rich) deserve more than others" is the root cause but good lord please go to China and talk to some people before you go repeating propaganda like that...

<comment><USER9> This guy has some weird cognitive dissonance. They seem to be supportive of socialist countries, but also of tulsi gabbard?

<comment><USER10> why is that surprising? have you read her policy positions?

<comment><USER9> She is very far from socialist. She isn't in line with democrat ideologies either. Her policies don't matter, what matters is her history. She is a conservative masquerading as a democrat.

For example: [https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/13/politics/kfile-tulsi- gabbard-...](https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/13/politics/kfile-tulsi-gabbard- lgbt/index.html)

<comment><USER10> socialist is about economic policies. your link is about something else

<comment><USER9> It's just an example of how she doesn't fall in line with the left at all. Look at her voting record.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't have a magic solution but I would like to add few thoughts:

1\. Homeless people destroy environment and don't practice sanitation on the same level (non homeless folks) That imo is true and we shouldn't ignore it. But why? I have a few explanation depending on the place so it's not an apply all hammer, alcohol & drug abuse/mental illness are one of the reasons why there are homeless in big rich cities (combined with other) but wouldn't that cause itself will lead to people caring less about environment and things that don't directly affect them? When was the last time you were depressed and wanted to hole up in your bed doing nothing? Consider that and with not a good overall health condition, lacking empathy (of course why would they for the society that failed them), poverty mindset and resource constraints with no hope for a brighter future. It's a self destructive mindset.

Oh to make it more suitable for HN in analogy, think of those anti homeless spikes as walled garden of the big companies. Imessage? Yeah, you can't connect with your friends anymore after you can't afford an iPhone. Maybe you contributed to society in tax and other spheres and now you can't anymore, you don't deserve whatever crumbles are left there.

Of course I am exaggerating.

2\. Throw money at them and it will go away. I hope that worked, I really do but that doesn't solve any of the problems. US puts a lot of money more than countries with free healthcare (controlled for population but not size) yet people aren't getting it. The system is dysfunctional or benefits some people more than others due to lack of awareness, discrimination (advertising towards one gender or race is an example), collective empathy, and tendency to put pressure on your career/home/bank as an identity.

Maybe those homeless shelters are far away. I don't know but why blame anyone without any evidence or data on those things.

<comment><USER12> CEOs who afaik are 100% not homeless destroy the environment to such an extent as to make what all the homeless in the US destroy seem insignificant and inconsequential. They too lack empathy and have a destructive mindset. I say we address this much more massive problem first and the homeless problem will likely be solved by our actions.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, carbon emission tax or other similar taxation can be used more effectively, I guess. Raising taxes for luxury that are not providing anything but a way to brag should be heavily taxed into oblivion.

I wish we could have something like pollution emission credit, the higher your credit. The more percentage of income/wealth you have to pay but that is unenforceable, actionable and will go against human rights to track.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Can't believe it's gotten this far, that cities need to implement deterences like these.

<comment><USER14> This is nothing new - I have seen similar things since I was about 8.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Huh. And what is their defense if the homeless is a fakir?

[https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/...](https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/fakir- physics)</comment>


Penflip – GitHub for writers (with markdown, mathjax, and publishing) - <AUTHOR> https://www.penflip.com/

<comment><USER2> This looks fantastic! I'm a writer/editor and have been envious of programmers for having GitHub while I've been stuck with Microsoft Word (which is nice for personal use, but frustrating when you're working on a document with multiple people). I just signed up. Can't wait to test it out!</comment>


Why Crowdsourcing Should Be Called Group Powering (And Why Its So Powerful) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.assetmap.com/2011/01/networking/why-crowdsourcing-should-really-be-called-group-powering-and-how-group-powering-is-remaking-everything/

<comment><USER2> I really agree with your points made. Changing the nature of this is a valid argument. But it's really not a big deal, because as you said this topic will be evolving and changing more than anything else. Personally I have experienced the same happenings where there is an enormous power evolving from the group, which is really a group and not a crowd. Also I like this because it centers the people contributing - the group and not the organisation, person whoever sourcing the crowd. It is essentially about this, because the process itself is enriching for everyone participating. Although I usually don't care too much about semantics, this one is an important one. :)</comment>


Show HN: Track anything with Exist (custom tags update) - <AUTHOR> https://exist.io/ <comment><AUTHOR> For context: Exist is a personal analytics platform where we import data from sources like fitness trackers, Apple Health, productivity trackers, email and calendars, social media etc. and find insights and correlations in the data. We've been doing this for about 3 years now, and we've just added the ability to track your own tags, probably our biggest feature release so far. These are just binary yes/no tags you can add to a day for context, like "coffee", "sex", "meditation", or whatever you like. We can then use those alongside your other data to find correlations like "you have a worse day when you track 'nootropic'" (which was the case for me), or "your weight is higher when you track 'eating out'".</comment>


The Triple Helix (2000) - <AUTHOR> http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/lewontin/tripleh.htm <comment><AUTHOR> On a related note, [http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/dec/03/gene- editing-...](http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/dec/03/gene-editing- summit-rules-out-ban-on-embryos-destined-to-become-people-dna-human)

" _A landmark meeting of scientists convened to debate the future of human gene editing has ruled out a ban on modifying human embryos that are destined to become people … but … made clear that altering the DNA of human embryos for clinical purposes was unacceptable given the unknown risks today and noted that even the most compelling cases to use the procedure were limited.

…the national academies of the US, UK and China … considered: the potential for therapies in adult tissues, such as blood cells and muscles; the ethics of modifying embryos for research only; and most importantly whether altering the DNA of human embryos to prevent inherited diseases was acceptable and useful."_

And [http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/11/crispr_genetic_modification_should_not_be_used_on_humans.html)

 _" … The CRISPR system has a combination of tools that allow it to locate specific genomic addresses, snip DNA with a molecular scissors right there, and then rewrite the genetic code at the site of the cut … research using CRISPR to produce genetically modified animals suggests that the same system could in principle successfully create human designer babies … I call these hypothetical genetically modified human beings GMO sapiens as a mashup of GMO and Homo sapiens …

In China just a few months ago, researchers said they already did just that and sparked a firestorm in the science community. Strangely, the public has been relatively unaware of this development and the ensuing debate. The researchers made genetically modified human embryos as a research exercise and let them develop for only a few days in the lab. But if someone else followed suit and simply implanted the CRISPR'd human embryos into a surrogate, then boom—we may have the first GMO sapiens."_</comment>


A Convenient, Mysterious Service From Cable Companies - <AUTHOR> http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/a-convenient-mysterious-service-from-cable-companies/

<comment><USER2> They are preparing to fight off 4G wireless.

Here in Austin, Clear is marketing their wireless full tilt: all the media and even door to door (had two salesmen come by). The pitch is that the service is as good as cable broadband (for the "average household") and available everywhere (home, office, kid's school, on the commute).

No idea if that is true yet, but its easy to see how it could eventually be. Makes sense to band together against a common threat.

<comment><USER3> My guess is that you're 95% correct: they're likely warding off Verizon, who has become a major threat to all three companies. Offering FiOS TV, FiOS internet, phone, _and_ wireless cell service is tough to compete with — even if you already offer three of the four.

So, these three companies are trying to prevent people from switching entirely to Verizon because they already have/are considering Verizon's wireless service. Or something to that effect.

(Note: I'm from the NY Metro area, so I've kept an eye on all these companies offerings the past few years.)

<comment><USER2> Makes sense to start in an area where some of the big players have territory that overlaps.

To be clear though - companies like Clear and Sprint aren't just selling 4g wireless devices, they are selling hotspots filling the roll of routers that supplant a home internet connection all together.

When Verizon gets in the game - maybe FIOS for heavy need households, 4g hotspot for a light duty setup?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wonder if they're looking at injecting advertisement into the html stream? I know some cable companies replace your default search page when they find you've 404'd. It wouldn't be too hard to inject some pop-up scripts onto pages.

</comment><comment><USER5> I was under the impression wireless bandwidth is always one generation behind cable bandwidth. Are they doing this because they are too lazy to upgrade their network and maintain their competitive edge over wireless? I can't imagine a state of the art cable internet connection could ever be seriously threatened by a wireless connection that offers what, 6Mbps under the best conditions? With the rise of internet video it seems like physical line internet providers are here to stay.

<comment><USER6> With HSDPA/HSUPA you can get 14.4 Mbps down and 5.76 Mbps up (under best conditions, of course). Yes, it is slower than state of art wired connection, but is the state of art wired connection available? Do you have 1.25 Gbps FTTH or 300 Mbps DSL available?

Wired providers became complacent, but wireless didn't. They caught up with wired and offer extra convenience, usable everywhere, not just at home. Wired providers should be afraid, very afraid and do something to change the situation, fast.

</comment></comment><comment> matthew-wegner The paranoid part of me wonders if this isn't some deliberate net neutrality play. Maybe they'll start throttling bandwidth to sites that don't pay up, and they'll be able to point out that they _have_ to do these things to keep the free wifi service going. And then after people are used to the idea...</comment>


Ex-Uber employees are being surprised by big tax bills - <AUTHOR> https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ex-uber-employees-are-being-surprised-big-tax-bills-they-n1233699 <comment> V-eHGsd_ related: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23703946](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23703946)</comment>


The West's spurning of Chinese hardware firm ZTE could backfire - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/610897/the-wests-spurning-of-chinese-hardware-firm-zte-could-backfire/ <comment><USER2> ZTE is barely an also run alongside Huawei. If China does anything to ensure it's survival it would be to deny Huawei a monopoly vs the carriers.</comment>


On the correlation between solar activity and large earthquakes worldwide - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67860-3 <comment><USER2> No link between solar activity and earthquakes - [https://phys.org/news/2013-04-link-solar- earthquakes.html](https://phys.org/news/2013-04-link-solar-earthquakes.html)

OK, don't trust scientists.

I don't like this line. You don't jump from "No" to this -

"The significance of such correlation is very high, with probability to be wrong lower than 10^–5. "

Not sure what this is, but it doesn't look good -

"We choose to create 10^5 synthetic data sets, using the real data inter-event time intervals randomly combined."

This is a big deal. This affects economic markets, humanitarian aid and is pretty interesting science about how the earth and planets work.

It's over a month old. Why can't I find either a take down or any confirming evidence from an expert that supports this?

[edit] Previous discussion - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24393743](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24393743)

<comment><USER3> > OK, don't trust scientists.

An interesting reaction, in my opinion.

> I don't like this line. You don't jump from "No" to this -

Where did the "No" come from?

> Why can't I find either a take down or any confirming evidence from an > expert that supports this?

I found a Salon article [0] with some responses from other seismologists and corresponding responses from a co-author. There's some vague criticism given in this Forbes article, too [1]. Haven't found anything specific and/or comprehensive, unfortunately.

I found some criticism in Reddit comments [2, 3], but I have no idea whether those criticisms are valid. [2] criticizes the way the synthetic data sets were created.

[0]: [https://www.salon.com/2020/07/21/a-study-that-links-solar- ac...](https://www.salon.com/2020/07/21/a-study-that-links-solar-activity-to- earthquakes-is-sending-shockwaves-through-the-science-world/)

[1]: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2020/07/20/a-solar...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2020/07/20/a-solar- origin-for-earthquakes/)

[2]: [https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/hr5ctd/the_sun_may...](https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/hr5ctd/the_sun_may_trigger_earthquakes_a_new_study/fy2h67y/)

[3]: [https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/inlcol/a_nature_pa...](https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/inlcol/a_nature_paper_shows_a_clear_correlation_between/g48pqt5/)

<comment><USER2> I can't say I thought I'd ever read another not 'want to put a bullet in my head' Salon article in my lifetime! But that was good.

This comment from another researcher I think is the problem "I'm not an enthusiast,"

We need to say, "This paper is fucking bullshit"

I understand these offhandish comments work might within a community as a gentlemanly code. But these dam articles circle the blogersphere for decades.

These are worrying - "We have therefore considered, in our analyses, four different proton variables" "We hence decided to investigate 5 conditions"

I'd say they certainly are reading tea leaves. But there's nothing in it for me to sit down and prove that properly.

<comment><USER3> > We need to say, "This paper is fucking bullshit"

> I understand these offhandish comments work might within a community as a > gentlemanly code. But these dam articles circle the blogersphere for > decades.

One guess might be that stronger criticism might be avoided until a more thorough analysis/a replication attempt might be made. That reduces the possibility that something is misunderstood, and ensures strong claims ("this is absolute nonsense") have good evidence ("because the statistical tests they use are not appropriate for this data", or "because the method they claim to use does not produce their claimed results").

Curious if this is ever going to see a thorough debunking.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Bitcoin value after relaunch? - <AUTHOR>

What do you think the value of Bitcoins will be (USD) at the 03:00 GMT Launch (June 25)?<p>Will the value of a Bitcoin rise or fall after relaunch? <comment><USER2> Despite MtGox not being online, bitcoin trading has never been shutdown: <http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/>

Trading volume has been down a bit, especially just after MtGox closed, but it has not been illiquid.

<comment><AUTHOR> Valid points.

I feel Mt. Gox's crashing had the same effect on prices as if the London Exchange were to crash. Now we wait for the intervention measures to kick in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Probably whatever it's trading for on Tradehill or anywhere else.

<comment><AUTHOR> New to the BC currency, thanks for the resource.

Full list/info here: <https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade></comment></comment>