Ask HN: If you did switch career, what did you do? - <AUTHOR> I'm posting this as a follow up to [Ask HN: If you were to switch career, what would you do?][1]. In that thread, I feel many top-level responses were formulated without too much consideration for the longer term, such as financial stability. This was pointed out by a lot of replies to these responses saying that the alternate career would drastically decrease one's salary. Since I assume a lot of people here are seriously considering a switch in their careers as indicated by the popularity of the thread, a natural question to ask to help some of these people:<p>If you quit your developer job in the past, what did you do? How did you manage the switch? Are you happy with the switch? Will you be coming back to tech?<p>[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13334480 <comment><USER2> A similar thread was already posted today, you might find it interesting:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13337305](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13337305)</comment>


Rate my startup: Genome analysis and presentation - <AUTHOR> http://www.enlisgenomics.com/

<comment><USER2> Looks awesome. First and obvious question: any particular reason why you didn't make this a web app? In the screenshots it actually looks like a web app, but then there's that download link?

Improvements to the homepage: explain better what this is. Is it something where I can see my own genome? What does it actually do? Add more screenshots. And get rid of "the possibilities are enless", that's just cheesy ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your feedback. I'm less concerned right now about the website itself - it's just a placeholder. Did you happen to download the software? Did it work as expected?

But you are right I should explain it better. This is meant to be a software solution for companies that want to offer genome data to customers. Having a standalone application as a presentation option can allay many of the privacy implications of a web app.

With that said, I do want to develop a web app too, and be a "one stop shop" for the presentation and analysis of human genomic data.

Thanks again,

<comment><USER3> I don't see a good reason why you'd want to make this into a web based application. I think you are making the right choice. I'd never upload my medical records to a third party website. Don't pull a Zuckerberg.

When I clicked on the "Go' button to compare to the Human Reference Genome, nothing happened.

I think the software might be more valuable if the user could get a quick overview of their personal risk factors for diseases. I didn't see a quick way to get that.

I'd make the software fun too - genes for eye color and so forth would be fun to compare with family members.

The ancestry report with the map overlay would be great if you could get it to work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your ideas Yes the comparison tool and the ancestry tool are not complete yet.

As this progresses, we will definitely look for ways to simplify and engage the more average user

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I haven't downloaded it yet, because it's not clear to me who the target audience is, where the data comes from, etc (is it whole genome data, 23andme data?). Also, why not a web app, especially since (as others have noted, the screenshots seem to suggest that).

Having said that does look nice and I'll download soon to check things out.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep the website needs work, it's just something I threw together before I head off to the Consumer Genetics Conference this week. I will add more explanation on the target audience - (which is really more of sequencing and healthcare companies right now)

The data in the program now is not actually a whole genome, it's more of a gene ("exome" if you will) viewer now, but we will be adding whole genome browsing soon. We've been thinking about a 23andMe import tool but haven't built that yet.

Would be interested in how the program runs for you

Thanks!

<comment><USER4> I have downloaded. More comments to follow, but a quick question. Who is your target audience? Based on the design and how the reports look, seems to be consumer focussed?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes you are right, this is a consumer focused implementation.

For one thing we wanted something to show at the Consumer Genetics Conference that I'm attending this week.

Beyond that, I expect that this platform could be easily adapted to other kinds of genomic analysis - for instance a medically oriented Cancer/Normal genome comparison tool.

My feeling is that no one knows exactly how the genome future will pan out over the next few years and we hope to be nimble enough to capitalize on a number of directions it could take.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think it looks ok, but I would change a couple of things here and there, in the content and in the display. I would be willing to help/test/advise, but I don't see here as the best place to have this type of talk.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, happy for any feedback - I'm in the bay area

<comment><USER5> I will send you a message on your contact form. I'm too far from the Bay area.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Awesome! I would agree with everyone here. The first thing that comes to my mind is if there was a web app that you could easily plug into. It may not be a high concern but a certain demographic might prefer that.</comment>


Google's 'Don't Be Evil' Becomes Alphabet's 'Do the Right Thing' - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/10/02/as-google-becomes-alphabet-dont-be-evil-vanishes/ <comment><USER2> "Do the right thing" defined as "– follow the law, act honorably, and treat each other with respect," just doesn't feel the same.

"Don't Be Evil" appeals to a force above the law, sometimes the law is evil (Nazi Germany).

"Do the right thing," implies there is a single right thing which is woefully out of touch with the vast array of choices we have each day that fall all along the moral spectrum. It's cliche; I have trouble not immediately writing it off.

<comment><USER3> No, that's "do the lawful thing".

"Do the right thing" falls under ethics.

<comment><USER4> Maybe there is supposed to be an implied, "... for stockholders", at the end ...

<comment><USER3> Then it's filed under "objectivism".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You guys are forgetting that "Don't be evil" is interpreted by a part of the brain as "Be Evil." That was a terrible slogan. "Do the right thing" is much better.

When we hear "Don't Be Evil" there is a part of our brains that interprets the part about being evil, the concept of what evil is, and then the logic brain has to jump in and say, "Now don't you do that." It's well known that telling people to "Not smoke" again and again will give them the urge to smoke. And telling your child to not do something will make them want to do it. Why? We believe it's because on an MRI scan most of the brain will light up when interpreting the "Smoke" part (because the brain is conceptualizing what smoking is), whereas only a small part of the brain will light up when trying to apply the negation "Don't" to that concept. If I told you to not picture a white bear....aha, you pictured a white bear!

If you want someone to do something, simply keep telling them not to do it.

</comment><comment><USER6> I liked 'Don't Be Evil'. It felt like it was a constant reminder to fight becoming a cliche evil corporation. 'Do the right thing' adds little to no value in terms of being a moral compass to use when expanding the company.

<comment><USER7> Do the right thing is more ambiguous. Righteousness is in the eyes of the beholder.

<comment><USER8> So is evilness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Philosophically, I like the focus on 'doing,' purposefully doing things because they are 'right,' rather than not doing things because they are 'evil.' Spinoza, Deleuze, and a few others are pretty good on this.

Action will always prevail.

</comment><comment><USER10> There are many non-paywalled articles we could use in the link. For example,

[http://www.cnet.com/au/news/googles-new-holding-company- drop...](http://www.cnet.com/au/news/googles-new-holding-company-drops-dont- be-evil/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Google's motto is still "Don't be evil"

</comment><comment><USER12> > _follow the law_

It's kind of depressing that companies feel they need to put this in their code of conduct.

<comment><USER13> Seems like they're starting off with this new statement on a sour note since half the major governments in the world are investigating them right now for violating antitrust law.

<comment><USER14> Follow which law? The EU law about preventing access to private data? The US law about permitting government agency access to data? The Chinese law about preventing access to certain opinions?

<comment><USER13> Well, if Google purports to uphold the law, all of the above. It has to operate legally in every country it wants to do business. In this case, I was speaking of antitrust though, where Google has used contracts that cross the line to exert control over the industry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Every time I hear this, I think "Be a man!" : [https://youtu.be/-qtrAMK7_Qk](https://youtu.be/-qtrAMK7_Qk)

</comment><comment><USER16> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nal3-qRocJI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nal3-qRocJI)

</comment><comment><USER17> Actions speak louder than words.

<comment><USER18> Self-driving cars, sparked by Google, are going to save a million lives a year. Those are actions.

<comment><USER19> Man, the corporate fanboyism on HN always gets me.

<comment><USER18> I'm not a corporate fanboy, I'm a passionate leftist socialist who gives credit where credit due.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Watered down slogan to go with their watered down attitude towards users/"the product".

</comment><comment><USER21> Can't read the article because of the paywall, but if they're literally using, "Do the Right Thing", that's super super ironic. It's been a while since I've seen it, but if I recall correctly; a major premise of the movie was that characters did not know what the Right Thing was, or whether they were Doing It.

<comment><USER22> Excerpt:

 _Alphabet's code doesn't include that phrase. Instead, it says employees of Alphabet and its subsidiaries "should do the right thing – follow the law, act honorably, and treat each other with respect."_

<comment><USER23> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "Don't be evil" the same? Not official, but respected?

<comment><USER22> Sorry, "Doesn't include that phrase" refers to "Don't be evil", not "Do the right thing." I think you are misinterpreting the quote out of context.

Edit: Fuller quote:

 _Google's code of conduct, of course, is best-known for its first line, which was also included in Google's 2004 filing for its initial public offering: "Don't be evil."

Alphabet's code doesn't include that phrase. Instead, it says employees of Alphabet and its subsidiaries "should do the right thing – follow the law, act honorably, and treat each other with respect."_</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How We Implement 10x Faster Expression Evaluation with Vectorized Execution - <AUTHOR> https://pingcap.com/blog/10x-performance-improvement-for-expression-evaluation-made-possible-by-vectorized-execution/ <comment><USER2> Makes me think of the amazing [https://gamozolabs.github.io/fuzzing/2018/10/14/vectorized_e...](https://gamozolabs.github.io/fuzzing/2018/10/14/vectorized_emulation.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Excellent post! Great details! But I have a question: You mean that vectorized execution helps make the best of modern CPU hardware characteristics. Have you tested the performance of these vectorized functions for different hardware architectures and different generations of CPUs?

<comment><AUTHOR> We tested on some machines, but didn't perform comparion tests for CPUs of different generations. We used perf to compare vectorized and non-vectorized programs, and found that IPC and the cache hit rate for vectorized programs improved. Because of limitations of space and time, I can't give such details in this post.</comment></comment>


UCB CS294: Virtual Machines and Managed Runtimes - <AUTHOR> http://www.wolczko.com/CS294/ <comment><USER2> A short story about Xerox PARC from the Q&A of one of the lectures: [https://youtu.be/sw7TkkiGVIY?t=7885](https://youtu.be/sw7TkkiGVIY?t=7885)

<comment><USER3> I was curious about the 'nsfw' bit at the end of the lecture as well : )

The Xerox Star was truly ahead of its time. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star)

<comment><USER4> Every time I delve into Xerox PARC documentation about Smalltalk,Interlisp-D and Mesa/Cedar, it saddens me that it was AT&T culture that got widespread into the industry, not Xerox's.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Folks who have taken this course, can you please share your experience</comment>


Everyone should get an A - <AUTHOR> http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/exams.pdf

<comment><USER2> Great read; however, I feel Prof. MacKay misses an important point. Employers fuel the problem, demanding this-and-that. People are going to university to meet the criteria for an top paying job, rather than passion for the subject. This is what is causing the grade struggle: student rush, cram, and rote memorise to achieve desired grades; most don't give a damn about interacting with the material. If you said here's an 'A' they'd take it, and not care about not knowing the material.

First, we need to restore university as an institution of learning [instead of a qualification mill]. In fact, I might be inclined to argue that grades should be abolished outright - almost what Prof. MacKay is saying.

[disclaimer: I'm a student at a world renowned British university]

<comment><USER2> a/an, of course.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Would you like to read and discuss math and computer science literature? - <AUTHOR> Hi HN,
There is a group created at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/integerclub for those who would like to read and discuss mathematics and computer science literature. If you normally learn these subjects in solitude but would instead like to meet a few other people regularly and work through new literature or problems, then this group is for you. Mathematics and computer science are inherently a social activity even if a good portion of it can be done individually. The purpose of this group is to be that social platform where students and professionals of all backgrounds can come together to share with each other what they are learning as well as discuss and work on new ideas.
Also, if you would rather like to talk on Slack, visit https://bit.ly/integerclubslackinvite to join our workspace. There is an IRC channel too at https://webchat.freenode.net/#integerclub if that's what you prefer.
If you have any feedback or suggestions, please post them as comments here. <comment><USER2> I can't access the Google Groups (#418, don't have permissions). I'll join the Slack

<comment><AUTHOR> The Google Groups permission issue has been fixed now. Please visit [https://groups.google.com/d/forum/integerclub](https://groups.google.com/d/forum/integerclub) and click the "Apply to join group" button to join the group. Thanks!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: I can't work anymore. Burnout? I have no idea. What can I do? - <AUTHOR> I have had a successful solo app business for years, earning a decent income and providing for my family. But something happened. My work output has dropped to zero. I find myself unable to even begin working in the morning.  It's after 3:00PM and I still haven't written a single line of code.  I can't sit down and write the associated content. I have emails to some freelancers sitting in my inbox.  I will probably respond to those after this, but I feel even massive resistance to that task.
I love the business, though. My customers are generally very happy and positive people. I love the niche topic, enjoying reading about it in my spare time. I love to see what comes of the work.
To me, this feels like more than just a question of motivation. I have a lot of tricks to motivate myself. This feels like I lost something. I just "don't do it."  What am I facing here? Does anyone know?
edit: I do have a new and interesting project I want to be working on, but the same effect seems to be stopping me. I will also add that I have a child in daycare a few a days a week, ostensibly so I can work.  I'm paying someone else to spend time with my kid while I don't work. <comment><USER2> If your problem is the same as mine then I think I can help. I find that I often struggle to focus and be productive as well - even to the point of zero productivity. There are four things that I do that help a lot:

1) Eliminate distractions. I don't know if it's ADHD or what but I'm very easily distracted. As much as I love programming, I often find that reading HN or checking my email, browsing Amazon or any number of other things seem more interesting. It's often even just doing things I need to get done, but at a time when I should be focusing on writing code.

For me the solution is to push all my browser windows to another desktop, open only the one I need for testing/research and absolutely ban myself from doing anything else for a period of time.

2) Manage expectations. The other problem I have is that my mind doesn't like to switch focus very easily. I may have been really laser focused on a problem for a while, but then after I finish or something else comes up and it's time to focus on a new problem, my brain rebels and refuses to change focus.

The solution for me has been to manage my expectations, in a sense. I have to close my eyes and clear my mind of everything and just relax for 5 minutes, with the expectation that after that I'm going to open my eyes and focus on the new task. It helps calm my mind and since I'm now expecting to focus on the new task in 5 minutes, but I'm not forcing it immediately, my mind warms up to the idea of doing it in a bit.

3) Have a plan. I've found that when I'm faced with a difficult and vague task my brain wants to avoid focusing just because it seems hard or something.

For this I've found that if I first pause and plan out exactly where I'm going to jump in, exactly what I'm going to do to try and tackle the problem, then it's easier to focus on it. Maybe that means I'm going to sit down with a white-board and draw out the system architecture to tackle a problem or whatever else.

4) Sleep and caffeine. I've found that when I'm too tired, I really just can't focus. Often just taking a 20 minute nap (keep it to 20 minutes, set an alarm) makes a world of difference. Also, I've found that getting some caffeine helps me focus a lot. Of course, it might not be as effective if you use it all the time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I'll definitely try variations on these, though it's not too different than what I do now for general motivation. Since this is a throwaway, I'll admit to thinking about trying something stronger than caffeine. Who knows, maybe I actually do have ADHD and just need to balance out something up there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Generally, we do our best to not listen to ourselves. Your mind / body are telling you something when they give up. Instead of being a dictator and trying to trick them further into extracting work, I highly recommend doing WHATEVER pleasant things you feel like, especially of the exercise, hiking, long walk variety! :-) For example, when your kid is out, go for a long walk for an hour in a pleasant park.

More directly, as you forget about the problem and take a walk, something, some spark of insight / revelation comes into the mind by itself because your guard is down and you are not torturing with the usual, "You were SUPPOSED to help me work, but you just want a break, huh?!" self-punishment. This is the realm of the genuine Unknown. Allow it.

Hope this helps.

</comment><comment><USER4> Have you tried constraining yourself to doing less?

I don't mean taking a vacation or sleeping more. I mean setting as a goal that you'll accomplish less every day, and with zero expectation about what to do with the free hours that open up. Just as you pressure yourself to do more, pressure yourself to do less.

Hypothesis: even if you tried to do nothing you wouldn't be able to. Your mind would start wandering to topics you haven't let it. Like that new challenge in a related niche that you'd love to get off the ground. Try doing nothing and suddenly your subconscious takes over. You discover thoughts you didn't even know were brewing.

The principle at work here is that constraint is no less important than freedom. Constraint is key in creativity. Limit yourself to less, and you start overflowing to a new direction.

Make sure you give it enough time. You need at least 1.5-2hr blocks of time where you can shut off the world and play uninterrupted, and you also need to schedule such unstructured play lots of times. Don't worry about feeling unproductive in the meantime. Worry more about noticing the pattern to your thoughts, and do that at the end of each block of time so you don't feel pressured to be noticing.

I'd love to hear what you discover.

<comment><AUTHOR> I honestly hated this when I read it the first time. I've gotten a lot of intuitive advice in the thread for which I'm very thankful. I'll try variations of most of it.

But this... I read it 5 to 6 times. I have no idea if it will work, but it can't hurt. My next scheduled workday is Saturday and I'll absolutely put this into practice.

Other suggestions to take time off, get outside, etc are great and I will do them (as the Boston deep freeze allows), but I will try this ASAP and see if it helps. Even if it produces a day or two of output, it will be extremely useful. I will respond with results after saturday.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Maybe you need a vacation if you haven't taken one. Guilt vacations where you don't get anything done for a while aren't as good as deliberate ones where you post up 'no support for two weeks, snoozing on beach/gone fishing/Vegas Baby.'

But if you're still into the niche, then maybe the answer is to stop writing code and and focus on business development & QA. You don't need to be always working at the coal face yourself. Perhaps get the freelancers to start maintianing your code base and switch your attentions to product and busines development, plucking the most promising contracters to become employees?

Whichever, don't beat yourself up. It's Thursday now, so I suggest clearing your urgent emails and then taking the rest of today, tomorrow, and the weekend off (ie away from the computer and preferably from your home) to think about what you'd like to be doing each day of the week. Lots of luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Vacation would be difficult at this point. I have made promises to my wife and myself that I would make progress on certain things. I am supposed to be working right now. I don't feel I have the freedom to take a vacation. It wouldn't impact the bottom line, but I'd take a hit in other ways. I'd have to know it would break the block I'm having.

I do have other projects and aspects of the business that I can work on, but I think I would be working on them if I could work. Weird, I know. It's not something I'm choosing to do... smack talk myself on NH vs. working. It's just gotten that bad that I don't know what else to do.

<comment><USER6> "I don't feel I have the freedom to take a vacation."

This is a sure sign that you need to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You know, I faced something similar when I felt I have finally found "success". It was a difficult time to get motivated not only because of the lack of any more challenges, but also because I felt I had lost a worthwhile goal to pursue.

In any case, it seems that you're financially successful, love what you do, and right now may be looking for the new challenge.

I would definitely recommend you take some time to think about what are new challenges you'd like to tackle. Brainstorm and don't let reason hold you back from making big and daring goals. Then review your resources and see what you need to work on to start on another path.

Hope this helps. Obviously a lot of other great recommendations in this thread, so I definitely recommend you start writing down your thoughts and how you're thinking through things. It'll help you keep track of your progress.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! This is pretty accurate. I did something like this last year and found a new challenge in a related niche that I'd love to get off the ground. It's not even coding or anything... it should be fun. I face the same resistance to moving forward on that too, though. It's like my work brain shuts off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Q: "What am I facing here?"

A: Ennui.

But you probably knew that.

Had a vacation lately?

Have you explored the notion of developing another career?

A former boss told me once, when I was in a fit of pique over something related to work, "Relax man. Everyone has two or three careers in them. You're on your first."

FWIW I went through something you could call a major bout of ennui regarding working in the internet tech sector several years ago. Came out the other end of it just fine, but I work fewer hours/wk as a result by choice, spend more time outdoors, and frequently invest some of it in learning new things. Friends joke that I am going to wind up being that guy in the Dos Equis commercial...

Caveat: I don't have a family to support. Woodshedding and shifting gears is great if you have the financial flexibility. YMWV.

At least take up gardening or something.

</comment><comment><USER9> In addition to the other suggestions posted here, go see a doctor, have your blood levels checked to exclude the possibility of some deficiency or illness (it's easy to ruin your body without noticing by working hard for many years).

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll do that, thanks. I will also talk to my doctor about this in case it turns out it's a sign of something else going on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think you need a challenge.

You're happy, content with how your business is going, you love whats happening around you. So I believe you're losing motivation to go on. Why not take up a small challenge to yourself which is not related to your business at all? This usually freshens my mind and gets me thinking on some other things. Some simple ideas you could try: 1\. Grow an audience for you twitter handle (Don't know anything about it, just go ahead anyway) 2\. Code something for your wife/girlfriend and surprise her?

Let me know what you think. You probably just need a distraction on the side to push you through this phase. All the best mate!

</comment><comment><USER6> It sounds to me like you just need to take a break. Try for a week long vacation in the mountains or on the beach. If you have the money, somewhere even better like Hawaii.

Most importantly, during that week, TURN OFF YOUR PHONE. Don't read the news. It will all be there when you get back.

Can't do that, because your the only one in your solo app business? Then it's a sure sign that you need to. Find a friend to take over for a week, or hire someone (maybe permanently, if the workload can justify it).

</comment><comment><USER11> Let me suggest this:

1) Clean your office. Do a very thorough job (like "spring cleaning"). Stick to non-toxic cleaners.

2) Take extra vitamins and/or improve your diet.

3) Start taking a daily walk for exercise.

4) Clean wherever you sleep. Again, think "spring cleaning" type cleaning.

In short, look to your health.

<comment><USER12> \+ 1 for exercise. I was in this headspace, started regularly exercising and have been on a massive productive boost.

I also find that if I write down little check boxes with the task broken down into smaller steps, it makes it easier for me to start and stay focused.

Good luck!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Yeah, I've been there. For me, the solution was just setting a new, completely outrageous annual revenue goal. Having that seemingly unattainable number scrawled on a sticky note put me back in the right mindset.

</comment><comment><USER14> Have you thought about taking a sabbatical? I just spent 4 months in Spain and it really helped me to come back refreshed and ready to launch my next product!

</comment><comment><USER15> Go hiking for a week.</comment>


His Doctors Were Stumped, Then He Took Over - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/business/his-doctors-were-stumped-then-he-took-over.html <comment><USER2> I wrote my thoughts about how to work with your doctor here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12266170](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12266170)

My wife has since passed away unfortunately. I really need to write this all up at some point to close it off.

Anyway, I've come to understand that most doctors look at the scientific evidence _indirectly_.

They often have an excellent ability to follow a decision tree and work through the differential diagnosis. However, that decision tree is based on (a) observations and (b) what other doctors have tried. There's no attempt to look at the underlying mechanism to find novel solutions. So new basic research (e.g. on mTOR and VEGF as in the article) will have no effect on practice until it is proven in trials or until enough mavericks (like the patient in the article) have created a precedent.

It does make sense in terms of avoiding cost and harm -- biology is very complicated -- but I do think this conservative bias goes too far in cases where the treatments have been already proven safe in other contexts, or in cases where the alternative is already bleak.

<comment><USER3> I think that many people don't understand that clinicians are not investigators and generally do not have any research experience, despite having the title of 'doctor' (a fairly recent appellation outside of academia).

They are, as you say, trained to arrive at a diagnosis to the best of their ability and provide treatment. A challenging diagnosis, however, is a fully- fledged scientific investigation. This is where clinical researchers (MD PhD) can really shine, but it's hard to apply this to individuals; the typical direction follows funding first, which may not be of much help to any given patient. At any rate, this approach ultimately does not scale.

My hope is that new tools (accessible databases, better data collection, and a dash of ML) will get more patients in front of the right pair of eyes more often. The situation with life-threatening diseases is bad enough, but there are also huge opportunities for improved quality of life from vague, nagging, or intermittent illness diagnosis.

<comment><USER4> To contrast your first sentence, nearly every physician younger than 50 most likely has some experience with research and a good percentage of those have been published prior to even being accepted to medical school. Beyond that, the numbers I'm finding state ~1.5% of current MDs primarily spend their days doing research.

I think the issue here is not that physicians "are not investigators" but more-so that the financial realities are in no way aligned with dedicating massive amounts of time to any given patient. Physicians generally bill around $300/hour in cash only clinics, so I think it's a poor allocation of resources to expect them to dedicate 100s of hours to a more obscure patient. PhDs are dirt cheap, better to hand the odd case study off to them and let those with clinical skills focus on being clinicians to the more typical patient.

<comment><USER5> Can we replace physicians yet with expert systems? $300/hr seems egregious for a decision tree expert system.

<comment><USER6> 300 USD per hour pays the medical assistants, support staff, rent, electricity, taxes, etc. The number that employee physicians (a much more typical case than private cash-only practices) gross is closer to USD 95 per hour, assuming a 40 hour workweek and an annual salary of 200 000 USD. (Few physicians work only 40 hours per week, so the real number is much, much lower.)

<comment><USER5> Just give me a Watson iPhone app that kicks me out to a professional if it can't confidently diagnose.

I am appreciative when medical staff is required. But when it's not, ruthless automation must be out into place to contain costs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My wife had a tumor on her pituitary gland. Four different MDs came up empty on her symptoms. The fourth doctor ran the right endocrine system test, but was only able to conclude "it's not [her] thyroid."

It took me about thirty minutes with the test results and Google to make the diagnosis. I was lucky, in that I had a colleague who was acquainted with the head of Stanford endocrinology, who confirmed the diagnosis and found us a good surgeon. Wife is fine today.

It's anecdotal, but my experience with the medical system is that nearly all doctors see the same handful of things day in and day out, and are not trained to see beyond their expertise.

<comment><USER8> That's awful. I, too, have turned to Google M.D. before.

I went to five different doctors for throat discomfort and chest pain. The first four didn't see anything in my mouth, so told me I can't be having any symptoms if they don't see anything after a two second glance at my mouth and refused to do anything further.

I was in enough discomfort I lost sleep, and after a few months of these symptoms I couldn't stop thinking the worst.

I had to practically threaten the last doctor to do an infection test which turned out a positive result for mono. Not my imagination after all.

As for my chest, I described my symptoms to my mother, who almost immediately suggested acid reflux. Sure enough, as later confirmed by a throat specialist, that's what it was, and the medication fixed my symptoms pretty much the next day.

If you're a young male, doctors don't want anything to do with you. I usually Google things and make my own decisions now. I've started to view GPs as nothing but an unfortunate barrier on my way to a useful prescription or specialist.

<comment><USER9> Mind you asking,but did you have a cough as well ? When I turned 31, I started to have a cough, soon I found-out that I had acid-reflux.

<comment><USER10> Especially in winter, after you get sick once with a cough? Doctor took one look at me, and told me to take a Zantac twice a day for three days.

Cough was gone. It was miraculous!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In this thread there is a fair amount of "Google, MD" talk, so I'll add my own story.

In medical school we were tasked with identifying an unusual cause of a baby's fussiness after eating.

For the first time, everyone got the right answer. My professor wasn't sure whether to be proud of us for all doing deep reading into rare disease or to be angry that we had collaborated.

But in fact, everyone had just popped the unusual findings into Google, which spat back the diagnosis of ALCAPA (anomalous left coronary artery from the pulmonary artery).

Your doctor's brain is not the world's best device for information retrieval.

<comment><USER12> _Your doctor 's brain is not the world's best device for information retrieval._

As a former doctor, agree 100%. Still the medical profession seems to look down upon "information aid"-like technology. Beyond accurate physical examination and correctly entering the patient's history into a well-trained pattern-matching AI engine, doctors really don't need to be doing much in a first-world country. They need to be re-inserted into the workflow only if the treatment recommended by the automated/AI approach does not help.

The brutal truth is that the vast majority of doctors, even specialists, will be incapable of correctly diagnosing and treating the very uncommon, rare and extremely rare medical conditions.

"The eyes see what the mind thinks" \- is absolutely applicable to 99% of doctors, who, for various reasons, would be more concerned with helping the 95% of their patients with obvious/common/easily-identifiable conditions that respond to their first or at most second line of treatment, than bother spending an inordinate amount of time, effort and energy on the remaining 5% who's death/suffering may well be considered the "cost of doing business". Bitter truth, from experience.

<comment><USER13> Yes, I believe this is what happened to my friend with the rare disease of late pregnancy.

Even though she had a diagnosis, she was on a regular maternity ward.

None of the nurses / Drs. Seemed to really want to learn about her condition or make sure she was being treated correctly for her disease. She "didn't fit". Her death or the baby's death would have been "the cost of doing business".

Her doctor said 2 or 3 babies died of Choleostasis every YEAR, yet the nurses and doctors on the maternity ward were quite clueless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I know many doctors are caring and well trained, but they work in systems that often prevent them from seeing what they should or taking actions that they would like to take.

You really need to take charge of your treatment. It can mean the difference between life or death, or the difference between being a victim or living a normal life.

In my own personal experience, I've unraveled medical mysteries affecting my health that have stumped some pretty good docs, and in one case, a super specialist. On the other hand, I've been greatly helped by docs.

All I can say is don't give up just because docs say they don't know or don't seem to be making you better.

<comment><USER15> I agree. Chances are your "specialist" has to cover an immense amount of ground. Spend a couple weeks, or maybe a couple of months, grinding at pubmed.com (with a good online medical dictionary at hand) and you can certainly outread him or her on a narrow topic that affects you if it's unusual, and have a lot of knowledge at hand he or she doesn't, if you grind at it. Just be humble about all the context for that knowledge that you don't simply don't have, and don't imply they should know everything. There isn't time enough in the day for them to read everything useful to them clinically. Watson and similar A.I. helpers are really needed, and coming.

Sadly, a lot of doctors just make shit up out of thin air to help gloss over what they can't be expected to read, which is probably a good time to consider switching doctors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is a problem with our notion of "expertise".

We rely too much on them and delegate everything in our society to them.

But first, there are varying degree of quality among experts. The delta is huge.

Secondly, they are only human, and make mistake all the time.

Thirdly, they have an agenda too. It may not be to help you the best they can, but to make a living with the least problem possible.

Now another problem is that a lot of people reject expertise in a such a way that any honest attempt will look terrible after them. The typical anti-vaxer speech has no credibility at all, preventing any sane debate on vaccines. The pro consider it "not even a question". But everybody should always raise questions about any medical act before deciding to got for it or not. This include vaccines, band aids, whatever.

The notion or "expert" also tends to remove responsibility from the people. But your health is YOUR concern, you choose take great responsibility in it.

In the end, we should all learn to not ask experts to solve our problems, but to use them so we can solve our problems.

</comment><comment><USER17> A couple years back I started seeing a "hippy" doctor in my town (Boulder).

He's a licensed MD and doesn't accept insurance; cash only at $300 an hour. Totally worth every penny.

He actually listens, and is willing to get creative with things.

If you're not satisfied with your PC provider, find a cash only doctor. I think you'll find they care more.

<comment><USER18> IME, it's not that they care more - it's that they have the time to pause and think.

A buddy of mine is a world-renowned specialist, but in a niche too small to allow him to go all-cash. He gets a patient a couple of years back who came with literally _boxes_ of medical records, years of failed doctor visits, and in excess of 100k$ in worth of tests and interventions. He spent two days poring over her records, and got her the diagnosis no one else did - got her on the right tx, and gave her her life back.

Insurance reimbursed him precisely the same (<$300 gross) that it would have for an ordinary visit of ordinary length, more or less. (Fine, he billed a level 5 eval and management instead of a level 3; difference of nearly peanuts). How often do you think he sets aside the time to pause and really think deeply on a problem?

If he was charging cash and had the chance to charge people for his time and expertise, knowing him, he'd be happy to do nothing but spend days at a time tackling the hardest problems available.

<comment><USER19> >He spent two days poring over her records, and got her the diagnosis no one else did - got her on the right tx, and gave her her life back.

Well, quite frankly, this is part of the problem and it's a social adjustment we need to make as well. We see this with virtually any position where you need to diagnose; 99% of the time it's a simple issue from column A, but occasionally you get a symptom that looks like the issue is from column A but it's actually in column B. In technology, we fly through column A solutions because they're cheap, fast to test, and often done without cost, and column B solutions are more drastic, more expensive, and sometimes more dangerous.

The difficulty in translating this to medicine is that a lot of times column B solutions are dangerous to the point of no return. Combine this with the fact that there really aren't rollbacks when it comes to health, you have actual life or death decisions to be made.

Taking the time to review the whole history can really help with this and to get a full timeline of events, but even then it's hard to get past the column A/B thinking. I've been dealing with a very annoying sinus issue for 3 years across about 8 doctors from across the planet (due to moving because of work). Every time I've started anew with a doctor, they go down the exact same treatment list as the previous, and when they're told that I've done that already, they just want a repeat. I understand this thought process (what if I'm lying, what if they bungled the test, what if something changed, etc), but I've done this 8 times now. I've been told each time it's an allergy, but every time we see an allergist, they can't get me to react to any allergen they have available to test for and are left scratching their heads as to why antihistamines don't have any effect. They also can't find a common cause that fits with allergies, but in their minds, it just looks so much like allergies they're not sure what else to test. I secretly suspect that if I could just get a doctor to spend more than 20 minutes in a consult to review the case and what I've done so far we could try something else, but regardless of where I've been, I just can't get a doctor to look too much longer. They either don't believe the symptoms as I report them, don't believe the steps I've already tried to resolve it, or they just don't have the time to care past the initial look at the symptoms.

I appreciate the difficulty in having to do this: when column A fails, it looks great if you pick the right item from column B, but it also gets really expensive while you shop around to find the right item from column B. They make it look so easy on House, but no place is willing to really do that sort of patient history and testing, and if the condition is not life threatening, then it's just a "deal with it" situation, we're gonna keep throwing the easy stuff at the symptoms until the person stops complaining.

I don't know what the problem is or how to embolden doctors to take a little more time, but some change would be nice. Though, hearing stories from my mother who has been a nurse for 20+ years, sometimes emboldened doctors look for problems that aren't there so they can look like heroes.

It's a crazy thing with health and unfortunately the value of such emboldened decisions tends to be a very ad-hoc assessment. If it worked well, it was a gutsy but necessary maneuver. If it did nothing, it was reckless. If it caused harm, it was malpractice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The approach he took to analysing his condition reminds me of bug fixes through logging and debugging.

He took and analysed blood samples over many months -> logging.

When he identified something in the logs that looked odd, he took a drug that should affect that behaviour -> debugging.

<comment><USER21> It's the scientific process, actually.

<comment><USER22> No, you don't understand. There was NOTHING before the hackers came and disrupted everything. We were left to poke in the dirt with sticks.

/s

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Everyone's saying that there is a lack of doctors that are ready to think outside the reular prescriptions and diseases, but is this really a fault of the doctors or is this something that has been enforced by the system? I think that giving doctors equal pay irrespective ofthe work they do, or the patients they treat is very stupid and dangerous. It eradicates a standard of value.

[https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1985/01/01/medicine-the- dea...](https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1985/01/01/medicine-the-death-of-a- profession)

<comment><USER24> The Mayo Clinic is one of the best hospitals on the planet and is even mentioned in the article, since they have diagnostic labs that specialize in so-called esoteric testing. Their doctors are paid a salary, which is market- based, reaches a plateau after a number of years you have the same title and is not tied to the number of patients you see. Not only there's no incentive for them to cram as many patients in a day as possible, but they call each other consultants because they will bring in colleagues when there's a tough case that warrants a second or third opinion.

<comment><USER18> In fairness, it's the Mayo Clinic's enormous prestige that acts as a supplemental non-cash reimbursement to the physicians that practice there. It's, more generally, a trait of hospital systems to substitute reimbursing physicians with culture rather than cash. They get a flat salary, and in some places a volume-based bonus. In places where the culture isn't earnest, insufficiently prestigious, or both, this cultural currency falls flat and physicians (and other staff) absolutely start to suck more.

Outside of hospitals (hospitals and physicians are _not_ equivalent; think Walmart and your local mom-and-pop shop, if you want a better idea of the relationship between the two), physicians are reimbursed directly by volume. Not quality, though - just volume.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I found this discussion of medical reversal very interesting. Particularly, how proxies for things are often used. Treating a symptom sometimes instead of a root cause.

I think we also have that same problem in economics. People consume more when times are good, so let's get them to consume more and times will be good.

[http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/02/adam_cifu_on_en.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/02/adam_cifu_on_en.html)

</comment><comment><USER26> TL;DR Dad got a condition precipitated by anesthesia from surgery. Lots of docs couldn't figure it out. I solved it using Google in less than 5 minutes.

It's amazing how many doctors operate in "tunnel vision." A few years back after a routine procedure that put him under, my dad awoke to non stop hiccups. At first the anesthesiologist said it was a temporary side effect of the anesthesia and brushed it off. Well the hiccups continued for 2 freaking weeks non stop.

As you can imagine this is a) a major disruption to a normal life (he couldn't sleep, couldn't eat, couldn't do anything for two weeks) and b) annoying as hell to everyone around you.

We went his GP multiples times, consulted the same idiot anesthesiologist and went to the emergency room 4 times over those two weeks and the reactions varied. Everything from the doctor literally laughing out loud seeing a middle age man in agony over non stop hiccups to another doctor prescribing pineapple juice. Yup, pineapple juice. Apparently some people use that to stop hiccups.

After the third trip, with no seeming progress and my dad basically asking us to kill him so that he can get some normal rest, I decided to start googling, which I should have done when this all started. I found a interesting research paper from Cal Berkeley which described a similar case after surgery, which described the mechanism that actually causes hiccups (its a spasm of the diaphragm cause by the vagal nerve) and how they were able to treat it.

We decided to go to a more than decent hospital in the big city armed with this paper in hand. In to the emergency room, after the standard tests they did at the other places and the scopes and all that, the doctor goes yeah we have no idea what's going on let me look up some stuff and I'll be right back.

He went to some computer terminal and started clacking away while I was watching over his shoulder unbeknownst to him. After about 3 minutes of searching some medical portal the hospital uses and seeing his head shake repeatedly I walked over, tapped him on the shoulder and said, hey I think I might have found something helpful on my ipad and handed it to him.

He read the paper in 2 minutes flat said "oh my god," called his supervisor (he was the attending physician, not a resident) they both agreed to call this doctor at Cal and after a 5 minute phone call wrote a script for a drug called Baclofen which treats muscle spams. 2 of the worst weeks of my Dad and our lives' came to an end within 15 minutes.

I was glad this place being a teaching hospital, was open minded enough to consider what they were presented

The hospital thought I was some kind of Doogie Howser and the head of the ER goes to me "You should really consider becoming a doctor." I replied with "Why would I ever do something silly like that. I'm an engineer." The doctor was both amused and not amused at the same time.

Just goes to show you, how narrow their field of vision is. Most doctors get trained a certain way with certain tools and for the rest of their career that is all they know.

<comment><USER27> Just goes to show you, how narrow their field of vision is. Most xs get trained a certain way with certain tools and for the rest of their career that is all they know.

Applies to most of us whatever the value of x.

<comment><USER26> I'd like to think that's not true. At least not more myself. My parents always stressed scientific thinking in problem solving.

As engineers and scientists I would like to hope that most of us on HN are constantly looking for new tools and novel approaches. There will always be new tools and techniques for development, new frameworks, more optimized algorithms, better debugging, etc. We should all always be looking to integrate, update and enhance our toolset and skills and inspiration comes from many places, not just technology. It's a part of being the best at what you do--which for us happens to be critical thinking and problem solving.

At least I try to do this constantly myself.

Maybe that's part of the problem. Most people are trained to be whatever they are without a real focus on true problem solving. They're given one framework to solve the issues of their field and told to run with it.

That's a big part of this doctors story too, that he was willing to enhance the state of his art by thinking outside the box, pulling together an uncoordinated, distributed team, sharing information and research and opening the channels of communication.

Hmmm, sounds familiar...

<comment><USER28> I think historically engineers and developers have been given the tools with which to experiment. It's easy to break down a problem in our environments, as compared to a human body where you not only can't experiment freely, but where it is difficult to isolate cause and effect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is a remarkable story, atleast for me. It highlights the importance to find patterns in data and then map those patterns to something X. Agreed it takes time to do this and is exhausting as well but results are far more amazing.

Same thing happened with recent tremors related non-invasive surgery at Imperial college London. Data played extremely crucial part to localize it. ([http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38157770](http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38157770))

Really excited to envision a purely data-driven healthcare system. It will have a significant impact on our understanding of different diseases.

Anyone knows where to find such anonymous health/disease related data for further research?

</comment><comment><USER30> This is just speculation on my part but I wonder if he overstressed his system by being such a 'beast' prior to getting sick. The photo of him doing a football drill does not look so healthy to me. His body looks over-developed.

I don't mean any disrespect by this comment. Clearly he is an extraordinary individual.

</comment><comment><USER31> He was browsing through hackernews, and you will never believe what headline really pissed him off.

</comment><comment><USER32> Can we get the title changed? The current title does not provide me with enough information to know what the article is about. How about, "Doctor diagnosed with rare Castleman disease leads charge for cure"?

<comment><USER33> I hear you, but not all titles on HN have to be self-explanatory. It's good for readers to have to work a little sometimes.

<comment><USER34> How does this further the aims of HN?

<comment><USER35> By forcing people to respond to or otherwise discuss the _contents_ of the article instead of the headline.

<comment><USER36> Actually it seems like dang was making a moralistic point that I'm not sure about. Sometimes a suggestive, catchy but perhaps uninformative title is linkbait (and should be replaced), but sometimes such a title is not "bait" but instead something we just have to accept as given? Hmmm.

<comment><USER37> There's a difference between piquing curiosity and exploiting emotions. Of course there's a grey area, and this story may be closer to the line than usual, but wherever the line is, it's fair enough for dang to judge that this title is on the right side of it.

Personally I don't see how the title misrepresents the content in the article, or tricks anyone into reading something they'd be better off not to have read.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


I Influenced Three Senators for $477.85 - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@colinsholes/i-influenced-three-senators-for-477-85-c0256e8ba66c <comment><USER2> It's very interesting to see some concrete numbers on political marketing, and while I don't doubt the author's number, I find his conclusion over-ambitious.

\- The author finds that the click-through rate (20%) is much higher than the rate he typically sees in his career --> This is evidence of people being mad about Betsy Devos, and doesn't necessarily say anything about how easy it is to influence people through ads.

\- The hardest part is to get people to go from watching a video to physically pick up the phone. The author doesn't (and can't) track this part, so can't prove his ads' true effectiveness. He "conservatively" estimates that his ads' audience make up half of the 1400 calls to the North Dakota senator. For this to be true, the conversion rate from video to physical phone call has to be 70% [1]. I'm not convinced it's this high.

Indeed, if it's so easy to convince people to actually pick up the phone, a school district or a church can get the hundreds of parents and church-goers in a day.

[1] 996 North Dakotans watched the ads. The conversion rate needs to be 700 / 996 ~ 70% for his audience to make up half of the 1400 calls to the senator.

<comment><USER3> If he wanted to he could setup call tracking which simply routes the call to the destination. Trivial with systems such as Plivo

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> These hyper-targeting stories are the scariest part about adtech. Every year the are less cute and more worrisome.

Five hours on here and no comments is also scary.

<comment><USER5> > Five hours on here and no comments is also scary.

I agree it's scary, but it's also a Sunday (posted before dawn for the US). Probably more importantly, the title gives you the impression it's purely a clickbait article and not something with more substance.

<comment><USER6> And not just Sunday, Easter Sunday.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So... I find this... Odd.

So, online marketing seems to be trying to toggle desired functionality out of large audiences.

Why does no thought ever seem to go into the opportunity cost of redirected thought?

For instance... Most programmers are quite familiar with the phenomena wherein one is interrupted, thus losing track of a sizable mental context that has to be painstakingly rebuilt.

Marketing and advertising seems to be BUILT on exploiting this type of interaction though.

"Hey! I know you're busy working on that report, but how about a Coke?"

Now, as a society, we've accepted small amounts of this over time as in many cases, it hasn't seemed that disruptive.

Yet as mass-media has evolved, it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell what is the first class citizen anymore. The "important/desired" content, or the ads. As more and more opportunities are created for injecting advertising, we're seeing a society that seems steered in a direction where our interactions are being increasingly guided by our reaction to media in the environment rather than by the environment itself. Other human "agencies" (translation: businesses) are attempting to replace "human agency" (translation: self-inspired decision making capability predicated upon personal experience) itself as the primary means through which one achieves "a comfortable existence" (translation: living a fulfilling and virtuous life; living a high Quality existence; achieving self-actualization).

This article paints a picture of one scenario where this type of externalized agency becomes increasingly problematic.

The American Legislature was DESIGNED to be inefficient. This is easy to see when one takes preservation of liberty as a starting point, and then defines the act of legislation as the process by which liberty's definition is refined and bound in order to preserve the societal superstructure of a state while facilitating the state's capacity for action and need to evolve over time.

When you apply a highly efficient system for spreading one individual's viewpoint in an emotionally galvanizing way, one detracts from the built in inefficiency of the legislative process, enabling faster implementation of more restriction, but less efficient removal of restriction due to a natural bias against "rocking the boat" endemic to a large portion of the population.

I guess for me, this raises a couple big questions.

A)Should the output of a legislature be governed by the fact 1000000 people listened to one guy's five minute blurb and regurgitated it to a representative, or should it be because a representative granted a staff with higher access to information has had the time to work through the issue to figure out the least restrictive way to implement a law?

B) Should marketing/advertisement be looked at more carefully, and possibly regulated or downgraded to a less protected form of speech due to how easily it can be weaponized? (I.e. Advertising material being restricted in the types of claims it can make such as having to be backed by factual publicly accessible data; Or being restricted in forms and situations in which it can be employed/consumed)

C) Is marketing/advertising in its current digital forms even desirable?

I'm somewhat disturbed that some of these questions are even seemingly in need of being asked, but the last decade or two is really quite disturbing when looked at through the lens of an individual living in a world just coming into an age of digital marketing and information warfare.

Sorry for the wall of text, but this has been bugging me a lot lately.

<comment><USER8> It all starts to make so much more sense once you start mentally replacing the words "marketing" and "advertising" with the end result they're both trying to achieve: Mind Control. There are varying levels of insidiousness from trying to get you to buy a certain brand of dishsoap, to encouraging you to share more of your personal life on Facebook, all the way up to deliberately poisoning your worldview with hatred and paranoia a la Fox News. In the end though, the goal is always to effect some change in behavior regardless of whether it's in the subject's best interest or not. As a society we would do well to be much more wary of all kinds of advertisement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Affect _</comment>


Ask HN: Where to publish Rust command-line tools for easy use? - <AUTHOR> I just made a small Rust command-line tool, and I'd like to distribute it.
What I'm most familiar with when it comes to publishing CLI tools is NPM. However, since Rust requires a build step I don't really feel like crates.io is set up for that on its own. There exist OS-specific package managers like apt and homebrew, but I'm not super excited about the prospect of going around and maintaining separate publications on each of those, especially since I don't even use Linux really. And of course Windows would be left out of the loop, even though the tool should build and run just fine there in theory.
I wish there were a CLI-focused package manager for Rust tools that would just download a tool's crate from crates.io, do a release build for the local architecture, and add it to your path. Does this exist (if not it could be my next project...)? And if not, what's the conventional practice here?
Edit: I just discovered the "cargo install" command, which is basically what I described above: https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch14-04-installing-binaries.html. I'm still wondering about convention, though. Do people ever publish runnable crates on crates.io and call it a day? <comment><USER2> Yes, people normally publish their crates to crates.io and call it a day, see [https://github.com/sharkdp/bat](https://github.com/sharkdp/bat) or [https://github.com/ogham/exa](https://github.com/ogham/exa)

<comment><AUTHOR> bat appears to be listed on something like a dozen different package repositories, and buries the "cargo install" option at the very bottom of the list. exa at least has "cargo install" at the top, but it also lists three other possible sources. Doesn't really make the case that "cargo install" is enough.

<comment><USER3> bat and exa also have ~19,100 and ~9,300 stars, respectively, on GitHub and (presumably) even more actual users - unless your project is that popular, I honestly wouldn't worry about it.

If your project does get that far, it'll start popping up in all of those package managers. To be super blunt, if you're interested in building and sharing CLI tools written in Rust, I'd just start building and sharing CLI tools written in Rust and stop worrying about all the different package management solutions available. crates.io is the standard for the Rust ecosystem and is more than sufficient until your project has hundreds or thousands of users - most package managers won't even accept your package until it has a decent amount of popularity (e.g. in use by more than 50 people).

Once the project is popular enough that it warrants placement in package managers, you'll know because a user will either file an issue requesting the project be added to a package manager or they'll simply do it themselves :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would consider Homebrew, for a single binary it's easy to write and basically maintenance free (aka "write once and forget").

Note that Homebrew is now available on Linux, I use it almost exclusively because packages are way more up to date than OS repositories

</comment><comment><USER3> TL;DR Just publish it on crates.io and call it a day.

> What I'm most familiar with when it comes to publishing CLI tools is NPM. > However, since Rust requires a build step I don't really feel like crates.io > is set up for that on its own.

FWIW, I'd second hazebooth's nod towards simply publishing on crates.io.

I think you may be overthinking this, but that said I personally go the route of having CI cross-compile binaries for each OS and arch type that I host in order to minimize dependencies on the systems that run them (e.g. avoid installing the Go or Rust compiler).

I don't personally maintain package manager options (e.g. apt and brew) for projects because, as you mentioned, it'd be a lot of work. Plus, to be quite frank, when and if a project is popular enough that a large enough audience uses it, one day you'll find that someone else has added a package for it to e.g. apt or brew.

But given your familiarity w/ NPM - if you are interested in precompiling binaries for each system - you might want to take a look at Cloudflare's wrangler[0], their tooling for interacting with Cloudflare Workers. wrangler is published to both crates.io and NPM (the latter using a script to pull down pre-compiled binaries they host).

Edit: Another option, if you want really want to make your project available via a "package manager" that isn't crates.io, would be to release a Docker image. This is an option for CLI tooling - e.g. Hashicorp publishes Packer[1] and Terraform[2] Docker images. That way you don't need to worry about compiling binaries for macOS, linux w/ glibc, linux w/ musl, etc. Just publish a single Docker image, ideally as small as possible.

[0] [https://github.com/cloudflare/wrangler](https://github.com/cloudflare/wrangler) [1] [http://hub.docker.com/r/hashicorp/packer](http://hub.docker.com/r/hashicorp/packer) [2] [http://hub.docker.com/r/hashicorp/terraform](http://hub.docker.com/r/hashicorp/terraform)</comment>


The Eternal Bug in MS Visual Studio - <AUTHOR> http://melikyan.blogspot.com/2007/10/eternal-bug.html

<comment><USER2> Weird bug, and I'll admit I'm not sure how it's gotten through a few years of QA (Microsoft has the largest army of testers in the software biz). But what's functional programming have to do with anything?

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe not precisely functional programming, but functional thinking, that is, no static data in the first place. The way VS handles the clipboard operations resembles a situation when you have a pointer to static data and you erroneously assume the data can't be changed until you refer to it through your pointer next time.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Real-time math calculations with autosaving - <AUTHOR> http://calctext.azurewebsites.net/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hello, I created this simple web app where the user can type in what he wants to calculate and the results is displayed on the right side. The app is powered by math.js, so, basically you can use the same syntax. Additionally the app can autocomplete with previous variables and it automatically saves everything on the browser´s localstore.

I appreciate if you have any kind of critics or suggestions.</comment>


Price negotiations: How to respond when a competing vendor underbids you - <AUTHOR> http://blog.close.io/price-negotiations-underbidding-competitor <comment><USER2> In general, this is good advice for dealing with price objection in the negotiation of a premium product. It correctly emphasizes long term relationships over a single sale. It also encourages you to stick to your guns on maintaining margin instead of chasing revenue - critical for premium products.

Where the article loses me is when it advocates telling the customer that you'll lie to help them get a better offer from the competition: "I'll even help you negotiate a lower price by sending you an email underbidding their latest offer." This is ethically wrong. But if that's not a convincing argument, it's also pragmatically a very bad idea. Maintaining integrity is the only sustainable business practice in the long run. Lying & cheating may work once, twice, or a dozen times, but it will catch up to you. Even more pragmatically, you've just told the customer that you can't be trusted, that you'll lie to make a situation more favorable for you. That's undermined your relationship when it's purpose was meant to do just the opposite.</comment>


Android Q2 market share jumps to 68% as iOS drops from 23% to 17% - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/8/3227506/idc-q2-2012-mobile-os-market-share

<comment><USER2> I think Android will "finish" growing in market share around the 80% mark, which is close enough to the Windows market share, which people kept saying Android would never reach. Ironically, Windows market share will probably fall below 80% in the next few years.</comment>


Lessons learned from bountying bugs - <AUTHOR> http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2011-09-05-lessons-learned-from-bountying-bugs.html

<comment><USER2> Offering bounties for small bugs such as "cosmetic" errors is great.

When browsing open source code, I often refrain from reporting small mistakes (e.g. spelling errors), fearing it would "waste" the time of the maintainers for "superficial" problems... I also don't want them to think I'm criticizing their code / spelling.

I think even small errors are important (broken window theory). By explicitly encouraging such reports, you encourage people to read your code, but you also let people know it's okay to "bother" you with these small errors.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is really cool, and it sounds like a great thing to try for important projects. I just wanted to get more detail on something.

 _People who report bugs usually care more about feeling respected than getting every possible dollar from you._ ... _I awarded two very similar bugs from the same reporter $10 and $50 respectively_

Where does this assertion about respect come from? How do you know this? Did people come out and say it? Did their interest in continuing to look for bugs rise, fall, or stay the same as a result of the consistent explanations? Do you have actual quotes from the reporters?

I was just curious if this is speculation because it is very easy for us to make the fallacy of assuming someone else thinks the way we do, that their reason for doing something would be the same as what we think would be the reason. I want to believe the assertion, but since it is a generalization, I am skeptical.

<comment><USER4> I think I'm the bounty hunter that got $10 and $50 for two similar bugs. cperciva's summary is accurate in my case. WRT feeling respected, it wasn't an explicit need for me but implicitly it helps a lot that his replies had a few lines of explanation when it was a "no, not a bug" or a borderline decision on how big a bounty. Just as it would if I'd had made the report to a non-bounty FLOSS project.

<comment><AUTHOR> _I think I'm the bounty hunter that got $10 and $50 for two similar bugs._

Yep. I would have named you, but I don't like doing that without asking permission first and I didn't know that I was going to mention the $10/$50 bit until I was halfway through writing that blog post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I didn't submit any bugs, but I certainly enjoyed reading the code. I learned a lot from it. Tarsnap has some of the simplest, understandable C code I've ever read. If I ever need, secure remote backup, I'd use this software and recommend it to others.

<comment><AUTHOR> _Tarsnap has some of the simplest, understandable C code I've ever read._

Thanks! It's great to hear comments like this -- _I_ think my code is clean and understandable, but I know that most people say the same thing about their own code, so having someone else say this is very gratifying.</comment></comment>


SpaceX raises $1.9B - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/18/spacex-raises-1-9-billion-in-largest-funding-found-to-date/ <comment><USER2> I wish I, just a guy, could invest in companies like this with no vote stake. I believe in the company and the leadership and I'd like a stake in it and to provide money but I know that if I have the ability to put money in so will all the guys who want an opinion.

It reminds me of Kickstarter. I really enjoyed it because I spend $100 now and then for someone to take a shot at building something. If they fail, so be it. If I get scammed, so be it. I explicitly don't want refunds so that the guys can take a risk. But then other people get involved and they have these high expectations and it ruins everything because then I can't get to the guys who are doing risky things. The way I do it is I fire the money into the ether and then months maybe years later I get an email saying "Sorry, we couldn't do it" or "Where do you want us to ship to?"

i.e. I want an escape hatch for investing and for consumer purchases as well. If the government would let me take a cheap online exam that allows me to exempt myself, I'd love that.

<comment><USER3> > I wish I, just a guy, could invest in companies like this with no vote > stake.

How is this different from just buying stock?

Or are you referring to companies specifically that aren't public?

<comment><USER4> It's not public, and no companies issue non-voting shares. It's not even clear they would be allowed by the SEC.

<comment><USER5> Google (Alphabet) has two different stocks you can buy, one of which doesn't have voting rights. [https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052615/whats- differ...](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052615/whats-difference- between-googles-goog-and-googl-stock-tickers.asp)

<comment><USER4> Oh, that's a good point, I forgot about those... despite owning quite a few non-voting shares of GOOG.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Honest question, why do they need so much money? If their rockets are really re-usable, and with all these launches they've been doing, they should have tons of cash...

<comment><USER7> They are generating lots of money with current launches, but are designing a next generation rocket. Rocket programs are expensive.

The best comparison for the rocket that Musk is building for Mars is to SLS. Per [https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/11/nasas-sls-moon-rocket- is-2...](https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/11/nasas-sls-moon-rocket-is-2-years- behind-and-billions-over-budget-internal-report- finds/#:~:text=As%20the%20report%20states%3A%20%E2%80%9COverall,order%20to%20get%20this%20funding) we've spent over $17 billion on the SLS program so far, and it probably isn't as far along as Musk's SuperHeavy/Starship is.

Admittedly Musk is doing his rocket development for cheaper. A lot cheaper. But the baseline for what rocket development "should" cost is more than SpaceX has received in revenue, total, through all of its history. (Not profit, revenue. Nobody knows what its profit margin is. But given that SpaceX routinely launches at prices below what its competitors can afford, they probably aren't rich.)

<comment><USER8> > we've spent over $17 billion on the SLS program so far, and it probably > isn't as far along as Musk's SuperHeavy/Starship is.

There is a nearly complete SLS core stage awaiting testing at Stennis Space Center. How far along is Starship?

[https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/08/sls-green-run- verify...](https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/08/sls-green-run-verify-core- stage/)

<comment><USER7> From your article, they haven't even put fuel in the SLS core stage to see if it leaks. Their promised timeline is based on the expectation that there will be no major snags on the way to actually sending it into orbit. I'm not aware that any orbital rocket program has ever been that lucky. I'm therefore dubious that everything will go according to their plan.

By comparison, a full-sized prototype of Starship managed to launch and land again a few weeks ago. (Though on one engine, and not on all 6 for the final model.) As of June, they still considered it possible that they would get to orbit this year. (See [https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starship-orbital- launch-deb...](https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starship-orbital-launch- debut-2020/) for confirmation.) I consider that unduly optimistic, but certainly would take an even money bet that they get into orbit in under a year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Elon Musk will be the first trillionaire. Dare I say, the first quadrillionaire.

<comment><USER10> And he will quite likely die with less than $100 cash to his name.

<comment> the-dude Please explain.

<comment><USER11> Elon never sells stock. He borrows from the bank to support his lifestyle, and to exercise his stock options. He has _billions_ of dollars in debt using his stock as collateral.

<comment><USER12> That's what the Enron CEO did, and his finances came crashing down with the company's share price.

<comment><USER13> But Enron CEO was running a scam.

<comment><USER12> I'd recommend the book "The Smartest Guys in the Room", it goes into detail about the financial engineering. Yes it was decided in the end that it was fraudulent, but it took a while for that to become clear. Technically, much of what they did wasn't illegal and it wasn't even obvious at the time whether it was smart or stupid.

For me the most interesting part was the culture, and assumption that they couldn't fail. Because of this Ken Lay (CEO) continued to leverage himself personally against the Enron share price again and again. When told to diversify with other investments, rather than sell Enron shares and buy others, he instead took out loans against his Enron shares to buy others. He was in effect trying to "have his cake and eat it too". Ultimately once the Enron share price fell enough, it caused the whole house of cards to come crashing down as contract after contract, both for Lay and Enron, triggered pay-out conditions, and they all ended up bankrupt.

I hope this doesn't end badly for Musk, but he should probably be diversified enough to protect himself against Tesla's share price declining, and it will be interesting when SpaceX gets to an IPO, whether his personal leverage may affect whether he chooses to take it public or at what price.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> SpaceX feels like the next "big thing"... question is when does it IPO. Even if the Mars stuff never pans out they can be a very successful business in telecommunication infra.

<comment><USER15> I hope it never IPO's, it is too important to be public for now. Worst case scenario is that it IPO and McKinsey comes in to "streamline" the company ...

<comment><USER16> Surely Musk would retain control of the board like he has with Tesla

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Where do I wire the money?

</comment><comment><USER18> If there's one billionaire on the world I'd have no second thoughts about it's Elon Musk. I know I'll probably regret having said that in 20-30 years :)

Honestly, if there's one person on this planet which is furthering human future it's Elon Musk and his vision to have human habitats on other planets.

Facing climate change, wars, overpopulation etc.pp, if we had at least one other place other than earth - as hostile as it may be - and we start to sustain life there, all life on earth would suddenly be only one bet out of two (or more).

<comment><USER19> You had me until 'facing...overpopulation'. To boot, Elon Musk has talked about this [1].

We are not facing overpopulation. Population is contracting currently and will continue for at least a few decades.

[1] - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s_4VnXHF64](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s_4VnXHF64)

<comment><USER20> Respectfully, I'd argue we are already overpopulated. The contraction will take a while to really take hold. Eventually we will no longer be overpopulated. I just don't think the Earth can sustainably support more than 2 billion people. But it will take quite a long time for us to fall that far and it will come with other issues. Additionally, it will take far longer for the oceans and atmosphere to recover but it eventually will.

I also don't understand how we think we'd do better on Mars than on Earth. We have near infinite resources and advantages here and we trashed it. We have none of those on Mars.

<comment><USER21> > I just don't think the Earth can sustainably support more than 2 billion > people.

Of course Earth can sustainably support way more people than that. The problem is waste. The US alone loses 30-40% of the food it produces, worldwide it's something to ~1/3rd.

<comment><USER22> Centralized food and energy production (and other things tbh, but these two stand out) is certainly a lot cheaper, but it's obvious it was not the right move.

If everyone had to maintain their local food/energy production at the county, neighbourhood or even household level, there would be much less waste and more responsibility (something a lot of people need).

Fewer out of season products means less waste and pollution, as well.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Xmake v2.2.7 released, Improve to build CUDA project - <AUTHOR> https://tboox.org/2019/06/17/xmake-update-v2.2.7/ <comment><USER2> great job!</comment>


Movies at Home, for $20,000 - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704250704576005801366116290.html

<comment><USER2> I think it might actually get a few customers, because people would like to show off how much money they have. That said, I really don't think I'd ever use it...</comment>


Show HN: See What Your C Function Compiles To - <AUTHOR> http://gcc.godbolt.org/

<comment><USER2> The output provided when looking at the given example squaring function without and then with the compiler option -O (GCC 5.1.0 or Clang 3.6) is rather interesting.

The code goes from something rather crazy looking, to something that a human would write. Its surprising that these compilers arnt clever enough already to produce the optimized output by default.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Compiler: x86 gcc 4.9.2

> Compiler options: -march=i686

> error: CPU you selected does not support x86-64 instruction set

Strange, I'm sure x86 is not x86_64</comment>


A software engineer was detained for several hours by U.S. Customs - <AUTHOR> http://www.recode.net/2017/2/28/14764064/nigerian-software-engineer-detained-by-us-customs <comment> joatmon-snoo Discussion at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13741746](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13741746)

</comment><comment><USER2> This reads like a The Onion article. I had to double check the URL to authenticate it is an actual article.

U.S. border patrol is getting more ridiculous by the day, but considering the ignoramus idiot at the top, it is not surprising. It's good that more and more horror stories are surfacing.

<comment><USER3> I mean, it's good that if there are horror stories, that they see the light of day. It's bad that there are more and more horror stories.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's my understanding that border guards are trained to ask random questions and assess your body language while answering. The important thing isn't the question or the answer, but how you answer.

<comment><USER5> This is true, but the majority of the article isn't about that. His interview is essentially here:

> _After a few minutes of grilling him about the job_

Which it appears he fails, since the next part is him being detained:

> _the border agent escorted Omin into a small room and told him to sit down. > Another hour passed before a different customs officer came in._

Now, there's not enough here to say if he failed the interview due to his answers, his body language, or something else entirely, such as some prejudice of the border patrol agent. But the detainment is a bit ridiculous. Could I determine if a tree is balanced? Probably. With CBP breathing down my back and no sleep? I wouldn't bet on it.

> _Omin tells me that the answers to the questions were technically correct, > but he suspects the customs official interrogating him wasn't technically > trained and couldn't understand his answers._

Now this I believe. And _explaining_ your work to a layman under the stress of sleep deprivation and detainment? Good luck! I'd be lucky to explain binary trees to a layman on a _good_ day. And, if a border patrol agent can vet his answers, he can make much more not being a border patrol agent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> As a US citizen (and thus unlikely to be denied entry), I'd write my answer in hex-represented bytes (representing arm instruction set). good luck :)</comment>


Anti-ACTA Protest in Tokyo (Akihabara) - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJtO5hPCFf8&feature=youtu.be

<comment><USER2> Japan was one of the few countries that passed ACTA.</comment>


The Bitcoin Cash Flippening - 0-o http://www.bchflippening.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Here's the super-summarized story for those who are out of the loop: the Bitcoin community has been fighting for years over what they call the "block size increase." From its original design, Bitcoin has capped each block to 1MB, which effectively caps the transactions per second to 4 or so. Raising this limit would allow more transactions per second onto the network, but with the downside of making nodes in the Bitcoin network more costly to operate. The majority of current Bitcoin developers do not want to raise this cap. However, a large group of users and several of the earliest developers (including Gavin Andresen, the guy hand-picked by Satoshi Nakamoto) do want to raise it. There is evidence that Satoshi himself thought that the cap should someday be raised.

There was recently a compromise struck among the largest bitcoin exchanges and mining pools. It was called the Silbert Agreement, or New York Agreement, or Segwit2x. The agreement was to deploy a feature upgrade that the current developers had been pushing (called Segwit) alongside a block size increase from 1MB to 2MB. It broke a stalemate in which the big blockers had been preventing Segwit from going live, and the Segwit supporters had been refusing to increase the block size.

The deal was that Segwit would go live immediately, and several months later, the block size increase would go live. Segwit did go live as agreed, but then its proponents refused to honor the rest of the agreement (since they already got what they wanted).

That was a few days ago, and now we're seeing the backlash: lots of users and capital fleeing to "Bitcoin Cash," a separate branch that recently forked off from the traditional Bitcoin. Proponents (including Gavin Andresen) consider this new branch to be the true Bitcoin, because it's willing to scale with user demand as Satoshi Nakamoto intended. Opponents consider it to be an altcoin that's fraudulently calling itself Bitcoin, since its block size increase is a departure from the original spec.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the overview. Very helpful to someone w/ no previous knowledge.

Why did the majority of developers not want to raise the block size? / How exactly does it make nodes much more expensive to operate?

<comment><AUTHOR> Each node in Bitcoin's P2P network has to store a copy of every transaction since the beginning of time. This currently takes 140GB of disk space and is growing by 5GB per month. If more transactions are allowed to go through, it'll grow even faster. If it grows to extremely large numbers, only those who can afford the huge disk arrays will be able to run a node.

The fear is that eventually, only major companies and universities will be running Bitcoin nodes. This could make it easier for governments to threaten all involved parties into changing or dismantling the system.

However, those who want to raise the block size say that government agents threatening Bitcoin node operators is not a realistic fear. Whereas, if transactions can't go through because the network refuses to scale, then businesses will abort their plans to accept Bitcoin. To big blockers, such a scaling failure is much more likely to kill Bitcoin than government agents in dark suits.

<comment><USER3> Trying to work around the problem of all part transactions having to be present on a node by limiting the number of transactions that can happen honestly sounds like a silly joke. The entire point of any currency is easy, cheap and fast transactions.

<comment><USER4> > The entire point of any currency is easy, cheap and fast transactions.

All of those are relative, and part of tradeoffs with other values. If you think those are the only important properties of a currency, you're missing the entire motivation behind crypto currencies.

<comment><USER3> For a long time one of the big promises of Bitcoin was that you can easily, cheaply and quickly transfer them even to people in other countries. I assume the benefits you are referring to are political? Like lack of central per controlling it? If so, I don't think that will run over every day Joe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What does that mean? What's the 46% supposed to represent

<comment><USER5> [https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7ccohu/comment/dpp0sq6](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7ccohu/comment/dpp0sq6)

« _The percentage represents how close BCH is to reaching half of the combined market cap of BTC and BCH._ »

$30B / ($130B/2) = 46%

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> 57 days ago, I said that it would be a good time to buy Bitcoin. If you'd listened to me, you could have made some serious cash since then. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15259134](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15259134)

Back then, the price dropped to around $3k. One of the questions was "What makes now a good time to buy?" And the answer was simply "Bitcoin has been crashing."

The counterintuitive thing is, if you want to get into bitcoin, you need to wait for a crash and _then_ buy.

Bitcoin is crashing. Again, it's a good time to buy.

<comment><USER7> Right now is as stupid time to consider getting rich off Bitcoin. Even if the price doubles or triples, you'll only make 100 or 200%. That might seem like a really good investment. Maybe if you put down $100,000. Otherwise, it doesn't mean much. The risk is too high.

Back when it was $10 or $40, it was a great speculation. The ship has long since sailed.

<comment><USER8> >>Back when it was $10 or $40, it was a great speculation. The ship has long since sailed.

Has it? Many learned people believe BTC's ceiling is in the five digits. And back when it was $10-40, no one would believe you that it would go to $6000-8000.

The only thing we know about BTC and cryptocurrency in general is that we're looking at serious variance, regardless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Why was this flagged?

<comment> 0-o Probably because of ideology. A lot of bitcoiners don't want to see the flip happen.

<comment><USER9> Funny thing is if you have been holding Bitcoin since at least Aug. None of this affects you because you got an equal amount of Bitcoin Cash and the combined value of Bitcoin Core + Bitcoin Cash has hardly budged from all time highs.

Some people said their Bitcoin Cash was "free money" and sold it instead of seeing it for what it was, a hedge against developer hubris. Those folks that sold aren't in a good place right now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Edit: ...

<comment><USER9> Pretty simple really the community has been clamoring for a block size increase for years now and the devs have been actively fighting it. They managed to create enough division in the community to scuttle the last compromise (Segwit2x) and now people are rotating en-mass to Bitcoin Cash which has the larger blocks they want and doesn't have the divisive developers.

Very little surprising about this at all except for maybe the speed with which it is happening.

<comment><USER8> >>now people are rotating en-mass to Bitcoin Cash which has the larger blocks they want and doesn't have the divisive developers.

This isn't entirely objective. BCH has 25% of its market cap trading today in volume. There's something weird going on. As for the developers, BCH has very little Github activity while Core is being actively worked on and improved.

I don't have a horse in this fight as I am into other cryptocurrencies but your statement is not very fair.</comment></comment></comment>