Dead Programmers Aren't Much Fun - <AUTHOR> http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2012/03/dead-programmer.php <comment><USER2> I didn't want to trust an online service for sharing credentials to these types of assets, so I created an open source program to split up secrets securely: [http://www.moserware.com/2011/11/life-death-and-splitting- se...](http://www.moserware.com/2011/11/life-death-and-splitting-secrets.html)

It's probably over-engineered, but the alternatives seemed not secure enough to feel comfortable using.

</comment><comment><USER3> _If you're a programmer it's certainly possible you might have some pre-canned scripts to run -- perhaps telling nephew Susie she should have a great birthday and life once she turns 18. Maybe you have something to detect jokes your Uncle tells and add in a "lol" in a comment. Aside from being weird, is that socially acceptable? Should relatives help you do this?_

This is the paragraph of the article that I found the most interesting from a sociological point of view (the rest has been covered many times in the past, and as other commenters have pointed out there are several services who deal with it). I wrote a bit more about it a while ago, as I think that this will become something potentially very real in the next few decades:

<http://gardaud.posterous.com/digital-ghosts>

<comment><USER4> I agree that this is the most interesting part of the article, sociologically. My father was a tech guy who passed away over ten years ago, I believe that if you had the power to do so it would be an invaluable gift to your loved ones to leave them little messages every so often… (as long as your relationship was healthy!) But unlike the attached article implies, psychologists shouldn't be concerned as I don't think most people will ever feel like we are truly "communicating" with our deceased loved ones as communication is always a two- way streak. A robot giving standard-human like answers (or a relative enabling that) isn't really your loved one communicating unless that loved one somehow took the time to sit there and guess what you might answer in different scenarios. As much as I'd love periodic messages and jokes sent from my dead father to appear every once and a while (and would look forward to and treasure them) I could never feel compelled to reply back to him, or desire a robotic answer, and once you cross that line then I think it falls into "socially unacceptable".

<comment><USER5> What about when we get to the point where we have an AI capable of simulating, if imperfectly, an individual's response to a given question?

If you think that this is farfetched, it's not - it's basically like <http://iwl.me> , but in reverse. The catch is that you need a lot of easily classified textual data about the person. But in the Twitter age, we _do_ have that kind of information - or soon will.

Gracious Eloise[1] is a really cool idea, though it's going to create a nightmarish situation for forensics experts. Imagine if you combined the two - you could simulate _what_ a person might say, _and_ you could simulate their actual handwriting for it.

[1] <http://www.graciouseloise.com/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was thinking about a related issue yesterday: In 100 years, which _free_ web services, where I can post content, will still be around, with high probability?

Wikipedia is one, but most of my edits will probably be buried by then. My Wikimedia user profile page will still be up, maybe.

Maybe the Internet Archive (archive.org).

Maybe the arXiv (arxiv.org), though it may be renamed or subsumed by then.

What else?

Maybe public libraries could offer some kind of digital archival service for people in the area they serve?

<comment><USER7> I'm intrigued at your speculation that Wikipedia will likely still be around in 100 years. Clearly the internet phenomenon is important, becoming more important every day, yet still changing so fast that it's still in its infancy relatively speaking. Will it mature into something much more stable ? Is it like the automobile industry in 1920 or so, and Wikipedia, Google and Facebook are something like GM, Ford and Chrysler ? Maybe. On the other hand perhaps the rate of change is so great that its leading to something completely unrecognisable in 100 years, which none of today's players will feature in.

<comment><USER8> _perhaps the rate of change is so great that its leading to something completely unrecognisable in 100 years_

That seems to be the most likely scenario.

Proof: Hop into your time-machine and try to explain the internet to someone from 100 years ago.

Remember, the first computer (Z1) was invented only 76 years ago. The first commercial TV-sets became available 92 years ago. Our technology is evolving at a mind-bending pace.

I wouldn't be surprised if Star Trek style voice input was the norm by the time I bite the dust. I wonder if my grand-kids will still use keyboards or consider them a relic...

<comment><USER9> You need to work on your proofs. Counterexample: hop in your time machine, go back to 1550, kidnap someone, take them back to 1450, and have them explain the printing press. Easy peasy.

Second counterexample: Edison made his first big move redesigning stock tickers. I'm pretty sure Edison could grok the Internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I find it strangely unsettling that if I die, my Minecraft clan will never know what happened to me. I'll just vanish one day. They will spend some time trying to contact me but probably won't make a connection with anybody who can tell them what happened. And nobody who is sure to know about my death would know to contact them.

<comment><USER11> Leave a link to some site that you have instructed your family to update in case of your death.

ESR has a continuity page for the purpose of handing his projects over when he goes to California <http://www.catb.org/~esr/continuity.html>.

<comment><USER12> I think he should have signed that text crytographically. (in case his site is hacked, or in case the server goes down and different people pretend to have conflicting versions of that text)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> All of our digital ephemera (photos, blog posts, emails, reviews, tweets, code, and accounts) and so forth can theoretically last forever. In reality, disk drives and servers can die, domain registrations will expire, data formats will become outdated, and more.

Even if you have the bits and you can read them, you may be faced with a excavation job. Who has time to dig through someone else's email? Are we generating more data than we can process or appreciate? I just checked my family camera archive -- 279 GB, 135,042 files. When does this legacy turns in to a liability?

At some point, long-running sites will have to start making some interesting and difficult decisions. They can start to purge the seemingly dead members, they can have a way to flag a member as alive or dead, and they'll have to report their membership as 10 million live and active users, 20 million dead [and presumably inactive] users.

<comment><USER14> Maybe that's theoretically true - but so far, copyright wars aside, it's been moving in the other direction, as storage and bandwidth get ever cheaper. One person finds a Super-8 film when they renovate the attic, it gets transferred, they upload it to YouTube, and now it's permanently on the Internet.

You can now listen to the earliest recorded audio[1] (which was never heard or playable in its own time), read many of Isaac Newton's original manuscripts[2] (with plans to triple the archive this year), and google ["yeeees" guy] to watch a clip of Frank Nelson[3].

You don't have to excavate at all; you just have to make it searchable so that someday, someone will run across it. This is what we have with just text search. Now add in PhotoSynth (the original, Flickr-driven version[4] with every photo ever, not the watered-down panorama app), automatic audio transcription, content-aware image search, "hum that tune" (Shazam, SoundHound, etc.). Within a decade, we'll have "imagine that video and search for it".

"Movage" becomes less of a problem because while it's not worth it for you to individually convert various old files on your hard drive, Google has no problem re-encoding their entire library to add HTML5 codecs: Write the script once and wait a few years for it to finish. It's already in some master, readable format, so they don't have the "ten versions of Word .DOCs" problem (or if they do, they hide it very well).

If anything, we're entering an age where nothing goes out of print, and there are no lost films. Ever. Yes, we have to fight some copyright battles, but the outcome is inevitable; in 50 years, all laws will be written by people who grew up with BitTorrent, not the DuMont network.

Someone coined a great term for this new age of digital plenty, but I forgot it. In ten years, I'll be able to Google that thought and tell you what it was.

[1] [http://gizmodo.com/372994/earliest-audio-recording- resurrect...](http://gizmodo.com/372994/earliest-audio-recording-resurrected- scares-the-genitals-off-us)

[2] <http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=1>

[3] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA_r1Ynl4Ls>

[4] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-DqZ8jAmv0>

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> To make it right we, human beings, should be closer to one another. He is right about too complicated digital assets structure. And probably even few evenings will be not enough to explain all of it. I believe this communication should happen always, not only during last days... in ideal world.

Now, we are not in ideal world and probably never will be. Children often hate what parents love, significant others do not want to hear what their other part up to. This complicates things even more :)

I do not think anything really changes with digital age, same old issues in new light - that's it. Love your parents, encourage your children, genuinely ask what bothers your spouse at work.

</comment><comment><USER16> The answer isn't adding a layer of complexity, your heirs don't want to deal with your Github account in all likelihood. The author's uncle probably cleaned out his garage before he invited everyone down. Doing the same digitally, should begin much earlier.

Donald Knuth probably can be credited for figuring out how to with this issue first.

Having done so is consistent with his place in the pantheon of programmers.

<http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/email.html>

</comment><comment><USER17> This got me wondering about how I could provide my passwords to people if something were to happen to me. Not even so much for Github or the like but for my online banking, credit cards, etc so it would be easier to wind down those affairs. I have online billing set up for those so it's not even like you could wait for the statements to come in the mail and settle them that way.

I can always just tell my wife my passwords, but what if something happens to the both of us?

I was almost tempted to start a document that would keep all that stuff, and share it in Dropbox with a few trusted people. It would be encrypted; I would keep the public key on my computer so I could continue to update it. The private key would be on a CD in a safe deposit box with instructions that those people could access it if I am incapacitated.

Sounds too complicated, though; that's why I haven't ever done it.

<comment><USER18> If it's not a really long GPG key or anything, it's probably easiest to just write it down on paper and store it at a secure place. Secure being, if you trust your cupboard to hold the binder with your bank statements, that would work fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Society overall and human mind in particular have a great tool that handles that situation: forgetting.

Stuff that is not in use is gradually getting forgotten. So if you do not update your project (because you abandoned it or because you are dead), then the project is getting useless and is gradually forgotten.

Yes, you can put some effort into maintaining your digital project after your death, but it worth the overhead only in a very rare cases. Most of the time it's better to spend the effort on creating new project, than on maintaining someone else's digital project.

</comment><comment><USER20> My logins are all saved in Chrome - going through those would be a way a family member could recover 99% of my digital footprint.

</comment><comment><USER21> For me, the most important thing is to leave info on any sites/accounts that make me money.

Anything after that, social networks, blogs.. I could care less about. I won't be worrying about that after I die.

<comment><USER22> Apparently my father agrees with you. He is doing fine, but last year he decided to share with me his account info from money-generating websites. (He gets about $300/month from a stock photo site.) I suppose it gave him comfort that if anything were to happen, the fruit of his labor (ie, income from his designs) would continue to benefit the family.

Also, hate to nitpick, but the phrase is "I couldn't care less," meaning your level of care is already at the minimum.

<comment><USER23> See ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2010/may/20/la...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2010/may/20/language- usa)) about "I couldn't care less"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Is there a business opportunity here? Find widows of deceased programmers and offer a lump sum for the rights to all digital works?

<comment><USER15> sexism here! why you think about widows and not widowers???

edit: bazinga!

<comment><USER24> Husbands of deceased female programmers? You can target the niche markets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Set-up a one time password for your email and put it in your will. Then let your family decide what to do, or not do.

</comment><comment><USER26> That's exactly what <http://www.deadmansswitch.net> is for.

<comment><USER12> I like the idea, but ...

As a web service?!

I'd love to see that as a free software daemon, or cronjob, which I can run on one of my website's servers.

However, storing very sensitive information at a central place - a place which aims to collect sensitive information from many other people? Well, that's an invitation to abuse! How could I ever trust my most sensitive data to such a system?

<comment><USER27> Well it should be software you run on your own machines. But that wouldn't suit the Web 2.0 fad.

<comment><USER26> Why not just write it, rather than complain?

<comment><USER27> I write lots of stuff that runs on the user's machine. Is there a particular application you'd like?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Dynamic Storage Allocation: A Survey and Critical Review (1995) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://csapp.cs.cmu.edu/3e/docs/dsa.pdf <comment><USER2> Wow, that's a mouthful, and appears to be very well written. I hope to find a little bit of wisdom in there that is applicable in practical programs, not only general memory allocators.

One approach that I miss here (or at least haven't found yet) is moving memory around, i.e. manual defragmentation. That's not a generic allocation strategy though, since it requires knowledge that there are no live pointers to the old address of each allocation that is moved. But it's very practical - a simple example is removing an arbitrary element from a vector by moving the last element in its place, then shrinking the vector from the end.</comment>


First particles injected into Large Hadron Collider atom smasher - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/08/21/scilhc121.xml <comment><USER2> we are still alive.... phew....

I have wondered, why there are no time travelers? Maybe time traveling is not possible, or humanity disapears abruply by a catastrophic event (perhaps caused by the HLC), and never has the chance to develop the necessary technologies to allow time travel?

Or maybe we just live in that paralell universe where time traveling doesn't exist, while our forked twin universe is living something different.

who knows.

<comment><USER3> Thank you, ardit33, for your scientifically based sarcasm. It made me laugh this morning. I find it hilarious that so many people think the HLC will cause the end of mankind.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How is Google prompt more secure than Google authenticator (TOTP/HOTP) - <AUTHOR> Google is constantly pushing to move from authenticator codes to Google prompt, due to it being more secure according to them. I can not find any explanation on the security of authenticator vs prompt. With my limited knowledge, I believe both are susceptiple to phishing, so what's the security benefit? <comment><USER2> It is still 2 factor auth. And according to them the most smooth one.

In OTP/TOTP it doesn't matter where the OTP comes from, so code is the second factor. In google auth the mobile device is the second factor.</comment>


Ask HN: Getting startup to the next level? - <AUTHOR>

My startup is doing okay. We have received investment from a few angels and have a working MVP that is drawing good traction. I have never had a startup go this far and want to know what are the best things to take it to the next level? Should I be worried about getting more users or building more core functionality per my current users request.<p>Any help would be great? <comment><USER2> Search a good marketing company (Expert in same domain of your product) which can help you advertise your product more. Then go for its branding. Get help from good branding agencies.

</comment><comment><USER3> More users of course. If you have an MVP, pile on the users, and give them a reason to share it with their friends. That way, you won't need marketing. Your users will do it for you.

</comment><comment><USER4> Get more users, add functionality only if it will increase the number of users or reduce your churn rate.

</comment><comment><USER5> Get more sales.

<comment><USER6> This is the only real answer in the thread. "Next level" is code for "more revenue" in almost every scenario. How do you get more skrillos? Well, you can market the company more, or you can hire a sales guy, or you can add new features that opens up your product to a new market or wider part of your existing market, or you can...any number of things! It's hard to say what is "best" as it depends on the product and the target market/customer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It all depends on what industry your startup is in.</comment>


Alpha Dart IDE binaries available for Win/Mac/Linux at dartlang.org - <AUTHOR> http://www.dartlang.org/news/2011/10/31/editor.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Having just downloaded the windows version, it works very nicely - much better than the original released version built from source two weeks ago.</comment>


First beta for Ubuntu 11.10 Oneiric Ocelot released - <AUTHOR> http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/First-beta-for-Ubuntu-11-10-Oneiric-Ocelot-released-1334856.html

<comment><USER2> I had my fingers crossed that Unity would be removed. I've been trying hard to give it a fair go, but I still find it awkward. Also, the big claim that it saves screen real estate is bogus.</comment>


The Unicode Consortium Launches New Website in Celebration of World Emoji Day - <AUTHOR> https://home.unicode.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> The title comes from the official announcement [1]. The older technical site is still available [2].

[1] [https://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode- ml/y2019-m07/0028....](https://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode- ml/y2019-m07/0028.html)

[2] [https://unicode.org/main.html](https://unicode.org/main.html)</comment>


Transcription Services - <AUTHOR> http://www.infoesearch.com Infoesearch is leading transcription Services Provider and deliver business impact through operational excellence. Infoesearch offers affordable transcription services to various clients across the globe. <comment><AUTHOR> hey guys watch this interesting website and please provide u r valuable comments.</comment>


Annual Open Letter to the People of Purdue from Mitch Daniels - <AUTHOR> https://www.purdue.edu/president/messages/annual-open-letters/2001-med-openletter-full.php <comment><AUTHOR> I question ISA's some, but overall what Purdue is doing in the educational space (particularly the tuition freeze that's more than 8 years old now) is _impressive_. Posting this for awareness and interested in any hn thoughts.</comment>


Ubiquiti and GPL: When companies use GPL against each other, our community loses - <AUTHOR> https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2019/oct/02/cambium-ubiquiti-gpl-violations/ <comment><USER2> I'm looking at buying a home AP (I like the idea of the AP being seperate to the router, on PoE etc), but this really puts me off ubiquiti.

What are good alternatives?

<comment><USER3> How about a repeater like TP-Link RE650? No PoE though.

<comment><USER4> Repeaters are the _worst_ choice of all.

Repeaters are put where your signal is already low (not right to the router's antenna). This means they will just repeat signal that is already low, and the further you get from repeater itself the signal will get even worse.

Ie. You put repeater where your signal is at 50%. When you stand near it with your phone, it will show full wifi, but it will be just at 50% of the original one. Then you move away from repeater and you see that your signal is at 50%, which in reality means it's just 25% of the original... so yea, that sucks.

<comment><USER3> Maybe I should have clarified: the RE650 is marketed as a repeater but it has an ethernet port and can be used as a simple access point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > We have found that neither company complies properly with the GPL. > Specifically, in our analysis of the facts, we have found that both Cambium > and Ubiquiti fail to provide any source code for their respective routers > and access points, even when we repeatedly asked over the course of several > weeks, starting more than 30 days ago.

Unless sfconservancy first purchased a router, I don't believe that the GPL forces them to hand over the source code.

The mentioned GPL in the article is v2, so lifting from there, the valid parts are probably:

> a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source > code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on > a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to > give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically > performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the > corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 > and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

No part of the GPL, as far as I'm aware, requires distribution to anyone who isn't a customer.

<comment><USER6> Also, while Ubiquiti is failing to provide the source code for AmpliFi, they do comply in other areas. Their claim that they don't provide the GPL licensed code at all is flat out false.

[https://dl.ui.com/firmwares/edgemax/v2.0.x/GPL.ER-e300.v2.0....](https://dl.ui.com/firmwares/edgemax/v2.0.x/GPL.ER-e300.v188.8.131.5208554.tar.bz2)

All you have to do is click on "GPL Archive" on the download page for the firmware.

<comment><USER7> Where do you see the link "GPL Archive"?

I wanted to download the archive for Unifi nanoHD, the GPL archive is mentioned in the download blurb, but there's no link to it and the normal download shows classic proprietary EULA, including no reverse engineering.

<comment><USER6> I thought they were compliant for UniFi AP firmware but not 100% sure on that. I've seen in the past where upon a new release being published they would forget to update the GPL archive on the site. Just email email@example.com and they do have it internally. At the very least I found a current copy on the downloads page for EdgeMax and I've seen others mention it for UniFi, mFi, and airMax. The only thing Ubiquiti seems to be openly flaunting the GPL on is AmpliFi where I've personally emailed them, escalated the request to their "Development team" and received a response more or less equating to "go pound sand".

They seem to be skirting their requirements in not providing the full git repository for the GPL portions which might be a bit of a gray area but AFAIK the GPLv2 stipulates "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." which I would think would encompass the git repo as well but IANAL.

In the past they also refused to provide the source code for their modified version of uboot claiming some nebulous security reasons but that stopped a little while back.

<comment><USER8> It does not include the VCS. Gnu did not make their VCS publicly readable for many of their projects back in the day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For historical context please see:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20170430232455/http://libertybsd...](https://web.archive.org/web/20170430232455/http://libertybsd.net/ubiquiti/)

and

[https://web.archive.org/web/20161209121359/http://libertybsd...](https://web.archive.org/web/20161209121359/http://libertybsd.net/ubiquiti/copyrightholder.txt)

These specific issues have been resolved...

</comment><comment><USER10> What GPL projects are Ubiquity using? I would have thought they would be using something FreeBSD derived as they sell networking gear which leads me to believe that whatever the infringement entails it's not related to the core networking components or software.

<comment><USER11> Ubiquiti's stuff is all based on Debian Linux. You can even SSH in, enable the upstream repos, and apt-get stuff. But they patch a bunch of packages and of course the kernel is their own build for their hardware.</comment></comment>


The 'doomsday' scenario:  what happens if the shutdown drags on - <AUTHOR> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/doomsday-scenario-here-s-what-happens-if-shutdown-drags-n955946 <comment><USER2> It is crazy to me we continue to allow our leaders to have this government shutdown football to play with. Change the law so that by default the previous level of funding is re-authorized if no new deal is reached or better yet trigger a reelection of our representatives if they fail to reach a new funding deal.

<comment><USER3> Triggering re-election can be a motivation for causing a long shutdown. Falling back to sensible defaults is good enough.

<comment><USER4> No, this doesn't work either. You need a threat to get people to talk to each other and resolve issues, otherwise dissenters will just happily continue dissenting, riding on the "defaults". _Usually_ the threat of starving an entire country is enough to get people to act, but this is a special time with special people.

<comment><USER3> The entire country will not starve because of a government shutdown.

What's real special is that this shutdown could be ended in an instant by giving one minor concession and one side really doesn't want to do it, for mostly symbolic reasons.

<comment><USER5> I honestly do not know which side you are referring to as your statement could apply to either and be true.

<comment><USER3> I carefully worded it so I would not get downvoted to hell. But some people will know what I'm talking about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I usually disagree with Cher on political matters, but on this one she has Tweeted a good point.

Cher is urging 'her side' (Democrats) to yield and allow the sought-after funding. Her reasoning is that people are being hurt by the shutdown, the Democrats can be the 'hero' by bringing the change that re-opens the government.

I think she may be right on this one.

<comment><USER7> She's not. If Democrats give in to the demands of Pres. Trump it will only embolden him that his methods work. Democrats have nothing to lose, they passed a clean bill, they offered money for border security, etc. Democrats tried negotiating in good faith, Pres. Trump has his opinions literally dictated by Fox News and right wing pundits, which means that even his own party can't even count on him.

This is entirely meant to be a distraction from the Mueller investigations so Pres. Trump has no vested interest in ending it. He had 2 years in which to get the funding passed unopposed, he chose not to. This is entirely a manufactured controversy intended to distract. Anything the Democrats did agree to would immediately be thrown out by Pres. Trump. The only person who can end the shutdown is the President.</comment></comment>


The Patents I Never Filed - <AUTHOR> http://blogmaverick.com/2013/03/15/the-patents-i-never-filed-multicast-networks-personalized-streaming-and-advertising-and-self-service-hosting/

<comment><USER2> There's a few things that I could have patented in the '80s and 90's, but didn't, becase they were in my engineering supervisors word's: "F______g obvious." Later I went back and found out that someone elsewhere did receive a patent on some of these ideas. Don't know if they received money for any licenses, but somewhere in a corporate vault/storage are my engineering logbooks in case of a legal dispute.

Mark Cuban is interesting person. Back in the day (Web 1.0 and Audionet), I had lunch with him and a few others at the Infomart. I questioned his business, since at the time a single radio station had more listeners than what was capable with the bandwidth of the Internet then. He said, "X, we don't sell the steak, we sell the sizzle."

<comment><USER3> None of what he listed in this blog post is original. The sizzle comment is insightful. He doesn't like patent trolls but knew how to hype/sell Broadcast.com.

An interesting cognitive dissonance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think if you're a billionaire already, the better strategy would be to file those patents and never prosecute anyone because of them. Not filing for a patent leaves the option for a patent troll to do so.

<comment><USER5> Now that they've been publicly disclosed, don't they become prior art for other people wanting to patent them?

<comment><USER6> > "But in the interest of helping anyone who may ever face a patent troll on > these topics..."

Precisely the point of his blog post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> He's at least 10 years late on multicast networks. Here's the 1985 RFC that's considerably more detailed than his from 1996: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc966>

</comment><comment><USER8> Mark Cuban is the worst.

<comment><USER9> What makes you say this?</comment></comment>


Show HN: Fuzzy search your bookmarks - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/omnimarkr/pklgmphiapdicmpbgnjnhnlmjpbijlfp?hl=en

<comment><USER2> Not sure how to debug this. Not getting any results showing and instead I get the following:

> No webpage was found for the web address: chrome- > extension://pklgmphiapdicmpbgnjnhnlmjpbijlfp/3D

Mind it could be a conflict with other extension.

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe, type 'bookmarks' in your omnibox then tab...start typing a search term and results will pop up. Click on one of those results and see if it works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> What JS lib are you using to do the actual fuzzy searching

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm using _fuse.js_ [http://kiro.me/projects/fuse.html](http://kiro.me/projects/fuse.html). I found it to be extremely fast even when parsing thousands of bookmarks.

<comment><USER4> I saw it a little while back. Good to know, thanks!</comment></comment></comment>


The Internet Has a Huge C/C++ Problem and Developers Don't Want to Deal with It - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3mgxb/the-internet-has-a-huge-cc-problem-and-developers-dont-want-to-deal-with-it <comment><USER2> As I said on Reddit yesterday when this was posted:

Hi folks,

I'd just like to mention that this is the first time I'm seeing or hearing about this article; same as the rest of the Rust team. This is one person's opinion, who notably is a Rust user, not someone who works on Rust itself. We generally try to not frame things like this, because we don't think that it's a particularly constructive approach.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's not fair to pin this on the ambiguous collective "developers." The real issue is likely that there is simply too much inertia behind C and C++ for systems and performance-critical programming. There are other languages like Rust that provide a _technical_ alternative but not necessarily a _cultural_ one. Obviously, the pain of severe software defects is not yet high enough to warrant switching to memory-safe systems programming languages.

<comment><USER4> > It's not fair to pin this on the ambiguous collective "developers."

Why not? Is not as if the majority of us are much into fix things, instead of continue along. Developers are very much the main problem here.

Neither is a problem of resources, suposely developers earn well and some of the biggest corporations of the world work on software.

But each time is even hinted "why not ACTUALLY fix things?" the answers is "nope, too much work", but for create chat apps and more tools for surveilance and privacy invasion the money pit is bottomless.

<comment><USER5> > Developers are very much the main problem here.

> But each time is even hinted "why not ACTUALLY fix things?" the answers is > "nope, too much work", but for create chat apps and more tools for > surveilance and privacy invasion the money pit is bottomless.

You're blaming developers but citing product/economic/business decisions. In all likelihood, the problem is as much organizational/economic as it is technical. For example, consider the manager who was warned about the security risks by the engineering team, but decides to ship the product on schedule and get promoted long before any serious vulns are discovered. Or the case where engineering raises the issue, but fails to effectively communicate the severity of the concern. Or the case where engineering _assumes_ management understands the risks.

I'm sure there are lots of developers who do think they should just use C because it's what they've used forever and _lesser developers_ might make mistakes but _they_ don't, but I'd be surprised if these folks are the primary driver of the situation.

<comment><USER4> > You're blaming developers but citing product/economic/business decisions

This is a big part of it. But here, the kind of "developers" that could cause the big impact come from MS, Google, Apple and a few others. That certainly how normal people will look at this, IMHO.

But also, open source developers. Here is where is weird... what could be the reason to not build better tools?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This reminds me of the story about the elephant in the room.

The article, like most rust articles (in my perception), attacks the 'memory unsafety' issue, and therefore 'everything needs to be converted to rust'.

But ... does rust have the multi-paradigm programming mechanisms which are available in C++?

The article also ignores the issue that the recent releases of C++ are including programming methods for reducing/eliminating the memory issues: RAII, for instance, is a fundamental mechanism for ensuring memory is released at the correct time. Range operators work to eliminate the indexing issues.

'with great power comes great responsibility'. does rust offer the programming tools available in C++? templating, meta-programming, functional coding, procedural programming, object oriented constructs, ....

So, I think the title '.... and Developers Don't Want to Deal with It' is incorrect and click baity. C++ is in active development and evolution, and constructs are coming into place which help to alleviate the issues mentioned in the article.

<comment><USER2> > does rust have the multi-paradigm programming mechanisms which are available > in C++?

Some, but not all. Or some that work differently. The one thing that's truly missing is objects. Our metaprogramming is _slightly_ more limited, but also more advanced, in different ways. That will catch up. We're not adding objects, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> How many developers are actually versed enough in C/C++ to deal with it?

Is re-writing everything in Rust really the answer?

<comment><USER8> I wonder about analysis tools for c/c++. I know those tools have come a long way. Is the problem the decades of time where those tools were proprietary or expensive or free/open and poor in quality where most of this code was written? Or do these tools actually fall short of their claims of memory safety and the only solution is a rewrite? Or I guess it can be like opening an old solution in visual studio seeing it has 100+ warnings or doesn't even build anymore with current tooling so changes go on the back burner because that small change turns into a few days of work because nobody has built it in the last 10 year's...

<comment><USER2> If the tools were able to get you the equivalent of Rust's safety, we wouldn't have bothered making Rust.

These tools are great, and I welcome anything that makes software more safe. But you can't truly retrofit safety onto C or C++. You can improve it, but it's an improvement, not a solution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Rust Community has a Huge Crackpot Evangelist Problem and Developers Don't Know how to Deal with It

</comment><comment><USER10> Once again, there is no such language as "C/C++". Writing that disqualifies the writer. Failure modes in C are not the same as the failure modes in modern C++. The largest area of overlap is integer overflow. The only C++ failure mode that occurs more frequently than in C is object lifetime mistakes, just because C objects don't really have lifetimes, as such. (Instead, C coders get leaks and use-after-free errors.)

When I get a CV that lists "C/C++" as a skill, I know I can discard it without reading any further.

</comment><comment><USER11> Writing in so-called "modern" C++ (c++14 and especially c++17) doesn't really require pointer manipulation at all.

<comment><USER12> True, but at a cost. As far as I can tell, C++ programmers have stopped caring about the cost of copying objects at every function/method boundary, every time containers are used (which is a lot), in lambdas, etc. Memory safety is easy that way. Yes, _some_ modern C++ code is very careful about this stuff, but the common idioms all seem to be pulling in the opposite direction.

I still think there's room for a system language that manages to be memory- safe without all the cruft (std::move my ass) and inefficiency. Is Rust that language? Not really sure. D and Zig and even Nim all seem closer to my own ideal, but they don't have anywhere near the mindshare.

<comment><USER11> Quite the opposite: move semantics are pervasive throughout the library and other idioms; making a lambda without copy is pretty canonical too (though if you're going to use it with locals after returning from the stack frame you'll inherently have to copy in _any_ language!).

And it is _very_ easy to write templates that use this behavior so users don't have to think of it. In C++20 the syntax for this will be very simple (less garish than the old <> syntax).

<comment><USER12> Maybe you've been working on different codebases than I have. Whatever might be in the libraries, what I see among the users of those libraries is a ton of careless copying. The idiom is what the majority do, not what some authority says they _should_ do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've slowly built up some personal thoughts about this subject that I think would be worth writing up more formally. For now, I'll provide a very high- level critique of this article.

>memory-safe languages that are usable for low-level programming like web browsers and operating systems, such as Rust and Swift, are only just starting to achieve popularity.

A web browser is not low-level - it is an application. A software component is low-level if it is primarily used by other applications. If you consider a web browser low-level, you must also consider a video games, text editors, audio players, etc low-level. I'm not saying that these things are easier or harder to develop, I'm just stating the fact that they are not low-level. Hence, a language like Rust which may very well be more appropriate to implement a web browser may not be the right choice for low-level software.

Operating systems, obviously, are low-level. But an OS is composed of many components working together - init systems, audio managers, application service buses, package managers, etc. I argue that Rust, Go, Swift, etc. are not suitable replacements for C and C++ in these areas.

The fundamental problem with these new languages is that it is difficult to expose system functionality as an external library. Notice - I state difficult, I am fully aware that in some languages it is technically possible. This has led to the implementation of primitive functionality through system daemons. For example, Ubuntu's Snap package management system now exposes its behavior through a daemon. These daemons use more energy than traditional libraries, more computational resources, and have a larger attack area.

My argument is that, even though some of these new languages may be appropriate for some applications, there is still a large class of software where C/C++ is the only practical choice.

I'm interested in looking at the impact of this effect on system reliability and performance for a more scientific analysis of this situation. To my knowledge, such a study has not been done.

<comment><USER2> > A web browser is not low-level - it is an application. A software component > is low-level if it is primarily used by other applications.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single- page_application](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-page_application)

Web Browsers are a platform that implements processes and process isolation, threading, networking, graphics, audio, all for other applications to use.

<comment><USER13> That's a very good point. The modern web browser must be a low-level application.

Still, a web browser somehow seems different from other pieces of software on your system. This is because everything you just described is traditionally provided by the operating system. Hence, the browser has replaced the role of the operating system.

I believe my original critique still applies, but with some modifications. It may be appropriate to implement a particular low-level component (like a web browser) in one of these new languages. But that does not imply that all uses of C are inappropriate.

An interesting question is which complements are suitable for implementation in these languages?

To clarify: I'm reacting to what seems to be an umbrella recommendation by certain people to replace _all_ software written in C with software in some other language, or that it's inappropriate to use C for _any_ new system components.

<comment><USER2> > Hence, the browser has replaced the role of the operating system.

Yup, I think this is becoming both metaphorically and literally true (I'm an ex-Chromebook user)

> I believe my original critique still applies, but with some modifications. > It may be appropriate to implement a particular low-level component (like a > web browser) in one of these new languages. But that does not imply that all > uses of C are inappropriate.

Sure. I don't think one implies the other, personally.

> An interesting question is which complements are suitable for implementation > in these languages?

Rust can be used to do anything C can do, with some small exceptions like "support 1970s hardware" or some practical exceptions like "this proprietary chip comes with a c compiler only" or "there's no port to my platform yet even if there could be."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Rust ain't ever going to replace C or C++, sorry. The article doesn't mention the great improvements in static analysis and code coverage tools.

<comment><USER15> > The article doesn't mention the great improvements in static analysis and > code coverage tools.

These tools clearly don't work for solving memory safety issues. The number of CVEs involving memory safety errors in C/C++ each year continues to increase.

Not that "don't work" could mean "are unused" because they are too expensive, difficult, noisy with false positives, whatever. The point is they have _not_ solved the problem, not even close.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> On the upside I was pretty sure this was going to be a Rust to the rescue opinion piece before I clicked on it. On the downside this is a Rust to the rescue opinion piece though it does also mention swift for memory safety so that is nice. Nothing against the language, but it has been around a few years and I would like to see something more concrete than opinions. Give me a write up about a vulnerability in the wild fixed with the new language.

Something new at any rate I see plenty of opinion piece espousing this or that new language PR reading points, but most fall into fluff.

<comment><USER16> But it's a bit difficult to prove, isn't it? I mean, you can just say "We didn't have a buffer overflow error in our software written in Rust", but that's basically it. You can't fix this kind of a bug in a project without rewriting it, and as the author says, it's hard for several reasons. People simply don't have enough incentives to do it.

<comment><USER8> Not entirely and I know Mozilla is in the process of doing this now. They could take some small portion of the original bit of the browser they are rewriting and put something technically interesting together instead of more opinions like this. One of the things they have to overcome has been stated above and that is that c and c++ have a lot of inertia. They are also still cool languages. This will take a lot more than opinion to overcome.

I have written a few small things in rust and explored crates.io and like the language and ecosystem. I am much less certain about the community surrounding the language, but it might just be that they are mostly younger people looking for safe places so they often feel unauthtically welcoming. It is a bit off putting.

Anyway I would just like to see something like here is a unit of the browser we replaces with rust servo. It took us 2 week to do this unit. before the rewrite this unit would crash or leak at some rate after the rewrite these have been reduced x amount where these would be numbers from the wild based off their metrics. They could Also throw in a couple bench marks over those code units for good measure, but i am certain Mozilla captures enough to probably put together something with interesting real world numbers.

<comment><USER17> AFAIK, they are not rewriting the browser in Rust. They are instead writing new components in it, so it wouldn't be an apples-to-apples comparison.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The software industry has a huge fad-following problem, too. More amusing in this case is the the proposed solutions are either not nearly performant enough or else susceptible to many or all of the same kinds of security issues.

</comment><comment><USER19> What are all these new, 'safe' languages written in that they don't eventually have potential memory issues as well? Don't almost all languages provide C/C++ interoperability?

<comment><USER2> Rust is written in Rust.

Yes, they do, and that's also a potential area of unsafety, even for languages which are otherwise memory safe.</comment></comment>


Digital Ocean restricts Spaces creation Until Late 2020 - <AUTHOR> https://www.digitalocean.com/docs/release-notes/upcoming/spaces-fra1-nyc3/ <comment><USER2> I tried to migrate a bunch of smaller images to this service several years ago, and then again about a year ago. The performance was not satisfactory back then and I found their docs recommended using it only for larger files [1] which to me makes the service significantly less useful for web assets, which I assume much of HN would use a service like this for.

1\. [https://www.digitalocean.com/docs/spaces/resources/performan...](https://www.digitalocean.com/docs/spaces/resources/performance- tips/#:~:text=Avoid%20Small%20Files%20and%20Use%20Multi%2DPart%20Uploads%20for%20Large%20Files,-When%20Should%20I&text=You%20should%20consider%20the%20size,files%20larger%20than%20500%20MB).

</comment><comment><USER3> Just in FRA1 and NYC3

<comment><AUTHOR> Right, but its only been available in those two and AMS3, SIN1, SF2. So they cut 40% of the available options. And they only recommend using AMS3, so its possible the other are not far behind.

Seems concerning.</comment></comment>


Show HN: ipynb-tex – Jupyter Notebooks and TeX - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/poulter7/ipynb-tex <comment><AUTHOR> ipynb-tex is a simple style sheet which allows extracts tagged cells out of a Jupyter notebook and includes them in a TeX document. Every time you recompile the LaTeX document you'll get the latest notebook output, so your documents are always in sync.</comment>


Show HN: GraphQL Voyager – Represent Any GraphQL API as an Interactive Graph - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/APIs-guru/graphql-voyager <comment><USER2> Awesome project! Our customers building GraphQL apps on [https://scaphold.io](https://scaphold.io) would really appreciate something like this.

We currently have a Schema Designer that's fairly intuitive for the most part, and by "most part" I mean developers. Incorporating this tool to graphically show how your data relates would help the less tech-savvy domain experts on Scaphold.io tremendously. Thanks for your awesome work with this and GraphQL APIs ([https://github.com/APIs-guru/graphql-apis](https://github.com/APIs- guru/graphql-apis)).

I'd love to help contribute in any way!

</comment><comment><USER3> This is really nicely done. Our customers have been asking us to provide a better visual representation of their schemas directly in the [https://graph.cool](https://graph.cool) schema editor.

Are you accepting pull requests?

<comment><AUTHOR> Definitely yes, it would be great to see Voyager as a part of graph.cool. It's our first React+Redux app so we need a few days to do refactoring, more details here: [https://github.com/APIs-guru/graphql- voyager#contribution](https://github.com/APIs-guru/graphql- voyager#contribution)

After that, we are happy to assist you with an integration. Feel free to contact us on GitHub or directly [https://apis.guru/about/](https://apis.guru/about/)

<comment><USER3> Thanks Ivan. We will be in touch for sure. Let me know if you ever come to Berlin :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great project. I'm still deciding how much like gql itself.

Trying scaffold.io and found the simplest code to get the first customer is

const myQuery = gql`

{

viewer {

      allCustomers(first: 1) {

       edges { node { firstName } }

      }

     }

}

client.query({ query: myQuery })

.then((graphQLResult) => {

console.log('success: ', graphQLResult.data.viewer.allCustomers.edges[0].node.firstName)

})

All this verbosity has a reason (for example to support paging), but the elegance hasn't hit me yet.

<comment><USER5> viewer is a Relay convention for wrapping fields in an authenticated context. If the viewer does not resolve (not logged in) then data.viewer is null. It makes view permissions checking a lot easier and simpler.

Edges and node is also a Relay interface.

Graphql can be simpler if you don't use relay. Also the relay client is quite fat.

I use Apollo and I do use relay interface and conventions, just without the official Relay client. I like Apollo's simplicity a lot more.

<comment><USER4> Thanks, actually that is Apollo client, but the schema uses relay because that's what scaffold.io uses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is really excellent! I've been hoping for a while now that someone would build something like this :-)

A direction that'd be interesting to explore is a guided query writer. Perhaps have a floating query input box and if you click on a type, it adds a query. Then you could edit the query and as you add/remove fields & connections, it highlights the equivalent areas of the visualization.

<comment><AUTHOR> It was our initial goal but we decided to proceed with smaller steps and that's why we've released this MVP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Glad to see our public transport schema as one of the demo options. However, it's not just Helsinki Region or Finland anymore: you can set up your own endpoints by loading OpenStreetMap and GTFS data into OpenTripPlanner. More info: [https://digitransit.fi/en/developers](https://digitransit.fi/en/developers)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for making your GraphQL API publicly accessible. Can you suggest a better name to be used in our demo?

BTW. We also included it in our list of public GraphQL APIs: [https://github.com/APIs-guru/graphql-apis](https://github.com/APIs- guru/graphql-apis)

<comment><USER7> You could call the schema the Digitransit schema or the OpenTripPlanner schema. The best link for documentation is this (or a parent directory): [https://digitransit.fi/en/developers/services-and- apis/1-rou...](https://digitransit.fi/en/developers/services-and- apis/1-routing-api/)

For the list of endpoints, we offer three public endpoints ourselves: Digitransit HSL - Transit routes, stops and realtime schedules from Helsinki Regional Transport Authority, Finland: [https://api.digitransit.fi/routing/v1/routers/hsl/index/grap...](https://api.digitransit.fi/routing/v1/routers/hsl/index/graphql)

Digitransit Waltti - the regional public transport authorities in Finland: [https://api.digitransit.fi/routing/v1/routers/waltti/index/g...](https://api.digitransit.fi/routing/v1/routers/waltti/index/graphql)

Digitransit Finland - includes long-distance route data from Finnish Transport Agency: [https://api.digitransit.fi/routing/v1/routers/finland/index/...](https://api.digitransit.fi/routing/v1/routers/finland/index/graphql)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In the README it says mit license but I can't see a LICENSE.txt file, does that matter? It's a really cool project that makes me want to try GraphQL btw.

<comment><USER9> _does that matter?_

It depends on how likely you are to be sued for using this.

On the one hand, it's clear that the intent is to MIT license the software.

On the other hand, the MIT license requires specifying the year of the copyright along with the copyright holder (in addition to the actual text itself). As of right now, it's not clear who the copyright holder even is.

IANAL, but I would suggest that if you are at the point where you wish to modify and distribute the code, you could politely ask the copyright license holder to add a proper license block.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nice work! This would be great if it could be pluggable for relational schemas. The interactivity is nice for explaining the schema with domain experts.

</comment><comment><USER11> Where can one find a generic introspection query that can be used to produce output this tool will accept?

<comment><AUTHOR> After you click on "Custom Introspection" card you will see "Copy Introspection Query" link. Just click on it and query will be copied into the buffer.

<comment><USER11> Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Disappointed to see this broken on small screens. Why it's assumed developers don't do work on mobile devices is beyond me.

[http://kevinsuttle.com/posts/dx-on-mobile- devices](http://kevinsuttle.com/posts/dx-on-mobile-devices)

<comment><USER13> Why do you act like this would be the most common thing in the world? It's certainly additional work and not really necessary for a HN launch, imo.

<comment><USER12> Because the data I linked to?</comment></comment></comment>


Has an iPhone/Android app "saved" a Start-Up? - <AUTHOR>

Just how important are Apps to start-ups? Can it be demonstrated that a Start-Up has survived (at least to the next round of funding) because they decided to put out an iPhone or Android app? <comment><USER2> Pandora- [http://www.businessinsider.com/pandora-was-saved-by-the- ipho...](http://www.businessinsider.com/pandora-was-saved-by-the-iphone-now- its-thinking-ipo-2010-3)

</comment><comment><USER3> We used our paid iPhone Apps to get to ramen profitability. Then raised money and made them free. They saved us for sure.

So yes it has happened and we are one such company.

</comment><comment><USER4> The chap who created Elements on the iPad made more in one day than he made from his website in the previous x years.</comment>


Show HN: Grocery Shopping? Price Grocer helps track your prices - <AUTHOR> http://pricegrocer.com

<comment><USER2> I may not be your target market, but here's my thinking. I tend to associate Groceries w/ JIT. Usually, I buy it just in time to get fresh produce and when things in my fridge reach a low threshold. So the idea of tracking prices and trying to optimize my buying process looks a bit much and there's too much involved. On the other hand, if you are able to compare the prices of most common produce at real time from nearby stores, that may be useful. For example, you could even fill in a sample grocery list for a particular family profile and compare the prices seamlessly, I would definitely use it.

My 2 cents.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks so much for your 2 cents VoiceClonr!

After talking to a lot of people, I agree that:

\- Most people treat groceries as JIT

\- Most people see the value of real-time cross-store comparisons

There have been other apps & services that have tried to solve this problem, but I think that the "great filter" is making price tracking valuable to a single user in a single store. Before you get a network of people contributing prices, you need a set of people who are willing to contribute on their own. I am currently trying to test if such people exist :)

Some people maintain "price books" of prices they see in stores, and they claim that historical records of prices let them predict sales.

Right now my tests are suggesting that such people are few and far between, so I think that this might be a fail-fast type situation.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> We're collecting prices now, for people who are interested in participating in our MVP:

[http://pricegrocer.com/beta](http://pricegrocer.com/beta)

<comment><USER3> Is this US only?

<comment><AUTHOR> Nope, this will work anywhere.</comment></comment></comment>


German scientists link two labs with 'universal quantum network' - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/11/max_planck_quantum_network/

<comment><USER2> The article may be misleading to those not familiar with quantum teleportation. It doesn't have anything to do with instant messages across the galaxy.

"That means it would be possible to build a network of 'quantum repeaters' that use quantum teleportation, rather than photons, to transmit information between different places."

You cannot convey information over distance faster than light using quantum teleportation. You simply ensure that both entangled atoms' wave functions will collapse in a way that's correlated.

Wikipedia has a nice explanation: "Assume that Alice and Bob share an entangled qubit ab. That is, Alice has one half, a, and Bob has the other half, b. Let c denote the qubit Alice wishes to transmit to Bob. Alice applies a unitary operation on the qubits ac and measures the result to obtain two classical bits. In this process, the two qubits are destroyed. Bob's qubit, b, now contains information about c; however, the information is somewhat randomized. More specifically, Bob's qubit b is in one of four states uniformly chosen at random and Bob cannot obtain any information about c from his qubit. Alice provides her two measured classical bits, which indicate which of the four states Bob possesses. Bob applies a unitary transformation which depends on the classical bits he obtains from Alice, transforming his qubit into an identical re-creation of the qubit c."

What's cool about this experiment is that it shows you can transmit a qubit's state over distance in a quantum way, which could be useful for a network of quantum computers, which themselves are only useful for a small subset of problems--most involving cryptography. The quantum-repeater application may also be useful in reducing packet-loss-induced error, though it seems to be an incredibly impractical method of doing so for most applications.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for this explanation. One question: Once the atoms are entangled, I understand that both take on the same superposition. At this point, in any possible way, although we don't know the states, do they actually communicate instantaneously, ie. not at the speed of light?

Put another way -- for the longest time I have believed that through entanglement atoms transmit information instantly (not at the speed of light). Is this in any way true?

<comment><USER2> Nothing that you would consider usable information, referred to as 'classical information', can be transmitted via quantum entanglement. There is 'quantum information' in the state of the entangled particles that can be transferred instantaneously over infinite distance, however attempting the observe this information by any means will destroy it (ie cause the wave function to collapse).

If it was possible to transmit classical information faster than light, this would violate causality as we understand it (you could receive a message that you had been shot before you actually experienced being shot, thus allowing you to prevent yourself from being shot). It's a bit difficult to understand why this is true without a solid understanding of relativity, but you can read up on it a bit here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Causality_an...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Causality_and_prohibition_of_motion_faster_than_light).

This is all heavy stuff and very non-intuitive, but if you're curious about it and eager to learn I'd highly recommend this tome: [http://www.amazon.com/The- Feynman-Lectures-Physics-boxed/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Feynman- Lectures-Physics-boxed/dp/0465023827/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334214079&sr=8-1)

<comment><USER4> Ditto the Feynman lectures recommendation. Those were incredible icing on the cake of my undergraduate physics course-load, adding significant intuitive meaning and understanding to a subject with much potential but that's taught in a very try manner most of the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Source article: [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=universal-q...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=universal- quantum-network)

Source article's source article (Nature mag.; pay wall): [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7393/full/nature1...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7393/full/nature11023.html)

EDIT: arxiv pre-print: <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.5955v1.pdf>

</comment><comment><USER6> If we figured this out certainly someone/thing way out on the other side of our galaxy or another galaxy has figured it out.. Could it be that we would have to figure out how to DHCP across galaxies and manage to finally share information with a distant intelligence? If so I hope the first thing they send is a cartoon that looks like garfield and we'll finally know we're not alone in the universe. :)

<comment><USER7> Unfortunately the initial entangling still requires physical contact (provided by proxy of the photon on the optical fibre in this case).

Further more, once entangled, it is still not possible to transmit information (in the way we think of it every day) faster than the speed of light. This would break causality as we understand it.

What quantum teleportation allows is the instantaneous transmission of quantum information between the entangled particles. I.e. the superposition of all possible states can be made the same at both ends. However it is still not possible to know which of these states actually represent the classical information we were interested in. Hence classical information can't go as fast as quantum information.

This is as best I understand it though it would be nice have get an expert to further expand on this.

<comment><USER8> AFAIK, the reason why entanglement doesn't permit instantaneous information transfer is that, by definition, the quantum state is unknown before you observe it. While, by observing it you instantly know both sides of the entangled pair, this information itself requires conventional communication to the other party in order to be useful, thereby again restricting communication to the speed of light.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here's something that has always bothered me about this topic:

> That, Ritter says, could extend the application of the network even further: > once two atoms are entangled, the quantum state of one depends on the > quantum state of the other.

And what exactly is the benefit from that? It sounds as if now you could manipulate one of the atoms, and the other would follow suite, allowing you to transmit information.

But my understanding of quantum physics is that manipulating one atom immediately breaks up the entanglement, so no information transmitted. And this is not just a technical limitation, but a conceptual one.

Am I wrong? And if no, how would a pair of entangled atoms help us in building a communication network?

<comment><USER4> You're spot on, this is why I find "quantum computing" a bit less exciting than most (just like the "hydrogen economy" say). Both sound great to those who scratch the surface but both are really misnomers. Quantum networks presumably would have a security advantage, but not a speed advantage. Thus there is really not much to get excited about.

Basically entanglement is always dealt with in a misleading way. It's not that one's state influences the other. It's that both are equivalently altered by a third entity limited to the speed of light (as far as we know so far anyway).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It is explained that there is a photon traveling from one atom (node) to another which encodes information (as quantum state of the atom). Ok.

But then there is a glossing over of what I think is the more impressive part:

"The group also was able to entangle the atoms, which allowed them to share information with each other no matter how far the distance between them. "

So they go from wired-up 60m distance photon information transmission to infinite distance quantum entanglement information transmission. In one sentence. Without any details!

Over what distance did they test this entanglement? Was it as reliable as the wired-up version? Were they able to repeat it under different conditions? Is there a reason they were limited to only two nodes?

<comment><USER11> Quantum entanglement works over any distance, but can't be used to transmit information. They most likely did not try further separating the atoms; the fact that entanglement is an unbounded-distance effect is just a statement of the physics involved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> More articles like this please! I find these articles and the informed comments that flow out of them fascinating.

More than can be said for some of the questionable articles headlining HN lately.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is surely genuinely spooky. To quote Arthur C. Clarke:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

</comment><comment><USER14> I wonder if a SETI experiment can be established by sending information by quantum codification, do we know how to receive or scan for this kind of signals?

</comment><comment><USER15> Too bad you can't use this technology to implement an ISP-free Internet. Or... is it possible to have more than two particles entangled?

</comment><comment><USER16> So, how long now before wintermute merges with neuromancer?

</comment><comment><USER17> The beginnings of the Illusive man.</comment>


The Case for Drinking as Much Coffee as You Like - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/11/the-case-for-drinking-as-much-coffee-as-you-like/265693/ <comment><USER2> Or for Pete's sake...

 _What I tell patients is, if you like coffee, go ahead and drink as much as you want and can," says Dr. Peter Martin, director of the Institute for Coffee Studies at Vanderbilt University. He's even developed a metric for monitoring your dosage: If you are having trouble sleeping, cut back on your last cup of the day. From there, he says, "If you drink that much, it's not going to do you any harm, and it might actually help you. A lot._

What else can you expect from an "institute" with a name like this?

And, surely enough, a little more digging brings this:

 _Nashville's Vanderbilt University is to establish an Institute for Coffee Studies this fall, funded by $6 million from the Brazilian Coffee Association and other coffee-growing organizations._

<http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v5/n3/full/nm0399_252b.html>

<comment><USER3> That was a rather selective quote, given that the same article says this just a paragraph down:

 _Institute director, Peter Martin, stresses that his research group wants to maintain "arms length" from the coffee industry for ethical reasons. "We are setting up a foundation to oversee the funds which will be administered by independent scientific directors to ensure that there isn't even an appearance of conflict of interest," he insists._

In addition, the original article described a wide variety of studies done by many different institutions. I suppose it's _possible_ that they're all just "studies" conducted by people in the pay of the nefarious coffee lobby, but we probably shouldn't start resorting to conspiracy theories without a little evidence.

<comment><USER4> The described articles may be impeccable, but selected because they agree with whatever viewpoint an institute wants to present. It's possible they've ignored anything not agreeing with them. And it's probable that groups do research that isn't published when it doesn't agree with whoever's funding it.

Ben Goldacre's book (pro science, about flaws in current system of research and science reporting) "Bad Science" is w useful read.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My hobby is weightlifing. About 3 weeks out from a competition I systematically wean myself off caffeine by substituting more and more decaf into my regular coffee until I'm purely on decaf.

Why? Two reasons.

The first is tolerance. Caffeine tolerance reduces the sense of freshness, alertness, energy etc that coffee gives for any given dose. But tolerance isn't a linear function for all the effects of caffeeine.

The practical upshot is that, on competition day, I wind up needing more caffeine than usual to give me the extra pep to really perform well. But if I'm already tolerant to caffeine, my "pep" dose will be high enough to cause sweaty hands and to degrade my motor control -- in my case my grip becomes weaker and my pulls are not as crisp. Olympic-style weightlifting is a precision sport; I can't afford that.

Whereas, if I've weaned myself off caffeine over the preceding weeks, there's been adenosine re-regulation and I've become more sensitised to it again. So I can get all the pep and energy to push through a competition (it can be very draining with all the warm up lifts) without the sweaty hands or weaker grip or less accurate pulling technique.

The second reason to wean myself is that going cold turkey is _absolute hell_.

One rule I observe these days is that I don't consume caffeine after 1pm. I can't get to sleep otherwise. In practice this means two cups a day: one when I wake up, one before or during lunch. Even after the noticeable effects of caffeine have faded, it has enough of a half life to make it difficult to fall asleep in a timely fashion. Then you get stuck in the caffeine-sleeplessness- caffeine feedback loop. Worth avoiding.

</comment><comment><USER6> The biggest issue for me is that I respond very negatively to caffeine withdrawal (I get extremely cranky and it often triggers a migraine). What keeps me from drinking more is that I don't want a missed dose to ruin my whole day.

Second biggest issue is that I tend to get hypoglycemic an hour or so later if I don't have a carby snack at the same time.

A cup a day (with a cup of tea in the morning) is the best balance of enjoyment versus drawbacks that I've found. If I want more I brew up a cup of decaf.

Also I find an Aeropress is easy enough to be convenient but not so easy as to trigger overconsumption (Cf. K-Cup). It doesn't hurt that it makes a great cup of coffee.

<comment><USER7> I'm the same. I once tried going cold turkey from four cups a day and my headaches were so bad I was useless for three days before I gave up and started drinking coffee again.

Today I'm still at about four cups a day. Similar to you, I use a Chemex instead of an automatic machine to slow my consumption.

<comment><USER8> I went cold turkey a couple months ago because I didn't like the afternoon headache and general feeling of uselessness that I'd suffer on days when it wasn't practical to get coffee. Nor was it pleasant to live with the very fact of a chemical dependency... I'm not quite as sharp in the morning on just chamomile, but afternoons and sleep are much improved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This makes me happy, because boy howdy do I go through a lot of it.

It's worth noting, though, that what you put into coffee may not be so good for you. I sat down and did the math and realized that I was taking in almost 1500 calories/day in milk and sugar that I put in my coffee. I've since switched to drinking it black or with just a bit of skim milk (to cool it - the first cup out of a french press is scalding!), and have lost a significant amount of weight just from that change alone.

<comment><USER10> Yeah that's an important point, also mentioned in the article. It also mentions coffee that is designed to smell like "seasonal celebrations", ie pumpkin spiced latte and similar. We have to distinguish between coffee and dessert-in-disguise.

<comment><USER11> Well, all of those flavored lattes are done with sugary syrup. You can still flavor your coffee without sugar. Things like raw cocoa powder, cinnamon, nutmeg, ginger, etc. (maybe vanilla extract too, but I'm not sure how much sugar that might have on its own)

<comment><USER12> Cardamom in coffee is quite tasty. It gives some of the flavor of Turkish coffee without all the viscosity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Like many, I started drinking coffee partway through college and continued enjoying it when I started working. However I started noticing it triggered some pretty bad anxiety and muscular tension and made me extremely moody. I stopped for a while.

I finally found some excellent decaf (Ethiopian Sidamo at Zombie Runner [1] in Palo Alto), so I can continue indulging the habit.

[1] [http://www.zombierunner.com/store/categories/cafe_zombie/cof...](http://www.zombierunner.com/store/categories/cafe_zombie/coffee_beans/product1251.html)

<comment><USER14> This was exactly my experience.

It seemed to take a few months for my body to transition off caffeine. I recommend switching to tea for the first couple of weeks, since that'll at least prevent the terrible headaches.

I definitely feel healthier for quitting the habit, though I still miss "real" coffee sometimes. :(

<comment><USER15> It was 'just' a solid week of bad sleep, horrendous headaches and night sweats for me when stopping.

Frightening to think of those withdrawl symptoms for such a seemingly innocuous drug.

<comment><USER16> I'm going the last 5 days w/o coffee and felt no difference at all regarding anxiety, focus, sleep & headaches. I normally drank 3 cups in the morning (200ml each I'd guess) and 3 after lunch.

<comment><USER17> Caffeine sensitivity is highly variable between individuals. I am both sensitive and a slow metabolizer; if I had 6 cups of coffee in one day my guts would be churning and I would not be able to get anything done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Yeah I can't imagine being permanently high on a drug being bad for you...this study funded by the Institute for Coffee Studies is probably right, everyone should take more of this drug!

<comment><USER19> I agree that being permanently high (and thus being out of touch with the body and with emotions) is unhealthy -- however, perhaps some drugs are less unhealthy than others.

[from the article]

>That there were no major differences in risk reduction between regular and decaf coffee suggests there's something in it, aside from its caffeine content, that could be contributing to these observed benefits

It could merely be that people who drink coffee eat less food, and that food is a less healthy drug

<comment><USER20> "and thus ..." : I actually sometimes find that being high puts me more in touch with body and emotions .. _shrug_

<comment><USER19> Oh I agree. In vino veritas. But 'permanently high' is different: it isn't really a high at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Anecdotally, this seems like pretty reckless advice, and I'm a caffeine junkie.

Don't get me wrong, it's clearly not crystal meth, but Caffeine overdoses are real and can be dangerous, especially in a situation where you are drinking a boatload of coffee. I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board that has had some minor heart palpitations during an all-nighter after one too many coffees or Coke Zeros.

<comment><USER22> There's overdosing (to the point where you risk it being lethal) and then there's general ill effects. Even as someone very light (OD dosage is based on your weight, unsurprisingly[1]), it would require me to take multiple caffeine pills before I'd have to potentially go to the hospital: I simply couldn't do it through coffee alone - it's just too much liquid to consume in too short a time. Even with crazy-strong coffee (250+mg/cup) I'd need to drink 30+ [2] cups.

But you can bet your bottom dollar that drinking a dozen cups of coffee by lunchtime will have some pretty interesting results. You'll feel your heart racing and probably experience something like extreme ADD. Probably headaches, nausea, crazy jitters. The severity depends on your tolerance to caffeine, of course. I get nasty headaches 6-8 hours after waking if I don't get my morning coffee, so it takes me quite a lot to get into _over_ dose land.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Caffeine_intoxication> [2] ~150mg/kg for LD50; I weigh about 50kg

<comment><USER21> Yep, clarified a bit below in my response to nickkthequick that I was talking more about my personal experiences with what I would call minor caffeine overdoses, not the clinical definition of caffeine intoxication. My main point is that the notion that massive amounts of caffeine injestion is consequence free, especially as it's usually paired with sleep deprivation, is laughable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Plus two older HN threads:

1\. Ask HN: How much coffee do you drink?: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4606007>

2\. Ask HN: Coffee Drinkers, How Do You Brew? <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4408221>

</comment><comment><USER23> Coffee just makes me need to shit a lot more.

<comment><USER24> This is rarely (if ever) mentioned in all these articles claiming that coffee is so beneficial. I drink a fair amount of coffee and try to cut back frequently because of this issue. It isn't just that coffee makes me crap more, it degrades the...qualify of the crap. Am I alone here? Seems like it can't be good for me.

<comment><USER25> I agree with you that the frequency of my shitting goes up while the quality goes down, although I was amused when I came across this line:

> That same high dosage is also effective in fighting against colorectal > cancer

I do have to wonder if it's not a primary effect of anything in the coffee, but rather a byproduct of the secondary effects.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I can't put in to words how much better I feel, and sleep, since switching to decaffeinated[1] coffee.

1\. You still get some caffeine; decaf is about 5% of the caffeine of normal coffee.

<comment><USER26> ...or switch to high-quality green tea, which has trace amounts of caffeine— enough to maintain sufficient alertness in the morning, I've found.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Epidemiologically, coffee consumption (even up to >6 cups/day) does not appear to be associated with risk for heart attack.[1] This is a large cohort study (128,000 people). Obvious limitations include the fact that the coffee intake assessment was via a questionnaire administered every few years, and that it's a cohort study and not an RCT.

I understand that there may in fact be organs in the human body that are not the heart, but when I hear people talking about caffeine risk, they generally seem to be referring to heart disease, so that's the kind of article I pubmed'ed.

1) <http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/113/17/2045.long>

</comment><comment><USER28> Misguided. For some people, Coffee is probably okay. But I have noticed that after drinking it for a few days, I suffer from general exhaustion, and I don't think I am alone. There is also some research that in some individuals, coffee can affect adrenal function. I think the key is to be mindful about usage of any substance; with respect to our person and how we feel, we can sometimes be the best scientist.

</comment><comment><USER29> Rule of thumb: Never trust a study funded by someone who would benefit directly from a certain result. It doesn't matter how sound the science seems.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm gonna call BS on this. Hiatal hernia's are frequently associated with over consumption of coffee, which has other effects on the heart, esophageal and stomach lining. Anecdotally, an alarming amount of heavy coffee drinkers also seem to be taking maintenance prescription antacids, Nexium, etc. None of which are intended for long term use as they deplete Vitamin B12, among other issues.

</comment><comment><USER31> > says Dr. Peter Martin, director of the Institute for Coffee Studies at > Vanderbilt University.

The director who is paid to study coffee says that coffee is good for you. I am shocked, shocked, I tell you!

</comment><comment><USER32> According to Dave Asprey (self-described biohacker), you should drink good coffee but never drink decaf: [http://www.bulletproofexec.com/coffee-5-reasons-you-can- perf...](http://www.bulletproofexec.com/coffee-5-reasons-you-can-perform- better-10-ways-to-live-longer/)

If you are adventurous, you should try his "bulletproof coffee" (high quality coffee with butter, but there's more to it - you can find details on his website). Butter is also good for you. Really.

<comment><USER33> I'm not saying this to be mean, but I think it's important to point out that Dave Asprey is a quack, and his "Upgraded Coffee" is snake oil. Asprey is happy to cherry-pick studies to support his products, but the fact is that there is simply no good reason to believe that mycotoxin levels in ordinary coffee are high enough to have any measurable effect on humans who drink it. (And if you look carefully at his citations, you'll notice that he does not bridge that crucial gap between "mycotoxins are bad for you" and "my coffee has lower mycotoxin content").

This guy's combination of scientific literacy and alarmingly poor reasoning really makes me nauseous, because I can't simply write it off as mere incompetence. For instance, look at this infographic: [http://www.bulletproofexec.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/04/Bu...](http://www.bulletproofexec.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/04/Butter-Infographic1.jpg) . Specifically, look at the part comparing 1910 and 2000. That's not just a case of spurious correlation. It's like something I would _make up_ as a wacky example of spurious correlation.

<comment><USER32> Well, you may call him what you want, and yes, he is not right about everything.

> you'll notice that he does not bridge that crucial gap between "mycotoxins > are bad for you" and "my coffee has lower mycotoxin content"

I'm not sure which gap you think needs to be bridged here?

> Specifically, look at the part comparing 1910 and 2000. That's not just a > case of spurious correlation. It's like something I would make up as a wacky > example of spurious correlation.

I'm not sure what you're reading into this. When I look at it, I don't think "butter protects against heart problems" (which seems to be your interpretation, and I agree cannot be concluded from this data, not even remotely), but rather "butter can't be the evil it is made to be, as this statistic shows". Which is perfectly reasonable.

The thing about the QS movement, and people like Asprey, Roberts and Ferris, is that they offer very cheap experiments with easily measurable outcome, so you don't have to wait for a 30-year double blinded test that is blessed by anyone.

I've tried several things they recommend, and the vast majority of the practice checks out (regardless of the theory behind it).

I haven't tried his coffee, but I did start putting butter in my Lavazza coffee, and as a result lost weight and am feeling much better. You don't have to be a "believer" to try and see if things work for you. I don't think he's right about everything, but a lot of the counterintuitive things him (and Ferris, and Roberts) suggest actually work.

<comment><USER33> >I'm not sure which gap you think needs to be bridged here?

I said it explicitly: "there is simply no good reason to believe that mycotoxin levels in ordinary coffee are high enough to have any measurable effect on humans who drink it."

>When I look at it, I don't think "butter protects against heart problems" (which seems to be your interpretation, and I agree cannot be concluded from this data, not even remotely), but rather "butter can't be the evil it is made to be, as this statistic shows". Which is perfectly reasonable.

It isn't perfectly reasonable. Life expectancy in 1910 was 48 for men, and 51 for women. The average age for heart attacks today is 66 for and 70 for women. Some, but not all of that is infant mortality, yes, but the fact is that if people in 1910 had less heart disease than people today, it is likely largely because people in 1910 often didn't long enough for heart disease to become a problem.

And that's just one factor that the comparison fails to control for. The way people lived and ate in 1910 was completely different from the way people lived and ate in 2000, and it is quite likely that those changes simply overwhelm the change with respect to one particular kind of saturated fat. That doesn't mean that butter fat is harmless. It just means that you can't see the harm if you also change _everything else_.

As a side note, where are these statistics about heart disease in 1910 coming from? We get the top-level URL for dietheartpublishing.com (which is low on data, high on sensationalist paleo-quackery), but no link to specific data. Are we relying on what doctors were able to diagnose in 1910? Because that's a whole other level of flawed.

>I've tried several things they recommend, and the vast majority of the practice checks out (regardless of the theory behind it).

What you think you've experienced through personal trials is not significant evidence.

<comment><USER32> > "there is simply no good reason to believe that mycotoxin levels in ordinary > coffee are high enough to have any measurable effect on humans who drink > it."

I don't keep the links handy, but a one second google brings up this: <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16284846> and a tens of other references. Coffee was not studied as extensively as far as I know, but if you have reason to believe that it is better protected than wheat and maize, please let me know why. The only non-asprey link about coffee toxin studies I could find is a single article from the 1980 that says "I looked, I didn't find, I stopped looking".

> Some, but not all of that is infant mortality, yes, but the fact is that if > people in 1910 had less heart disease than people today, it is likely > largely because people in 1910 often didn't long enough for heart disease to > become a problem.

Well, in 1860-1910, US white infant mortality rate was coming down from 21% to 10% (with black mortality rate, when documented, being 50% higher than the white one). I don't know if that data is included in the "1910 life expectancy", but it is likely that it is. In Italy, it was going down from 25% to 13% over the same period. That's enough to make the "48/51" lifespan you quote meaningless (sources I found say 54, but whatever). <http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haines.demography>

If you consider "life expectancy of anyone aged > 4", then all of a sudden 50 years jumps to 62 years; and if you consider "life expectancy of anyone aged > 20", then it will surely increase the 1910 number to 70 or more, while hardly nudging today's numbers. I agree that his statistic is not conclusive in any way, but your interpretation is not valid either.

> That doesn't mean that butter fat is harmless. It just means that you can't > see the harm if you also change everything else.

That is true. And yet, there is virtually no direct evidence of harm from butter than I can find. (Neither is there from cholesterol intake, for that matter - or salt intake, with the exception of a well defined 20% of the population - that is, if you're not in those 20%, there is no evidence of salt harm).

> Are we relying on what doctors were able to diagnose in 1910? Because that's > a whole other level of flawed.

Yes, that's true. But that throws away any study done before the early 1990s - which is also flawed. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't, and everyone gets to pick their own favourite data and interpretation.

> What you think you've experienced through personal trials is not significant > evidence.

What I discovered is significant for my daily life, is significant for my daily life (duh, it's a tautology). I'm not saying you should believe it because it worked for me. I'm saying you should try and figure what works for you.

FWIW, my ex was a medical doctor and I regularly read BMJ and NEMJ for a while. That was before Ionnadis's paper, but I remember thinking back then that 70% of what was published was statistically invalid.

Much of what is considered significant evidence in medicine and health today, is not significant evidence. If the experiment is simple and cheap enough, you should do it yourself.

<comment><USER33> >I'm saying you should try and figure what works for you.

And I'm saying that that's the same mantra that homeopaths, chiropractors and other peddlers of pseudoscience repeat. "Figure out what works for you" has implications dangerously close to relativism. To find out what works, you need science. "Try it yourself" isn't science.

<comment><USER32> I feel sorry for you, really.

I figured out that wheat is bad for me. As in, I've stopped taking in wheat (much harder than it sounds, because it's used as a filler in just about everything), upped my overall caloric intake (mostly coconut fat and butter), and lost 30 pounds in a month feeling much much better. As in, better than in years. That happened 24 months ago, and it stayed off.

My doctor, seeing it, said it was impossible - because every test HE had at his disposal said I did not have a wheat allergy (or intolerance, or whatever other variations of "bad for you" medicine has).

If you claim that losing 30 pounds in one month and it staying off for two years since is placebo, I'm going to laugh at you, and so will everyone else who actually has a brain and is not religiously following some mantras.

A friend of mine is allergic to peppers of any kind. Not deathly allergic, but excruciating-pain allergic. 20 years ago or so, it was not a standard diagnosis, and some doctors therefore suggested it was psychosomatic (because apparently, that was the only "scientific" explanation). Whatever it is she has, has since become a standard diagnosis (she's missing an enzyme, and it is a recessive genetic trait). Are you seriously claiming that she should have eaten peppers all these years because her self diagnosis was "not scientific"? I would give you the benefit of doubt that you do not, although your response indicates otherwise.

The "science" you talk about is a religion, and if you refrain from self experimenting because "it is not science", then you are a religious zealot. Physics is science; Chemistry is science; Nutrition and Medicine are religions that are controlled by politics and money, that are informed by science, but are definitely not following it.

Yes, science is a great thing. It's hardly related to modern nutrition, and missing from some areas of modern medicine.

Doctors and nutritionists have been claiming for years that salt is bad for you, and dietary cholesterol is too (to the point that you should limit e.g. eggs to no more than two a week). If you can find scientific evidence anywhere that, say, 25 eggs/day, is not healthy, then please show it. Because no one I know is aware of any. Or any evidence for calorie balance (carb=4kcal/g, fiber=0kcal/g, ...) theory for that matter. Add nutrition experts and "MDs" to your list of homeopaths and other pseudoscience peddlers - they're only better on the average because their pool of (mandated!) beliefs is culled more often -- but definitely not often enough to give it the halo of science that you assume it has.

<comment><USER33> >I feel sorry for you, really.

After reading your comment, I assure you that the feeling is mutual.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is just stupid. Caffeine should either be consumed in moderation or not at all.</comment>


You Won't Get Rich Working for Someone Else - <AUTHOR> https://creativeclass.io/getrich/ <comment><USER2> While I agree with the premise, the idea that the author is making so much more doing freelance is a bit of an illusion. A 53k year salary with benefits is probably equivalent to 70-80k, and on top of that, you have to pay something like 18% more in taxes (both parts of Social Security, etc).

Granted, that's for the US, so YMMV.</comment>


Milwaukee Protocol - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_protocol <comment><USER2> I learned about this via a RadioLab podcast episode. interesting listen [http://www.radiolab.org/story/312245-rodney-versus- death/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/312245-rodney-versus-death/)

</comment><comment><USER3> If you're more interested in this, this book is great: [http://www.amazon.com/Rabid-Cultural-History-Worlds- Diabolic...](http://www.amazon.com/Rabid-Cultural-History-Worlds- Diabolical/dp/0143123572)

There's a whole chapter about just this case.</comment>


New research proves just how shallow women are - <AUTHOR> http://www.itworld.com/science/298924/new-research-proves-just-how-shallow-women-are

<comment><USER2> It's interesting that as societies get nearer to gender equality, men and women converge on how they select a mate.

It's disheartening that the linked article chose to report this with such a sexist linkbait title.</comment>