Hubble takes gigantic image of the Triangulum Galaxy - <AUTHOR> https://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1901/ <comment><USER2> One of the largest known stars is VY Canis Majoris. It's in the Milky Way and has a diameter of 2 billion km. Triangulum is ~2.7m ly (2.5e19m) away. That's an angular diameter of 2e9/2.5e19 or roughly 1e-10 radians. Imagine a star this size in that galaxy.

A red blood cell has a diameter of ~8e-6m. Pick up a mechanical pencil sitting around you with a .5mm lead in it. Study the tip of that pencil and imagine 60 little red platelets lined up in a row fitting across its width. Now pick up one of those little red blood cells and stick it to a window. Then get in your car and drive 8e-6m/1e-10 or 86km away and look back across the (flat, obviously) Earth to that window. As Triangulum rises over the horizon on the other side of our window, that little red blood cell would _fully eclipse_ our remote twin of VY Canis Majoris.

I don't know if I'm seeing individual stars in that zoomable image, but if I am I don't understand how we make optics that good. (Caveat, Hubble's resolution is rated at ~2.4e-7 radians, so it's likely that those blobs aren't stars, or my math is off somewhere.)

<comment><USER3> Its worth mentioning that VY Canis Majoris has a mass of "only" 17 Solar masses (+-8). This means it has a very low density.

"Despite the mass and very large size, VY CMa has an average density of 5.33 to 8.38 mg/m3 (0.00000533 to 0.00000838 kg/m3), it is over 100,000 times less dense than Earth's atmosphere at sea level (1.2 kg/m3). " [0]

Often these huge but low density objects are incorrectly rendered like our Sun with a "hard" surface. I think it's a pity because they are even weirder and more fascinating objects than that.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VY_Canis_Majoris](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VY_Canis_Majoris)

<comment><USER4> How is that possible? And how can that be determined? I'm both intrigued and in disbelief. Does it not collapse due to internal pressure from fusion reactions? Is that just heat, or radiation pressure too? Have I just answered my own questions?

<comment><USER5> It's important to note that the average density is low, it doesn't mean it's uniformly that dense. I cannot speak for this star in particular, but a lot of variable stars expand and contract so fast that material actually bounces off of it sending out a shell that may or may not re-coalesce or continue going off into space. The shell continues to glow due to the heat it already had, and the heat it receives from the main part of the star.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> There is a zoomable view at [https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1901a/zoomable/](https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1901a/zoomable/)

<comment><USER4> What is that bright blob/nebula thing in the upper right of the zoomable image? That is really pretty. Also, if that's closer than the galaxy how come we can't resolve individual stars in the blue haze?

<comment><USER6> NGC 604 — a gigantic gas cloud in the Triangulum Galaxy

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was having trouble making sense of the figures in the article: "three million light-years", "40 billion stars"...

So I visited Scale of the Universe [1] to try to get a grip on things. Wonderful site (and music!), but I think it had the opposite of the desired effect. I am now completely numb to any notion of trailing zeros.

[1] [http://scaleofuniverse.com/](http://scaleofuniverse.com/)

<comment><USER8> Your comment reminded me of the Total Perspective Vortex - "the TPV is the only known means of crushing a man's soul" :)

[1] [https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Total_Perspective_Vortex](https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Total_Perspective_Vortex)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I love these kinds of things so much. It makes the universe feel so massive and vibrant with infinite potential. The sea of stars that make up that galaxy is absolutely staggering.

Suppose you were on an earthlike planet orbiting some star near the center of it. Do you suppose the "night sky" would be about as bright as day due to the number of stars?

<comment><USER10> Yep, space is just _IMMENSE_ , and this reminds me of the reason why I like exploration in Elite Dangerous so much - a very beautifully rendered space game. With a highly realistic space model, it even gets darker as you reach the galaxy edges.

Apologies in advance to the real scientists here for my naivete, however: As we know there's billions of galaxies too - it makes me feel like everything is just a big Mandelbrot set. We've picked galaxies on the top end, and atoms on the other, but is that really where it ends, or is it just the edges of our ability to perceive?

<comment><USER9> To my amateurish understanding, it does go smaller than atoms, with subatomic particles like protons which themselves are made of quarks. Beyond that string theorists would say that there would be strings and that's it. Others might say some kind of quantum foam.

Going up, galaxies make up groups which combine into superclusters that form the cosmic web of the observable universe.

So for all intents and purposes, we can essentially say the universe and the various scales are infinite because it may as well be for humans.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Some might mostly know this Messier-33, or M33 as an object that may be found with binoculars or a small scope.

I have seen that bright star forming region in telescopes and it always blows me away to think it is a nebula in another galaxy. The closest thing we have to a large star forming region is the Orion nebula but the one there is so big that if it were where the Orion nebula is, our solar system would be inside it.

</comment><comment><USER12> My God, it's full of stars!

<comment><USER13> Judging from the downvotes you should maybe add where this quote comes from...

<comment><USER14> [https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Zoom all the way in [1] all the way in to get some feeling of the huge number of stars. Then think about every one supporting its own civilization at a scale greater than ours. An awesome thought.

I sure hope interstellar travel is something that intelligent civilizations do, our galaxy is full of them, and the Fermi paradox is because Earth is in some sort of nature preserve situation, not because of a great filter we are yet to encounter.

[1] [https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1901a/zoomable/](https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1901a/zoomable/)

</comment><comment><USER16> Does anyone know if bubble images are "true color"?

<comment><USER17> Don't know specifically about this one but many aren't. The Pillars Of Creation isn't[1]. Also we humans can never see most of space in "true color" with our own eyes, even in a telescope, because the brightness of the incoming light is so low that our eyes are detecting the photons via color-insensitive rods rather than cones. Only a time-lapse photo can bring out the real colors.

[1] [http://hubblesite.org/image/351/news_release/1995-44](http://hubblesite.org/image/351/news_release/1995-44) \-- "The color image is constructed from three separate images taken in the light of emission from different types of atoms. Red shows emission from singly-ionized sulfur atoms. Green shows emission from hydrogen. Blue shows light emitted by doubly- ionized oxygen atoms."

<comment><USER18> This one [-7] is visible-light and doesn't look too different, though. The infrared one [2.4] looks very cool, too.

[-7] [http://hubblesite.org/image/3471/news_release/2015-01](http://hubblesite.org/image/3471/news_release/2015-01)

[2.4] [http://hubblesite.org/image/3475/news_release/2015-01](http://hubblesite.org/image/3475/news_release/2015-01)

<comment><USER19> The first image [-7] is basically the same as the classic WFPC2 image jzl was referring to -- i.e., using the same mapping of emission-line filters to R, G, and B -- just using a newer camera.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hypermodern Python - <AUTHOR> https://cjolowicz.github.io/posts/hypermodern-python-01-setup/ <comment><USER2> So cool, from zero to consuming a REST API, to click app in one article.</comment>


Better Git configuration - <AUTHOR> https://blog.scottnonnenberg.com/better-git-configuration/ <comment><USER2> I want to also recommend the following:

git config --global stash.showPatch true: A recent addition to git which defaults the -p flag to `git stash show`; meaning `git stash show` shows the diff from that stash (should really be default...)

git config --global rebase.autostash true: will automatically stash and unstash the working directory before and after rebases. This makes it possible to rebase with changes in the repo.

git config --global log.decorate full: Always decorate `git log`

<comment><USER3> Other settings I appreciate:

        rebase.autoSquash true

When committing you can specify --squash=<commit> or --fixup=<commit>, `git rebase -i --autosquash` will then automatically move and mark the relevant commits in your rebase queue. Setting autosquash into your config enables it by default for all interactive rebases.

        user.useConfigOnly true

that's really convenient when you routinely use multiple identities on the same machine (e.g. personal and work): by default if you haven't configured an identity locally git will fallback to global, and then to _guessing based on your current user and machine_.

useConfigOnly mandates an explicit configuration, then you can just remove any global user or email, and git will _require_ the correct configuration of any local repository before allowing commits.

        alias.original "!git show $(cat .git/rebase-apply/original-commit)"

when performing a rebase (interactive or not) it can be difficult to remember what the original intent of a specific commit is when it's mixed with conflict markers. This shows the original commit being rebased.

        alias.git "!git"

I regularly type "git", go do something else, remember what I wanted to do and type "git <command><return>". This makes "git git git git show" work instead of barfing.

Finally

        merge.tool <yourtool>

Will automatically use the specified tool when invoking "git mergetool", if you like external utilities to perform merges or conflict resolution (e.g. emerge, kdiff3, araxis, vimdiff3, meld, etc… the list of builtin tool support is accessible via "git mergetool --tool-help")

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This has saved me:

        git config  --global pull.ff only

I can always override an individual pull invocation with either "git pull --rebase" or "git pull --no-ff", making it a conscious choice when a fast- forward pull is not possible.

<comment><USER5> Oh wow, this must be a recent feature, I remember looking for a way to configure `--ff-only` by default a few years ago and it didn't seem possible. I ended up making a git alias of `git puff` which calls pull with the `--ff- only` flag.

<comment><USER4> Looks like it showed up with commit b814da891e, and has been around since Git v2.0.0.

The online docs mention it in Git v2.1.0: [https://git-scm.com/docs/git- config/2.1.0](https://git-scm.com/docs/git-config/2.1.0)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Oddly, the author recommends signing commits, yet uses only fast-forward merges. Little do they know that signed commits necessarily can _not_ be resolved as fast-forwards in a merge situation, since that would require changing the signatures!

Rebasing is the answer, but that will of course re-sign every commit with your key. In a shared repository, I prefer creating "useless" merge commits to changing other peoples signatures.

<comment><USER7> Perhaps I misunderstand you, but a fast forward merge isn't really a merge (there is no merge commit) and by definition doesn't change any commits. So it doesn't require changing any commits, and therefore no signatures need changing either.

Is there some other part of a workflow that you're inferring here that will need changing commits?

<comment><USER8> If you have a feature branch with multiple commits signed by multiple people, does rebasing that not invalidate the signatures (changes the parent and thus every hash)?

<comment><USER7> I see. The rebasing you mention is part the implied workflow I was missing. I see it now. Yes - if the rule is that merge commits to master are not permitted (ie. all commits must be rebased onto master first), then of course one person cannot rebase someone else's signed commits without losing those signatures. Thanks.

Theoretically one could devise a tool which allows each contributor to re-sign (in the correct order), but I'm not aware that any such thing exists, and it'd probably be too impractical anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here's one: Use:

        git push --force-with-lease

Instead of

        git push -f

(Obviously ideally you'd never do either, but sometimes life happens.)

The advantage of the former over the latter is that it won't push if you haven't already seen the ref you're overwriting. It avoids the race condition of accidentally "push -f"ing over a commit you haven't seen.

(Why this isn't the default, I have no idea.)

<comment><USER2> Yes, force-with-lease is really useful. I set it up as an alias of git fpush, and have never used push --force since.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I really like diff-so-fancy [1] highlighter as a pager and to review diffs. Previously discussed here on HN here: [2]

[1]: [https://github.com/so-fancy/diff-so-fancy](https://github.com/so- fancy/diff-so-fancy)

[2]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11057421](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11057421)

</comment><comment><USER11> Some good tips in here. I also like to add the following alias to give me a more condensed log with graph & tags:

        hist = log --pretty=format:\"%C(yellow)%h%C(reset) %C(green)%ad%C(reset) %C(red)|%C(reset) %s %C(bold blue)[%an]%C(reset)%C(yellow)%d%C(reset)\" --graph --date=short

<comment><USER12> I have a similar one:

        lg2 = log --graph --pretty=format:'%Cred%h%Creset -%C(yellow)%d%Creset %s %Cgreen%cn%Creset %Cblue(%cr)%Creset' --abbrev-commit --date=relative

Shows dates at the end, in a relative format (2 days ago, 29 hours ago, etc) and the tags/branches before the commit message.

<comment><USER13> So do I! lg = log --color --graph --pretty=format:'%Cred%h%Creset -%C(yellow)%d%Creset %s %Cgreen(%cr) %C(bold blue)<%an>%Creset' \--abbrev- commit

<comment><USER12> Date before author? Blasphemeeeeeeee†!

† [http://oglaf.com/assorted-fruits/](http://oglaf.com/assorted-fruits/) (sfw)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I will never understand why people hate merge commits. It's an accurate history of what happened, and can be useful in tracking down bugs.

<comment><USER14> It's a trade off. In my opinion when using rebase you don't lose history or make it inaccurate. A bug would still be introduced by the commit that made it, so tracking down bugs with bisect or other tools works the same. The main advantage is that your history is much cleaner.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> One thing I like to do is alter the coloring as an aide for `git status` which is giving "changed" a yellow as an intermediary color

        [color "status"]
                added = green
                changed = yellow bold
                untracked = red bold

</comment><comment><USER16> Many git alias ideas: [https://github.com/gitalias](https://github.com/gitalias)

Improvements and pull requests are welcome.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm a long time vim user and my brain is wired to reach for the keyboard shortcuts in vimdiff to jump from diff to diff. Also, I really love diffing entire trees in one vim session using the DirDiff plugin ([https://github.com/will133/vim-dirdiff](https://github.com/will133/vim- dirdiff)).

Here's how I wire it into my .gitconfig, which gets me the alias "git dirdiff":

      [difftool "default-difftool"]
        cmd = gvim -f '+next' '+execute \"DirDiff\" argv(0) argv(1)' $LOCAL $REMOTE

      [difftool]
        prompt = false

      [alias]
        difftool --dir-diff

... I like to use gvim to open new windows separate from my terminal, but if you prefer you can just use plain vim in there as well.

Also, if using vim for viewing diffs, you might want to hack vim's config as well to make it look good. I like to (effectively) disable folding of lines with no diffs so I can still read the whole file- I use the shortcuts ]c (next diff) and [c (previous diff) to jump around diffs. I also like to disable editing in diff mode.

Here's my diff-related .vimrc hackage:

      if &diff
      	set lines=60 columns=184
      	set foldminlines=99999
      	set nomodifiable
      	set nowrite
      endif

<comment><USER18> The last section should be:

      [alias]
        dirdiff = difftool --dir-diff

<comment><USER17> Copy/paste fail... Thanks for catching

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I have a dedicated Git tmux tab for every repo I'm working on, in that tab I use a git shell. Initiated by this bash function:

        # A nice shell prompt for inside git repostories
        # Shows a short status of the repository in the prompt
        # Adds an alias `g=git` and makes autocomplete work
        gitprompt() {

            __color_bold_blue='\[$(tput bold)\]\[$(tput setaf 4)\]'
            __color_white='\[$(tput sgr0)\]'

            export GIT_PS1_SHOWDIRTYSTATE=true;
            export GIT_PS1_SHOWSTASHSTATE=true;
            export GIT_PS1_SHOWUNTRACKEDFILES=true;
            export GIT_PS1_SHOWUPSTREAM="auto";
            export GIT_PS1_SHOWCOLORHINTS=true;
            . /usr/lib/git-core/git-sh-prompt;

            local ps1_start="$__color_bold_blue\w"
            local ps1_end="$__color_bold_blue \\$ $__color_white"
            local git_string=" (%s$__color_bold_blue)"

            export PROMPT_COMMAND="__git_ps1 \"$ps1_start\" \"$ps1_end\" \"$git_string\""

            # Short alias for git stuff
            alias g=git

            # Make autocomplete also work fo the `g` alias
            eval $(complete -p git | sed 's/git$/g/g')

        }

So I have this in my `.bashrc` and when I want my bash to get a handy Git prompt I type `gitprompt`.

You do need the file `git-sh-prompt` which should come with git, for me it's located in `/usr/lib/git-core/git-sh-prompt`. It's also available here:

[https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/contrib/completion/gi...](https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/contrib/completion/git- prompt.sh)

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm going through my gitconfig and I'm realizing there's ALL THESE really nice shortcut I literally never use.

<comment><USER21> Same, it's hard to break one's finger memory when you're used to e.g. typing `--force --no-verify` in full all the time. Although imo those should always be typed out in full.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Seems like most of these enhancements have matching features in emacs's magit, which also offers many others.

Which is not to dismiss these: Using magit involves its own cognitive load.

</comment><comment><USER23> > I will never accidentally create a merge commit

What is the big deal about creating a merge commit? It that because you only merge in `origin` (wherever that lives)?

<comment><USER24> This really depends on your style of using git. If you are rebasing (or otherwise changing history), merge commits can come back to bite you. You've got to make sure that you are dealing with the correct side of the branch. One side will have the history you need, while the other side may not. This can lead to serious weirdness like git reverting changes without telling you.

If you are not changing history, then merge commit cause no harm at all. You've got to be a bit careful about reverts and again choosing the correct side of the history, though.

IMHO, the rebasing style is great when you are working with a group that understands how git is working under the hood. As long as they don't do anything to break stuff, then it's very nice. If you are working with a team which a bit more laissez fair, then merge commits are generally safer -- just make sure to tell then _never_ to change history (rebase, force push, etc).

If you mix the two, you will be spending the odd afternoon piecing your git repository's history together by hand. It is seriously not fun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This references my Git Horror Story article from 2012. Which is fine, but note that git has evolved a lot since then, and you should also seek out some of its more modern conveniences (this thread's article mentions a number of them). I've been telling myself I'll update this article for the past few years. I'll get to it eventually.

As an alternative to git's aliases: if you're sick of typing `git' all the time, feel free to adapt this little script to suit your needs (allowing you to type e.g. `a' instead of `git add' and such, with tab completion):

      https://gitlab.com/mikegerwitz/git-shortmaps

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm a git noob. I realy mis an option to simply backup my current work situation to Git and work further on it on another machine, or simply later with the knowledge that everything is safe on the server. Currently I have a big list of commits called "Backup" which I always push immediately. It's ugly. Is there a way to save to the git server your current situation with bothering others working on the project with your commits?

Maybe this is simply not what Git is made for and I should use Git from my NextCloud folder to have my data safe on a server?

<comment><USER27> Sounds like you want to work on a separate branch. Also sounds like you'd want to rebase onto the correct branch when done, so that you can reorganize commits

<comment><USER26> I do work on my own branches indeed. But something like "git sync" would be nice, no commits, no mess for your collaborators or in your Git history, just my current work, safe on the server, to be synced elsewhere without formally committing anything so that commits can be real improvements that require a commit message. Git sync would be the equivalent of hitting ctrl-S working on a doc in a Dropbox folder. You hit ctrl-S, boom it's safe on the server. I'd setup git sync to sync regularly and allow you to go back in time, or if you want, completely back to the last formal commit.

Git feels so local and thus vulnerable to theft, breakage, power outages etc.

<comment><USER28> > I do work on my own branches indeed. But something like "git sync" would be > nice, no commits, no mess for your collaborators or in your Git history, > just my current work, safe on the server, to be synced elsewhere without > formally committing anything so that commits can be real improvements that > require a commit message.

You seem to be hung-up on commits or have an inexplicable aversion (IMO) to committing to a private, expendable branch. Git made branching cheap and easy by design - you can go crazy on your private 'backup' branches without having to add detailed commit messages. When you are happy, you can rebase or squash merge into the 'real' branch with proper commit messages and delete the backup branch. This will not create a mess for collaborators or your Git history (after you've deleted the ephemeral branches).

As a matter of fact, you could create an alias for 'git sync' that does the above in the background, if you find the individual steps too tedious to manually type in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Don't set fsckobjects=true. There are normal repositories that have broken trees which will not download if you have it set. Yes it is irritating and I would rather turn it on, but I had to turn it off after several repos failed for me.

Git doesn't check validity of commit hashes by default: [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/binary- transparency/...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/binary- transparency/f-BI4o8HZW0)

<comment><AUTHOR> Wouldn't it make sense to turn that off per-project when you encounter it?

<comment><USER29> That wasn't a hassle I was willing to deal with, I guess at least know that you're going to be doing that if you enable it.

IIRC, the jquery repo was an example of one with a bad object hash.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> When I want/need to customize this much, I tend to think poorly of the tool.

<comment><USER31> I'm guessing you don't like Vim or EMACS then? Or the command line in general?

Most of the development tools I use on a regular basis tend to be extremely customizable, and I regard that as a Good Thing.

<comment><USER32> To each their own. Sure my coworkers complain about this or that annoyance in WebStorm or whatever that they can't customize or fix, but then they never lost the better half of a day to ~/.vimrc so...

I can see it both ways. I'll choose customization, but I wouldn't fault someone for expecting a good out-of-box setup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> There are some good tips there, like using GPG. I am definitively going to get that set up for my project.

Now, I always merge with no fast-forward because it creates a commit for the merge that you can revert.

        git merge --no-ff

Then, I always pull with rebase... That will apply your changes on top of the remote ones. It may lead to conflicts but it leads to a log with less branches.

        git pull --rebase

The merge/diff tool I use is p4diff, which comes with P4V (Perforce visual client) and is free.

To explore the git log, I use tig. [https://github.com/jonas/tig](https://github.com/jonas/tig)

It is a curses interface to git. Screenshot: [https://atlassianblog.wpengine.com/wp- content/uploads/tig-2....](https://atlassianblog.wpengine.com/wp- content/uploads/tig-2.png)

<comment><USER34> Shameless plug. I published a little guide some months ago, on how to use GPG with keybase.io to sign commits.

Link: [https://github.com/pstadler/keybase-gpg- github](https://github.com/pstadler/keybase-gpg-github)

Discussion on HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12289481](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12289481)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I have a ridiculous "vim style" alias setup: [https://github.com/myfreeweb/dotfiles/blob/4eb052cc54f9edcc8...](https://github.com/myfreeweb/dotfiles/blob/4eb052cc54f9edcc870932494c2c30f90a220970/dev- base/gitconfig#L64)

So I can just e.g. type "g ws" to tell [g]it to give me the [w]orking tree [s]tatus. Seeing people actually type "git status" is just painful.

<comment><USER36> That's impressive. Together with (neo)vim as $GIT_EDITOR I can see that being really nice to use.

Now you _could_ decide to systematize the "grammar" of your shortcuts somehow, and, well... it's definitely an idea people have had before. ;)

[https://magit.vc/screenshots/popup- diff.png](https://magit.vc/screenshots/popup-diff.png)

Not an Emacs fanboy, by any means: I use Spacemacs. Magit is objectively excellent, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> How can I make git diff default to --color-words, instead of:

      [alias]
        wdiff = "diff --color-words"

<comment><USER38> That would most likely be:

      $ git config color.diff always

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> oh-my-zsh has some great git aliases too (scroll down 1/3 of the page): [https://github.com/robbyrussell/oh-my- zsh/wiki/Cheatsheet](https://github.com/robbyrussell/oh-my- zsh/wiki/Cheatsheet)

</comment><comment><USER40> Nice post. I didn't know about the followTags = true until now and I'm using it in my .gitconfig.

</comment><comment><USER41> Nice to hear from a fellow mustang!</comment>


The 10 Signs of Intellectual Honesty - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedesignmatrix.com/content/the-10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

<comment><USER2> If there were a logic nazi for every ten grammar nazis the Internets would be such a better place.

<hides>

<comment><USER3> Logic is good, but in my experience, it's virtually impotent in the face of intellectual dishonesty (and this is a great list). If the person you're arguing against is so invested in their opinion that they're unwilling to seriously consider the possibility that they might be wrong, then your appeal to logic, no matter how clear or rigorous, will fall on deaf ears.

But more important than even logic, in my opinion, is sense, which is the stuff on which logic is based. But it's also the basis for much else that makes up what we call "judgment", which relies on considerably more than the exercise of good logic.

After having my ideology overturned many a time, from conservatism to socialism to objectivism to liberalism, I've learned that the best intellectual policy is to simply assume that even your most strongly held beliefs are wrong, and attempt vigorously to prove it.

<comment><USER4> the thing is, if joe average thought less of people for being intellectually dishonest, joe average would be in a much better place. Instead of just appealing to his emotions, politicians (and salespeople) would need to appeal to his interests.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Cheekily, I would add:

* Structure your argument to fit the topic. There is very little chance that there are exactly 10 reasons for doing anything.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is more like a list of ways to be a swell guy than ways to be intellectually honest. I know lots of brilliant assholes whom this wouldn't fit for.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I don't know why being intellectually honest means one's ideas are accessible to everyone or implies the admission that there are other equally valid ideas.

Emphasizing this seems more a recipe for intellectual tepidity and vapidity than honesty.

If someone is really sold on an idea, I think it is more effective if they pursue it full heartedly. If someone else disagrees, it is up to them to develop an effective counter argument.

Yes, if a whole area is of interest to me, then it is useful to investigate all the relevant ideas. Otherwise, I don't see why this is important. It isn't very efficient for everyone to address everything. There are just way too many possible alternatives to consider all of them. As an analogy, we all know software that packs everything but the kitchen sink isn't usually very good. The Unix philosophy is special tools for special purposes.

For instance, I want very biased news sources, from multiple biases, instead of all sources trying to cover all angles all the time. Leave it up to me to sort out the overall picture, or just focus on one view if it seems to be the most relevant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm not sure if this is a list about intellectual honesty, but it's a good way to see if someone is interested in finding the true answer to a question, vs. being "right".

</comment><comment><USER4> It is interesting how this reads like a "how to recognize a person who is bad at marketing" list.

Really, I think as a customer, you get a much better deal if you place more value on logic and honesty than on rhetoric, confidence, and the tall guy in the nice suit.

</comment><comment><USER9> 11\. Never say that a fact supports your position if you're not willing to change said position if said fact turns out to be something other than what you thought originally. ("I like ponies because the sky is green." "The sky isn't green." "I still like ponies.")

</comment><comment><USER10> The battle cry of the Perl community is TIMTOWTDI (There Is More Than One Way To Do It). I've always been sceptical about it - sure there is more than one way - but there must be one best way. Until I realized that this is not about the technology - it is about having the mind open: "Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist" - indeed.

</comment><comment><USER11> Does intellectual honesty actually help in becoming popular? I am not sure that it is the best way to "win" public discussions. For example, admitting that I could be wrong (which I almost always do, due to my mathematical training) always seems to backfire, creating an easy win for the opposition.

<comment><USER12> Rhetoric and logic are separate disciplines. The first is about convincing other people, the second is about seeking truth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think this is a pretty good list. I would add:

* Don't pander -- be careful about pushing emotional buttons

</comment><comment><USER14> Hmm. Compare this article to the way presidential candidates behave.

Interesting.

</comment><comment><USER15> Listening is the most productive form of communication

</comment><comment><USER16> This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota

ouch</comment>


Barcelona wants to build 500 superblocks – what it learned from the first ones - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/9/18273894/barcelona-urban-planning-superblocks-poblenou <comment><USER2> Its a great way to fight climate change and build community</comment>


Macs, Firefox 3.X, Safari, and Chrome Not Supported on Microsoft adCenter - <AUTHOR> http://blog.keltex.com/post/413757692/micrsoft-adcenter-rejects-chrome-safari-firefox

<comment><USER2> Hmmm... Read the top voted comment on this recent Hacker News post.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1137337>

I'm not sure why everyone thinks Microsoft is a changed company. They still have 90% desktop market share. I guess everyone is too busy discussing the Google "monopoly" with 70% search.

Microsoft is, of course, doing what's in their best interest, as should all companies. They aren't running a charity and they are obligated by law to serve their stockholders. However, it really is bad for consumers when there is not enough competition.

</comment><comment><USER3> It really isn't that hard to make a commerce website work with most browser. What idiot thought it was a good idea to make it harder to buy internet ads?</comment>


IOS productivity app sales figures: $29000 in 15 months - <AUTHOR> http://www.pocketlistsapp.com/blog/Pocket-Lists-sales-29k-in-15months/

<comment><USER2> I want to say well done, but honestly $29k in 15 months isn't great.

I hope it turns into a nice passive form of income for you, or blows up down the road, but it'll take a lot more work to crack even 100k.

</comment><comment><USER3> Thanks for sharing!</comment>


Ask HN: Help, How to deal with severe ADHD as a programmer? - <AUTHOR> I can only do things which are extremely interesting or challenging or if it happens to be of personal interest. I get easily distracted when dealing with mundane tasks. I procrastinate a lot. I am forgetful and not detail oriented. I tried medication but it gives me insomnia and a racing heart. Mindfulness meditation helps a lot but I cannot bring myself to do it everyday. The only good thing about ADHD is the creativity/out of the box/ non-linear thinking, which I seem to have. Created a few products on the side which seem to show commercial potential. I want to know if it is possible to hold on to a job without being anxious/stressed out. Is it possible to become a great and successful programmer despite ADHD? <comment><USER2> I have real bad ADHD, and everything you say rings true.

There are (only) two things that seem to help me: (social) commitment that would be unthinkable to back out of, and random fluctuations in neurochemistry.

I have a job, and find that I have very little trouble maintaining a good work ethic at work. Especially when the boss tells me to do something differently. The social and commitment aspects really motivate me. Beeminder ([https://www.beeminder.com/](https://www.beeminder.com/)) is really awesome as well, until your brain figures out that you can cheat. For doing work outside of work, I have a few friends that I just meet up with and mutually enforce work-time, which is really helpful and always productive.

On top of that, I notice major shifts in ability to do work that seem to have nothing to do with anything. Some days I'm randomly on top of the world and able to do huge amounts of highly productive and creative work, other days I can't even focus on what's in front of me (sometimes literally). I can only explain this in terms of random neurochemistry quirks. Unfortunately I can't control it. One thing that seems to help is standing in a dominant victory pose and counting to 300 as fast as possible, which raises testosterone and lowers cortisol. It seems to help a lot if you can remember to do it.

(Solving neurochemistry would be extremely lucrative; there are thousands of people who are separated from large wealth only by this factor.)

So I'd say you are fine on holding a job, but the jury is still out on becoming great.

<comment><USER3> Ooh, hey, thanks for pointing out Beeminder! We often have users tell us it's great for people with ADHD, and we have some thoughts on the cheating problem you mention: [http://blog.beeminder.com/cheating](http://blog.beeminder.com/cheating)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4>
        > I tried medication but it gives me insomnia
        > and a racing heart.

Try a lower dose. In particular, start at the minimum dose.

If you are prescribed 20mg Adderall XR or 50mg Vyvanse (or equivalent), then that's an insane first-timer dose.

Pills have risks and side-effects for sure. But so does making zero progress on your ambitions in life.

Maybe you can find something less harsh: [http://www.gwern.net/Nootropics](http://www.gwern.net/Nootropics)

<comment><USER5> Mom's in the medical field. She attended a seminar led by a psychologist/psychiatrist husband/wife team. The husband found, as an adult, that he did benefit from the medication (Adderall), but at a much lower dose than is considered typical. 2.5 mg, IIRC.

Apparently, some people are more sensitive -- or, whatever term you want to use -- to the medication; for them, a "standard" dose is too much.

If you still have some tablets left and are unsure how your doctor might receive such a notion, you could use a pill cutter to create your own lower dose. If/As you've already been prescribed a higher dose, and given that the medication is not essential to life function and you've already safely been able to discontinue that higher dose, I don't see how trying a lower dose would present any additional risk.

However, I'm not a doctor, you should talk to your doctor, etc. Just... some of them seem to be pretty narrow-minded including about the possible efficacy of lower doses.

<comment><USER5> P.S. It really would be best to discuss it with your doctor. And as for my scenario with the pill cutter (again, preferably _with_ the doctor's knowledge): That will only work with "instant release" forms, where there is no delayed release mechanism. Cutting a delayed release tablet can partially or totally defeat the delayed release design/mechanism, resulting in a spike in absorption that is undesigned and that may present a health risk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't know if I have ADHD, but am similar in many ways to your description.

I've recently tried meditating to attempt to be more focused, though I don't think it is really helping.

What has helped (during work anyway) is using the Pomodoro Technique. I have the clock in front of me all the time, and you'd be amazed at how quickly 25 minutes counts down. I treat each Pomodoro like a mini-sprint. I am only allowed to work on one feature during a Pomodoro. I am only allowed to write in one language in a Pomodoro. That forces me to write my tests, and my feature and run the tests etc. etc. I'd much rather be doing that than sitting there staring at the screen because I won't allow myself to surf HN or FB.

As far as being forgetful and being more detail oriented, I haven't found a solution for that yet. I am trying herbal supplements like St. John's Wort, and I think it calms me down a bit (I definitely sleep better and don't grind my teeth as much), but sorry, don't have a good answer for you on that part.

<comment><USER7> I have an ASD, and many of the same problems focusing. The only cure for being forgetful is a pen and a piece of paper. Keep a small notebook that you carry at all times. Don't write anything in it other than the things that you are supposed to remember to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have adhd and I suffer the same problems! I am currently in university (IT- Networking security), I do use medication and meditation. I find that motivation is the hardest part of everything even with the medication!

This helps with my motivation: [http://lifehacker.com/281626/jerry-seinfelds- productivity-se...](http://lifehacker.com/281626/jerry-seinfelds-productivity- secret)

Become a Morning Person: [https://medium.com/life- tips/621b93619b30](https://medium.com/life-tips/621b93619b30)

Quick tips(things that help me):

\- 43 folders method of organization

\- Actively tell your self when you forget or procrastinate, its normal just get back on track and smile

\- Make habits through repetition (spend that time regardless if you are able to do it or not)

\- Your will power is finite make sure have small meals and a snack half way through each to keep energy up

\- Making decisions is very tiring, so be forgiving

\- Make everything smaller- if you can reduce the information the easier it is for you in the future

\- Always tell yourself: it is easy, it will take no time, get a little done, you don't have to finish it just start it

\- Have a beer or do something else like watching tv while trying to start a new habit or task, even though you won't get much done you have done more that you would have with out it!

Sorry if my grammar is terrible, or if this wasn't what you where looking for! It really helped me out to list it all :D

<comment><USER9>
      > This helps with my motivation: http://lifehacker.com/281626/jerry-seinfelds-productivity-se...

As an aside, Seinfeld himself recently dispelled the rumor that he was the creator of, or ever even used this method, in a Reddit AMA [1] -- even calling it dumb:

1\. [http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ujvrg/jerry_seinfeld_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ujvrg/jerry_seinfeld_here_i_will_give_you_an_answer/ceiugt5)

<comment><USER10> Well that said it does kinda seem like the github commit history calendar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Well if you feel like you're bored with mundane stuff you could do what I do and take contract work. Most people think it's terrible and occasionally you get some bad companies but most of the time I am hired for a specific project and it's only 3-6 months so I can get everything in place, if I like them maybe clean up a bit of their technical debt, and then find another contract before the boredom sets in.

Other than that I take a ton of wellbutrin instead of adderall. It's ostensibly for depression but the side effect of the extended release tabs is it acts like a mild upper for about 12 hours.

I've never been able to get past the part where I feel like meditation is wasting my time. Other people I know who have this issue mostly beat themselves up at the gym 4-5 times a week. I've spent some time trying that in the past and it helped a little if I took care of it in the morning before work.

</comment><comment><USER12> Try the pomodoro technique[0]. It may seem cheesy, but it's a good way to flex your discipline muscle. You basically choose a task and focus on it for 20 uninterrupted minutes at a time.

Once you've mastered going through 20 uninterrupted minutes and can do it easily every time you have small definable task that fits in a 20 minute slot, go ahead and start working on controlling the procrastination time that might occupy the spaces between your 20 minutes of productivity. I've heard a lot of good things about rescue time[1]

[0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomodoro_Technique](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomodoro_Technique) [1] [https://www.rescuetime.com/](https://www.rescuetime.com/)

</comment><comment><USER13> A to-do list for everything. If it isn't on a list then it isn't getting done. In addition to timers, I try to have to things I'm working on. That way I can switch back and forth. Work in bursts and then take a break for 5 minutes. Try to get some daily physical activity. I find that exercise is one of the few times I can reliably get my brain to shut off. I personally think caffeine helps me, but try to identify if any food makes it better or worse.

</comment><comment><USER14> Sounds familiar. I was trying 'three things per day' technique, but found it overwhelming so I simplified it down to 'one thing'. Each day I am setting _one_ goal, which can be anything, and I have to _accomplish_ it. Helps to establish the routine and some sort of discipline.

Edit: it is also important to understand that out of the box nonlinear creativity etc in our case serves just one purpose - to find excuses not to do what we are supposed to do.

</comment><comment><USER15> Exercise!

[http://www.webmd.com/add-adhd/guide/adult-adhd-and- exercise](http://www.webmd.com/add-adhd/guide/adult-adhd-and-exercise)

</comment><comment><USER16> Wow, I'm currently in the same boat and relate to all that you've said. Monitoring this thread.

That said, currently I'm looking into DIY soylent, though I have a pretty decent diet anyway and nootropics. Nootropics seem to have potential but I've yet to gain first hand experience.

I'm also looking for a way to make mindfulness meditation a habit as I cannot bring myself to do it daily either, it does help though.

</comment><comment><USER17> There was this talk by a programmer with bipolar and I think ADHD. He couldn't hold a job for more than a year. I can't find it, but very inspiring and helpful to understanding both.

[http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/116730/progra...](http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/116730/programming- with-add-adhd)

</comment><comment><USER18> You should just attempt forcing yourself to do the "dirty" work. We'd all like to be coding the matrix, but most people just need wordpress websites, so just force yourself.

I can't give you any magic secret or formula beyond that, because none exist (as far as I know).

Being a coder though, isn't it all fun to you? I find typing like a maniac fun.

<comment><USER2> >so just force yourself.

>just

ADHD doesn't work like that. "just" supposes willpower, ADHDers have low willpower. The _whole problem_ is how to "just" do something, so reiterating that is a non-solution.

<comment><USER18> ADHD isn't really a _problem_. AIDS is a problem. Malaria is a problem. TB is a problem. First-world emotional issues aren't a problem. If that were the case, I would think 95% of Iraqis would need psychiatric and psychological assistance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So essentially you need to learn to convert "boring" things to "extremely interesting" things.

This may include an ability to stop putting "boring!" label on stuff.

So use your powerful creativity to create methodology to accomplish above and the problem is solved!

PS: Bonus:

once you accomplish above - sell your solution to 10,000,000 of other ADHD people at $10 each.

You do the math.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've found that it can help to set a timer, because then the task isn't "work until it's done", but instead "work for 5/10/XX minutes". When my brain just isn't cooperating at all , I try to find simpler things to work on, which still contribute to the whole.

</comment><comment><USER21> I think it would be pretty difficult being a successful programmer if you struggle with mental focus and attention to detail. Are you sure it's the right field for you?

</comment><comment><USER22> It would be useful to know how old you are. Most of us grow less ADHD throughout our 20s as our brains develop.

<comment><AUTHOR> 28\. Have 2 years of programming experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Brainwave entrainment while you are working. Piracetam. Acetyl L-Carnitine.

</comment><comment><USER24> Strattera</comment>


CSS3 Isometric text - dg-mid http://www.midwinter-dg.com/permalink-css3-isometric-text-demo-2011-03-14.html <comment><AUTHOR> Enter

        javascript:document.getElementsByClassName('text-block')[0].contentEditable=true

into your address field and you can edit the isometric text! Pretty neat.

<comment> dg-mid Genius! I never would have thought of this. I may well have to incorporate it in to the demo :o)

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> The best thing is the cross-browser compatibility. Normally, you see fancy things that only work on Webkit browsers or some such, which gives it little application.

<comment> dg-mid I particularly wanted to create something that was cross-browser, however there is still the problem of those with older browsers :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I like it how the blue text selection also appears isometric!

</comment><comment><USER4> Works on Safari for iPad.

<comment><USER5> Yes, and tap and hold to get the magnifier for a very cool effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> My favorite part is that it even works on my (android) phone!

<comment><USER7> Horror of horror: it works with Blackberry's browser.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Very cool. I love the showmanship in the demo :)

<comment> dg-mid Thanks, I enjoyed creating it -- hope someone finds it useful!

<comment><USER9> Good job. This just gets me more excited about how advanced browsers are getting, and that more tools are available to further unleash a designer's creativity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Works in Firefox 3.6 which is nice too.

</comment><comment><USER11> Simply amazing.</comment>


Music for coding - <AUTHOR> http://anywhere.fm/amp26 <comment><USER2> Some nice tracks there (Did not hear them all)... though I am a huge fan of listening to electronica or techno (or house or whatever it is you kids call it these days...:)) when programming. I find its great for the ambient noise, its very "active" music so it does not put you to sleep, and most songs have no lyrics at all so there's no distraction...

Oakey, Van Dyk, Sasha, Tiesto all have great tracks...

</comment><comment><USER3> When I'm trying to work, I have to pick music I don't actually like, otherwise I continually get distracted. Actual ambient music is the best. Aphex Twin's ambient stuff is great. [http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3251408/Aphex_Twin_- _Selected_Am...](http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3251408/Aphex_Twin_- _Selected_Ambient_Works_Volume_II)

<comment><USER2> I am not sure thats legit...</comment></comment>


The gunfighter's dilemma - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8493000/8493203.stm <comment><USER4> Apparently, it's incorrect that the winning strategy is to move second - <USER2> the drawing motion take ~20ms less when reacting, it takes ~200ms to react in the first place, leaving you quite dead. See [http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/02/why_does_th...](http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/02/why_does_the_gunslinger_who_draws_first_always_get_shot.php)

Did the BBC misinterpret the data, or did the scienceblogs article make a mistake?

<comment><USER5> I was just thinking the same thing... the 20ms difference only matters if the start time of the action is less than 20ms before the start time of the reaction.

Just because you can do something faster, it doesn't always mean you finish faster.

<comment><USER6> Aiming isn't taken into consideration with a button press, so I wouldn't exactly call this study accurate. Bohr did a more scientifically valid test without anything more than a pair of pop guns.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You can't skip the story about Niels Bohr at the bottom.

<comment><USER8> _In a series of mock gunfights with colleagues Bohr always drew second and always won._

Heh... Considering that all the participants were scientists, I'm surprised they concluded that one event caused the other.

<comment><USER9> Somebody tried making that objection but reviewer N.B. blocked his paper during peer review, citing inadequate references to existing literature. The scientist lost his funding, was denied tenure, and now lives in a van down by the river.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There are existing studies which show that people react faster when startled than when not. There's a nifty little online test to check your own response times: <http://www.mathsisfun.com/games/reaction-time.html>

As far as I know this is the first test to show that startle response extends beyond reaction time, it's an interesting piece of data. It's worth noting that it's possible to force yourself into a state of mind similar to being startled, which may very well eliminate the advantage to "shooting" second.

<comment><USER11> That game is very telling. Try it at "arms length", then again with your face right up to the screen. See if you don't do much better when the dot fills more of your visual range. Speculation: a startle reflex depends upon the magnitude of the nervous signal, which is larger when more retinal cells fire.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I could see this being the case, but it's got to be very narrow timing, and it probably only applies for the same type of action. A friend and I used to do a drill with his Glock 9mm. (After ensuring the gun was unloaded) one of us would point the pistol right at the other's head. The pointee would initiate action by grabbing the gun and the pointer would try to pull the trigger. It was impossible to pull the trigger in time, action was always faster than reaction in this case. We did it many times over, both of us with the gun. Semi-automatic handguns will not fire when you keep the slide from moving, which is what happens when you grab the whole barrel like this, though I don't think I'd be willing to try the maneuver in real life.

<comment><USER13> "(After ensuring the gun was unloaded) one of us would point the pistol right at the other's head."

Fail. Absolute fail.

We say "the gun is always loaded" even when we "know" it is not, because if we never, ever point a gun at something that we don't want to destroy, we will never make that one in a million mistake.

Fail. Sorry for the forcefulness, but this kind of gun "play" always deserves to be called out and discouraged.

<comment><USER14> I think you are wrong. I agree with you, in the sense that I would not feel comfortable doing this. "The gun is always loaded" is great rule, as is "Never point a gun at something you don't want to shoot". But it has its limits, and context is important.

Assume that you're a hostage negotiator, or someone in the police or military that otherwise expects to end up in a situation where someone is pointing a presumably loaded weapon at you at close range. I think there's a good argument to be made that you should train for this circumstance under the most realistic conditions you can muster, rather than hoping that your first live experience will go just the way it did on paper. If having a real gun pointed at you helps to simulate and train your real life response, this might be a good strategy.

Personally, as someone not in such a field, I'll spend the bulk of my efforts on figuring out how to avoid such situations. But for a professional training for a situation they expect to encounter, this is not 'play'.

<comment><USER15> Google "operant conditioning".

<comment><USER14> I've done so, and think I am generally familiar with the concept. I don't see any direct connection. Could you explain the relevance that you see?

<comment><USER15> It's why modern militaries prefer to train with real weapons. In the scenario the OP mentioned, it's about getting accustomed to facing a real weapon.

Note that I'm not advocating this for "play", or even amateur martial arts. Someone training for situations in which a real weapon will be pointed at them and they have to remain calm will benefit tho'. (I'm offering evidence to support your point BTW, not arguing with you!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> >In a series of mock gunfights with colleagues Bohr always drew second and always won.

I'm hoping the author of this article just didn't want to elaborate, but Bohr never thought it could've just been that he was faster at drawing than his opponents? Switching it so he was the first to draw some of the time would have been better design.

<comment><USER17> This part of the article is most likely intended as a funny anecdote, not as an accurate description of a scientific experiment. Rest assured that Niels freaking Bohr would have thought of that.

<comment><USER18> And possibly decided that it would be more fun to leave a good story behind and not be seen to loose :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So optimally you want to be startled into action by something other than your opponent drawing. Then you get the speed advantage & a head start...

Wonder if anyones done any research on training this for martial arts.

<comment><USER20> A friend who does Aikido says it's not explicitly taught quite like that - <USER3> that he does train to watch, for example, an attackers shoulders for slight movement prior to their attack.

<comment><USER21> Which implies that you could probably throw off someone like that just by, for instance, feinting the shoulder movement.

<comment><USER22> Having the body control to produce false, seemingly involuntary signals - while suppressing true involuntary signals - implies a level of physical mastery to the extent that you, likely, already possess a substantial advantage in the bout. This is like selling a fake tell in poker while not actually having a tell - even James Bond would tell you that's hard.

<comment><USER21> You could just sell enough fake tells--produce enough false signals--to throw your opponent off of whatever actual tells you have. I wonder if this is similar in concept to the "drunken" kung fu style.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So much for first-mover advantage.

<comment><USER23> The second mouse gets the cheese.

<comment><USER15> There's always free cheese in a mousetrap.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TANC4VI8vF4#t=1m18s> \- draws and shoots and returns gun to holster in 0.02s.

I don't feel lucky!

</comment><comment><USER24> _Niels Bohr, liked to take time off from figuring out the structure of the universe by watching westerns.

Bohr noticed that the man who drew first invariably got shot, and speculated that the intentional act of drawing and shooting was slower to execute than the action in response._

Haha, really? So he formed a hypothesis based on movies? I'm fairly sure its just poorly written in the article but if it is not thats just silly.

Edit: Formatting

</comment><comment><USER25> It would also depend on the first-mover not being adequately trained/experienced. The goal of training, and the effect of extensive experience, is to automatize the action, so that it will occur without conscious intermediation.

</comment><comment><USER26> Then, since Solo shot first, he was a fine duelist. This reconciles the argument: he can be a good guy AND shoot first. Solo did not _intend_ to shoot first, but while reposting his instincts made him the fastest.</comment>


I'm a Coors man - <AUTHOR> http://floodlite.tumblr.com/post/1035628039/im-a-coors-man

<comment><USER2> "As it turns out, most beers are pretty much the same, well, with the exception of Guinness. When it comes to taste, the key factor isn't the craftsmanship or ingredients, but the advertising budget."

As a craft brewer myself, statements like that hurt deep in my soul. Of course mass-produced swill all tastes the same, it all uses the same craftsmanship (not much) and ingredients. It's all the same type of beer (some goofy ass mixture of grains including rice and/or corn, mild hops, and lager yeast brewed at standard lager temperatures).

The comparison to Guinness is ridiculous as well. It's as if they gave people 4 shots of vodka and one of tequila and said "look, all liquor other than tequila tastes the same!"

Throw some real lagers in there and I bet they'd stand out even with the labels removed. Not as far as a stout obviously, but nobody could mistake a Boston Lager for a Budweiser.

<comment><USER3> You are reading this as if it's a taste competition, but it's not. It's about companies that basically offer the same product, but differentiate based on brand awareness. Guinness is so radically different than these American macro brews so it provides useful context.

Tequila or vodka (not together, separate) would be very interesting studies, too. I'm not convinced that anyone but connoisseurs would rate blind vodka taste tests consistent with their preferred brand.

<comment><USER4> > vodka taste tests

The bottom shelf to mid shelf price increment is pretty damn obvious in taste. The cheap stuff is bad. Once you're paying over ~$35 per liter I doubt anyone can tell anything apart.

<comment><USER5> That misses the point though. The cheap stuff is all equally bad, anyone who proclaims themselves a loyalist to Smirnoff probably knows nothing of the high-end stuff, let alone be able to tell it apart from it's peer competitors. Likewise, a "Coors man" can easily be fooled into drinking Miller or Bud, because he doesn't base his preference on any quality of the beer itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _"If you're going to compete, you have two choices. The first is to spend a boatload of money on advertising—like Microsoft. The second is to create something so unique and different that people can easily recognize your product—like Guinness."_

Guinness also spends boatloads on advertising (here in Ireland they're not that unique as we've got several choices of stout for sale, the main ones being Murphys and Beamish apart from Guinness). I'm sure Guinness also advertise heavily in the US and other markets. So it's incorrect to present this as two choices. Two major advertising campaigns Guinness used in recent months include "Arthur's Day" celebrations and the Guinness ads throughout the decades. The former seems a bit of a gimmick to me, but the latter was interesting IMO as a way of showing how advertising changed over the years.

<comment><USER7> I've seen Guinness ads plenty here in the US. I also see plenty of ads for other "unique" products. Even if one makes a stand-out product, people still have to know about it.

<comment><USER6> _"I also see plenty of ads for other "unique" products."_

I guess that's the whole "build it and they won't come" argument. It requires good marketing to convince people to try a Guinness or buy an iPad or whatever (although the iPad is probably a bad example as it's not unique, Microsoft had the courier in 2003).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yes of course Guinness sticks out. Guinness is the only Irish dry stout in the list which is a different product entirely, once you're discussing beer. To non-beer drinkers they are all lumped into the 'beer' category, but that's unfortunate point to illustrate because that cool new web startup? In the same hyperopic view, they're all websites, and Hipmunk is the same as Wikipedia is the same as Techcrunch and you need an advertising budget the size of Google or Microsoft's to build stand-alone brand awareness

<comment><USER9> The point of the experiment was to demonstrated how the brand affected how the different beers stood out.

The fact that Guinness stood out was just there to show that without a brand you need to be significantly different (in this case, different tasting) in order to stand out.

<comment><USER10> But Guinness isn't all that unique... for a Stout. It's unique compared to the other beers listed, just as if the comparison were done with Wikipedia, Dictionary.com, TechCrunch and Youtube. There are obvious differences in scope and purpose between the first three, but mainly, they're websites with mostly text, whereas Youtube is a website with mostly video. In a 'website' comparison, YouTube would be the standout, but if you did a more specific comparison between Break, YouTube, Vimeo and RedTube, you might find that RedTube is the standout, and YouTube fares on average with the others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you too were wondering what sort of thing a "perceptual map" is that looks like a 2D graph but doesn't have axes, the description below suggests that the article has just inexplicably omitted the axes.

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

</comment><comment><USER12> Guinness is an unfortunate component to this test. Whereas the other beers may have the same color, taste, and mouthfeel, Guinness would be distinguishable from those on any one of those 3 dimensions. Even if you couldn't distinguish based on taste or texture, the color alone would give it away.

In other words, you would probably guess that you're drinking a Guinness if you happen to see its color. I think that's a significant confounder here.

</comment><comment><USER13> For those of you unfamiliar with beer, I'll rephrase this article in terms which might be more familiar to you. Hopefully you'll have the same "wtf?" moment I did.

We had people place five cars on a perceptual map. The five vehicles consisted of four medium sedans and one pickup truck. When branding badges were removed, we found that people tended to lump the four sedans together on a perceptual map, while placing the pickup truck off by itself.

</comment><comment><USER14> Search is about what the engine misses, not what it hits. If Google hits 99% and Bing 98%, in some sense, Google is twice as good. You wouldn't call 98% site uptime "basically 100%."

</comment><comment><USER15> This is a laughably stupid piece. It says nothing new about beer and everything about the amazing ignorance of the author. There are so many beers and even types of beer, that to consider Coors, Pabst, Miller Lite, Budweiser, Colt 45 and Guinness to represent a cross-section of beers requires him to willfully avoid learning anything about beer.

Conventional American lagers are ONE type of beer in am ocean, The range from stouts to wheat beers is astounding. This is as if I compared only cars from China, and threw in one Chevy to analyze the car market.

He ignores the fast-growing premium stuff, e.g. Sam Adams. Every town has its own version; here in Tampa, it's Ybor Gold. Of course they don't, individually, sell as much as Budweiser; by definition, a local brew is only local.

Yes, better beer is more expensive. That cheaper beer sells more is hardly news. But to think he's found any information in a test that is designed to produce the result he got is nonsense. Of course, five cheap, American lagers taste about the same, and of course, it's obvious that an Irish stout tastes different.

I have a Welsh, beer-loving GF; the author could at least try Wikipedia.

</comment><comment><USER16> I did quite a few perception mapping exercises while I was in business school.* They get really interesting when you take experiment a level deeper and seek to understand how different customer segments perceive your brand/product.

For example, the beer study would get much more interesting if one could assess the results by segment - say "beer expert", "college student", "joe blue collar", etc. The outcomes can really inform positioning and message...and can lead to product extensions based purely around marketing. Diet Coke (for women) and Coke Zero (for me) are a great example.

*Yes - I have an MBA from UNC Chapel Hill. Please flame as necessary. :)

</comment><comment><USER17> When people were asked to drive the latest Ford Fiesta, Toyota Yaris, Chevrolet Cobalt and BMW 5-series, they all seemed rather comparable, except the BMW for some reason...

</comment><comment><USER18> They could have at least compared a microbrew lager to the others. It's seriously comparing an orange to five apples.

</comment><comment><USER19> There is not even close to enough information in this post to take it seriously. How big was the sample? Who were these taters? Are they even beer drinkers? Etc., etc.

</comment><comment><USER20> "As it turns out, most god-awful piss beers are pretty much the same"

ftfy

</comment><comment><USER21> Conversely, I would imagine this is why people hate on Bing. They associate it with Microsoft, an 'evil empire', and must figure it is shit search (or whatever negative connotation they have with the company).

</comment><comment> alan-crowe Alcohol is a toxic industrial solvent. People drink it for the mild euphoria it brings. This is undignified and advertising provides social cover. Behaviour not much different from glue-sniffing is advertised into being grown-up, sophisticated, manly, adult, a reward for hard work, the drink of heroes,...

First the article takes the idea of beer drinkers appreciating different flavours at face value and then rebuts it. Drinkers are claiming to be appreciating the various different flavours, but actually they taste they same. That surprises me. I think it would be easier to spin a taste-bud romance around alcohol if the flavours were more various.

Second the article suggests that advertising is "creating" the different tastes and tries to draw a wider lesson for other products that one might advertise. I disagree with drawing any wider lesson. Alcohol is a unusual product such that the purpose of advertisements is especially covert. The advertisers are not fooling the drinkers into tasting differences that are not there. There are colluding with users in providing a shiny social sheen on a product that would otherwise offer only a guilty pleasure.

<comment><USER22> I don't think that's it. I think people will go out and drink regardless of whether or not there is any advertising. But when it comes to say the name of the beer you want, that's when advertising comes into play. Deciding which nearly-identical product to order is hard. So you can reduce the problem to deciding what ad you liked better, and then your problems are solved.

Also, "alcohol is a toxic industrial solvent." So is water.

<comment> alan-crowe Your reply dodges the point raised by the article. They do a taste test and the beers have different flavours. Then they repeart the taste test blind and the beers taste the same. The article suggests that the taste comes from the advertising. I suggest that it wasn't about taste to begin with. Why do you think that stripping the labels off the bottles made the flavour go away?

<comment><USER22> No, we're saying the same thing. Brand => perception => flavor. Brand => perception => willingness to buy it in front of your friends.

The mind works in interesting ways.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Any open source drag drop tool for tensorflow/pytorch? - <AUTHOR> Are there any UI tool that builds deeplearning model with tensorflow/pytorch? <comment><USER2> [https://www.knime.com/deeplearning/tensorflow](https://www.knime.com/deeplearning/tensorflow)

Dataiku integrated Tensorflow as well but I don't know whether it's available in the free version.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!</comment></comment>


How we found the missing memristor - <AUTHOR> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/dec08/7024

<comment><USER2> dupe</comment>