Guidance against wearing masks for the coronavirus is wrong – cover your face - <AUTHOR> https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/19/opinion/guidance-against-wearing-masks-coronavirus-is-wrong-you-should-cover-your-face <comment><USER2> "Masks don't work or aren't needed" propaganda is so absurd.

According to physics and common sense, anything you put between you and the cough-er is going to reduce the number of cough particles to reach you.

Anything will work with different effectiveness.

N95 > Surgical > Handkerchief > Covering your mouth with your hand.

CDC, US, and WHO are just so incompetent around this matter. If they didn't want N95 shortage, they could've told people to wear cotton washable masks. It was such a simple and effective solution that they couldn't think of.

Source: [https://twitter.com/CMichaelGibson/status/123971835157384397...](https://twitter.com/CMichaelGibson/status/1239718351573843973) Scarf is ~50% effective relative to surgical masks. Though this is tested against influenza, it's still applicable to COVID

<comment><USER3> The WHO rationale on masks includes not emboldening people to go out in less than effective masks. Isolation is better at stopping the spread than slightly slowing the spread with masks.

It's also worth noting that there isn't a straightforward way to map particle blocking ratio of a mask to probability of becoming infected.

<comment><USER4> This whole "rationale" of feeding people noble lies so that some fleeting, temporary gain can be had for the next few days or weeks, comes at the expense of destroying their credibility in the public's eye and thereby making any expert advice they might offer in the future far less convincing and effective.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, when you say any kind of masks works, you will get someone comes in and say:

WHO says masks are not effective. Also, do you have source that says masks work?

I actually don't know how to reply to that.

Fortunately, Cambridge published a research about DIY mask against influenza.

Then, that person will say that's not covid. They aren't the same thing.

Science wins, I guess.

We cant say masks work without scientific research backing it up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How do you correct misinformation when the guys at the top are wrong and social media's intent on shuting down information that disagrees with the guys at the top?

The amount of misinformation coming out of the WHO has been staggering and hard to account for, but I will stop short of suggesting any conspiracy.

* They held that there was no evidence of person-to-person transmission for far too long in the face of evidence out of China.

* They claimed for far to long that if you weren't showing symptoms you weren't contagious. This advice has been very widely used to not quarantine people who were exposed to a person who got sick shortly after interactions... to devastating effect around the world.

* They claimed it does not spread through atomized particles, only droplets. This has been demonstrated to be false by experiment.

* They said masks are not effective.

* They said you didn't need to cover your eyes. Medical staff now wear full face shields.

* They said travel bans don't work. This defies basic logic.

* They delayed declaraing the pandemic to be a pandemic.

* They've been completely silent about ACE inhibitors and ARBs upregulating the expression of ACE2 receptors, and that available evidence strongly suggests that people on these medicines have much more severe reactions to the disease. WARNING: I cannot say whether these drugs are the cause -- it may well not be the case -- but shoudn't this have been seriously investigated by now?

<comment><USER6> > They claimed it does not spread through atomized particles, only droplets. > This has been demonstrated to be false by experiment.

Do you have a link on this for further reading?

<comment><USER5> Unfortunately I never saw the papers on this and I'm looking for them now, so take this bullet with a grain of salt. Two lines of research were relayed to me verbally.

1\. In one experiment in a hospital room detected virus on surfaces but not in the air, but it did so many (I vaguely recall it was 4) hours after the patient was in the room. I think I heard this in answer to a press question during a New Zealand official 1pm broadcast on COVID-19. They didn't categorically claim it can't be atomized, but suggested strongly that this wasn't expected to be a significant vector for transmission.

2\. The other source was a paper someone linked to on Twitter. And I neglected to download it. But someone physically atomized material with the virus and then after some time period was able to detect the virus still atomized in the air. This proved it was possible to remain atomized, but not that sick people actually atomize the virus well. Again, perhaps not a significant mode of transmission.

I'll keep looking. I'll temporarily retract that bullet point.

<comment><USER7> I believe the incident you're referring to was actually an apartment building outbreak, not a study. As an event it _seemed_ to confirm the airborne/atomized/fecal-oral spread early on. Somebody got someone in another part of their building sick.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> On a recent 9hr flight I gave a couple sitting near me my last two masks. I don't think they realised this was a selfish and not a selfless act.

</comment><comment><USER9> This mask thing is a strange phenomenon. I suppose it is similar to panic buying toilet paper - people just feel the need to do something and blame someone. In Australia, although there has been panic buying of toilet paper, nobody is talking much about masks, or the lack of strong recommendations to wear them. In the USA, this is apparently a major issue, and a source of suspicion and mistrust of the government and various healthcare bodies. I don't get the obsession with it.

As a public health intervention, social distancing is vastly more effective and deserving of emphasis than mask wearing. There aren't enough masks. Public health orgs were worried about running out of masks, which is exactly what has happened, and this is a huge problem for doctors and nurses who whinge about it a lot less than your random person on twitter decrying the apparent conspiracy to stop mask wearing.

The surgeon general's tweet (February 29) at the time was reasonable. On Feb 29 there were 66 cases in a country with 327 million people.

</comment><comment><USER10> I always thought that was a simple fiction to stop selfish hoarders from giving themselves a (randomly chosen) 10% better chance of staying healthy as opposed to people who actually need a mask to have a 200% better chance of not developing life-threatening symptoms.

But of course, truth is more important than lives. Which will earn lots of anger from people who contributed to the mask shortage, but I don't care. I'm not saying I'm right about the previous paragraph, just that it's a simpler explanation based on basic human nature than some conspiracy theory.

</comment><comment><USER11> Mask facts or fictions...

What does Taiwan say? We should follow leaders like Taiwan: they were at huge risk, yet economy is running and schools open, their VP is an epidemiologist and he was minister of health during their SARS outbreak. Taiwan's CDC says: "Prevention is the same as for other respiratory infections including washing hands frequently, wearing masks and cleaning up secretion from the mouth and nose appropriately. Other measures include avoiding crowded places such as markets or local hospitals, avoiding contact with animals and dead animals and avoiding eating raw meat or eggs. Additionally, you should wear masks and attend medical attention immediately when flu-like symptoms occur (such as body temperature ≧38℃, and coughing, etc)" - [https://www.cdc.gov.tw/En/Category/QAPage/LnqBFJsulw6fW3nswc...](https://www.cdc.gov.tw/En/Category/QAPage/LnqBFJsulw6fW3nswc04Yw) and "Our guidelines and policy for wearing masks have not changed, but people should consider wearing a mask in enclosed crowded spaces with poor air ventilation," Minister of Health and Welfare Chen Shih-chung (陳時中), who heads the center, told a news conference in Taipei. People who must attend events in small crowded venues, where they would have frequent and close contact with other people, are advised to wear a mask, he said.". Of course Taiwan also has many other layers of effective control against Covid: [https://www.dw.com/en/taiwan- coronavirus/a-52724523](https://www.dw.com/en/taiwan-coronavirus/a-52724523) and a wired article too: [https://www.wired.com/story/taiwan-is-beating-the- coronaviru...](https://www.wired.com/story/taiwan-is-beating-the-coronavirus- can-the-us-do-the-same/)

Also i think it is significant that citizens commonly wear masks in the countries that are most successful at controlling the virus (and haven't shut down their economies, Taiwan, Vietnam, SK, Singapore, Japan). It is a social stigma to not wear a mask in some places. However, although Japan looks like they have slowed the outbreak maybe they are just at the corner of the hockey stick. And in HK: "Dr. Pak-Leung Ho, head of Centre for infection at @hkumed ... highlighted universal mask-wearing as one of the reasons widespread outbreak didn't occur." [https://twitter.com/lwcalex/status/1235091542219448321](https://twitter.com/lwcalex/status/1235091542219448321)

There is a huge back-pressure against wearing masks in western countries, which leads to an environment of glib advice against them. I know this isn't a very scientific issue, but I think it matters. [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus- face-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus-face- masks.html) and "Why some countries wear face masks and others don't" [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52015486](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52015486)

Finally, here is a sciency article "Would everyone wearing face masks help us slow the pandemic?": [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/would-everyone- weari...](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/would-everyone-wearing-face- masks-help-us-slow-pandemic)

<comment><USER12> From your "sciency article"

> Even experts who favor masking the masses say their impact on the spread of > disease is likely to be modest. Many are also afraid to promote mask buying > amid dire shortages at hospitals. But as the pandemic wears on, some public > health experts think government messages discouraging mask wearing should > shift.

> "It's really a perfectly good public health intervention that's not used," > argues KK Cheng, a public health expert at the University of Birmingham. > "It's not to protect yourself. It's to protect people against the droplets > coming out of your respiratory tract."

So even this pro-mask article makes it sound to me like wearing a mask will not protect _you_ from getting the virus. At best, they're effective at presenting people who don't know they're sick from infecting others. And that only works if you can mask a significant portion of the population _without_ a shortage of masks for people who we _know_ need them. That doesn't seem to be the case in the United States at present.

<comment><USER13> > At best, they're effective at presenting people who don't know they're sick > from infecting others.

I don't have numbers, but I'm pretty sure the number of people infected by people that didn't know they were sick is significant. Imagine if all those sick people wore masks (or some substitute, like a scarf over their mouth/nose).

If we can agree that wearing a mask (or substitite) if you might be sick is a good idea, but you don't know if you might be sick, that seems to translate to wearing a mask (or substitute) is a good idea.

> that only works if you can mask a significant portion of the population > without a shortage of masks for people who we know need them.

I agree it's important to reserve masks for those who need them most, but that doesn't mean we have to teach people they are not effective. We could instead teach them how "non-masks" can make very reasonable substitutes. And let's not forget that reducing the spread has a real impact on the need for healthcase workers to have them.

<comment><USER11> > I don't have numbers, but I'm pretty sure the number of people infected by > people that didn't know they were sick is significant.

Look at the number of asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic cases (approx 50%) there are in the two full population studies on the Princess Cruise ship, and Vò (in Italy).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> [http://archive.is/TDq6W](http://archive.is/TDq6W)

</comment><comment><USER14> _" Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus"_ \- U.S. Surgeon General

A flat out lie from the leading spokesperson on matters of public health.

All of the hand-wringing about foreign misinformation. But what if the misinformation is coming from within the house?

<comment><USER12> I don't see any particular reason to trust the opinion section of the Boston Globe over the US Surgeon General or the WHO, but that's just me. I'm even more hesitant about calling that claim a "flat out lie". As far as I can tell, these are just two people with a point of view, who don't link to a single study on the matter.

Seriously though, do you have any evidence that the consensus of the medical profession is that getting the general, non-sick population to wear masks is useful in combating the crisis? I'm open to the possibility that it is, but remain rather skeptical.

<comment><USER14> > _do you have any evidence that the consensus of the medical profession is > that getting the general, non-sick population to wear masks is useful in > combating the crisis?_

Yes:

[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(03\)13168-6/fulltext)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3810906/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3810906/)

[https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712%2808%2901008-4...](https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712%2808%2901008-4/fulltext)

"Wearing a face mask was a protective factor against influenza infection."

"The staff who wore surgical masks and N95 masks were significantly associated with non-infection."

"In compliant users, masks were highly efficacious."

Also common sense. If you wear a mask you reduce the probability that you transmit the virus. And, to a lesser extent, you reduce the probability that you are infected by the virus.

Claiming that "they are not effective" is simply false. Perhaps "lie" is too strong, but it was untrue and irresponsible considering the position he holds.

<comment><USER15>
      "Wearing a face mask was a protective factor against influenza infection."

The key word there is _influenza_.

<comment><USER14> It's about the size of the particles (both COVID-19 and flu are 80–120 nm) not the type of virus.

Besides, the other links concern a SARS virus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If you were at home like you should be, you wouldn't need a mask.

<comment><USER17> While true, the disease was being spread weeks or a full month ago by asymptomatic people who didn't know they had it before quarantines were in place. And that's when we had every major news source, including the NYT, telling people that masks aren't effective and not to buy or wear them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Masks should bé given to Care workers or sick people.. no one else

</comment><comment><USER19> It should be a common sense to cover your face during pandemic. It is 3 centuries old wisdom: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_doctor_costume](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_doctor_costume)

It is amazing how people naively believe in politician's bullshit. The same is with "don't hoard the food" with appearing articles about shortage of cheap workers in agricultural sector.

Next week a dude is coming to each flat in a complex with hundreds of flats to inspect pipes. There is pandemic outside, but it's best time to inspect pieces. Politicians scream every day about pandemic and how one should stay at home. Maybe this pipe inspection might wait couple months!?

<comment><USER6> They're asking people not to hoard the food because of the impact it has on people who can't afford to buy a month's worth of groceries in advance.

If those privileged enough to be able to afford to hoard have cleaned out the supermarkets to an extent that the supermarkets' supply chain isn't designed for, the person shopping weekly is screwed.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

<comment><USER19> I and some friends (older people) have always food at home for couple weeks. Older flats in Germany have designated rooms in a flat for storing food. In my flat it's in the corridor, but in friend's flat it's directly in the kitchen.

On the other hand I saw the hoarders in action: throwing 2 shopping carts with cans to the car's trunk. Really disgusting. Especially knowing, that this canned food does not taste well and will end in a landfill afterwards.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I made a video precisely about this and other misinformation: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGh9yNpEhQM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGh9yNpEhQM)

<comment><USER5> You talk a lot about boosting your immune system. This is very hard to study because immune function is broad and complex so it's hard to measure and test any such claims. Therefore claims like these are widespread but often not backed up with good science.

The best way to boost your immune function is to be exposed to a pathogen. Then you will develop antibodies. Those antibodies boost your ability to avoid that pathogen. Vaccines work in a similar way. Of course this advice is currently useless in the context of COVID-19.

Specific foods and supplements might help here and there, but most of the evidence is that they are antimicrobial (antibiotic/antiviral/antifungal) in vitro. There's much less research in vivo. That's not to say that some foods won't help, but just not to rely on them having a significant effect in your body. The effect, if any, is probably very slight.

There is stronger evidence for a healthy lifestyle: regular exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, getting adequate sleep, avoiding infection, not smoking, minimizing stress. Some good evidence for sun exposure too.

Back on the foods though, you didn't mention black elderberry syrup (sambucus nigra). A 2004 study (randomized, double blinded, placebo controlled) showed efficacy against influenza.[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15080016](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15080016) and a 2016 study (randomized, double blinded, placebo controlled) showing it reduced the duration of the common cold (often a coronavirus): [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4848651/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4848651/) And it's quite safe -- Europeans traditionally use it for pancake syrup.</comment></comment>


TCMalloc, Google's Customized Memory Allocator for C and C++, Now Open Source - <AUTHOR> https://www.infoq.com/news/2020/02/google-tc-malloc-open-source/ <comment><USER2> For what it's worth, here's the blog post announcing this release: [https://abseil.io/blog/20200212-tcmalloc](https://abseil.io/blog/20200212-tcmalloc).</comment>


Ellsberg: Snowden made the right call when he fled the U.S. - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-leaker-snowden-made-the-right-call/2013/07/07/0b46d96c-e5b7-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html?hpid=z2

<comment><USER2> As negative as the press may seem from this little corner of the internet, I don't think the issue of NSA surveillance has made much of a ripple in the U.S. yet. The turnout for protests on the fourth was abysmal. People are still using Facebook and Gmail as if nothing has happened. Snowden only remains in the news because he is still free. If he had turned himself in on day 1 he'd have disappeared into some black judicial hole and the story he broke would now be long forgotten instead of merely ignored. If I were Snowden, I'd be seriously wondering if U.S. citizens are worth the trouble.

<comment><USER3> > People are still using Facebook and Gmail as if nothing has happened.

Personally, I'm still using Facebook and Gmail because I really do have nothing to hide. †

† ...that I wasn't already routing over Tor, encrypting/signing with GPG et al, leaving the low-to-medium risk activity on the public net as a decoy. But I suspect a lot of people _do_ think this without needing the proviso. These are the same people that compete to participate in reality TV shows like Big Brother, after all.

<comment><USER4> Pretty sure the NSA would have a few Tor exit nodes under their control.

Also those people you are referring to is the majority of the public i.e. your parents, grandparents, friends etc.

If your entire life isn't centred around the internet it's easy to see why online privacy isn't a huge concern.

<comment><USER3> Tor exit nodes (and the commandeering thereof) are only relevant when you're accessing a public net website _through_ Tor; not when accessing a Tor hidden service. If you can keep your activity entirely within the Tor "system" (basically, if your counterparties have foreknowledge to contact you over something like Tormail, rather than you having to "come to them" on a public site) then you'll be protected pretty completely.

...though, if it's something you _actually_ care about, making that Tor connection from an internet cafe in a distant city can't _hurt_.

<comment><USER5> I think a better approach than tor that we'll see in the next few years will be a readOnly private "tor" box that you can hide on any network with open wifi. The Raspberry Pi is the perfect platform for this.

Such a box would be running tor and only visible on the Tor network. You'd SSH into it over for and then have your own private exit node.

All you need to do is drop a couple of these in places where there is power you can piggyback off and a wifi signal you can piggyback off or a network you can patch into.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow, reading the comments on that article, it seems we're lost.

Too many frightened Lemmings who out of fear and in the name of patriotism (apparently not understanding what that word even means) follow their government blindly.

It was said before that a fearful and uneducated populous is easy to lead and manipulate. We're now seeing a demonstration of that.

<comment><USER7> It's no suprise since people are educated in government schools in their most crucial period of life. They are educated by state-licensed radio, television and newspapers. By state-approved books on the bookshelves of a state-approved shops.

Who will exactly stand out and educate children of the nature of state if this way or another they lose some license or are being paid from tax money in the first place? Several generations already are out of touch with reality that the state is just a bunch of people with a monopoly of violence (justified in the eyes of similarly uneducated parents by piles of paperwork called "law" and "democracy").

State is a constant war against people covered with lies. The only productive way to get out of this situation is to 1) acknowledge that violence is never justified, risky and counter-productive 2) state violence is not justified, employs double standards all the time, and exists on religious beliefs in higher concepts like "country" or "society" that seemingly take precedence over individuals. And of course, you have to trust and follow authority, just like in good old dark ages.

EDIT: before downvoting, consider replying what is factually wrong in my comment.

<comment><USER4> Sorry but what is factually right with your comment ?

Not everyone in educated in government schools. Your implication that merely being state licensed influences the content is ridiculous (witness Fox News). The state does not have a monopoly on violence. The terms country and society have nothing to do with religion and patriotism is a concept that occurs in countries without a strong religious presence.

<comment><USER8> Not disagreeing with the meat of your post, but could you say a little bit more about the state not having a monopoly on violence? From what I understand this term is used to explain that the government is the only one who is legally allowed to use violence against other individuals, and is the only one who can grant you that power. And as far as I can tell that IS the case. Thoughts?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> He joins the ranks of the Dalai Lama now, representing his people from the safety of exile.

<comment><USER10> Well, I think he has done more than enough for us - if we ever deserve people like him. Now, it's our turn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I am pretty sure that in US, he would be [classified] to [classified].

</comment><comment><USER12> He's right, unfortunately.

</comment><comment><USER10> > Snowden made the right call when he fled the U.S.

As if there was 1 person in the World who would have doubted that. It's scary that such titles are still being written.

<comment><USER13> Oh I am positive that there are millions in this very country who believe that he should have stayed and gone to trial, that his fleeing is cowardly, and that his actions are traitorous.

I have to wonder on what grounds people can think this, when there are examples in seemingly any area of public cause where an individual succumbs to the might of heavyhanded authority of government. Probably those who judge a situation by what they see and read in the media and/or in the headlines, without stopping to really consider the _facts_ (rather than _opinions_ , which is what most news is these days) and make a judgment themselves.

I can't say I'm completely immune from the influence of popular media, but I try.

<comment><USER14> I assume the grounds from which people think this stems from a naïveté and unsubstantiated belief in one's country's principles. Particularly considering that the United States to many Americans to this day is more an idea than simply a country.

This striking philosophical difference between Americans and other Western nationalities tends to give Americans a trust in their system where other nationalities would have drawn the line.

Because even if Congress and the White House cannot be trusted, surely the Supreme Court and the judicial branch got our backs? If only it was so simple.

Still, I don't mind Americans being keen on the idea they believe the United States is; but they need to realise that the United States is not that idea. And if it ever was, then it is certainly not any more.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, I came to the conclusion that the USA is more like religion than country. The constitution is it's bible, its schools and malls are it's churches, the president is it's pope, Washington is it's Vatican, its military it's jihadists, the national anthem it's lords prayer, and so on. Americans believe in the USA in a way no other population believes in theirs.

BTW, I make NO moral judgement, its just my own personal observation.

<comment><USER16> Really, you think the average American thinks more highly of his country than the average Frenchman? Have you ever spoken to a Frenchman?

<comment><USER17> There seems to be more questioning of the government though with the ability for people to dissent without being branded as terrorists, communists, etc...

America is so large that it is near impossible to impact the status quo. There is so much blind patriotism and faith in the government that anyone who disagrees is quickly marginalized and branded as unpatriotic. "You don't like it? Leave."</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


"Flying Taxi" inventor killed in crash - <AUTHOR> http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/8/17/nation/4533356&sec=nation

<comment><USER2> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCEN_Jetpod>

Some generated concept pictures:

<http://www.fahad.com/pics/avcen_jetpod_lrg.png>

[http://airvoila.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/el-avcen- jetp...](http://airvoila.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/el-avcen-jetpod-el- aerotaxi-del-futuro-desde-arriba.jpg)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for digging that up. That was my first question: what kind of vehicle is this? The article didn't go into much detail.

<comment><USER4> My first thought too. Strange how they went into detail about the guy scooping up shrimps to feed his fish, but almost nothing on the aircraft.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> onreact-com You might want to try other flying cars instead:

# Moller <http://www.moller.com/>

# Terrafugia <http://www.terrafugia.com>

# Volante <http://www.volanteaircraft.com/>

Moller is my favorite.

<comment><USER5> the Moller skycar is either the longest running investor scam in history or something brilliant ahead of its time, I still can't decide which after following them for several years.

See here for some more info on the fraud claims:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_Skycar_M400>

<comment> onreact-com Hey, they were the pioneers and they wanted to build a real flaying car not just a plane with foldable wings. It's almost done. It's already flying in contrast to the Jetpod that plummets. That's why it took so long.

<comment><USER5> The jetpod was actually flying, the skycar has never done anything other then 'tethered' flight, which means as much as flying at the end of a chunk of chain in case something goes wrong.

This video has been used to claim that the skycar is nearly operational:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElS9BKSsezw>

But in fact there is a large crane in the background that the skycar is tethered to.

The jetpod, in contrast went up to about 500-700 feet, then crashed according to reports. So, it was actually flying and unfortunately suffered an engine issue in the left hand side engine.

The SkyCar has been 'almost done' for as long as I can remember.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask YC: How do you maintain motivation in face of boredom? - <AUTHOR>

I left my job around 3 months ago to start a startup (Single founder). Built staging.dashbard.com , www.42topics.com . Now I need to market www.42topics.com , but 3 months working alone has left me bored out of my mind! I  am reasonably social (Well for a geek!), but working alone is just getting on my nerves! And as long as I was coding, I was happy. But now i find marketing this unsatisfying and boring. Did I say boring enough times? What do I do? <comment><USER2> I find it helps to remember that if I don't do the boring stuff my company is going to fail, I'll be working for someone else again and the only reason for failure will be that I was too bored to do the work that was essential for success (which is a really lame excuse).

If you can't focus today, get outside for a bit and stretch your legs. Watch the pretty people in the park. Get a coffee, sit on a sunny patio and revel in the fact that you're an entrepreneur driving your own destiny and can take a goddamn afternoon off if you need it.

Then, when you're recharged, return to your office and get back to it, because that work isn't going to finish itself.

</comment><comment><USER3> Try to think more carefully about why it is boring. Examine the boringness. What's boring about it? What is there within you that is unable to connect with it? Don't worry about blame, or being judgmental-- just try to figure out what's really going on beneath the surface. If you do so, the answer to your problem will be apparent.

</comment><comment><USER4> Have you heard about coworking?

To learn more about coworking, check out this article: [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/business/businessspecial2/...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/business/businessspecial2/20cowork.html?ex=1204174800&en=c575d28423557c14&ei=5070&emc=eta1)

If you're interested in the concept, find a Jelly near you: <http://workatjelly.com/>

You can also read more at the coworking wiki: <http://coworking.pbwiki.com/>

I think you should go to a Jelly. Seems like it would an especially effective way to alleviate "boredom" you are experiencing, which may not be stemming from the work you're doing, but rather just the lack of social interaction as a result of working very hard by yourself for an extended period of time. At a Jelly, you are working "by yourself," but amongst others.

Also, if it really is the marketing-type work that you find unsatisfying and boring, going to a Jelly will possibly help you find a cofounder/designer/marketing-type person with which to team up.

</comment><comment><USER5> Highly suggest you find someone that likes marketing:

kluster.com cambrianhouse.com

You should be prepared to give equity in return for services.

Cheers

<comment><USER6> outsource boredom!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I know what you mean. I am a single founder for half of my projects, and for the other half I'm the sole coder in a virtual office. In both cases, the situation is the same: I'm coding by myself in my house.

One solution I've found for the boredom is to switch between projects when you get bored, or work on different (non-boring) aspects of the same project.

Another is to just get out of the house. I usually go out for lunch. And I've been trying to go to local startup events, including a monthly hackathon I created for that very purpose.

A third is of course to get a face to face co-founder (at least for some of the time), or to move your working environment to a shared space with other startups. I haven't taken the latter step mainly because I live pretty far from startup central in Philly and I don't want to pay for office space.

<comment><USER8> I haven't found a solution to boredom. That said, as someone who's been programming at home for years, knowing that I was going to go out at lunch would destroy much of the benefit of working at home. In order to start work in earnest, it's important for me to feel that I won't have any interruptions indefinitely.

Today, for example, I'm expecting to go to _dinner_ , and here it is before 2pm, and I'm reading news.yc instead of working, because it's really hard to start working when "I know I'll just have to stop", in spite of also knowing that I could get a lot done before then.

Nevermind, I guess this is just a personal failing. :)

<comment><USER7> It's probably more like my personal failing :)

I work great for a few hours at a time, but then I need an extended break. My best hours are in the morning. So I usually work from around 8am to 11:30-noon, and then go out to lunch. Granted, sometimes I don't do that and work through lunch at home and go out to dinner instead. But often, I need a break about then.

I usually read the papers (WSJ and local) during lunch, and then when I come home I'm up for a few more hours of work before dinner.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Your boredom is a signal from within that something is fundamentally wrong. I would find out the cause of the boredom rather than work on the effect(s).

You've done all this great work and now it's time to share it. (Don't even use the word "market". It's so overused, it's meaningless.) You should be having a ball doing that. Why not?

Have you lost passion about your "mission"? If so, why?

Is there something wrong with your site that makes you reluctant to promote it? Then maybe you should fix that.

Is this a startup or a hobby? If it's a hobby, then forget about "marketing"; just move on to the next one.

Would you be more comfortable on a team? If so, then work on that.

This is simply another puzzle to be solved, but instead of data and algorithms, it's people and ideas. Hope to soon be hearing about how you solved it. Good luck.

<comment><USER10> I wouldn't agree with your first statement. In any job, no matter how enjoyable or rewarding overall, there are elements which are more interesting and others that are less so.

In my job, the ratio of fun stuff to non-fun stuff is quite high, but still finite -- there's still a fair amount of boring stuff I need to work on periodically. I find that one technique which works well is to try to pipeline my work (if possible) such that I can work on multiple aspects of it simultaneously. Then I can devote a few hours per day (or days per week) on the boring stuff, with the thought of working on the exciting stuff immediately afterwards as a strong motivator.

BTW if anyone finds a job that's uniformly exciting/fun throughout with no boring parts, let me know =)

<comment><USER9> "In any job", "In my job", "if anyone finds a job"

Notice a pattern?

You're right, most jobs can have boring elements.

I assumed that OP was talking about his startup, not his job.

I am building a startup that, by definition, is what I want it to be. I can't imagine anything about it being "boring".

<comment><USER11> _I am building a startup that, by definition, is what I want it to be. I can't imagine anything about it being "boring"._

This kind of, for lack of a better term, blind optimism, is one thing that gets to me after a while on News.YC, and I'm a pretty positive guy to start with.

I simply cannot believe that every single last aspect of your start-up is enjoyable to you. Either you have someone else doing the parts you find boring, or you steer around the boring parts (possibly to the detriment of your start-up), or you're convincing yourself that you don't find them boring.

I've spent the last week and a bit doing some work which is at best mind- numbingly boring, but which might be essential to our success. I will definitely be happy with the results, but that doesn't mean I wasn't bored out of my mind and whining about it the entire time; it just means I want to get it done faster so I can go back to something fun.

There's nothing WRONG with finding certain aspects of the work boring, and I think that's a dangerous signal to send. The boring parts have to be done too. What happened to "Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration"?

<comment><USER9> Maybe "boring" is not the best word. Maybe we are really talking about "more fun" vs. "less fun".

Naturally, some things are more fun that others, but I am never bored in my startup.

Frustrated sometimes, yes. This week I lost a whole day because I had overlooked something simple one day last week. Had to retool the whole stupid thing when I really wanted to build the next level up. So the exciting part had to wait a day. No big deal. It happens. But was I ever "bored"? Hardly.

A little background. I sat in class bored to tears for 17 years. Then, I did work in 86 other companies (none of them mine) before I started this one. I have a clear vision of what I want and a fairly clear idea of how things should work. I love both the technical details and the people part. Usually, I can't wait to get to the next thing.

The only thing I really don't like is when a client calls for me to fix something on their crappy system. Shifting gears sucks.

Boring? No, I just don't see it.

<comment><USER11> Maybe we can find some common ground in the word "tedious" rather than "boring". Boring does have the connotation of waiting for class to end or waiting for 5PM to go home.

<comment><USER9> Agreed

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I need marketing for my astrological moon calendar, too. In fact, I have not updated it for months. But maybe if somebody else became interested...

While I was at it, it was lurking around page 3 or 4 in Google searches. Now it is not even among the first 10 pages anymore :-(

Lesson: only take on projects that I can really identify with (astrology doesn't fall into that category...).

</comment><comment><USER13> Find someone to join you who loves doing that e.g. with marketing experience/degree and passion for online marketing i.e. who is into SEO, SEM, AdWord marketing, affiliate linking/campaigns, article publishing campaigns etc. etc.

So you can do what you love, they can do what they love, and you should both be moving in the same direction to achieve success at an optimal pace for you.

</comment><comment><USER7> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=121175>

</comment><comment><USER14> I have been developing my product for a few months now. It is starting to get boring - a bit. Usually I have to push myself and find some motivation. That is why I decided to rent a room with my hacker friend and designer cousin. We are setting things up as I type this comment :P Perfect mix... ^_^

</comment><comment><USER15> a thought:

why are you ok coding alone, but with marketing you feel like you need someone around?

i wonder if it has anything to do with confidence? when i am doing something i know. being alone is fun, because i feel productive. when i am doing something where, i might have at least a moderate amount of learning to do, i like to bounce the ideas off of someone. i also find that doing things like:

 _writing business plans

_ graphic design

 _marketing

_ etc.. other socially reflective processes

I find its really hard to do it alone, I usually need people to bounce the idea off of. I also, find that customers are great at playing this role for marketing. They know what they want, and why they would like your service. They have given me plenty of ideas in this realm.

</comment><comment><USER16> Is it your idea of what "marketing" is that turns you off? If so, I suggest you take a look at Bob Walsh's eBook "MicroISV Sites That Sell" at 47hats.com. It's a book aimed at developers who need to market their work, but don't consider themselves marketers.

</comment><comment><USER17> Sometimes you can work out trades. Do you know anyone that works in marketing that could use some web work done? (I've done this before with programming in exchange for graphic design.)

</comment><comment><USER13> Find a co-founder to bounce material off and interact with. Ideally, you will motivate each other!

</comment><comment><USER18> I think this is probably why YC looks for co-founders.

Personally I handle boredom by doing something else. This works incredibly well for programming and incredibly badly for interacting with the government. To be more specific, if something is boring, I won't do it, so if you're the government, and I haven't been paying my parking tickets, your only option is to make paying my parking tickets more interesting. In practice this has meant stealing my car.

It's actually very unwise to create incentives for the government to make your life more interesting. The only leverage they have there is various forms of bullying.

I now motivate myself with fear as well as curiousity, but unfortunately, curiousity remains much more effective.</comment>


Dilbert on Cloud Computing - <AUTHOR> http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-01-07/ <comment><USER2> I know an account manager at a major telco. He talks regularly about how his bosses tell him to push "the Cloud" and that "the Cloud is the future", and other silly nonsense like that.

It's definitely a fad that non-technical people don't understand. They've been told it will save them hundreds of thousands of dollars (virtualized servers) and make data instantly accessible from any computer-machine. They mostly heard they would save a lot of money and told everyone to push it.

Funny how buzzwords hypnotize.

<comment><USER3> The term cloud was already here in 2007... So this fad is there for the fifth year. I'd rather consider it a long time trend. In the end, like client-server or mainframe, it will stay in the background but be masked by newer trends.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Every company has a vastly different definition of cloud computing. By far the worst I've seen is Microsoft's "Delayed at the Airport" commercial. She remote desktop's into her home computer and watches a video - is this really the Cloud?

<comment><USER5> Yeah, I think so. The "cloud" is the part of the network you don't have to care about. She doesn't care whether the video is on her home computer, or MS servers, or her laptop. It pretty much all works the same.

<comment><USER6> It's nothing more than a buzz word now. In the commercial they say "To the cloud" and then he uses remote desktop. This is something that could have been in a commercial 10+ years ago but is only appealing now due to the word "cloud" ("to the internet" isn't nearly as cool).

<comment><USER5> Really? Cheap laptops, high-bandwidth wireless, and first-party free file hosting (on Windows Live Mesh in this case), 10 years ago? The "cloud" may not have changed, but it is suddenly relevant (read: marketable) to a lot more people than it used to be. Hence the advertising.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Same comic on the fast link: <http://dilbert.com/fast/2011-01-07/>

(Dilbert has a "fast" link at <http://dilbert.com/fast/> to load just the comics without all the extra stuff)

<comment><USER8> Does anyone know why the link to the fast version is called Linux/Unix? Is it just to make it salient to nerds?

<comment><USER7> From Scott Adams old blog post on the redesign of the website:

"The fascinating thing about the responses is that it revealed three distinct types of Dilbert readers:

The first group is the ultra-techies who have an almost romantic relationship with technology. For them, the new site felt like getting dumped by a lover. Their high-end technology (generally Linux) and security settings made much of the site inconvenient. Moreover, the use of Flash offended them on some deep emotional level.

The second group objected to the new level of color and complexity, and the associated slowness. They like their Dilbert comics simple, fast, and in two colors. Anything more is like putting pants on a cat.

The third group uses technology as nothing more than a tool, and subscribes to the philosophy that more free stuff is better than less free stuff. That group has embraced the new features on the site and spiked the traffic stats.

For you first two groups, if you promise to keep it to yourselves, we created a stripped-down Dilbert page with just the comic, some text navigation, and the archive: www.dilbert.com/fast. This alternate site is a minor secret, mentioned only here and in the text footnote to the regular site as "Linux/Unix.""

(source: [http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2008/04/dilb...](http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2008/04/dilbertcom- rede.html))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A recruiter friend asked me how much a company should pay a cloud developer. I had no idea what to say.

<comment><USER10> I would have told him that it doesn't matter as long as they are paid in cloud dollars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Cloud seems to be the ultimate Rorschach Test, both in the real world and the IT world. (From <http://blog.labslice.com/2010/09/wispy-cloud.html>).

</comment><comment><USER10> Reminds me of the Penny Arcade comic: <http://www.penny- arcade.com/comic/2009/3/25/>

" _God_. Let me break this down for you. It's _server-side_. It's like, over here? Servers."

</comment><comment><USER12> "philosopher and technologist": ACM offers a paper on "Ontological approach toward cybersecurity in cloud computing". Evidently the PHB is more on target than usual.

</comment><comment><USER13> It causes me a great deal of stress when I hear non seasoned developers discussing "the cloud". Even talking about it now is annoying me. The people with the loudest opinions are usually managers who have only a basic concept of what it is and what it might be good for.

<comment><USER6> Agreed. My next app will be HTML5 and on the cloud. In other words I'll make it pretty and it'll live on a server rather than at the office.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Like water under the hot sun. your software turns into vaporware. thats what cloud means right now, Its magic.

at least when some congressmen calls your service provider.

The Orb - Fluffy clouds <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHixChYgGRI> Sums it up.

<comment><USER15> You lost me with the video.</comment></comment>


The Octothorpe, Part 1 - <AUTHOR> http://www.shadycharacters.co.uk/2011/05/the-octothorpe-part-1-of-2/

<comment><USER2>
      in North America, '5#' means 'five pounds in weight'

I've never heard this. Is this common in other parts of the US? Canada?

<comment><USER3> It is common enough in the Mid-Atlantic, including DC; haven't you ever wondered about the telephone ads and instructions, like for automatic redial, calling it the "pound sign"? I haven't seen it as much in the last few decades as I used to, but that is mainly because more signs and labels and so forth are printed, and more memos and stuff typed (emailed), than in the "old days"; there isn't as much need for extreme abbreviations, which is what this amounts to, as there was. For that matter, I haven't seen it being used as an abbreviation for number, as in #5, much recently either.</comment></comment>


A European influencer burnt through €19m on three apps in three years - <AUTHOR> https://sifted.eu/articles/marco-nardone-fling-gig-fm-wineapp/ <comment><USER2> Sounds like a good ol' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get-rich- quick_scheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get-rich-quick_scheme)</comment>


Medical Reversals - <AUTHOR> https://elifesciences.org/articles/45183 <comment> J-dawg I am reminded of this story of a medical reversal: [https://www.badscience.net/2011/03/when-ethics-committees- ki...](https://www.badscience.net/2011/03/when-ethics-committees-kill/)

> _This is not an abstract problem. Here is one example. For years in A &E, > patients with serious head injury were often treated with steroids, in the > reasonable belief that this would reduce swelling, and so reduce crushing > damage to the brain, inside the fixed-volume box of your skull._

> _Researchers wanted to randomise unconscious patients to receive steroids, > or no steroids, instantly in A &E, to find out which was best. This was > called the CRASH trial, and it was a famously hard fought battle with ethics > committees, even though both treatments – steroids, or no steroids – were in > widespread, routine use. Finally, when approval was granted, it turned out > that steroids were killing patients._

> _This was an extraordinary piece of work. At the end of the trial, where the > head injuries were pretty bad (a quarter of the people died), it turned out > there were two and a half extra deaths for every one hundred people treated > with steroids._

<comment><USER2> _in the reasonable belief that this would reduce swelling_

It's amazing to me that they wouldn't track this from the beginning, and do the experiment, to vet the idea. I mean, they went all in on it, why not give it to 50% of the head injuries and see?

<comment><USER2> It seems like part of the world is going in the direction of verify don't assume, and the other half has decided that their gut always has the right answer. It's a strange time to be alive.

<comment><USER3> Except some of those won't be. We're taking life or death decisions here. (Or at least productive years of life.) There is always a cost and this cost did come to bite you sooner or later.

The highest standard for decision making is definitely not "going with your gut". I wonder if anyone is actually claiming this or you just like to build strawmen. Typical reasons to adopt a practice is politics and marketing, then legacy, only then followed by effectiveness...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm first in line to criticize unnecessary medicine based on flimsy evidence, but in principle there's nothing wrong with medical reversals. As you begin to collect data about anything, your best guess for the truth will be bouncing around wildly and only slowly settle down as the data accumulates. "Do no harm" is ok as a rule of thumb to counteract the natural tendency for doctors to err on the side of over-medicating (and to account for our expectation that a random intervention is net negative), but it's silly to use as an inflexible principle. If you're so cautious that you never recommend harmful interventions, you're missing out on plenty of interventions that are positive in expectation.

Do any of these studies of "medical reversals" attempt to estimate how often reversals should be made ideally?

<comment> J-dawg I suppose if you end up reversing an established thing, you'd better have a damn good reason why you were doing that thing in the first place.

Why give any treatment that hasn't been through a randomised trial? (Unless, of course, you are giving it as part of a trial)

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure I understand the terminology. If "medical reversal" means -- apologies if I misunderstood -- "stopping a medical treatment which hasn't been shown to be helpful, or one that is not backed by evidence", why is the reversal itself the problem?

Shouldn't the focus be on applying treatments backed by robust evidence in the first place, rather than on medical reversals? Of course the two are connected, but the wording seems odd. Medical reversals seem to be a symptom of the problem, not the root cause.

Of course, I might be misunderstanding the terminology.

edit: I've read the abstract and it seems I am indeed misunderstanding the definition, but for the life of me I cannot understand what "medical reversal" means in layman words.

<comment><USER6> My laymen's definition of medical reversal: a current medical practice that is worse than what we did before.

<comment><USER5> Ah, thanks! So indeed I was mistaken. I misunderstood it to mean "reverting an unproven/inconclusive treatment" when it actually means "conducting an unproven/inconclusive treatment".

I was confused because "reversal" sounds to me as the act of ceasing to do something, i.e. "reverting" the treatment (if you're a programmer: I thought of "reversal" as in "reverting a mistaken commit using git"). I now see it's a technical term which means the opposite!

Now it all makes sense.

<comment><USER6> Hmm. Sorry, no, that's not my understanding. I think the phenomenon of _discovery_ is distinct from the changing of behavior. I believe it is the discovery itself that is called a "medical reversal." I think the submitted paper defines it in relatively laymen's terms: "Medical reversal occurs when a new clinical trial — superior to predecessors by virtue of better controls, design, size, or endpoints — contradicts current clinical practice."

I think an important difference is that current clinical practice is not necessarily _thought_ to be "unproven/inconclusive." Rather, I think people think it has a solid foundation, but better investigation reveals that not to be true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Someone on HN once left a comment that made it really clear why it is better to "let x guilty men go free than incarcerate one innocent man." A big part of their point: if you put an innocent man in prison, you are _still letting a guilty man go free._ The real killer is still out there. And you aren't even looking for him because you have announced "case closed."

So this is similar to part of the problem with low value or harmful medical practices proliferating. If you are doing x, you probably won't be doing y. Its use actively excludes the use of better therapies in most cases.

But, worse, biological processes are complicated and there can be critical windows of time for x to happen. If people are ignorant of such a window and how to use it effectively, some people will have dramatically better outcomes than others in a way that promotes the all-too-common perception that it's just random. For medical issues, this can be literally life or death.

Furthermore, use of low value procedures pollutes the data with lousy outcomes. If you don't identify that x treatment is the culprit, then the perception that patients with x condition have yadda prognosis proliferates. This actively promotes poor outcomes by encouraging doctors and patients alike to accept a poor outcome as _the norm_ and _to be expected_ for your condition.

Additionally, once a practice proliferates, it tends to persist. It becomes a habit. Habits are hard to break.

And doctors are people. Most people want to _do something, anything_ rather than doing nothing. For a doctor, doing _something, anything_ is probably less likely to get them sued for malpractice than taking a wait-and-see approach, even if waiting is the wiser move. It's going to be harder to defend the choice to do nothing if it goes to court. It flies in the face of how the human mind works.

It takes substantial education, wisdom and self restraint to do nothing when the problem is your responsibility to fix. Even if you know that's currently the best course of action, it is all too easy to cave in the face of social pressure, especially if you have reason to believe that not _going along to get along_ may come with substantial penalties (like a malpractice lawsuit).

To my mind, the following linked article is related to that last point, but I also wrote it and I've had four hours of sleep. Apologies if it seems unrelated:

[https://raisingfutureadults.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-hand- li...](https://raisingfutureadults.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-hand-licking- incident.html)

<comment><USER8> >want to do something, anything

Culture could be changed from the expectation that most encounters with a doctor result in an action. The problem is visiting a doctor costs hundreds of dollars for a short amount of time. It doesn't matter if you have insurance or free universal health care, it still costs hundreds of dollars regardless of the layers of abstraction you put on top of the billing.

I personally wish encounters with doctors resulted in more tests or other data gathering (and hopefully that data made available de-identified for analysis)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This work seems to assume that "randomized, controlled trials" necessarily produce correct and meaningful results, that such a trial is necessarily meaningfully possible at all, and that, where either of these is false, the treatment is valueless.

But a randomized, controlled trial can produce meaningful results only where just one malady is being treated. The DSM is full of diagnoses that lump together a whole family of pathologies with (sometimes only superficially) similar symptoms, but entirely different causes. This is especially notable in psychiatry, but far from unique; for an extreme example, cancers.

The reason such trials produce bad results is that there is no way to know which patients have the particular pathology whose cause is addressed by the treatment under test, without actually administering it to see.

Actually performing such a trial, with an effective treatment agent, tends to produce strong results for a few patients, and null or actually harmful results in the rest. Nothing is wrong with the treatment, when applied to the patients who should get it, but the trial fails to produce a positive result.

Confusing a bad trial with a bad treatment should be an error made only by ignorant observers, but it is all too commonly seen in apparently respectable media.

<comment><USER3> > Actually performing such a trial, with an effective treatment agent, tends > to produce strong results for a few patients, and null or actually harmful > results in the rest. Nothing is wrong with the treatment, when applied to > the patients who should get it, but the trial fails to produce a positive > result.

Do you have any actual data to support this assertion, or is it just a weak sophism, same as used to support ineffective "integrative medicine" practices?

<comment><USER9> What sort of data do you imagine would convince you? Or is this just a reflexive rejection of change?

Insisting on data that demonstrates invalid RCTs while assuming that DSM diagnoses precisely distinguish causes, on the basis of no data at all, puts the cart before the horse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Searching for the scientific interest here... this is a list of trials that changed medical practice. The senior author has previously published such a list and written a book about it. What does this article add?</comment>


Chrome vs IE9 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.gadodia.net/chrome-vs-ie9/ <comment><USER2> I would have to agree with most of this post. I gave IE9 a full run yesterday, using it as my primary browser and honestly there is nothing huge that I miss from Chrome.

Although this may not get some people going back to IE, I think it will definitely stop people from changing in the first place.

Serious props to Microsoft and the IE team for this release.

<comment><USER3> Thanks, it's been a lot of hard work for a lot of people making all of this happen ... I am glad to see you're happy, but am most curious what else you think can be improved. How can I help you get to the 100% happiness point? Please feel free to drop a comment in here or email with any feedback you have. For technical bugs, the established process is to indeed go via Connect, so this would NOT replace the correct/official feedback process ... But I promise to read up every comment left as a response to this one and try to follow up on as many of them as are actionable. I am obviously under NDA so cannot always discuss the internals/specifics of what we are doing, nor am I officially a spokesperson for Microsoft, so please keep those in mind when reading my responses :-)

<comment><USER4> This is why I love Hacker News. Similarly, if anyone has any comments to pass on to the Chrome team, I can oblige; although comment is welcome on our mailing lists too, of course. And.. fight!

<comment><USER5> On Linux, Chrome is very memory-hungry. I'm using 1.2gb for 20 tabs on a fresh startup/tab restore, and it sometimes leaks like crazy, using as much as 2gb in a single process. The leaks seem slightly mitigated in the 7.x betas, but static usage is exceptionally high.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, this. I'm a web developer and a heavy Chromium user and I caught myself pondering a memory upgrade for my 8Gb desktop the other day, just for Chromium.

<comment><USER6> Obviously this is just an examples of _the_ classical trade off, but still...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Still restart prompts after installation ? Come on, it's just a browser.

Anyway, I think it's good that they released a modern, standards compliant browser. However, I won't be switching anytime soon, since they don't provide versions for other operating systems (ubuntu is my desktop os).

</comment><comment><USER8> > _I noticed that the logo in Chrome is smaller than the logo in Internet > Explorer. I found it weird till it turned out that the HTML that was > rendered is different in Chrome than the one in Internet Explorer, and both > refer to different logo files with different image sizes._

Did they also notice that the size _of the entire page_ is different? The font is heavier weighted in IE, the logo is larger, and the text box is _significantly_ larger.

Sounds like a design choice, IMO, probably due to the different text rendering (among other things) between WebKit and IE / Cleartype.

<comment><USER9> The large logo could well be a A/B test that Google may be running. I saw the large logo in Chrome earlier this week.

<comment><USER10> The large logo is part of Google Instant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The thing about Firefox is I can just pick up my profile and take it anywhere; Mac, Windows, Linux, pretty soon even Android tablets (though the utility of that has yet to be seen.)

Chrome will get there eventually.

IE? I'm not interested in being bound to Windows devices.

</comment><comment><USER12> re the Minor Annoyance:

Middle clicking to close tabs works fine in Firefox and even IE8 (only browsers I have on my system). No reason to complain about moving the mouse to the X button when you don't actually need to.

</comment><comment><USER13> Different Google logos? Has this been going on for a long time?</comment>


Show HN: I implemented Deferred Shading - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB2svwmjGUg <comment><AUTHOR> I'm the author. The source code is here: [https://github.com/Erkaman/cute- deferred-shading](https://github.com/Erkaman/cute-deferred-shading)

This is a cute little implementation of normal deferred shading. The focus of this implementation was readability and brevity, so that others can learn from the code. The entire renderer is only about 1400 lines of C++ code. Note that there are probably ways in which the implementation can be made faster, but such optimizations were not performed to keep things brief, and readable.</comment>


Real Hackers Tell Us Why They Love the Movie 'Hackers' - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kzvqx9/real-hackers-tell-us-why-they-love-the-movie-hackers <comment><USER2> Hackers makes the top of my list of "Hacker" movies, not for any kind of technical/realistic chops, which they deliberately eschew, but purely for its artistic direction.

Reasons why I love this movie:

\- Has the best costumes: Leather, Spandex, cheetah print, that fluffy cat tshirt Phreak wears in one scene. They contribute to a colorful portrayal of a 90's New York overrun by Club Kids, which no other movie except Party Monster really touches. It reminds me a lot of the Fifth Element in some ways.

\- Has the most memorable characters and talent. Acid Burn, Zero Cool, The Phreak, Cereal Killer, and Joey, not to mention Agent Gills, Razor and Blade, and of course still-dressing-in-the-dark Eugene (Don't call me Eugene)

\- Has the best soundtrack: Massive Attack, Prodigy, Underworld, Stereo MC's, and more. This movie served as a gateway to high-school-aged me to a whole world of 90's trip-hop and electronica that I still enjoy.

\- No other hackers movie can claim to have a "Hack the Gibson" level influence for its one-liners and references, except maybe War Games.

\- Hilariously corny lines and delivery. Perfectly toes the line between being funny-bad and just bad-bad. No matter how many times I see this movie I die every time Gills says "You are floating, and I'm about to flush yo ass!"

You can probably tell I've seen this movie way too many times, but I'll never get tired of watching it.

<comment><USER3> Don't forget Orbital! This is one of my favorite movies as well, for similar reasons. I grew up in the 90s with BBSs, and I think the film captured the subculture pretty well.

I also remember reading the detonate.net parody of Hackers at the time, and thinking it was one of the most hilarious things ever.

<comment><USER2> How the hell did I forget about Orbital

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sneakers is the best hacker film ever made. Hackers was maybe number 2 in my book.

<comment><USER5> Wargames is #1 in my book. Sneakers was great though. I think I was too old to like Hackers, it seemed very forced to me.

<comment><USER6> I think Sneakers is more realistic and captures the essence better, but WarGames is the one that impacted me the most and holds a special place in my heart.

I was about ten years old when WarGames came out, and I got a Commodore 64 for Christmas that year. About a year later, I got a modem, and about a year after that I started "wardialing" my entire local calling area (and also accidentally some non-local calling areas; I spent the whole summer mowing laws to pay my parents for the giant phone bill that resulted).

War dialing led to random "login" prompts, which led to me teaching myself Unix, VMS, and PrimeOS. It led to Tymnet and Telenet (X.25 packet switching networks). That eventually got me, through many complicated jumps, to MIT's free Unix systems (anyone who could access it could get an account).

Between MIT's free Unix systems, and a lot of commercial systems that I--ahem --borrowed access to, by the time I was 15 years old, I was already a Unix, C, and Internet expert, years before Linux and even years before any local ISPs existed. When my friend's dad, who worked at AT&T's Bell Labs, found out that I was hacking into systems just to teach myself Unix, he gave me surplus AT&T 3b1 and 3b2 Unix machines.

By the time I got to college in 1990, I already knew more about Unix than any of the professors. While that led to me abandoning my courses, it also led to a full-time sysadmin job at the college, and when the Internet exploded a few years later, I was already a decade ahead of my peers, and my career took off from there.

So I have WarGames to thank for all of it. I'm sure glad I never got caught hacking into anything; even though I was at worst a grey hat, I had friends who were criminally prosecuted. I was in the same systems that Kevin Mitnick went to jail for five years for accessing.

<comment><USER7> That's a great story, thanks for taking the time!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Other real hackers tell you why they love the movie "Startup.com". [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/startupcom](https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/startupcom)</comment>