The Ruby on Rails Tutorial, now with Twitter's Bootstrap - <AUTHOR> http://news.railstutorial.org/ruby-on-rails-tutorial-now-with-twitters-boot <comment><USER2> Developers moaning about Bootstrap have fallen into the common trap of seeing apps through developers' eyes.

Please consider that: 1\. Almost no one in the world has heard of Bootstrap. Though it's captured our mindshare as developers, most of our users will not know nor care if the app is Bootstrap or not. 2\. The vast majority of web apps still will not be Bootstrap apps.

Basically none of the general public will say "Hey, this is a Bootstrap'ed application, I'm not using it." They just do not know nor care what Bootstrap is. If it looks professional and works as they expect, they will be happy. If they're happy, I'm happy.

<comment><USER3> The moans are a useful sign of ripeness. So few things are great and tenacious enough to both earn and endure the moans of fashionable early adopters.

<comment><USER4> Great point mechanical_fish, that really sums up the reality of Bootstrap I think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Michael Hartl's book stands out because he keeps it current, a challenge given fast-evolving Rails development practices.

Last year I set out to create a set of example apps to bridge the gap between Michael Hartl's excellent tutorial and the piecemeal advice found on experts' blogs and Stack Overflow. The example apps are accompanied by tutorials (walkthroughs, really, not as thorough or informative as Hartl's book) and show how to set up a Rails app with authentication libraries (either Devise or OmniAuth), RSpec, Cucumber, and popular options such as MongoDB or Haml. Each has a companion application template that serves to generate a starter app. Like Michael Hartl, my contributors and I have seen increasing interest in Twitter Bootstrap and recently updated the app templates to offer a choice of front-end frameworks, including Zurb Foundation and Twitter Bootstrap (either Less or Sass versions). It seems Twitter Bootstrap for the front end is catching on -- fast -- for the same reasons Rails has succeeded on the back end: convention over configuration and a well-crafted implementation of commonly-used functionality.

Here are the RailsApps example apps, now with Twitter Bootstrap: <http://railsapps.github.com/>

</comment><comment><USER6> I think this tutorial is a treasure. It's a great introduction to the entire rails ecosystem, including TDD, git, heroku, and the like. I went through the 3.0 version a while ago, but so slowly (as in, a chapter every couple of weeks) that I forgot a lot of it. To those like myself, working through this in your off hours, I recommend keeping Anki (or equivalent) open and adding notes as you go.

<comment><USER7> I am proud to say it mentions my Ruby on Rails installation guide for Ubuntu and Mint here: [http://ruby.railstutorial.org/ruby-on-rails-tutorial- book?ve...](http://ruby.railstutorial.org/ruby-on-rails-tutorial- book?version=3.2) (the guide itself is here [http://www.mirceagoia.com/2011/11/ruby-on-rails- installation...](http://www.mirceagoia.com/2011/11/ruby-on-rails-installation- ubuntu-linux-mint/) ).

<comment><USER8> I actually used it when I was getting going with Rails. Trying to install rails on Windows was a nightmare. Your tutorial was so easy to follow and was invaluable right after I had switched over to Mint from Mandriva.

<comment><USER7> Thank you very much for using it. I had my share of frustrations installing RoR on Linux so I am glad my tutorial is helping others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is why I stick with Rails; for the mindshare. There are many reasons to be critical of Rails, but the bottom line is that other people generously contribute work like this on a regular basis, making me instantly more valuable to employers or clients.

<comment><USER10> This is a good point, and it's one of the main reasons I prefer open source in general: this is true for almost all fairly active open source projects. However, I'm not sure how this differentiates Rails from some of the other popular web frameworks.

<comment><USER11> Rails is now pretty old (in tech years) and one reason for active participation and contribution to the community is that the Rails team continues promote forward movement in the framework. So Rails is also always new.

A lot of the stuff people moan about (e.g. lack of backwards compatibility and constant breaking changes) is also what keeps it fresh. It's not hard to introduce new best practices because the old ones are continually tossed out. This can't be said for a lot of open source projects that value stability over change. (For some projects, stability is rightfully more important).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> When I tutor beginners in Rails, I always make them walk through this tutorial first. Step by step. Without using copy & paste.

I really like tutoring and I am more than happy to help folks who want to build the next big thing.

However, first I make people write down their idea, set it aside, and forget about it. I tell them not to try to adapt this tutorial to their own idea, but just follow it to the letter and build the example application. It doesn't take that long.

Before anything, you need to know what you need to know. This tutorial has been and continues to be a great way to learn much of what you need to know... then you can go build the next big thing.

</comment><comment><USER13> Also worth checking out, the free part of Railscast's Bootstrap Rails screencast two episoder: <http://railscasts.com/episodes/328-twitter- bootstrap-basics>

</comment><comment><USER14> I think Rails 3 has laid a good foundation to build next generation of web applications, or back end of web apps. With introduction of Asset Pipeline and built-in support of CoffeeScript/Sass etc, it is a lot easier to develop in Rails than before. The performance is still not ideal though.

</comment><comment><USER15> Woohoo. Great timing. Just started re-doing this to learn 3.2. Do you inject bootstrap into the app or use Seyhunak's twitter-bootstrap-rails gem?

<comment><USER16> It's using my bootstrap-sass gem. [1]

[1]: <https://github.com/thomas-mcdonald/bootstrap-sass>

<comment><USER17> I've been wanting to use Bootstrap with some other CSS syntaxes for awhile, and I was wondering how you manage the conversion from less to scss and stay up to date with the latest Bootstrap changes?

<comment><USER16> In general I wait until the new version is merged into master, and I use GitHub's compare view to see all the changes between the latest version and the previous one, which I keep open on one screen and go through each file updating the bits that have changed. For the Javascripts I just copy the whole folder over, since I don't fiddle with those.

The main exception to this was for 2.0, which had a separate branch for a while so that people could still use bootstrap-sass while updating their application to the new syntax. When 2.0 was merged into master, since it had been under such heavy development I reconverted the entire codebase.

There are a few quirks with the conversion from Less to SCSS, but these tend to be few and far between, and are usually down to me missing a variable somewhere. The main one is the use of namespaced mixins[1]. SCSS doesn't support this, so I have to prefix/suffix the namespace to each mixin within the namespace. Aside from that, and method names/variable notation, there (appears to be, can't speak authoritatively since I haven't really used Less) little difference between the two.

[1]: <http://lesscss.org/#-namespaces>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is awesome! Thanks for providing such a valuable resources to Rails newbies!

</comment><comment><USER19> Interested in the rationale to choose bootstrap-sass over bootstrap-less. I chose the latter, though can't say I know enough about the divide to feel strongly one way or the other. It works well enough.

<comment><USER20> <http://wrangl.com/sass-v-less>

Particularly: sass == Ruby. less == JavaScript.

I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it's probably "why".

<comment><USER19> Sure, I guess that simplifies things from the tutorial-user's standpoint...I had just wondered about the state of the sass maintainer keeping up with bootstrap updates. Though I'm sure bootstrap changes come infrequently enough that that's not a huge burden (?)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Very glad to see this! Bootstrap saves us a lot of time.

</comment><comment><USER22> Can anyone recommend a similar tutorial covering one of the python web frameworks? (i.e. complete ecosystem - git, testing, deployment)

</comment><comment><USER23> I just finished this tutorial yesterday actually. I personally don't care so much about the web design aspect as much as the RoR logic and techniques. Are there any major things in the new version in that department that I should be aware of? Edit: I loved the tutorial by the way - thank you so much for putting the time and effort in to writing it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nope, the logic is just the same. So many people requested Bootstrap that I determined the market demand warranted the extra effort. But given your situation and goals, it sounds like there's no need for you to re-do the tutorial.

<comment><USER23> Thanks! Keep up the great work!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm glad I saw this, I had to clear my cached pages to see that Blueprint was swapped out in Chapter 5 for Bootstrap. Now this will give me another chance to play with Git :) This was already a brilliant tutorial, but this has made it even better since I was looking for an opportunity to experiment with the Bootstrap framework, thanks!

</comment><comment><USER25> This tutorial is amazing, and even more amazing now. Thanks Michael.

</comment><comment><USER26> Do you have any estimation on when this latest version will be available in print?

<comment><AUTHOR> The print edition is typically available 4-6 months after the final files are submitted to the publisher. Yes, that seems like a long time to me, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I have to reinvent myself, newer, better and with bootstrap, twitter of course

</comment><comment><USER28> This is a great resource.

</comment><comment><USER29> designers are obsolete.

</comment><comment><USER30> "Due to popular demand,"

Wait? What??

<comment><USER31> The previous thread on the new version of this tutorial had a few commenters (and votes) on updating it to use Bootstrap.

<comment><USER30> fair enough, but I still question why a tutorial needs to be rewritten to make use of a different CSS framework. Are there that many people forking this tutorial that they want something cleaner to work with? I just don't get it.

<comment><AUTHOR> The full "rewrite" took less than two weeks, and much of that was redoing screenshots and mockups (easy, dull work).

The motivation for the change was to please readers. Happy readers make for a happy author. Among other things, happy readers buy ebooks and screencasts. For a free online book, the Rails Tutorial makes a surprising amount of money. I'd like to keep that record going with the 2nd edition.

<comment><USER30> I think I misunderstood this whole thing! The tutorial was rewritten to make _use_ of bootstrap instead of blueprint. Not the rails tutorial site was rewritten to be designed using bootstrap. It all makes sense now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This makes me want to cry

<comment><USER20> Elaborate? I'd love to know why. Is it because you're against bootstrap, or you don't like the entire tutorial, or...?</comment></comment>


Should I learn Python, Perl or Ruby? - <AUTHOR>

People say don't use Ruby because of the small community outside of the web and others say don't use Perl because it's "old."  I don't really like the syntax or Python that much(I know I know).  Which would be the best choice for simple scripts, and to eventually move on to bigger projects. <comment><USER2> Ruby on Rails</comment><comment>---(then Python,</comment><comment>-- then Perl)

Ruby is easier to pick up with a much more active community. It really depends what you want to build:

Python- If you need to build a site quickly that is mostly information based such as a blog or some kind of editorial site. I'd choose python with django. The automatic admin section is great for this type of task.

Ruby- If you need to build something with a lot of popular features (twitter, mash ups, simple shopping carts, etc..) and don't have time to really learn every little detail. Ruby using Rails might be a good solution as there are thousands of demo and live applications out there to borrow from. Should reduce your development time.

I throw out an line of demarkation....For example comparing the ways that Python and Ruby address Meta-programming, I think, will illuminate which for you is more interesting (which fits your brain better)

I use Ruby on Rails the most.

In the end...learn them all.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you have a negative outlook on all 3, why not find a language that you do like, and start from there?

I think one of the easiest things to learn (the basics, not the fine intricacies) right now, thanks to the explosion of web technologies, is Javascript. You already have an environment to run it in (any browser), and if you actually like it, you can advance to something like Node (ignore the hyperbole around both it's magical properties and it's carcinogens) to write "bigger" projects in.

But overall, take pilot_pirxs' advice. He is spot on.

<comment><USER4> Good point. Node is as much for CLI as it is for web servers; plenty of libraries to make that and web scraping easy, and you get to have the browser as an environment. Lots of mileage there.

<comment><AUTHOR> What are some resources to get me started with Node?

P.S I have no knowledge of Javascript

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> They are all great for simple scripting with the ability to move into larger scale projects. I've been highly productive in all three with ruby probably being my favourite as I liked the syntax and flow of it a lot more than the other two. From my experience perl readability was always the most difficult, coming back to something I wrote a couple weeks later I felt like it was complete gibberish whereas ruby was much easier. The ruby community is huge, the libraries are endless and there is no lack of documentation out there. In my opinion ruby is where you should start.

</comment><comment><USER6> I just started studying a year or so ago, I looked around and saw more suggestions to start with Python than others. I don't remember seeing much about Ruby but I'm reading up on it as I get deeper into Python, they're relatively similar but I haven't had enough time with Ruby to understand it's philosophy.

Python is fun! I expect Ruby to be just as much, if not more so, I'm looking forward to it. Ultimately, I advise that you play around with different languages until you find one that you enjoy, that's a pretty significant factor to learning imo.

</comment><comment><USER7> for simple scripts: doesn't matter

for larger projects: depends on project

<comment><AUTHOR> Website scraping, simple websites, execute tasks quickly from the Desktop

<comment><USER8> Sites like Scraperwiki work great with Python, PHP and Ruby. Take a look at their examples and see which ones make the most sense to you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I prefer python or javascript, but really, just pick one. Chances are you will have occasion to learn them all to some extent. I would shy away from perl personally. Although it has a huge install base and CPAN is expansive. It doesn't seem as popular these days and you'll likely have a hard time finding as many up-to-date examples for current use cases.

</comment><comment><USER10> Ruby has a huge community, and is very flexible. Python is not as flexible as ruby (this is true when you do a lot of meta programming). But, the real reason you should use ruby is, because you don't like the syntax of python. I wouldn't want to work with something I don't like. And you can use ruby even in apps which are not web apps.

<comment><USER11> You can use Python in apps that are not web apps, and not to be argumentative, but I would guess that if we were comparing which of the two languages was more popular for things that aren't web apps, Python would win by a very large margin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Why the "or" specifically? In my opinion, it's probably best to learn them all.

</comment><comment><USER13> It depends on your philosophical bent.

</comment><comment><USER14> Pick Python or Ruby and just go with it they both are pretty similar.

Perl is fine too but python and ruby are going to be a bit easier to do webby things with them (in regards to getting started).

</comment><comment><USER15> python

</comment><comment><USER16> perl</comment>


Scientists Are Racing to Build a Better Diet Soda - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-19/coke-pepsi-seek-diet-soda-s-perfect-sweetener <comment><USER2> Is there any reason not to just use artificial sweeteners besides unfounded fears in the public? And would all this research money not be better spent on advertising and attempts to influence public perception?

<comment><USER3> >Is there any reason not to just use artificial sweeteners besides unfounded fears in the public?

artificial sweeteners stimulate appetite and promote weight gain [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/pdf/yjbm...](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/pdf/yjbm_83_2_101.pdf)

Aspartame and depression: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935)

SURVEY OF ASPARTAME STUDIES: CORRELATION OF OUTCOME AND FUNDING SOURCES [http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html](http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html)

>And would all this research money not be better spent on advertising and attempts to influence public perception?

I guess if you're selling artificial sweeteners...

<comment><USER4> >artificial sweeteners stimulate appetite and promote weight gain

Just like all studies seeking to link artificial sweeteners to weight gain, it's a correlational argument that is not specific to artificial sweeteners. The "neurobiology of food reward" is the exact same for sugar and artificial sweeteners unless you happen to be purposefully depriving yourself of calories, in which case the sweetener cannot be blamed.

The heart of the problem is psychosocial, not biochemical. Overweight people are more likely to choose reduced calorie foods than people who are not overweight.

There is also such a thing as cognitive bias. People who are overweight and/or trying to lose weight will often end up using their exercise and calorie reductions as "credits" toward food choices (e.g., 'Since I'm having a Diet Soda, it's OK if I get the Extra Large fries because the calories cancel out') and don't actually end up burning more calories than they take in.

If you could demonstrate in controlled conditions that (ideally more than 13[1]) people who eat and exercise in moderation suddenly start gaining weight when artificial sweeteners are added to their diet (or losing weight when they are removed), it might be an interesting finding.

>Aspartame and depression

[1] - "Despite the small n" ... possibly the understatement of the century.

>SURVEY OF ASPARTAME STUDIES

If anyone has actual evidence of failure to disclose a conflict of interest in a published study, then it should be reported to the relevant institutions, not used as a platform to denounce all research on a topic.

<comment><USER3> >If you could demonstrate in controlled conditions that (ideally more than 13[1]) people who eat and exercise in moderation suddenly start gaining weight when artificial sweeteners are added to their diet (or losing weight when they are removed), it might be an interesting finding.

I'm not into psych/medical research, but even in the hard sciences it is often difficult to have enough data to point to a conclusion so unambiguously as to be obvious

>If anyone has actual evidence of failure to disclose a conflict of interest in a published study, then it should be reported to the relevant institutions, not used as a platform to denounce all research on a topic.

That sounds wonderful but in the real world moneyed interests have and use their means to promote their worldview. Medicine, food, and diet-related markets are lousy with overly ambitious marketers and outright frauds. I did not "denounce all research on a topic" I was responding to another poster who appeared to want to dismiss anyone's concerns about the potential health risks of artificial sweeteners.

<comment><USER4> >difficult to have enough data to point to a conclusion so unambiguously as to be obvious

You are right, but that also cuts both ways, which is why we rely on consensus. And the consensus of the international scientific community (not just the FDA or any such organization by itself) is that artificial sweeteners are safe.

You are also right that CoI is not always a black-and-white issue, but that doesn't mean suspicions should be withheld from regulatory bodies and the publishing journal(s). Writing an OpEd on a personal webpage is not the most effective means to expose CoI, and, more importantly, such articles do not immediately overrule all consensus.

If you _really_ believe that the majority of studies involving the safety of artificial sweeteners are wrong, the best course of action is to demonstrate it empirically by duplicating the experiments and coming up with different data.

Put together a reasonable paper, and other researchers will take note of it-- even if you believe the conspiracy theory that all major journals are puppets of the food industry. Ultimately, the data will trump the politics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is probably a crazy idea: drink less soda.

When it comes to pop, I usually stick to cola - and when it's cola I'll never buy it unless it is made with real cane sugar. Boom, potential side effects of artificial sweeteners are gone, and the drink tastes way better. And just drink more water. Why is this so hard for people?

<comment><USER6> "When it comes to pop, I usually stick to cola..."

As someone not from the Northeastern USA what does that even mean?

Pop, cola, soda and more regularly "coke" (the word not the brand) are all used to refer to soft drinks in general.

<comment><USER7> In this case, "cola" indicates a particular flavor[1] of soft drink (Coca-Cola and Pepsi being the most popular).

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

<comment><USER4> The kola nut is actually no longer a dominant flavor in modern colas:

>Despite the name, the primary modern flavoring ingredients in a cola drink are sugar, citrus oils (from oranges, limes, or lemon fruit peel), cinnamon, vanilla, and an acidic flavorant.[2][3]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cola#Flavorings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cola#Flavorings)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> TL;DR: You don't have to use it in the manner in which it is packaged.

Another trick: Cut your soda with water.

I think it's still preferable to avoid soda, but if you like the taste and/or want a bit of a boost, try mixing it 50/50 with water. Or less.

I like Coke Classic this way.

Or, particularly on a hot day, pour over a glass full of ice. Slowly sip away as the ice continues to melt.

I still think this is a slippery slope towards greater consumption, including refilling the glass. But, I can enjoy a bit of cola flavor without taking as much of the sugar hit that is increasingly taxing as I continue to age.

I also agree as to cane sugar if you can as well as no artificial sweeteners.

<comment><USER9> My father told me that my grand parent used to cut Coke with carbonated water when it first appeared in Argentina because of two reasons 1- it was very sweet and the people wasn't used to that. 2- because it was very expensive.

He said that the 750ml bottle was enough for the 4 member family, one glass per person. When the 1L bottle came out, it was a problem they didn't know how to hand out the remaining, so they decide to have another child, my uncle.

<comment><USER9> BTW my grand parent is 87 today and is very healthy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> For me, I see no real value in the 33%-less-sugar Stevia-sweetened drinks like Coca-Cola Life. To me, they taste distinctly unlike the full-calorie versions, but with 2/3 the sugar, they are still something I'd prefer to avoid. Maybe it's positioned for people who hate diet soda and have just enough willpower to avoid full-calorie soda, and need a little excuse to push them over to a drink that tastes somewhat better than diet soda and somewhat worse than regular. I wonder how many of those people there are.

<comment><USER10> Thank you! I tried Coca-Cola Life last week on a whim and was disappointed in both the flavor and that it was still loaded with sugar (and thus calories). There is no taste to it other than _sweet_ \- none of the citrus, caramel, or other types of flavors you expect in a cola.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Could try not making it sickly sweet. Might even boost sales.

<comment><USER12> The reason Diet Coke is so sweet is that it is an entirely different formula from Coca Cola Classic. It is more similar to the ill-fated New Coke, a product that was designed to be much sweeter because market research and focus groups determined that people tended to prefer sweeter colas (New Coke, of course, failed because it alienated Coke's market base, since people who preferred sweeter sodas would have already started drinking Pepsi and New Coke gave those individuals no reason to switch brand fealty.)

<comment><USER13> Diet Coke is sweeter? To me it tastes like overly-carbonated ashtray. One of the few diet drinks I don't like, because I find it not sweet enough. ;) I knew that Diet Coke was its own formula and Coke Zero was meant to taste like Coke, but to me Coke Zero/Coke taste sweeter than Diet Coke.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Why don't they just use xylitol/isomalt or any of the other natural, calorie- free, nice tasting sugars?

Presumably because they're expensive, but if sold in bulk I'm sure they could bring prices down acceptably...

<comment><USER4> High consumption of sugar alcohols causes GI upset in a lot of people, which is why you usually only see them used in small quantities (gum, mints, or non- edibles like toothpaste and mouthwash).

Russel-Stover makes sugar-free chocolates, peanut butter cups, and other confections that rely on sugar alcohols and sucralose to replace the missing sugar. They carry a warning on the bag that eating more than 3 pieces may cause diarrhea.

<comment><USER13> Yup, I have a huge sweet tooth but I try to stick to a keto diet because it has helped me keep my weight down without having to be hungry. I have personally experienced the intense regret of eating an entire package of maltitol chocolates/gummy bears on multiple occasions. It's a good way to train yourself not to each so much freaking candy in one sitting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Sweetener shenanigans that have gone on at the FDA: The Miracle Berry Conspiracy [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/homaro-cantu/the-miracle- berry...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/homaro-cantu/the-miracle-berry- conspir_b_3020765.html)

[http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-11-25/news...](http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-11-25/news/30440982_1_berries- sugar-industry-sugar-free)

We might already have a better sweetener if it weren't for stuff like this.

<comment><USER15> Have you ever tried miracle berries? I have, in a demo they did for us at Cantu's restaurant. It's not a sweetener. It alters your sense of taste, for a fairly long period of time; it changes how _everything_ tastes. It's really cool, and you should (if you haven't already) order some and play with them yourself. It's hard to see how they'd displace aspartame, though.

<comment><USER16> I've always wanted to try those, but at first I couldn't decide to order in some online shop, and next time I looked the shop had closed.

I think they wrote something about not being allowed to sell miracle berries in the EU, because it was categorized as some dietary supplement or so, without the necessary certifications.

<comment><USER15> The best way to think about them is that they "filter out" sourness, which you perceptually register as increased sweetness. It doesn't do much of anything to bitterness. Lemons and fresh tomatoes are two things that taste very different on miracle berries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wonder why there's such an obsession with ZERO calories. Why not a middle ground? Maybe you could achieve a better flavor and attract health conscious people with like 50 calories.

<comment><USER18> Isn't that what Coke is trying with Coke Life?

<comment><USER17> Yep, you're right. I didn't get that far in the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Aspartame gives me headaches, but I like the taste of sucralose and ace-K (acesulfame potassium) together. They help to cover each others' funny aftertaste. But Pepsi One is discontinued, and I can't find any other colas like that.

<comment><USER20> oh man pepsi one is discontinued? Crap! That was my go-to diet cola.

<comment><USER19> Yeah, middle of last year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> its called water</comment>


Ask HN: How big is your IT staff? How big in YC companies? - <AUTHOR>

In the second edition of my ebook "12 Things to Reduce Your Lead Time and Time to Market" I would like to know about the optimal percentage of IT staff depending on company type. Obviously there is a correlation between the size of IT and time to market (the bigger the better?) and I would like to include this in the next ebook. I've also created a survey monkey form
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=N3_2fcIesPy8lFdzvHTor2cw_3d_3d
It would be kind if you could answer 5 questions (30 sec max :-) Thanks. <comment><USER2> _Obviously there is a correlation between the size of IT and time to market (the bigger the better?)_

No, actually. It's certainly the case for start-ups that smaller is better. Smaller is more nimble, more creative, less politics-driven, and forced to focus on what matters (because you can't afford anything else).

I'd say a team of 2-4 technical founders/early employees is ideal, though it's certainly possible to do it with just 1. More than that and you'll spend more time managing staff that building things.

Of course, it all depends on what you're building, too. However, to reduce your lead time, reducing the team size is a good thing for start-ups.

<comment><USER3> I don't care what it is but anytime anyone makes a statement on HN there's always someone waiting to say, "No, actually."

Look - there's no way you can definitively say, "No" or "Yes" because there are so many different situations. Funded vs. non-funded, competitive market vs. build the market, require proprietary hardware vs. web app, etc. How the hell can we say, "Smaller is better" if we are trying to build a legitimate competitor to Google? Clearly it hasn't been (historically speaking).

Enough with the absolutes - there is a correlation between the size of IT and time to market _in many situations yet in others there is none._</comment></comment>


Using WhatsApp for low-tech distance learning - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2020-08-whatsapp-low-tech-distance.html <comment><USER2> yeah, that's a really good initiative. Thanks for sharing buddy!</comment>


Ask PG: Does smoking marijuana affect the ability to hack and run a startup? - <AUTHOR> Throw away account. I have a startup in San Francisco, and smoking weed actually is quite therapeutic. It is an outlet for stress and the never-ending wall of burden. Development and startups are evolving so fast, and it often feels like you are never adequate. You always need to be learning and using X new language or technology. My startup is the hardest thing I've done so far in my life.
The culture of San Francisco also is heavily accepting, even promoting of smoking marijuana. Often times it feels like some of the best hackers I know smoke on a regular basis.
However, there are noticeable side-effects. Some short term memory loss, sometimes I find it difficult to stay focused, on-task, and motivated. On the flip side, I do some of my best hacking high. I'm able to focus on a single problem; become tunnel vision. Problems just become simpler.
Thoughts? Can, and should a startup founder, as a leader, and public face of a company smoke? Can you be an amazing hacker smoking consistently? <comment><USER3> Smoke weed if you like but don't kid yourself it's making you better at your work, ezpecially if you do it regularly. If you need stress relief, get good rest and exercise.

I've seen several promising friends fizzle and burn out because they started needing to have a smoke for breakfast. Just keep it to the occasional party and try to phase it out completely as you continue the process of growing up.

<comment><USER4> "The only pot smokers _I know and am aware of_ are burnt out, so they all will burn out! Oh and it's immature, whatever that means."

Sorry for the snark, but when there's clearly a visibility problem, these one- off negative anecdotes given as universal observations and advice are nearly useless.

<comment><USER5> Look, I'm all for legalization, but let's not kid ourselves.

Alcohol doesn't make you more sociable. Tobacco doesn't make you look cool. And weed doesn't help you relax.

Or rather, all of the above certainly do that, but there are ample alternatives that do it better and have zero consequences for your health.

<comment><USER6> Have you ever known someone who uses marijuana medicinally?

<comment><USER5> No. What precisely is your point? That there are legitimate uses for weed? Ok, agreed.

There are legitimate uses for alcohol too. Great disinfectant. Great at cleaning mechanical parts.

Doesn't mean drinking half a bottle of vodka a day will make you a great business leader. Smoking weed won't make you into one either.

<comment><USER4> Comparing getting high in your free time to drinking half a bottle is so disingenuous, it's actually embarrassing to watch you do this.

That, and you know what, going around calling everyone "kids" because you can't formulate an argument makes you look bad, not the "kids" you're looking down on.

You're so clearly unwilling to even listen on this issue, it was apparent from the get-go.

I'd hate to ever get caught eating a piece of chocolate in front of you. You'd probably slap it out of my hands, call me a fatty and tell me there are healthier ways to make myself happy.

<comment><USER5> Maybe if you weren't so high when you wrote that reply, it would have actually made sense.

> That, and you know what, going around calling everyone "kids" because you > can't formulate an argument makes you look bad, not the "kids" you're > looking down on.

I never called anyone kids?

> I'd hate to ever get caught eating a piece of chocolate in front of you. > You'd probably slap it out of my hands, call me a fatty and tell me there > are healthier ways to make myself happy.

If you were sitting in front of me, eating a piece of chocolate, telling me how eating that chocolate is going to make you a better business leader ... well, I'd be making fun of you just as much as I'm doing now =)

<comment><USER4> >Maybe if you weren't so high when you wrote that reply, it would have actually made sense.

Are you kidding me? How petty, childish, immature and snarky can you be about this? What an obvious defense mechanism. (The irony being I'm in the middle of a two month break from using anything as I'm traveling).

I didn't claim it would make me a better business leader. I claimed it wouldn't make me a worse one and you've done nothing to show otherwise but offer a single stupid anecdote to dismiss everyone else.

And yes, you've three times now implied (or explicitly said) that anyone who even smokes pot _occasionally_ needs to grow up. (Imagine the absurdity if I said that about having a beer. And you're already jumping to a million conclusions in your head _that you know nothing about_ ). You're a smug person latching to stereotypes. A tough anti-drug guy (proudly) making fun of people for what they do in their spare time. Just like I said: preconceived notions and judgmental condescension. Thanks for confirming all of my suspicions from my very first post in this thread.

All gay people I know have lisps, so they all do; don't you know?

<comment><USER6> You think he is bad here? Just read his comments. They speak plenty about his character.

<comment><USER5> LMAO! You created another throwaway account to post this? How insecure are you?!?

<comment><USER6> This isn't a throwaway...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This seems like a silly question to be aimed at PG. Why would he have any special insight on this?

> Development and startups are evolving so fast, and it often feels like you > are never adequate. You always need to be learning and using X new language > or technology. My startup is the hardest thing I've done so far in my life.

Always X is always wrong. There are always exceptions. Often, your always is the exception rather than the norm. As I look the tools people are using today, I feel like we have barely moved. Developers are using the same tools, they have just got a little heavier.

The founders would rightfully be stressed, but isn't it their jobs to protect developers from all that so they can focus on their jobs? Again, I would think that high stress would be the exception rather than the norm for anyone not actually running the company. Why should you be stressed if you don't own the company? The unemployment rate for developers is low enough that you can just get another job if the company fails. Right? That's not to say you shouldn't be packing a mighty can of whoop-ass in the name of your company, but you don't need to kill yourself either.

> However, there are noticeable side-effects. Some short term memory loss, > sometimes I find it difficult to stay focused, on-task, and motivated. On > the flip side, I do some of my best hacking high. I'm able to focus on a > single problem; become tunnel vision. Problems just become simpler.

A lack of focus is a side effect of some of the worst blockers of productivity. That includes lack of sleep, drinking alcohol (and the hangover after,) being sick and burned out. This would overrule any perceived gains for me. Does it matter that you are able to do better hacking after smoking weed? What are you working on? Slow and steady is generally a winning strategy as long as you are shipping. Sometimes you have to put in relatively heavy hours to accelerate this, but you get there eventually. It doesn't have to be a work of art, it doesn't have to be brilliant, just ship the dang thing and move on.

<comment><USER8> _This seems like a silly question to be aimed at PG. Why would he have any special insight on this?_

PG doesn't shy away from identifying characteristics of founders/YC alums.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> OP, I don't mean this to be negative or mean but I'll say it because I'd want someone to say it to me.

You need to look inside yourself and decide what is right for you and your circumstance. Certainly you cannot expect PG to issue an edict down from the clouds. You are pandering to your role model/idol/God figure to approve a behavior whose merits you haven't decided for yourself.

Furthermore, it is a fact that PG is infinitely wise when it comes to succeeding in startups but as a community of people that look up to him for his advice and indirect mentorship I'd rather we not request his 'judgement' on matters like this because of the disproportionate weight his words carry.

</comment><comment><USER8> _Development and startups are evolving so fast, and it often feels like you are never adequate. You always need to be learning and using X new language or technology._

I think this is a myth. Yes, there's a romanticism of the culture of being cutting edge. Truthfully, those that ship well, and actually turn profits for founders, are most often running on 15+ year old languages.

</comment><comment><USER10> Pot should be recreational, not something you need.

      It is an outlet for stress and the never-ending wall
      of burden. Development and startups are evolving so
      fast, and it often feels like you are never adequate.
      You always need to be learning and using X new language
      or technology.

I ran my own tiny business for a while and the "always on" syndrome was definitely the toughest aspect. Felt like I should always be doing something... 24/7/365.

It was very tough to disconnect my mind from work. It was exhausting and very tough on my personal relationships! I feel you there.

Thing is, pot is only ever (at best) treating your symptoms. It's not fixing any of the root causes of those symptoms, the things that are making you feel like you need to be always on.

1\. Exercise, a good diet, and sleep may seem boring as hell but those are really how you strengthen your mind and body to deal with stress.

2\. Also don't forget to feed your soul. Meditation, prayer, whatever works for you. I'm an atheist and there are lots of ways to meditate that don't involve believing in the supernatural.

3\. Adding some structure may help with the "always on" angst. Make Wednesday afternoons or Sunday mornings (or whatever) the time when you play with new languages, so you don't feel like you have to be doing it 24/7.

4\. Have a good note-taking system (moleskine, note app, whatever) so that you can record thoughts and to-dos, rather than having 50 things bouncing around in your head that feel like they need to be acted upon immediately lest you forget them. "Getting Things Done" is big on this; it's worth at least skimming that book for ideas because even if you don't adopt the whole system there is some seriously good shit in there you can poach.

</comment><comment><USER11> As a hacker you can probably get away with it. If you're a 10x hacker, maybe you'll be an 8x hacker that's less stressed and more happy. Depending on how you handle stress, maybe you'll be more effective overall. It's a tradeoff you can make with yourself. (Be sure to stay legal and get a prescription.)

While you're leading a company, don't. Being a good leader requires a great memory. If you forget half of what was said on Fridays because you smoked that night, you're hosing everyone.

</comment><comment><USER12> While Steve Jobs is an entrepreneurial outlier, and I recommend against smoking weed often simply because it can be a crutch for psychological issues, Jobs had an interesting history of LSD and cannabis use: "The best way I could describe the effect of the marijuana and hashish is that it would make me relaxed and creative" [1]. And then went on to found what became the most valuable company on the planet.

[1] [http://archive.is/20120916001237/http://www.smh.com.au/techn...](http://archive.is/20120916001237/http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology- news/jobss-pentagon-papers-kidnap-fears-drug-use-and-a-speeding- ticket-20120612-206yr.html)

<comment><USER13> I've seen a lot of articles stating that when you're tired the mind is more 'creative' irrespective of drug use. If pot can be used as a responsible tool for 'creativity' its one thing, but I've had childhood friends that have smoked heavily since they were young and are literally in a permanent state of arrested intellectual development.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Rather than posting this as an 'Ask PG', why don't you actually go read some books on the topic? This reminds me of Randy Cohen talking about all the people who email him asking for permission to do blatantly unethical stuff.

<comment><USER15> What would be interesting is if one of those link bait psuedo tech publications decided to use the, um, Betteridge-esq headline and actually do that research which you suggest.

Seems as if that would collect a bit of attention. And if the publication then issued a press release (if they actually did their own research and/or surveys) the mainstream press would pick up on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If anything affected my short term memory adversely, I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you drink alcohol?

<comment><USER16> Ahem, the same question seems to have been posted and deleted from a different account, which I know courtesy HN Notify. Others may have gotten similar notifications. Let's say the other account name has something to do with server-side javascript.

snoop_a_loop, if you are serious about protecting your identity with regards to this thread, consider deleting it immediately.

<comment><AUTHOR> I know you want to show everybody how clever you are, but come on, this comment is not productive. I ask that you restrain yourself from being a troll, and be respectful.

<comment><USER16> A troll? I'm not hiding behind a throwaway account, asking for opinions justifying a drug habit.

If you're not the other guy, no harm done. If you are, consider that I could have been trying to be helpful. Clearly you consider anonymity important enough to be using a throwaway account.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think it is still taboo among most VC's and angels. Founders are supposed to be cookie-cutter stereotypes who fit a pre-established program. Your personality / public face can be "challenging" but not challenging, if you know what I mean.

<comment><AUTHOR> Everybody accepts drinking coffee or caffeine, but its clearly "performance" improving. There is even a culture of providing adderall to employees if they want. Do investors frown upon those activities?

<comment><USER17> Employers turning a blind-eye to intra-company dealing / distribution is not at all a new thing but I don't think that was the poster's question. I think the poster was talking about open-ness and public face. Again, for VCs and such -- and although that crowd will sometimes deny this -- founders are supposed to be cookie cutter stereotypes.

An openly pot-head founder risks offending or scaring customers or buyers or later investors. It also indicates some who doesn't get the "performative" aspect of being a commodity founder: the expected degree of conformative role playing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "smoking weed actually is quite therapeutic. It is an outlet for stress and the never-ending wall of burden. Development and startups are evolving so fast, and it often feels like you are never adequate."

My advice? I will fall back on the saying "if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen".

There are many reasons why someone might have to medicate themselves if they have a situation that is not under their control (family problems, health as only two). And I"m not saying that someone _should medicate_ themselves in those situations but just that it's more understandable when you have to deal with some external things that you have little or no control over. But with respect to "getting ahead" if you can't take the pressure, and you need to medicate, you should seriously consider setting your goals a bit lower. To me if you are thinking of this as a "never-ending wall of burden" then you have not chosen the correct career path.

Of course others may disagree and feel differently but I've seen to many people reach for the brass ring and as a result of pressure which they can't handle fall into some dependency or behavioral problem as a result of that dependency.

<comment><USER18> I have to say, the idea of lowering my goals in light of increasing stress haunts me at night. It would be so easy (or at least it feels that way now) to just stop being ambitious and stop chasing the dream, as stress levels increase along with risks. I just can't do it. Even though it's intensely stressful at times, I think that striving for a grand goal is a part of who I am, in much the same way that my personal stress tolerance is. If I was going to change anything, it would be to reduce my stress through any other means than to stop trying to achieve more than I am physical capable. I take nootropics, stimulants (light ones, these days, though I had previously been on much stronger ones) for cognitive/performance enhancement so I can excel further than I would be able without them. I could have removed the need for them, but that, to me, is a far worse fate.

Just my thoughts.

<comment><USER15> See now everyone (investors, friends, perhaps even a spouse) is going to egg you on because they won't have to clean up the mess that _might_ result from the amount of stress you are putting yourself under.

(I say "might" because I don't know enough about the specifics of your situation.)

But I do know that for sure anyone who eggs you on will have no detriment to the choices that you have made to get ahead.

I do understand how you have to do this because everyone else is taking that route.

Back in the day I never even tried pot. Or cigarettes. And everyone else was doing it back then. But then again it wasn't used to enhance performance or get ahead. So I can't honestly say what I would have done if faced with a peer group that was using performance enhancing drugs that I had to compete with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> At the risk of enabling some questionable behavior (i.e. asking people on the internet for advice regarding something so controversial), I would say don't do it. It will probably save you trouble, and thereby save me trouble as well. Note that I have not addressed whether anyone has a reason to listen to me in particular on this topic.

</comment><comment><USER20> i cannot get anything done after smoking except for couching, lazy remote operation, eating and sleeping. if i have anything to get done (which is 99% of the time), i don't smoke. my buddy, however, smokes whenever he's awake and is the most productive/brilliant engineer i've ever met, i don't get it.

<comment><USER21> You may want to try a couple of varieties of pure Sativa. You may be one of those people that is sensitive to the CBDs in weed. Higher concentrations can make you sleepy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Obviously not PG, but I do have an opinion so here we go.. ;)

It entirely depends on the image you're looking to present for yourself. If you are comfortable with being a smoker and people judging you and your company by that, then by all means continue.

There are some that will judge you poorly in any circle but a majority likely will not care.

My only advice is don't look to others/the culture to justify a behavior. In the end it has to be your decision and you have to own it. I think most people would be surprised by the number of their peers who have made this choice.

</comment><comment><USER23> Your crutch is not an asset.

<comment><USER8> Ditto on reliance on caffeine.

<comment><USER24> Ditto on reliance on food.

<comment><USER24> To be clear, I am not being facetious. If you want to throw around cut-throat, myopic terms like "crutch", then let me first note that caffeine is a performance-enhancing nootropic; and I've worked with a developer who never once ate lunch in my 6 months working along side him. I personally eat lunch maybe once a week.

And honestly, I smirk at people who do eat lunch. And it goes without saying what I think of leisure-lunchers.

<comment><USER25> Why would you smirk at people who eat lunch?

<comment><USER24> Well, I wanted to give a "frank" tit for tat, to anyone who might argue this "crutch" position.

I personally enjoy the pain of hunger as I code. That's why. I smirk in that I more fully realize my difference from others when I know they clearly do not enjoy that pain. I'm surely not saying it makes me better or smarter. I smirk in that I, in a way, come to know myself better: that I enjoy the pain of hunger, and what it looks like of others who do not, given the context.

<comment><USER24> Hm. I suppose that said it doesn't "go without saying." I'll recant there and say that I think leisure-lunching is, in my view, a kind of "crutch." Nourishment is essential, leisure is not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If you think it helps you, do it. As a startup founder, you should have enough critical thinking ability and confidence in yourself to know what works for you and what does not. However, I see no reason to be open about it, especially to investors. No investor is going to say "he smokes weed, therefore his company has a higher chance of being successful."

So smoke if you want to, but keep your mouth shut when talking to people with money.

This is a pretty good life rule.

</comment><comment><USER27> When I was 17, after a good night's sleep and a good breakfast, I smoked two bowls and then went to do an intelligence test (a real one with supervision, which took several hours to do).. scored 142 out of 145 possible for that test, during which I finished a set of 50 logic puzzles which wasn't really intended to be finished (the idea was how far you get in 5 minutes). I never dared to take another test since then, there is no way that is my actual IQ; I had a good day and was "in the zone".

But I also tried to smoke continuously, and that did _not_ work out well for me. I think it's like a glass of wine can be nice, but being tipsy _all_ the time is not, not to mention being really drunk. I would say, don't spoil this wonderful plant for yourself by abusing it (not to mention the temporary damage you can do to yourself with it). I think it was George Carlin who said he writes his material sober, but then smokes a joint to make the finishing touches. I can see how that makes sense, but I don't know how much it applies to programming. This is for you to find out, carefully.

</comment><comment><USER28> I'm a founder of a well-funded venture-backed startup. I wear many hats: product manager, coder and growth hacker to name a few. I smoke weed every day, sometimes multiple times per day. I have a few observations about working while smoking.

I cannot and do not smoke when I need to interact with my employees, investors or partners as I find it very hard to be at my sharpest wit verbally. So when my schedule calls for that, I skip.

However, there are many other times when I find my smoking to be a secret weapon: 1) There is zero question that I'm at my most creative when smoking. Sometimes a solution to a product or marketing challenge seems hopeless. In that instance, a smoke seems to unfog the mind and ideas that I never had sober just jump into my head. Good ideas. Ideas so good that if anyone around me knew how I came up with them, they'd probably be shocked. 2) Coding - <USER2> smoke will focus me for hours on coding. Sometimes I have a smoke, start coding and what feels like a blink of the eye is 3 hours of the most productive coding I'll have all day. It's false to think that the code is of poor quality, quite the opposite. I find that the mental model sustained in my head while coding becomes even more clear - it's like instead of just visualizing the model, it's like I'm inside it.

Some commentors have complained that they become lethargic or foggy. I'm sure that individuals react differently, but what I've found is that Indica strains should be avoided - they tend to have that effect on almost anyone. But a high-quality Sativa makes me alert, creative and highly motivated.

Look, everyone is different. What works for me may not work for you. But I wouldn't shy away from it if you think it helps you. Just keep it to yourself and those that you trust and let everyone else judge you by your results.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, great reply.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> (throwaway)

Hi. I'm a software developer that smokes multiple times daily even as I work (remotely).

Started smoking weed semi-regularly when I was 15. It helps me get over certain anxiety issues. Never really kicked the habit, but I never really felt like I wanted to except to pass a drug test.

It was a little harder to find a job after college. I have quit for small periods of time while looking for a job. But my clients and I are happy. Isn't that what really matters?

On being a public face: Are you setting up your company's culture and image? It's up to you to decide if the risk of fallout is greater than smoking your nugs IF the public finds out.

On being an amazing hacker: Maybe. I'm not old enough to have put in my ten years or 10k hours for 'expert' status as a software engineer yet. I do not consider myself to be a 10x (engineer), but I'm definitely not a 1x either.

Background: B.S. in EE/CmpE, software engineer (Rails primarily right now) and sysadmin

</comment><comment><USER30> I smoke every day medically as it helps with managing the daily nausea, vomiting, and cramping pain that my IBS presents me. I am very young for most software engineers in my field, and I work at a startup that was recently funded. Before I started smoking daily, I was missing loads of work because of pain. Now, I wake up early every morning to smoke so that I can actually function. Marijuana has not improved my skills as a hacker, but it has enabled me to spend more of my life doing what I'd like to be (programming) instead of dealing with a disease. I can vouch for the therapeutic effects of the drug too, and I know that for some people it is what they need to get things done. In moderate amounts, I don't know how it is fair to say that drugs like Prozac and Riddlin are acceptable for the workplace any more than pot.

</comment><comment><USER31> For a great bit on the benefits of rec use of weed, YouTube "Joe Rogan on smoking weed". By far the best take on the modern advocate.

My personal take is that its both a tool for self examination and insight, yet also promotes play. Used with good intention it can be super powerful in getting your shit together and loosening up too. Used as a distraction it's no different than needlessly checking social media, watching too much porn, lottery tickets or cheeseburgers.

If you haven't smoked in 5, 10 years. Try it again with a close friend and go baked to the movies, go eat somewhere awesome, and go back to the house and watch that pink Floyd DVD. Post your trip report in the comments. :)

</comment><comment><USER32> I don't use anything except coffee, but I know some extremely talented coders who smoke (outside of work) to help with stress/anxiety/focus. It's probably something you have to evaluate for yourself, as it affects everyone differently. If it's helpful to you and improves productivity, I don't think there's anything wrong with it as long as the benefits outweigh the negatives. Maybe try tweaking how much or how frequent you smoke to see if you can reduce the side effects.

Btw, I've known founders who smoke. The only people who might care in SF are more conservative VCs etc.

</comment><comment><USER33> I don't have a problem with it (when I finish school I'll probably do that too). But it is a crutch. That said, feel free to use it until you feel like you no longer need to (or if it becomes counter-productive), just like a real crutch. Same applies to caffeine, adderall, cocaine, opiates, sugar, anything. If it gets to the point that you need help (fairly uncommon with pot, but it still happens), don't hesitate to get any.

Responsible drug use includes knowing how people respond to drugs, and knowing how you respond differently than other people to drugs...

</comment><comment><USER34> Believe that your high can come from coding stone cold sober. I can get so freakin high from rockin on some awesome shit. I'm poppin tictacs wih spearmint gum. Last I checked? (never) they don't cause short term mem-loss... As for start up stress - that's part of the gig you pay for trying to make a go of it. You need both of these to get through it: Fucking good friends and/or employees who have your back & seriously long term vision. Believe in what you're doing and you will succeed.

</comment><comment><USER35> "Problems just become simpler"... here is my story about that!

I've smoked ever since I was 14. Most of the time about once a week, at times not smoking for a year, and sometimes all day for months.

Smoking very frequently has a negative effect on me when it comes to business. I have more trouble finding motivation and caring, I am less in control of myself and get along less easily with people.. I become a feral hacker pretty fast.

On the other hand, I find a lot of benefits in smoking occasionally.

It seems pot disconnects you from your "hard-drive". You have problems pulling data that is otherwise readily available, and much that happens when you smoke doesn't seem to get stored at all.

So what's the advantage? Well, it doesn't seem to affect what's in your "RAM". You're like a super AI with a completely fresh storage and barely any data. Now data in most cases is useful, specially when you're trying to reproduce things that worked previously. When you hit a wall though, it can become a burden.

Most of you probably remember the sentence "You must unlearn what you have learned"! Except in this case, you lose factual data, but not cognitive processes. You certainly won't suddenly be able to levitate, but it's amazing what the brain can come up with when you lose track of all the common practices.

I've done a year of math prep in one of EU's hardest universities, and it was amazingly hard. Trying to solve any of the problems while high would lead to a ton of execution mistakes (copying stuff wrong, losing track of what you were doing etc), and was generally bad. Being slightly high for a test would cut my grade in half.

On the other hand, on many occasions, I spent a couple hours attempting to solve something from any possible angle and failed, like solving a rubik's cube and always coming back to the same configuration. Then at some point, later in the day or week, I'd think about that problem again while being high, and have my mind elegantly walk through the complexity of it and see the solution.

I spoke about it with people at that school who smoked, and most of those who were naturals at math seemed to have had the same experience. Ever since, I've had it happen to me on many occasions about different implementation/design challenges. I've worked with other people who were occasional smokers, and sometimes when failing to solve problems (more policical / vision related than technical), mention them again when we were high, and have extremely interesting things come up.

Obviously you want to review / implement / apply those new ideas when you're sober, because you need to run them through your experience and memory extensively, but weed can be a great source when you need an alternate angle of approach.

</comment><comment><USER8> _The culture of San Francisco also is heavily accepting, even promoting of smoking marijuana._

Your startup is in SF, so this is probably relevant, but there's absolutely nothing that requires a startup to be in SF. It can be in Austin, Brussels, Sydney, Fargo, or Bangalore. If you feel that local culture acceptance is a reason for, then you've already answered the question if you start up in a locale where it isn't.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> So retarded, seems my post got flagged. Mysterious dropped from the front page to page 3. Not sure why, there is some great discussion and feedback here. My biggest complaint about HN is that its not a true democracy, there are a few with god powers that influence all the content.

<comment><USER36> it's not mysterious at all, it's the "controversial" filter - it got more comments than votes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can't wait for people to come out of the closet on this issue. It's just like gay people. Ask anyone from CO or WA how many people have come out as private pot smokers.

Can't wait for uninformed and inexperienced judgement that will be raining down in this thread. A bunch of people saying a bunch of ridiculous things that they'd never say if they knew how many people smoked around them and don't tell them. Same _exact_ scenario as homosexuality. And I say this as someone who faces far more stigma as a smoker than I do as a gay guy. Which is ironic, because it's same conversation "Oh you're gay? You smoke pot? Would have never known!" ... Duh.

/me gets popcorn. Hey this registering one-off troll accounts for new threads is kinda fun! Glad it still is encouraged.

<comment><USER37> You sound hysterical.

<comment><USER6> How so?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> The OP is asking about 8 different questions...

Lets unpack some of them...

Will VCs be more likely to invest if they know you're a pot smoker? Unless they are also a pot smoker probably not. Pot is associated laziness.

Will VCs be more likely to invest in your crazy idea you had while high? If they don't know you had it while smoking pot then probably.

Is smoking pot good for writing bug free boiler plate code? Not in my experience.

Is smoking pot good for making revolutionary breakthoughs by approaching the problem from a new angle? Possibly.

Can you endear great engineers who smoke pot by having a 420 friendly culture? Most definitely.

Realistically, if you want to smoke pot then smoke pot. Your startup is a lottery ticket, smoking pot doesn't change the odds in any significant way. The asking for permission attitude seems more detrimental than pot smoking ever could be.</comment>


Caterpillar Ventures Invests in busybusy - <AUTHOR> http://www.caterpillar.com/en/company/innovation/caterpillar-ventures/news/caterpillarventuresinvestsinbusybusy.html <comment><AUTHOR> Our marketing and sales teams will be running a fantastic booth at ConExpo in Vegas next week giving demos and answering any questions. I'm on the front end web team, which is built on Ember.js, so I can answer lots of questions about that part of our stack. We also have native Android and iOS apps.

I, for one, am extremely excited to have CAT on board and supporting the work we're trying to do.

Right now, we're mid relaunch with a freemium model, and our billing model inspired by Slack's usage based billing

\- About busybusy: [https://busybusy.com/](https://busybusy.com/)

\- Our app: [https://busybusy.io/](https://busybusy.io/) (freemium with free trial)</comment>


What Is A Canonical URL?  - <AUTHOR> http://mrjavo.com/2008/02/12/what-is-a-canonical-url/ <comment><USER2> See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL_normalization></comment>