Sleep as a Competitive Advantage - <AUTHOR> http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/sleep-as-a-competitive-advantage/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 <comment><USER3> The key takeaway is this:

> The research is overwhelming that the vast majority of us require seven to > eight hours of sleep to feel fully rested, and only a small percentage > require less than seven.

I'm sometimes envious of people I meet that can function well with little sleep, but I resign myself to the fact that I wasn't dealt that particular card. You can't compete with those folks by simply trying to ape their habits.

<comment><USER4> > Most of us have forgotten what it really feels like to be awake."

This may be one part of it. Some time ago, I'd definitely tell you I'm fine with little sleep. You can do it if you sleep very little every night. It's quite easy to adapt to, for example during university exam times

But then after some years you realise you're not actually fine. You just don't remember how different is it to sleep longer. I'm still fighting with myself now to sleep for a reasonable time to reverse the old habit. I did tell people I'm fine with little sleep before. I will happily tell them now that I was lying - just didn't know it at the time.

<comment><USER5> _> ' You just don't remember how different is it to sleep longer.'_

Exactly.

Not too long ago the combination of child, work and school forced me to completely re-evaluate how I was spending my time and what is actually important to me.

One big change I ended up making was getting to bed at the same time every night and clocking a consistent 8 hours.

Within a week or so the difference was remarkable in both my mood and acuity through the mid-afternoon - ideally I'd take a 45 minute nap around 13:30, but that's not an option with my current job.

In order of effect, the best things I've ever done for day to day clarity:

1.) Going to bed and rising at consistent times with 8 hours inbetween.

2.) Drinking plenty of water. At least 8 ounces per waking hour for me.

3.) Regular exercise. I feel best lifting weights 3 or 4 days a week, but I expect the specifics are less important than simple movement and exertion.

<comment><USER6> > At least 8 ounces per waking hour for me.

That's 3.8L per day [(24 hours - 8 hours sleeping) * 8 fl oz = 3.8L]. Recommended intake is 2-3L[1]. Just be careful of water poisoning...

[1] [http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and- healt...](http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy- eating/in-depth/water/art-20044256)

<comment><USER7> Unless I'm mistaken, water poisoning is only a credible threat when you consume exclusively those high volumes of water and nothing else to raise the salinity of the water in and around your cells. Over the course of a day, most of us get (much) more than enough sodium from other sources to eliminate any risk of water poisoning from 3.8L of water per day.

<comment><USER8> Yeah -- similarly to you, I'm pretty convinced that water poisoning is only a worry if you're unwell (mentally and/or otherwise) or do unusual things like water-drinking competitions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> When I left my cubicle job to strike off on my own in 2007, one of the most valuable lessons I learned was "sleep when you're tired".

7 years, a couple of businesses, and 2 (soon to be 3) kids later, I manage to still be able to work and play very hard without feeling chronically tired or burnt out, and I'm convinced it's because I sleep when I need to sleep (and don't when I don't). If it's the middle of the work day and my body is saying "sleep!", then I'll go take a 2-hour nap, which completely revitalizes me. If I've been up for 20 hours and am still going strong, am thinking clearly, and am not feeling tired, I stay up. Sometimes I sleep for 5 hours, sometimes I sleep for 11.

(It's worth noting that this only works with kids because I have my wife's support - she holds down the fort while I sleep, and visa versa. We play active defense for each others' sleep.)

This has had a couple of effects. First of all, it means that whenever I'm working, I'm actually _working_. I don't have those days where I just stare at my screen blankly, unable to get any significant momentum like I did before. Secondly, it made me able adapt to varying sleep needs (which is _amazingly_ helpful with kids). I'm not really on a particular circadian rhythm. On a typical day, I might be up from 10 AM-2 AM PST, but then I'll travel back east and the next day I'll be up from 3 AM-7PM PST without any real difficulty.

I realize that not everyone has the luxury of being able to take naps or sleep for as long as they need it, but if you have some flexibility, start listening to your body, rather than toughing it out from 9-5 "because that's what you're supposed to do."

Also, as a side note: Use f.lux - when I started using it, I noted a _drastic_ shift in how I get tired. Before, I would just go and go until I hard-crashed; now, I start feeling tired slowly over time, which makes it much easier to go to sleep at the right time.

</comment><comment><USER10> I like to run long distances, half marathons and mountain runs. When I'm in shape, I can run reasonably fast; I can get close to 7-minute miles on hilly half marathons, and place in the upper quartile in mountain runs.

I have gone through some times in life where it's been really hard to sleep properly. My kid is three years old now, and he still interrupts my sleep patterns. I'm a teacher, and I never sleep enough during the busy time at the start of each school year. When I'm not sleeping enough, I feel it in my running. My muscles are fine, my cardiovascular system is fine, but something isn't there. I can maintain my mileage, but when I try to push myself, I just come up empty.

The best approach I've ever found to help me get enough sleep, was to get rid of my alarm clock. Not using an alarm clock ensures that I get the most out of the sleep that I do get each night.

<comment><USER11> Strangely I feel dizzy without alarm clock and it takes a bit too much time to get to high energy. With alarm clock there's a certain rush to jump into action.

I wish I had the same rush without an alarm clock.

<comment><USER12> I know I'm going to state something obvious, but have you tried going to bed earlier?

I've honestly met people who try to get up earlier, but don't realize the easiest way to get up early (in the longer term, of course) is to catch sleep early.

<comment><USER13> This.

It took me years to realize simply going to be easier was, not only the obvious answer, but also the cheapest & most sustainable. [https://garrickvanburen.com/archive/how-i-learned-to-get- up-...](https://garrickvanburen.com/archive/how-i-learned-to-get-up-before-my- kids/)

<comment><USER11> hah! Thank you for the link! Your experience definitely rings a bell -- I'm now a father of a 6 months old and I did my fair share of experiments with Zeo a few years ago.

By the way, there is a special firmware going around for Zeo that if installed will store the data unencrypted and also enables sending "real-time" info to the serial port located at the back of the device (I managed to read this data successfully using a python script that was also provided).

If you're interested in that custom firmware and realtime data schematics&code and not finding from the web, ping me and I'll look up from the archives!

For me wearing zeo more than 5 days in a row became unfomfortable, how long did you use it constantly to get to this 6.30am wakeup time?

You mention 18 months but I guess it's not possible to wear the headband for that many months in a row comforably?

<comment><USER13> Thanks. In my 18 months with the Zeo, I went through at least 5 headband sensors. In that time I wore it all the days I was home - which was most days.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Robg, who posted this, is a longtime HNer whose current startup makes a watch that monitors your stress level. He wears the watch all the time and told me that one of his biggest lessons from it so far was about sleep. Rob, do you want to repeat that here? I thought it was interesting; maybe others would too.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure! It took me a decade as a neuroscientist to realize that sleep is the inverse of stress. That's physiologically speaking - stress is the sympathetic system; sleep is the parasympathetic system.

We're seeing a type of high stress sleep. We don't know what it means or why. But the aim is to continue to drill in - a kind of citizen science of how sleep and stress interact. What questions would folks what to see answered?

I discovered wearing our watch that naps are stress relieving for me. Others see the same effect during meditation, and I wonder if that too is a form of sleep, physiologically speaking.

EDIT: Since it got buried below, this study will turn out to be a huge inflection point in terms of how sleep is understood and taught. Sleep appears to wash away toxins that collect during the stressful day. Sleep seems to be a form of garbage collection. [http://www.nih.gov/news/health/oct2013/ninds-17.htm](http://www.nih.gov/news/health/oct2013/ninds-17.htm)

<comment><USER15> I have been a fan of power naps for the past year or so; I work from home so taking 25 minutes to nap in mid-afternoon is not a problem.

I just completed the program in "Mindfulness: An Eight-Week Plan" (Williams, Penman) and found in those eight weeks I didn't feel a need to nap in the afternoon. I just didn't get sleep late in the day.

<comment><AUTHOR> Our users who meditate report the same thing. What's really interesting to consider whether like sleep, meditation helps open up the glymphatic system for garbage collection.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glymphatic_system](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glymphatic_system)

[http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/Fetcho/NBBjournalclub/wa...](http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/Fetcho/NBBjournalclub/warden- paperfull.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Honestly, I think a bigger issue is what time we actually go to sleep.

I think a lot professionals just don't get to sleep on time for the required 7-8 hours.

If you get up at 6 or 7 in the morning, that means you are deep asleep by 10 or 11 pm.

I just don't think a lot of sleep deprived people are doing that.

At least that's alway been my experience.

<comment><USER17> This.

What's missing from this article, is a discussion about ideal sleep TIMES. Not everyone is meant to sleep from 10-6. Yes, you can fudge your sleep cycle and you can adjust, but only so much.

I'm naturally a night owl. With no alarm clock, and no obligations, I will "naturally" fall asleep at 3am, and wake up at 11.

In times of my life when I've been able to do this, the 8 hours that I would get then FAR TRUMPED the 8 hours I get now. It's night and day.

<comment><USER12> > I'm naturally a night owl.

Many people are unnatural night owls, thanks to blue light sources in the evening - perhaps that applies to you too. Have you tried f.lux?

[http://getflux.com/](http://getflux.com/)

<comment><USER18> Blue light may be interrupting sleep patterns, but I assume people who call themselves night owls share with me a certain feeling of mental haze during daylight hours, regardless of sleep schedule. I'm also about 5% weaker at lifting maximal weights until late afternoon. For what it's worth, I don't consume caffeine (allergic) and I do use f.lux.

<comment><USER19> For what it's worth, in my opinion the haze = noise. During the day every damned thing is causing too much noise, even if you block it out with music & headphones it's still noise/distraction. So when you get to the evening and definitely past midnight the ambient noise drops considerably, everything is quiet and there's far less to subconsciously distract you.

<comment><USER20> it may be sensory overload, variant by person. for me, it's definitely light. i feel fried and cranky within minutes of being in bright sunlight.

i use a program similar to flux and, while it's shifted going to sleep a couple of hours earlier, i still have as much difficulty getting to work by 9. maybe i'm still working through decades of deprivation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It was explained to me that a small % of people can get by with less than 8 hours sleep. Those people then often move to the top of the org chart either as founders or management in larger companies. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given their lack of need for sleep, they're not big believers in the value of sleep and napping. That's why you'll see these articles every 3 - 6 months and nothing will really change.

<comment><USER22> See my comment above - I think even "low sleepers" recognize the value of sleep for clear thinking and emotional balance. I totally value napping.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The problem is that Western culture, particularly the Anglophone subset, is generally against sleep, equating the pursuit of adequate sleep--which vaies by individual--with sloth or laziness. A sleeping person is very obviously not working.

Through two acquaintance connections, I know someone who was assigned night shift work, and then was fired for falling asleep on the job in the first month. The employer made zero accomodations for the fact that he has human employees, and that he put them into a constant state of war with their own bodies to get his money. Pilots have to enlist the aid of regulators and unions to get their airlines to recognize that pilot fatigue is not the pilot's fault.

I suspect that this attitude was probably influenced by Anglo racism against Hispanics, targeting the midday siesta custom. It is somewhat telling that to get an Anglo to sleep around midday, you have to rebrand it as a "power nap", and sell it as a late-day productivity booster.

People in our society can advance to positions of greater authority by sacrificing biologically important things like sleep, leisure, and companionship and temporarily compensating with drugs like caffeine, cocaine, and prescription stimulants. Then they reach their acme, get the executive position, and resume normal work and sleep patterns while pretending to themselves that they could still work 120 hours every week. Then they reason that since they were able to achieve greatness by temporarily sacrificing a lot of sleep, everyone should be able to do a little better by sacrificing a little permanently. They don't particularly care about the science, since they have firsthand knowledge of their own meteoric rise and subsequent success.

Everyone else is stuck trying to defend against continual encroachment on the 40-hour work week, and they are forced to sacrifice sleep by necessity rather than by choice.

</comment><comment><USER24> "a person who is sleep deprived has no idea how functionally impaired he or she truly is. Most of us have forgotten what it really feels like to be awake."

I can attest to this. I went through a months-long phase where I got about four to five hours of sleep a night, mostly because I was going to bed around 4 or 5 AM. Only after I began going to bed at a more reasonable time and getting more sleep did I realize how much my mood had suffered and how much worse my ability to concentrate and solve problems had been.

</comment><comment><USER25> About 10 years ago, I was talking to Aaron Iba, and he told me that one of his biggest advantages over other programmers is that he makes sure to get a good night's sleep every night. At the moment, I kind of dismissed it, but in hindsight, I think that he was dead-on.

Sure, getting enough sleep won't magically make you a genius overnight. But it will allow you to maximize the potential that you have.

</comment><comment><USER26> Naps save me every time. Just when my work starts flagging and quality starts dropping, a 20min nap makes me feel almost as fresh as I am coming into the office in the morning.

Most others at work feel awkward about taking naps - even with me evangelising naps :o)

<comment><USER27> Where do you nap? Does your office provide a suitable place?

<comment><USER28> Most under-appreciated killer hiring feature.

<comment><USER29> I usually nap under the pool table that no one uses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I wish I could take naps during the day when I get fatigued, but unfortunately I have severe sleep apnea, so unless I sleep with a CPAP machine, I don't actually get any rest. And my CPAP machine isn's something I can bring to work.

<comment><USER31> Travel cpap machines. (I saw an article on this might not have been this exact one it was a big advertisement also in the WSJ some time ago).

"[http://www.cpap.com/productpage/z1-travel-cpap- machine.html"](http://www.cpap.com/productpage/z1-travel-cpap-machine.html")

I understand you still need a mask with these but it might be worth considering depending on where you can situate yourself.

<comment><USER30> Well, my CPAP machine is already relatively portable, but I don't have anywhere to nap at work, except in my car, which doesn't have an AC outlet (also, I'd like to start biking to work, so I don't want to wed myself to the car). I share a room with several other people, so I would need somewhere else to nap.

<comment><USER32> On an unrelated note: May I suggest getting a second travel CPAP even if you're not going to nap at the office?

You can use it for travel and vacations, but the best reason to have one is as a backup. Trust me when I say that you don't want to wait a month for a replacement when your existing CPAP fails (and it WILL fail).

Also, it's worth noting that many travel CPAPs have 12-volt car lighter adapters so you can run it off of your car's battery. So maybe you could use it to nap in your car?

<comment><USER30> Thanks for the suggestions. I'll definitely look into it.

<comment><USER31> My dad had a top of the line cpap that my mother just threw out.

Prior to that I had found a site that specialized in used cpaps and they were going to buy it (apparently they had so much inventory they wanted to wait to make an offer on it).

You can probably source a good used one through respiratory therapists either privately or at a hospital. When someone passes away these are typically thrown out. (After a certain amount of time they don't get returned to medicare or something like that.)

<comment><USER33> secondwindcpap.com is where I've gotten my last couple of units from.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I don't think that people who function well with little sleep have a significant advantage anyway.

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that they can get something like 1/16th or so more done in a day - 1/16th of what? A six month project? Delivering 11 days earlier than the other side on something that takes six months isn't likely to be a make or break point on a contract, even if their whole team could work like that - which they undoubtedly couldn't.

It seems like fuel efficiency for your car. If you go from 5mph to 10mpg it's a huge saving, but going to 40 from 35 is almost negligible.

<comment><USER35> Totally agree on this. The low-hanging fruit isn't squeezing in a couple more hours, its improving the quality of the hours you currently have. If you can do 8 hours every weekday of truly productive time spent focused _on the right things_ you'll run circles around most of these 100-hour-week braggarts anyway.

Of course if you are truly god's gift to white-collar workaholism then sure those additional hours can add up, but if you sacrifice sleep and thus cognitive function you're shooting yourself in the foot to get there and probably don't even realize it because of the haze you're living in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Sleep and I have a rocky relationship. I'm terrible at falling asleep, and even worse at waking up, but boy have I learned to value it.

I can't nap, because I literally can't sleep anything less than 4 hours. Friends and relatives have tried yelling/shaking/banging pots and pans, but the only thing that will wake me is cold water to the face.

However, I've found taking a few moments to meditate can do wonders when I'm getting that run-down-man-I-could-use-a-nap feeling.

<comment><USER37> I usually say that I don't have trouble sleeping, my trouble is with changing states :)

I seldom go to bed in time because I hate to lay there trying to get asleep. Wanting to make more use of my day also doesn't help; I don't get home before 7:30pm, and I don't want to just dine and go to bed...

Then comes the morning and I just can't wake up, even after 9, 10hs. I put my alarm clock far away from my bed because I used to just turn it off and keep sleeping. It doesn't help that much though: I "wake up", walk to it, turn it off and go back to under my sheets. "Wake up" as in I'm walking but I'm not totally conscious. It's like I'm drunk, I'll always find a nonsense reason to justify going back to bed, like "hell, I need to go back to my bed now, or it will get too light and float away"

<comment><USER36> In college I used to climb down from the top bunk, walk across the room, turn off my alarm, and climb back up a ladder in my sleep.

Or so I was told anyway, I always assumed I had just slept through my alarm!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> > Most of us have forgotten what it really feels like to be awake.

Reminded me of this relevant TED Talk:

[http://www.ted.com/talks/jessa_gamble_how_to_sleep](http://www.ted.com/talks/jessa_gamble_how_to_sleep)

</comment><comment><USER39> The quality of sleep is important, too. Sometimes, you get that 6 hour sleep that feels like an eternity and you are reborn when you wake up. Most of the time, we get 8 hours of mediocre sleep - guess which one's better?

There also seems to be a Ballmer's peak to sleep - too little and you're deprived, but too much and you're groggy and slow. 7 hours seems to do it for me - I am well rested, yet still on that invisible edge that makes my body push harder when I need it, unlike a seemingly good 9 hours of sleep, after which I just can't seem to engage that certain drive that makes me think quick and be creative.

</comment><comment><USER40> I just woke up from a mid-afternoon nap and read this. What a lovely co- incidence. Tony Schwarz is still the ultimate when it comes to productivity. I first came across his material when watching Eben Pagan's "Get Altitude" seminar, and I have to say, what he said in that video was life changing. I've since seen the video a number of times. I don't think there's anyone else out there that explains it -- or even gets to the crux of the points -- like he does.

I've implemented many of his ideas over time (his book is good, but I still found the seminar to be better).

\- Avoid multi-tasking. Anything that is an interference will reduce productivity \- Create more physical energy by expending it \- Be mindful of your emotional and spiritual energy. It works like a pyramid.

I'm not as disciplined as some of my friends who I watched this material with, but I will say, it's had a great impact on my life.

This whole idea that you need to work into the night, or around the clock is absurd. Our bodies aren't made for it.

</comment><comment><USER41> If anyone is interested, we did an AmA about the benefits of and science behind sleeping and napping a while back: [http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1vyuz2/iama_scientist_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1vyuz2/iama_scientist_who_specializes_in_napping_and_the/)

</comment><comment><USER42> Working from home helps a lot here. I've found starting the day with exercise (30 minute cycle ride) helps kick start my alertness. I split my lunch, I'll eat quickly at my desk around 12, then work for a couple of hours, then take a nap around 2pm. Seems to set me up for the afternoon.

</comment><comment><USER43> Too bad the body is often pretty lousy at honoring requests for quality sleep even when we make the time.

<comment><USER44> The first step is to kick a caffeine habit if you have one. That means no coffee, no tea, no caffeinated soda.

<comment><USER45> I never had a problem falling asleep but I kicked my daily morning cup of coffee and I can't believe how much energy I have. I used to feel a little fuzzy when I first woke up until I had my coffee but now I wake up so full of energy and feel great. I never realized just how negative caffeine is on your energy level.

<comment><USER46> Likewise. Stopped drinking it and for a week withdrawal was hard, but after that I would wake up in 3 minutes, rather than snooze for another 20. I do still crave for it, but one hour into the day you forget it and become normal.

Coffee is such a short term fix with implications for the rest of the night.

The best thing is that I actually sleep same amount, but am better rested. Perhaps it's not the same for everyone, but I feel more people should try it. Caffeine is the nicotine of our era.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I'm a big fan of naps. I take one around 2PM or so, usually for about 15-20 minutes.

<comment><USER48> I can never take short naps. I always end up wanting to sleep the rest of the day.

<comment><USER49> Here's a few tricks I learned a few years ago.

1\. I never nap for more than 20 minutes. If my body goes into a deeper level of sleep or relaxation, I get up feeling groggy and disoriented.

2\. Properly nap. Force yourself not to think about work. Focus on other things such as the weight of your body sinking into the chair/couch, the distant sound of traffic, etc.

3\. Towards the end of the nap, very slowly and deliberately count up to 20, with a maybe 2 or 3 long slow breaths between counts. Completely relax during this count, but on the count of 20 immediately, instantly get up and go about your business. Know that this is what you are going to do, but don't let your body tense up or in any way get ready for it. Works for me like a charm. Just psychologically knowing I'm going to do this somehow prepares me for it at a deep level.

<comment><USER50> _Towards the end of the nap, very slowly and deliberately count up to 20_

How do you do this while you are asleep? Or do you mean do this after you wake up?

<comment><USER51> The latter. I read about this elsewhere (except it was counting down from 10, but the details don't matter). It's psychologically priming yourself, "I'm going to get UP at the last count!".

Part of it is about how it's easier to make such decisions when it's not right now, but somewhere in the future. The second part is that when the count is up, you actually do it without thinking.

I tried it a couple of times and it does seem to help with the "uggh no just one more minute" false reasoning. Haven't managed to turn it into a habit though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Being able to set my own sleep schedule was a driving factor in wanting to start my own business. The tyranny of early wake ups and long commutes left me pissed off, grumpy and unable to work to the best of my ability at school and jobs.

</comment><comment><USER53> All good and great that people write about the value of power naps. And I totally agree of it's value. I love power napping. The energy boost & mental clarity it provides is awesome.

But, I am still yet to see a startup/mature business declare proudly that they encourage nap time and/or list that in their benefits web page. Maybe some already do? But I haven't seen any yet. Please share links.

I am curious to see whether the reality of the business world allows for this natural boost or are we still deep down driven by old fashioned work ethics.

</comment><comment><USER54> All hours of the night are not created equal!

I am happy with 5-6 hours a night + 20-30 mins of meditation in the morning.

But I always get to bed by midnight!

I used to work in the evenings until 1am or 2am and then sleep later. But I found getting up early (5:30am-6:30am) and working in the morning made a huge difference. Working late in the evening made me feel weak and stressed out. Working in the early morning after meditating makes me feel like I am serious seizing the day.

This is with 3 kids, busy job, hectic schedule etc.

I have tested this out on myself for the past 5 years.

</anecdote>

</comment><comment><USER55> I always try to get 8 hours a night no exceptions. I gave up caffeine 2 years ago and really haven't needed it. Many of my colleagues get about 6 hours a night and tell me they feel like shit. That said, my PI is one of the rare people who only needs 3-4 hours a night and the guy has published over 500 papers and has read nearly everything published in or tangentially related to neuroscience. On average he probably gets and extra day of productive time a week which is a huge advantage.

<comment><USER56> PI... principle investigator?

<comment><USER55> Yes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I learned early on the value of sleep - a good amount of rest allows you to be focused longer during dredges of work.

From my own experience, it helped immensely during grad school, and it helps me now with my career. I almost never have to wake up for an alarm - <USER2> naturally wake up at a good time, without the added stressor of a hurried morning. All it takes is a little discipline and advanced planning to get yourself prepared.

</comment><comment><USER58> I'm sure it's true that avoiding sleep-deprivation is useful for "productivity", but, frankly, it saddens me that that this is the way it has to be pitched to get people to pay attention. Avoiding sleep-deprivation is also great for avoiding sleep-deprivation! You feel better and are healthier! Not all of life is (or should be) about productivity, the workplace, competitive advantage, etc.

</comment><comment><USER59> I agree entirely! I absolutely love naps as a way to increase mental performance, and they're comfortable to boot. The issue I have is that I can't quite see myself having one in the office at work... I mean, _perhaps_ I could get away with it, but those who don't understand the power of a quick nap to get your mind refreshed and working at 100% capacity would probably think I'm odd.

</comment><comment><USER60> Add a yoga class to your lunch schedule... usually the final resting period is a great time to grab a 15 minute nap and get ready for the afternoon.

</comment><comment><USER61> >The two techniques that most help me to fall asleep when I'm under pressure are to write down what's on my mind (to get it off my mind) and to breathe deeply if I'm still staying awake — in to a count of three, out to a count of six.

A friend of mine once told me as I was feigning sleep one evening as usual to: "just breathe like you are already asleep"

And 5 minutes later I was out like a light.

</comment><comment><USER22> I use the Jawbone UP24 to monitor my sleep, and apparently, whether I'm getting 4 hours or 6.5 hours, I constantly get ~ 3:50:00 of REM sleep. Yes, I'm one of those founders who can get by on less than 8 hours, but I totally recognize the value of naps and wouldn't discourage my cofounders or employees from taking advantage of that.

</comment><comment><USER62> I would much rather have less sleep + a 15-20 minute nap in the evening than no nap and an extra 45 minutes sleep at night. Luckily at 7pm it's not hard to take a power nap at the office in the conference room on a bean bag chair. I wish most offices made it easier for people to take naps as it's proven productivity would rise.

<comment><USER63> I would much rather not be in the office at 7PM.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The corollary that he leaves out - Sleep appears to wash away toxins that collect during the stressful day. Sleep seems to be a form of garbage collection.

[http://www.nih.gov/news/health/oct2013/ninds-17.htm](http://www.nih.gov/news/health/oct2013/ninds-17.htm)

</comment><comment><USER64> Has anyone tried polyphasic sleep cycles as a way to get less sleep without losing cognitive function?

<comment><USER65> Yes, I tried it for about 3 months 8 years ago.

You stay surprisingly functional for somebody who's only getting ~2 hours total sleep a day, but you definitely lose cognitive function. I didn't realize it at the time -- like a drunk or anybody functioning in a sleep debt it doesn't feel like you've lost cognitive function, but it's readily apparent to anybody who knows you well. The worst time is the half hour or so before your next scheduled nap.

Perhaps the biggest thing I gained from the experiment was the ability to take a power nap any time, any where.

<comment><USER66> > Perhaps the biggest thing I gained from the experiment was the ability to > take a power nap any time, any where.

If this can be reliably learned, it actually seems really valuable. Now I wonder if there's a way to learn it that doesn't cost significant IQ for three months.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> I've heard that the amount of sleep you need is a genetic thing. But is that true? Does anyone know what the main research articles are for that?

And has anyone ever significantly changed the amount they need by lifestyle changes (like daily exercise)?

<comment><USER68> I needed a few more hours sleep on days with a lot of exercise (hours long sessions).

Sleep hygiene helps. Lights out, blackout blinds, loud fans and notification sounds off, no TV in the bedroom. The sleep you get is of a higher quality.

I haven't done it yet, but reddish lighting for late evening is something I'm doing around the middle of fall this year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> If you're having trouble sleeping, see my previous comment on the issue:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5672023](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5672023)

I used to never be able to fall asleep before 5am.

</comment><comment><USER70> I'm jealous of those high-energy folks that seem to be running around on even 7 hours without feeling exhausted. Whether I get 7 hours or 12 hours, I feel the same: sleepy.

</comment><comment><USER71> After reading this, I slept for ~8 hours last night for the first time in months. I feel great today! Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER72> we're so close to understand that we're slightly different for each other, and bio-self-analytics will show us this. we just need 2 or 3 years more. to hack us.

</comment><comment><USER73> i find meditation/naps more powerful. getting into the sleep stage totally upsets cycles, etc. at least thats how it is for me

</comment><comment><USER74> best sleep aid ever: the hostory of the decline and fall of the roman empire by edward gibbon.

2 pages for me and im out like a light.

<comment><USER75> I prefer "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Gibbon, by Edward Empire" myself...

edit: it's a Monty Python joke people. Perhaps more relevant would be to have a chat with Keith Maniac from Guatemala, who claims he can put bricks to sleep? (ref: [http://www.montypython.net/scripts/interest.php](http://www.montypython.net/scripts/interest.php))

<comment><USER74> any response including monty python gets an upvote from me!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> I failed to read this article on an iPad because something (I think the floating link on the right) kept jumping me to another article. Of course the website isn't buggy I'm just holding it wrong.</comment>


Ask HN: Suggestions needed on wide angle close distance cameras - <AUTHOR> Hello,
I am looking for cameras that can get videos of monitor for an industrial application. the unfortunate constraint is that the camera has to be placed at a close distance from monitor, say less than 10" from the monitor and still be able to read content out of monitor. i looked some wide angle rasberryPi cameras like 160deg, 5MP cameras but their resolution around edges are poor. So any suggestions will be really helpful <comment><USER2> I think the Google term you're looking for is "macro lens".</comment>


Apple Open-Sources Grand Central Dispatch (Snow Leopard Multithreading) - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/09/apple-opens-gcd-challenges-impede-adoption-on-linux.ars

<comment><USER2> Some previous discussion:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=817416>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm not too familiar with how various Linux applications are licensed currently, so perhaps someone else can enlighten me.

Does anyone know of any major GPLv2-only apps out there that would provide a major roadblock to porting this to Linux?

<comment><USER3> I think this article exaggerates the potential licensing problems. There are few GPLv2-only apps, it's common for app developers to make license exceptions (especially in such an inoffensive case as GPLv2+Apache), and none of that would prevent other apps from using GCD.

<comment><USER4> Yes. For example back in the days Mozilla wasn't dual MPL/LGPL licensed, the Galeon web browser contacted all contributors to modify the license to explicitly allow linking to gtkmozembed, the Mozilla renderer for GTK.

The hardest part is contacting all contributors. But once you've contacted them, people rarely object to adding a linking exception.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, thanks for the info, both of you.

Here's hoping some useful Linux uses can come out of this - packet-based multithreading seems like a useful abstraction to me, though I am an admittedly inexperienced in multithreaded programming outside of class.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask YC: AIR or HTML/JS or Obj-c for visualizing data? - <AUTHOR>

I'm developing an app which is going to have a visualization component. The data will be shown in a graphical manner, somewhat like Gapminder.
I'm confused about which platform to choose for development of the client. Html/javascript, Flash/AIR or Objective-C.
I like the idea of using objective-c as I think it's quite responsive, and will break me into the Mac/iPhone world. But I'm worried about reducing my market.
I'm unsure about AIR capabilities. Finally I think working with HTML/JS for a graphical project will cause problems as stuff won't work on different browsers.
Can anyone help, by providing some insight from their experience of doing something similar?
I do know html/js/css and python. I was planning to use pyobjc. <comment><USER2> I use PyObjC, and it's makes Cocoa development quicker and less painful, but it isn't a replacement for knowing Objective-C. Especially when you get into the CoreGraphics stuff and occasionally crash through the floor into OpenGL, Python isn't going to save you (much to my regret).

Despite the negative hype against HTML/JS, it isn't hard to create cross- browser code using that combination. I wrote a project called sparklines.js a while back, which uses the canvas element and it renders appropriately on all major browsers (including IE using <http://excanvas.sourceforge.net/>). The speed of javascript is going to be sufficient as well for anything except the most extreme projects (I also wrote ptdef.com, which is a tower defense game in html/javascript. It plays poorly on I.E. but fine in more modern browsers, and its far more complex (pathfinding, etc) than the JavaScript you'll probably be dealing with).

Beyond that, using an html/javascript combination you can create content that renders correctly on the iPhone, in desktop applications (well, at least on OSX you can use the WebView to render arbitrary html/css/javascript), and on the web. It's also an open stack, which is my largest complaint against AIR.

In the end, though, I think the hard part should be developing the underlying algorithm to display the visualizations you are interested in, and transplanting it to another platform later shouldn't be impossible. Where you start out really depends on what you want to build. ;)

</comment><comment><USER3> I think it depends quite a bit on what your end goal is. If your end goal is to make a desktop application that have a visualization component that runs on the mac, then using objective-c, cocoa and the graphics frameworks in OSX will be great.

If you want the application to be on the web, have a look at Flex for the visualization stuff. It uses Flash to render everything so it works pretty well across platforms.</comment>


LinkedIn Workforce Report – San Francisco Bay Area – June 2017 - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/blog/linkedin-workforce-report-june-2017-san-francisco-ca <comment><AUTHOR> The trend in the bay area seems to be diverging from the rest of the country (post link is pointing to the Bay Areea details, got pointed there via [http://wolfstreet.com/2017/06/04/hiring-declines-in-san- fran...](http://wolfstreet.com/2017/06/04/hiring-declines-in-san-francisco- bay-area/))</comment>


Ask HN: Which service do you use to sell downloads? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER3> I would use gumroad or whatever is easiest/fastest to get it out there. Don't worry about fees and junk right away. Get your product available to sell and focus on selling it. Don't spend a lot of time on how you are going to process money and deliver the product. Focus on the sales. When you have $10,000 in sales and 1% margin starts being worth $100, you can spend a few hours maybe worrying about if gum road is the right choice. Even then, it's probably not worth worrying about.

Just sell things, enough things that it actually matters who you are using for processing. But, with 0 sales, you are doing 0 order processing so it doesn't matter.

<comment><USER4> Gumroad is great for getting started. The only annoying thing I don't like about gumroad is that they don't give you many options for removing the header image or default call to action text on payment pages. Otherwise, it's a fast and clean way to accept payments without hassling with SSL, stripe, etc.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, but something that removes the friction of going from 0 sales and 0% conversion rate and a handful of sales at 1% conversion rate is huge. Most people never even get far enough that changing the logo would be meaningful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I may well be e-junkie's oldest surviving customer, although I eventually transitioned everything off their app into my app with the exception of Paypal IPN processing. They've got almost $500 of LTV from me, $5 a month at a time.

If I were making the choice again today, it would be Gumroad by a country mile. Regardless of whether you end up using them, look up Ryan Delk's presentations regarding the habits of successful sellers (multi-tier products; X 2.2X 5X pricing; email marketing). They'll make you much more successful than the typical person who just throws a $FOO onto the Internet.

<comment><USER6> wait, PayPal doesn't sell downloads? I'm sure they do. I don't know why people use a 2nd service, that charge 1-2% on TOP of Paypal's 2.99%. why? you're still using paypal...

<comment><USER7> People use a second service because PayPal does not offer such a feature.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've sold about a thousand dollars thru Gumroad. [http://gumroad.com](http://gumroad.com)

I like the design. I like the simplicity. People can just use their CC like normal. They take a percentage of your sales, but so far found it worth it.

I wish it had order tracking (just a box I could tick when I shipped something would be nice) but that is irrelevant for downloads.

<comment><USER9> Might just be me, but gumrouad's website offers me no help in trying to make a decision. I'd like to see the actual checkout process and what it looks like but it keeps giving me a signup page.

<comment><USER10> I think Paystr is the way to go. They are new, but they offer a bunch more. Yes, they take a bigger cut than gumroad, but they offer a ton of services for your digital downloads, like support to your customers, if they have an issue, they call Paystr and they will resolve it, you do nothing. Also, if you sell enough, you can get paid THE NEXT DAY. Check them out at [https://www.paystr.com](https://www.paystr.com). If you want to see them in action, go to [http://www.joshuasring.com](http://www.joshuasring.com) and try to buy the book, that's the checkout process. I love how the customer never leaves the site.

<comment><USER11> I clicked on a few links for Paystr and couldn't find pricing information (even on the FAQ). Even a Google search yields nothing. It's a gorgeous layout but I don't think I can bring myself to sign up for a website where they won't be even remotely transparent about their pricing.

<comment><USER12> 25% [http://support.paystr.com/hc/en- us/articles/202097244-Pricin...](http://support.paystr.com/hc/en- us/articles/202097244-Pricing-Policy)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My service ([https://snappycheckout.com](https://snappycheckout.com)) offers a Stripe Checkout like experience and allows you to sell files from Dropbox. It costs 2% or $0.50 (whichever is less) per sale (plus the usual Stripe/PayPal fees).

<comment><USER11> Do you have tiered pricing? Say I wanted to offer a couple versions of a product with a few different levels of features?

<comment><USER7> You can do that in Snappy Checkout by creating separate products. Here's an example of where I do that with one of my products:

[https://www.SingersCreations.com/WeatherWatcherLive/Pricing](https://www.SingersCreations.com/WeatherWatcherLive/Pricing)

<comment><USER11> I really like Snappy (from what I've looked at briefly) but I feel like the pricing options need to be on the main page...

<comment><USER7> Pricing appears on the main page twice -- "You only pay the standard credit card processing fee — plus either 2% or 50¢ per sale". I tried to make it as easy as possible, but it gets a little complicated if you're using Stripe and PayPal -- due to the way the Snappy Checkout fee is charged.

<comment><USER11> Sorry for not being clear. I mean the pricing for multiple tiers of an item I'd be selling. The link you shared (the page looks great) has a button that says "Buy" then takes me to a page with the various pricing options. Does that clear up what I meant?

<comment><USER7> The page (at the above link) with the various pricing options is the only page that is using Snappy Checkout. Inside of the Snappy Checkout admin, I added four products -- so each could have a separate price. And there is a buy button linked to each product.

Pricing for Snappy Checkout is the same no matter how many tiers your item has. It's 2.9% plus $0.30 (for Stripe/PayPal) and 2% or $0.50 (whichever is less) for Snappy Checkout's fee.

If I did not answer your question, then please email me at firstname.lastname@example.com with some more details.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> [https://gumroad.com/](https://gumroad.com/) : nice design + very simple to use

<comment><USER14> Seconded. They've added a lot of nice (and unobtrusive) features over the last year, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> WooCommerce on Wordpress for an ebook/digital package. Free, barring Paypal fees (grmmble - I _could_ use a different gateway, or even BTC, but in the real world PP is my best bet), and user-friendly enough. Has been very reliable over the years.

</comment><comment><USER16> I use e-junkie for growthhackinghandbook.com

Flat monthly fee. Their admin UI is clunky, their checkout pages are basic but functional, but they solve a number of problems* without asking for a percentage cut of sales.

I think for basic stuff they work just fine. I'm just selling one ebook and I just wasn't comfortable with having a cut of my sales taken AND my funds being withheld by a third party before some weekly or monthly remittance. With e-junkie the funds go straight to my PayPal account where I can use the money immediately (I constantly pay for things via PayPal).

*obfuscating download path, handling coupons, handling multiple downloads etc

</comment><comment><USER17> You can have a look at [http://www.fastspring.com/](http://www.fastspring.com/) too. I use them to sell my plugins online. Their support is fantastic.

<comment><USER18> I used them aswell

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I use Avangate - and I love it. They act as Merchant of Record, take care of all sales tax headache, and with just one integration, I can accept payments in every country I have customers in, including the "difficult ones" like Brazil, India or China. Good service, too. Granted their API documentation and general user experience is a but sucky but if you start working with them, you will see why they are successful. If they were a public company I would buy their stock!

<comment> sr-frogs yeah, I use them too and am very happy. perfect for downloads or subscriptions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Our service [https://www.bizify.me](https://www.bizify.me) offers a complete package. Credit card processing is included and also payment by mobile phone (SMS) for many countries. There is also a WordPress plugin and you can install our App on your phone to easily follow your sales. No setup fees, no monthly fees, no fixed transaction fees and the price for a digital product can be as low as 0.1 EUR.

</comment><comment><USER21> I plan on using wordpress and the free paid membership pro plugin ([http://www.paidmembershipspro.com/](http://www.paidmembershipspro.com/)) for my upcoming release.

Let's me sell a per year license with an optional reduced renewal fee at the end of the year, which most services don't seem to easily offer. Also then lets me ties into other things like support forum membership.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm pretty impressed with SendOwl. I like the flat monthly fee and generous bandwidth allowance. So far, I've not done a great volume of sales, but my customers have already remarked on how quickly the 0.8GB video file downloaded. So the core functionality seems sound. I'm looking forward to using their affiliates feature to help market my future products.

</comment><comment> sr-frogs If you are selling internationally, use Avangate.com. It's a platform built for selling downloads online and give you instant access to every major country with local payment methods, etc. I've been selling for 3 years with them and am very happy. make sure to reach out and ask for discounts - <USER2> published pricing is not final.

</comment><comment><USER23> We wrote our own integration into Shopify.com that does RLM-based licensing (a standard in the visual effects software industry.)

</comment><comment><USER24> [http://getdpd.com](http://getdpd.com) is the best option I've found. The interface makes sense, the pricing is super fair, and they allow you to send unlimited updates for free to your users (most other services charge more or, even worse, per update!).

<comment><USER25> No PayPal payments accepted though, which is a showstopper for a lot of users.

From their website ([http://getdpd.com/plans-and- pricing/](http://getdpd.com/plans-and-pricing/)): "What types of payment do you accept?

We accept Visa, Mastercard, and American Express. At this time we only accept payments online so we will not be able to accept a P.O., invoice you, or take an order over the phone."

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://sellfy.com](http://sellfy.com) accepts PayPal

<comment><USER25> SendOwl does, too.

<comment><USER7> [https://SnappyCheckout.com](https://SnappyCheckout.com) allows you to accept Stripe and/or PayPal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> A friend earned quite a bit with his music on CoinDL: [https://www.coindl.com/page/author/139](https://www.coindl.com/page/author/139)

It's bitcoin only though but I like the preview for music and the no-bullshit easy handling.

</comment><comment><USER27> SendOwl ([http://www.sendowl.com](http://www.sendowl.com)), formerly known as Digital Delivery App. No particular complaints, but it's been a while since I've looked at the competition.

<comment><USER28> Thanks for the thumbs up. George, founder of SendOwl

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> For WordPress plugins and themes I enjoy [https://easydigitaldownloads.com](https://easydigitaldownloads.com) It's not perfect, but has some nice plugins (licensing!).

</comment><comment><USER30> Sellfy ([https://sellfy.com](https://sellfy.com)) works great for me. I especially like the feature to use PayPal and Stripe together.

</comment><comment><USER31> Haven't used it, but I think this deserves a mention as it accepts bitcoin: [http://coinlock.com/](http://coinlock.com/)

<comment><USER28> SendOwl also accepts BitCoins

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Plasso (formerly Spacebox) I've been incredibly happy with both the service and the support.

[http://plasso.co](http://plasso.co)

</comment><comment><USER33> I use woocommerce on Wordpress. I have a large number of products, and their cart process works pretty well. Checkout is smooth. Plentiful extensions.

</comment><comment><USER34> I have had good luck with Cleverbridge [http://www.cleverbridge.com](http://www.cleverbridge.com).

</comment><comment><USER35> If you like/use shopify, check out: [https://skypilotapp.com](https://skypilotapp.com)

</comment><comment><USER36> I no longer need them, but in the past I had positive experiences with FastSpring. eJunkie is also a popular option.

<comment><USER37> our experience with fastspring is good as well!

<comment><USER38> Is eJunkie is still flash based? SendOwl or GetDPD have been our two favourites the last few years

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Do any of these services have a good workflow for pay what you want downloads?

</comment><comment><USER40> Bonus if the service is flat monthly fee.

<comment><USER21> More of a bonus if they let you choose. When you're first starting out a monthly fee could likely cost you more.</comment></comment>


How Seattle Killed Micro-Housing - <AUTHOR> http://www.sightline.org/2016/09/06/how-seattle-killed-micro-housing/ <comment><USER2> I am coming to understand that the purpose of almost all zoning regulations is to exclude "undesirable" people from the area. Poor people are considered undesirable. So zoning codes are tweaked until the effect is that high incomes are required.

You have to have a certain cynicism to understand that there is a huge disconnect between what regulations discuss (health and safety; parking requirements; setbacks; etc.) and what is the impact of the rules. The reason rules are made is they have a desired effect. The effects are often not obvious from the language of the rule, but if the effects turn out contrary to the interest of the rule-makers things will be tweaked.

So the language and purported purpose of rules is obfuscation. The rule-makers are paying attention to the effect of the rules. That is their real purpose.

The form of the rules is optimised to make them appear beneficial to all, while the function is optimised to benefit the rule-makers.

<comment><USER3> Oh hi. I'm one of the NIMBYs in Seattle that likes height restrictions and hates micro housing. Across the street there's a halfway house and two blocks down there's an empty lot that is now being used as a sanctioned tenting site for homeless. I have no problem with either being in my neighborhood. I hope they stay. I hope they expand.

>You have to have a certain cynicism

You certainly have to be cynical to believe that somehow Seattle is not operating in its own self interest. As faults are found, we try to correct them. Some are very difficult to correct (hello I5, hello American street widths, hello North Seattle sprawl, hello West Seattle suburban wasteland, hello unlivable industrial area) and some are geographic constrains (hello hills and water).

Making tiny shitty apartments does not correct any of these deep problems.

>The form of the rules is optimised to make them appear beneficial to all,

The form of the rules isn't 'optimised' at all. It's an organic living document called "the law." You apparently think the world would be a better place if developers could make whatever size dwelling they want. I think that happened in the 19th century and the result was skid row. I am not interested in trying the experiment again. I am interested in more housing for my community, but honestly that means rezoning SFHs, not getting rid of height restrictions and parking requirements when they're justifiable.

And yes, my opinion is entirely qualitative. I like 3-4 story buildings because I like them. They have been a staple of the environment that dragged me out of adolescence and into responsible, productive adulthood. They are the good geometry.

<comment><USER4> Hi NIMBY. I'm a former Seattlite millennial who's lived through the 2008 financial crash, the repercussions of a 50% divorce rate, and grew up on the internet.

Growing up in the world I have, I've come to realize physical things weigh me down and participating in consumerism makes me unhappy. Working for 50 years so i can save up enough money to retire at 65 doesn't make sense to me. Why suffer for 50 years so you can live free for a few at the end, when you're old, maybe sick.

I found minimalism, FIRE, and the idea that you ruthlessly reduce expenses for things you don't need.

It turns out... I don't need a one bedroom apartment. I certainly don't need a house. I've lived out of a school-sized backpack for months at a time. Last time i moved, I packed everything I own in 3 hours, moved in one trip in a van, and unpacked in about 2 hours.

I appreciate that you like 3-4 story buildings and your two bedroom apartments. I appreciate you like your parking.

But I don't have enough stuff to fill an apartment. I don't have a car. I don't WANT either of those things. It's okay if you do, but why force me to have them?

> "Making tiny shitty apartments does not correct any of these deep problems."

It's true tiny apartments won't fix being surrounded by lakes, but if 1800 more people can afford to live where, and how, they want... Isn't that a start?

<comment><USER5> Just curious, what is FIRE?

<comment><USER6> Financially Independent, Retired Early

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I lived in Capitol Hill from around 2008-2014 and from what I recall the resistance to Apodments wasn't due to disdain for the working poor. It was that these companies skirted laws by taking advantage of a dwelling being defined by having a kitchen.

The parking was the biggest sticking point. It was already tough to find parking in the area: I would often drive 45+ min circling a several block radius looking for a spot and I had a friend who would just park way outside the area and take a bus to his car. A traditional apartment building with more than some number of units needed to provide parking for residents, but the Apodments skirted that having many separate residents share the same kitchen.

IIRC the taxing for utilities including the sewer system also was determined based on the number of dwellings (kitchens).

The laws and decisions cited in this article all reflect that the buildings would have many residents but for legal purposes were low density housing.

<comment><USER8> The broader context is that much of Seattle is tightly zoned to disallow anything other than single-family homes, which prevents in practice prevents the city from adding modestly-sized cheap units: [http://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2015/7/27/the-65-percent](http://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2015/7/27/the-65-percent)

The micro-housing was a workaround of these laws, which in practice disadvantage the working poor.

<comment><USER9> How does micro housing disadvantage the working poor? Supply and demand would suggest more units = cheaper cost per unit.

<comment><USER10> I think the assumption is that "working poor" living alone tends to suggest couples or even families that this type of housing doesn't accommodate in a reasonable by US standards manner. It's oriented toward second housing unit for out of towners or twenty-somethings who just want a place to sleep.

<comment><USER11> I think that this misses the larger picture. Say I'm a single 20-something who doesn't need a larger place. If there is micro-housing available, I take that, leaving the rest of housing stock untouched. If there _isn 't_ micro-housing available, I have to pay more and take up a unit of housing that could go to the couples/families that need more space/amenities. Net impact of micro- housing is positive from both a cost and inventory perspective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've come to the conclusion reading the comments here on this and on other stories concerning housing in cities with a large number of tech workers that a lot of people in tech do not realize that many people picked the cities they live in and their neighborhoods within those cities because they specifically wanted to live in that city and in that neighborhood.

It seems that a large fraction (most?) of the tech people picked their cities largely because that is where their job is.

People who oppose major changes to the character of their neighborhoods and cities aren't all just worried about the resale value of their house. They often are more motivated by a desire to preserve those features of the area that attracted them in the first place.

Also, I think a lot of tech people forget that there are other sectors that also provide a lot of jobs and bring a lot of money to the local economy. For instance, tourism and hospitality provide a very large number of jobs in San Francisco, and bring in a lot of outside money.

Change the look and feel of San Francisco too much and you could reduce the appeal to tourists. You risk changing it from people thinking of it as going to San Francisco and while there visiting attraction X, Y, and Z to people thinking of it as going to see X, Y, and Z which happen to be in San Francisco. A city will do a lot better with tourism when the city itself is thought of as a major attraction.

<comment><USER13> Meh. Chicago beats San Francisco tourism numbers both in number of visitors and in overall tourism revenue, and while I will forever love Chicago foremost among all US cities, one place where I think we can clearly concede an advantage to SF over Chicago is tourism --- the SF sights, the ocean, the woods to the north, the nearby mountains, Silicon Valley, the Chinese culture, the history of the region. Chicago is practically the apotheosis of "going to see X, Y, and Z which happen to be in Chicago", and it does fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Can someone explain the reasons why there is such resistance to micro apartments from city councils? Fear of increased population density? Neighbours complaining?

<comment><USER15> As a Capitol Hill resident, the resistance isn't that crazy. Over half of Seattle residents rent (it's 16% higher than the national average), and the city is on track to have 60% of all housing be high density housing. This is almost double the national average, iirc.

From a city planning perspective if the majority of your new housing being built is being targeted to mid-20 year olds who just got imported by Amazon right out of college and only need space for a bed, then when those mid-20 year olds become mid-30 year olds and want a family there will be no housing to raise a family in.

Cities need families or the only way they grow is by relying on their major industries to import new residents, which is exactly what is happening with Amazon right now (Amazon has enough office space to employ about 11% of the city, and currently employs ~8-9% of Seattle). This is _really_ dangerous for the long term health of any city.

Seattle is simply making sure that it's being developed in a way that will continue to support its residents as they grow. I live in Capitol Hill, love it, but it's pretty much turning into a big ass college dorm. While anecdotal, everyone I know that is starting a family is headed to Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond, etc...

<comment><USER16> Can these just be designed so you can later combine small units into a larger one later on if needed?

More likely result, if there ends up being a dearth of young single people, is people who commute in from the burbs will buy these units to use during the week and airbnb them on weekends.

And I question that only young people will want these units. I'm in my 50s and would love to have a tiny affordable place in the city, even if I only used it on weekends and airbnb'd it the rest of the time.

Do I want to buy an expensive 2 bedroom with garage in the city? Not really.

<comment><USER17> > _And I question that only young people will want these units. I 'm in my 50s > and would love to have a tiny affordable place in the city, even if I only > used it on weekends and airbnb'd it the rest of the time._

lol so you want a second home in a desirable location, but not too big or expensive, or require too much maintenance, that you use only when it's convenient for you, and that someone else pays for? this is a fantastic idea. i'll take 2.

this is why the housing system is so screwed up in cities. everyone is scheming of ways to make money on their home, or have someone else pay for it, before they've bought it, lived in it, before it even exists!

<comment><USER16> Yeah it has nothing to do with supply, demand, subsidies for mortgages or of the other interventions into the marketplace.

Its people seeking their self interest, as all people tend to do, that are to blame.

If only they would all just stop doing it it so I could pursue my own self interest unimpeded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The article has something of an issue in that its ever-escalating apartment prices are never bound to any material costs--i.e., it doesn't directly acknowledge that some significant amount of that $900 initial and $1400 ultimate cost exist only because they're what the market will bear. More, it seems assume the premise that the only solution to increasing costs is to decrease size.

But do micro-apartments not just exacerbate the actual problem--that decent, reasonably sized homes for people in good locations are too rare or too expensive?

I can understand how these micro-homes might appeal to people in certain circumstances (I spent a while myself splitting a tiny studio in Seattle with a few other people--and that same apartment costs ~3x now what it did when I lived there 5 years ago), but I can't see how the problems these are trying to solve wouldn't be much better solved by building new desirable areas, increasing the supply of good housing, and driving the costs of all housing down.

<comment><USER19> _But do micro-apartments not just exacerbate the actual problem--that decent, reasonably sized homes for people in good locations are too rare or too expensive?_

If there are both families and individuals bidding for those reasonably sized homes, giving the latter a cheaper alternative should reduce for the larger houses, no?

<comment><USER18> It's not at all clear that only individuals would go for the cheaper alternative.

We also already have cheaper alternatives in e.g. studio apartments, and we currently have families living in those.

I don't see how building downwards will solve these problems in a decent way going forward--it seems that it could only continually reduce peoples' living conditions.

<comment><USER4> There is a high end product. I don't need a high end product, but that's all there is. So I have to go for it.

Suddenly, there's a cheaper, lower end product that meets my needs. I go for that, someone who needs or wants the higher end product can go for that.

<comment><USER20> The point is that for many decades the low end product was something like a one bedroom with a kitchen. Now that's being seen as a luxury that we need to build under.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I read this article and didn't like it, but couldn't quite put my finger on what (apart from obvious things like the preachy style).

After a cup of tea, here's my conclusion: this is the housing equivalent of saying we must lower the minimum wage, otherwise employers will create fewer jobs.

It might be correct in a very narrow sense. It still doesn't feel right to me.

<comment><USER22> Yes, it is true that higher wages lead to fewer jobs, all else being equal, especially in the presence of free trade. The difference here is that corporations are not people. I don't care if they starve, as long as the people have somewhere to live.

Indeed, wages that go up increase fulfillment, all else being equal, but housing costs that go up increase civil unrest. It is not good for housing prices to increase unnecessarily.

Perhaps your discomfort is cognitive dissonance? If so, bravo. There are a lot about economics that defy common notions of decency, and you have to push through it to make decisions that bring actual long-term benefits. Human cognition is defective that way, but our remarkable intellect allows us to understand the bigger picture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I thought the reason people hated micro-apartments was because they're used by extra rich people as second houses during the work week. I've only ever heard of them before for living in another city from where you work. Builders keep building those at the expense of normal housing, and young people are stuck with fewer traditional apartments (and therefore higher priced), or one of the crappy tiny places that most of us don't really want, despite how the article paints millenials. I would have loved for the article to research why people oppose them in the first place, other than vague and scary NIMBYism.

</comment><comment><USER24> One thing that can provoke NIMBYs -- understandably -- is zoning changes. If Mr NIMBY buys a home in a neighborhood that is zoned for, say, 20 units per acre, he expects that to remain.

Often a builder requests special permission to exceed the zoning law, and build, say, 80 units per acre -- then solicits public outcry when denied. Zoning law gives owners a legal expectation.

</comment><comment><USER25> I love the apartment shots, they could make it into the centerfold of the "Dwell"[1] magazine no problem. They look like any contemporary European apartment, in such a stark contrast to the stifled, fake Baroque Midwest or East Coast style.

You look at these shots, and you know instantaneously they're from the 21st century, spaces one would actually like to live in. It also looks like living in Seattle is really nice, something I've always suspected.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwell_%28magazine%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwell_%28magazine%29)

</comment><comment><USER26> This is clearly a reaction to a desire to have lower rent. If you reject one option to address a problem then the onus should be on you to come up with an alternative.

<comment><USER27> I'd like a cheaper 2016 911 Turbo or iPhone7. Merely by proposing to PCNA or Apple a way they could do that does not obligate them to find an alternative way to make their product cheaper if they reject my idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Kill a local representative today. Make the world a better place.</comment>


NextEV's NIO EP9 is a four-wheel-drive electric hypercar - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.co.uk/article/nextev-hypercar-nio-ep9 <comment> code-monkey One electric motor per wheel gives the possibility for some really awesome torque vectoring. I could see a machine learning model being used to figure out the torque to apply to each wheel given the feature inputs of turn angle, lateral g, suspension height, tire temp, road temp, humidity, etc.

<comment><USER2> Or you could just solve it analytically, making validation easier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The website doesn't really give a context, but I found this article to be helpful: [http://www.wired.co.uk/article/nextev-hypercar-nio- ep9](http://www.wired.co.uk/article/nextev-hypercar-nio-ep9)

<comment><USER4> Thanks, we changed to that one a while ago. The submitted url was [http://www.nio.io/](http://www.nio.io/) and the submitted title was 'NIO EP9 "Fastest Electric Car in the World"'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why does this site have Baidu ads? It IS an ad.

 _" Each car costs approximately $1.2 million to build."_

</comment><comment><USER6> So, $1.2m and still lags behind the model s for 0-60mph by a wide margin?

<comment><USER7> I'm pretty sure Model S can't complete even half of the Nordschliefe without going into limp mode, so the comparison is not really fair.</comment></comment>


If you think Apple's app store policies are ambigious, try Nintendo's - <AUTHOR> http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/maniac.html

<comment><USER2> Somewhere on Keith Boesky's games industry analysis blog ( <http://boesky.blogspot.com/> ) he draws a parallel between Nintendo's and Apple's "slightly open" marketplaces.

During the games industry crash in the 80s ( [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983) ) there were a glut of low-quality products, causing consumers to turn away from video games. Nintendo entered the scene with a restrictive game approval process - remember the Nintendo Seal of Quality? - reducing the number of games while increasing their quality. In effect, he argues a "slightly open" marketplace rebuilt consumer confidence and raised the Nintendo platform's value.

If you look at the App Store today, there is a closed loop between the iPhone consumer marketplace, app developers, and the App Store platform. Apple's permeable nozzle on app submission increases the value of the platform while leaving most of a free market in place. This draws consumers, increasing the value to app developers.

In short, a slightly-restricted platform can be good for everyone.

I wish I could find the specific article. Keith Boesky is a little tl;dr but quite insightful.

I'd love to hear counterarguments too.

<comment><USER3> Does Apple's approval process actually have that effect, though? The feedback I'm hearing from game devs is the exact opposite of that with Nintendo: Apple lets basically anything through, so long as it doesn't run afoul of a few specific criteria (no porn, no embedded scripting, etc.), regardless of quality. That makes the marketplace as a whole sort of a sludge of junk where it's hard to differentiate yourself--- in contrast to Nintendo's WiiWare, which only releases games that Nintendo considers good enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> While both are stringent and designed to protect consumers, I'm not sure there are many other parallels between the processes of Apple and Nintendo. As a developer who's gone through the process of submitting games many times to Nintendo, these are why it's a far better process than Apple have.

(Note these all apply to Sony/Microsoft too).

1) You can send Nintendo a proposed game design before starting any work and they will approve/deny it. Depending on how much detail you provide, you may only get a conditional approval, but you can submit more information or revisit later in development. If your game never stands a chance of being published, you'll have wasted nothing more than the time to create the documents.

2) If Nintendo have a problem with your game, they will tell you exactly what the issue is. There's no ambiguous reference to some clause. They will say ABC is in violation of XYZ.

3) If your game fails you can get a real live person on the phone or via email to discuss the issue and what would be an acceptable change.

4) Nintendo not only test that your game is compliant, they will test it for functionality and quality too. This is completely the opposite to Apple who will happily allow buggy pieces of crap on the store that meet their guidelines.

5) Nintendo provide comprehensive access to documents and newsgroups that contain examples of common problems and suggestions, from the staff who test the games, in how to avoid them.

There are more I can think of, but these are the big differences. Frankly trying to suggest that Apple's process is in some way better than Nintendo's is just a crock.

<comment><USER5> Some very good points, but something to keep in mind.

There is a much lower bar to creating a phone application than a console application, leading to many, many times the number of applications that Apple must look at compared to Nintendo. To provide that same level of attention and care that Nintendo gives to developers for one of it's (few) products to app developers would be impossible for a company of Apple's size.

Not that I don't think they couldn't do some of the above, and 2 should be a given.

<comment><USER6> First, the point of that is to reduce the number of applications. Second: Apple is much larger then Nintendo, so they have the resources for sure.

Anyway, the free approach of the android market is the best way, in my opinion. Oh, and also, that "free" model has worked for quite some years on PCs, Macs and every other computer, so why shouldn't it work just as fine on a mobile phone?

<comment><USER5> "First, the point of that is to reduce the number of applications"

True, quality over quantity, which I think we will see more of from Apple in the future. The goal at first was to attract as many developers as possible. Now that they have established the store, we will see more discrimination. Hence the removal of the 'cookie-cutter' applications of late. Maybe I'm wrong about that though.

"Second: Apple is much larger then Nintendo, so they have the resources for sure."

True, but they also have many more product lines including a major operating system and much more hardware to support and develop than Nintendo. I was simply pointing out the failures of the comparison.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That was a fun read of an NES game submission...but to compare that with Apple's app store is out of place. Different era, different type of hardware, distribution model, etc. etc.

I've submitted games to NOA for the Gameboy Advance and Gamecube - out of the big 3 (NOA, SONY, MS), Nintendo had the most stringent requirements (not as bad as the article though).

I enjoyed the article nonetheless.

</comment><comment><USER8> That may be true but no Nintendo console has been hailed as the future of computing. They're just game consoles.

<comment><USER9> My mother, who survived a stroke five years ago, spends an hour a day doing physical rehabilitation on her Wii. Her doctors say it has helped her balance, coordination, and confidence. It is the cheapest intervention that has produced the most improvement in her life, and by extension the lives of my whole family.

Not bad for a game console.

<comment><USER10> "It is the cheapest intervention that has produced the most improvement in her life"

Amazing. What games is she using?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My, how things have changed.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFNJfDGSZp0>

Yes, that character at the end gets stabbed through the skull with a sign post.

<comment><USER12> To provide an earlier example (2001):

Conker's Bad Fur Day (NWS for language, I guess): <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w5neFPat1w>

Pretty much anything you can find out about that game is along the same lines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've been voicing this side of the App Store argument for a while. _Nobody_ is as closed as game console companies have been, and they've had an absolute stranglehold on a small but complete monopoly of the game systems. And as chadaustin points out, their earlier attempts at openness screwed them over until they locked it down.

Not to say I _like_ the App Store policies, as I plan to develop some things for it & Android, and would _love_ to have an open-market portal somewhere. But it _does_ make sense that it exists, and the hostility about it is fairly unbalanced in light of other similar systems.

</comment><comment><USER14> Nintendo no doubt knew that they had to establish itself in the minds of parents as kid-friendly (though ironically, these days it seems like they're trying to shake the image of the 'kiddy console').

I wonder if a similar statement extends to Apple. Perhaps they're trying to establish themselves as being idiot-friendly, or at least clueless-user- friendly. Makes me wonder if the irony also applies and they will eventually have to go to great lengths to shake the image of being too dumbed down.

</comment><comment><USER15> The grip Nintendo had on publishers in the US in the 80s was dreadful, as well. By demanding exclusivity with publishers for the US, they ensured that the Sega Master System would stay marginal in this market. It's a shame, because the SMS hardware was superior in every way to the NES.

</comment><comment><USER16> Exactly; closed systems suck. There's a reason why there are only a handful of good NES games but that there are thousnads of good PC games.</comment>


Internet approaches addressing limit - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10105978.stm

<comment><USER2> I read about this in another recent story: [http://news.cnet.com/2009-1023-225712.html&st.ne.fd.gif....](http://news.cnet.com/2009-1023-225712.html&st.ne.fd.gif.d)</comment>